“AND DO NOT STRIVE TO RENDER WORD FOR WORD,

FAITHFUL TRANSLATOR”

The translators’ work is more often than not one that puts them in a very difficult
position. Tradition has shown that, considering their skill and the methods they use,
translators are supposed to be so much more than good connoisseurs of the two
languages they work with. So much more is asked from the translators than from the
author of a particular piece of writing, that they have been called by turns poets,
novelists or re-creators of literature. No wonder then that good translators are rare and
following the guidelines they provide is usually a good strategy both for understanding
their profession and for improving one’s own way of translating. One of the many
difficulties of such an enterprise as re-writing a text in a different language can be found
in the decision a translator has to make in terms of the fidelity he owes to the text and
the freedom he must allow himself when translating; and this particular difficulty makes
the subject of this paper.
Contrastive views on the translation of texts have been prompted through time,
and every critic has come with a new vision of what translations should look like. The
basic question still arises: to what extent is the translator’s creativity allowed to loom
from behind the lines and how does it affect the fidelity he is required to maintain to the
original?
‘And do not strive to render word for word, faithful translator’ (Horace). Some
authors have used these words as a warning rather than a mere incentive to a good
translation. It is well-known that translating word-for-word, or ‘literal translation’, as
Eugene Nida calls it (1964: 184), is a defective approach and therefore should be
avoided. However, doing the exact same opposite may well be a mistake just as big.
Indeed, the danger appears when ‘this line is often quoted in such a way as to suggest
that the translator is given the advice not to stick too closely to the expression of his
original, but to take the liberty of moving away from them as he pleases, as long as he
gives us similar thoughts to understand’ (Breitinger, in Lefevere, 1977: 24). And this is

1
where the translator’s liberty comes into question. Exactly how far can a translator go
before he loses sight of the message he must render? Where is the line drawn between a
loose translation and one that comes so close to the original that it seems unnatural in
the target language?
Definitions of a good translation come in the form of principles more often than
not, as guidelines for the translator to follow. Most of them are similar, regardless of
their number or their wording. Campbell, for instance, resumes his views to three main
criteria to be observed when translating: ‘1.to give a just representation of the sense of
the original. 2. to convey into his version, as much as possible, in a consistency with the
genius of the language which he writes, the author’s spirit and manner. 3. to take care
that the version has at least so far the quality of an original performance, as to appear
natural and easy’. (Nida, 1964: 18-19) As plainly as he puts it, these criteria ensure that
the message of the original text is maintained, in keeping with the author’s style and
‘spirit’, granting the text a sense of originality; this can only be achieved through
appropriate choice of words in the target language. As far back as 1790, Alexander
Fraser Tytler gave three such principles that appear almost identical: ‘The translation
should give a complete transcript of the idea of the original work. The style and manner
of writing should be the same character with that of the original. The translation should
have all the ease of the original composition.’ (Nida, 1964:19) The basic idea of
maintaining the style and the intention of the author can be found here, with the
necessary comment on the natural quality that a text should have. In 1540, Etienne
Dolet published his own principles of translation, more in number but keeping the same
basic requirements: “The translator must understand perfectly the content and intention
of the author whom he is translating. The translator should have a perfect knowledge of
the language from which he is translating and an equally excellent knowledge of the
language into which he is translating. The translator should avoid the tendency to
translate word for word, for to do so is to destroy the meaning of the original and to ruin
the beauty of the expression. The translator should employ the forms of speech in
common usage. Through his choice and order of words the translator should produce a
total overall effect with appropriate ‘tone’”. (Nida, 1964: 15-16)
These principles in themselves are valuable and must be paid appropriate
attention whenever attempting to translate any type of text. However, what they

2
provide is the answer to the question ‘What to do?’, whereas the difficulty of
translation resides in ‘How to do it?’. Specific answers to this question can be found in
the translation strategies provided by authors such as Eugene Nida (1965), J.C. Catford
(1965) and Mona Baker (1992, 2001).
Johann Jacob Breitinger also provides what seems to be a simple solution to this
problem: “…the translator must weigh all the words and expressions of the original
with great care, and not omit any of the concepts which are linked with them, but
express them in his translation with the same degree of clarity and emphasis, by means
of equivalent words”(in Lefevere, 1977: 25) This is easily done when there are
equivalent words; but what to do in the case of non-equivalence?
In her book, In Other Words, published in 1992, Mona Baker proposes a few
strategies to help translate whenever the non-equivalence becomes an issue in a
translation. One of these strategies is translation by omission. Baker’s observation is
that sometimes a word may be omitted from the translation without severe
consequences: “If the meaning conveyed by a particular item or expression is not vital
enough to the development of the text to justify distracting the reader with lengthy
explanations, translators can and often do simply omit translating the word or
expression in question.” (1992: 40)

Example 1: ST - “He chose his words carefully. He mingled wisdom and nonsense in
the most astounding manner, gravely making fun of his hearers at one moment, and at
the next playfully giving them sound advice. He talked of art, and literature, and life.
He was by turns devout and obscene, merry and lachrymose.” (Maugham :161)
TT –“Isi alegea cu grija cuvintele. Amesteca intelepciunea cu absurditatile
in cel mai surprinzator mod, cand amuzandu-se pe seama auditorilor , cand dandu-le in
gluma sfaturi. Vorbea despre arta, literatura si viata. Era pe rand pios si obscen, vesel si
inlacrimat.”

The word sound may well be omitted here, as the translation of the expression
sound advice could be either “sfaturi bune (de urmat)”, which would be too long, or
“sfaturi intelepte”, which would redundantly use the word intelepte. As Mona Baker
specifies, however, the only disadvantage of this strategy may be the inevitable loss of

3
meaning which comes with every single word left out of the translated version. This
may be made up for later in the text by adding a word or expression, thus rounding off
the meaning.
Another strategy suggested by Mona Baker is translating by means of a
paraphrase. This can be achieved either using related words or unrelated words. The
problem would appear though with the paraphrase being unable to achieve “a high level
of precision in specifying propositional meaning.” (1992: 40)

Example 2: ST – “He had firm views upon the respect which was due to the cloth, and
it was ridiculous for a churchwarden to take the chair at a meeting when the Vicar was
there.” (p.14)
TT - Avea pareri ferme despre respectul datorat hainei preotesti, si era
ridicol ca un staroste sa ia cuvantul la o sedinta tocmai cand era si Vicarul de fata.

The word cloth takes here the connotative meaning, reference being made to the
clergy; cloth stands here for the clergy man, later on mentioned as the Vicar present at
the meeting and it is rendered into the target language through the paraphrase “haina
preoteasca”, because the equivalent of the word cloth in Romanian, given in its
denotatively, would have missed the expressive meaning of the word.

Example 3 : ST -“Now and then, in conspiracy with Miss Graves, she ventured a white
feather or a pink rose in her bonnet, but the Vicar insisted that it should disappear; he
said he would not go to church with the scarlet woman: Mrs. Carrey sighed as a
woman but obeyed as a wife.” (p.17)
TT -Din cand in cand, in intelegere cu domnisoara Graves, se incumeta sa-
si puna o pana alba sau un trandafir roz la palarie, dar Vicarul insista sa si le scoata,
spunand ca nu va merge la biserica impreuna cu femeia pacatoasa : doamna Carrey
suspina ca o femeie, dar se supunea ca o sotie.

The text makes reference to the Bible as well as, possibly, to Nathaniel
Hawthorne’s novel, The Scarlet Letter. The colour is therefore associated with shame
and sin; a woman wearing this colour might be considered a sinner, thus the chosen

4
word to translate scarlet is the adjective pacatoasa, expressing this way the connotative
meaning.
Translation by cultural substitution is also used quite often, especially since
culture specific elements are rather hard to be rendered into a target language. Such is
the case of idiomatic expressions which capture the very concept of culture specific.
Example 4: ST – “Cooper drank like a fish; and just before Tom Perkins took his
degree, the linen drapers filed their petition in bankruptcy.” (p44)
TT- “Cooper bea de stingea; si chiar inainte ca Tom Perkins sa-si ia
diploma, negustorii de panzeturi depusera petitia de intrare in faliment.”

In analyzing these examples, an observation comes to mind: as a translator cannot

find similar syntagms in the case of non-equivalence, he is forced to make use of such
strategies as the ones proposed by Mona Baker. The problem is that finding the right
paraphrase or the right cultural equivalent is rather difficult, and this is where the
translator’s creativity is necessary. But it remains hard to tell whether his rendition is
still in keeping with the original text, in terms not only of form but especially of
content, or it strays from that ‘spirit’ of the original that critics mentioned. Therefore,
how much fidelity is required from and how much freedom is allowed to the translator?
Different opinions have circulated. Eugene Nida argues that changes in the translated
version must be made, giving the translator some space to move freely in, adjusting the
text here and there:” any satisfactory translation must mean inevitably a “new birth in
the new tongue” for the form of the original can never be fully retained (Petersen,
1926). Accordingly, the entire text must be subjected to a series of changes, involving
not only additions and subtractions, but also alterations, some of them relatively
radical” (1964: 233). A.W. Schlegel, on the other hand, considers the impossibility of
an accurate translation, especially a literary one, suggesting the enterprise be abandoned
altogether: “All literary translations are only imperfect approximations. The
approximation can be rendered so imperfect by the inimitability and the unreachability
of the original that it is better not to attempt it at all” (in Lefevere, 1977:54). At the
opposite pole, Novalis believes that the translator’s work is far more difficult than that
of the writer, favouring the translation in stead of the original: “Translation is no longer
an approximation of the original, but rather its ideal. Both translation and original strive

5
towards ideal, but translation appears to be closer to it.[…] To translate is to produce
literature, just as the writing of one’s own work is – and it is more difficult, more
rare”(in Lefevere, 1977 :65).
An accurate translation is difficult to achieve, even for the most skilled
translator. He falls under the obligation of rendering the original text as clearly as
possible and preserving its style, all the while being caught between form and meaning.
At times, maintaining the stylistic effects of the original may discard the meaning of
what is being translated; at other times, sticking too close to the form of the source text
may damage the style of the translation. The faithful translator that Horace once
referred to must face this conflict, relying on his intuition and skill to draw that fine line
between dangerous closeness to the original and perilous over creativity.

6
REFERENCES

1. Baker, Mona 1992, In Other Words. A Coursebook on Translation, London and

New York: Routledge
2. Lefevere, Andre 1977, Translating Literature: The German Tradition,
Amsterdam: Van Gorcum
3. Maugham, W. Somerset Of Human Bondage, on www.planetpdf.com
4. Nida, E.A. 1964, Toward a Science of Translating: With Special reference to
Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating, Leiden: Brill