Complit 130 Translation Matters
Ryan Moore
The philosophies that Vladimir Nabokov and Eugene Nida hold disagree greatly on the answers to many key questions that arise in translation. Regarding Nabokov, his idea of what constitutes a proper translation centers around an intense examination of the context surrounding both the author and the work in question. When he comments on translating Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin, outlining his general beliefs on this matter, Nabokov states that every intricacy, commentary, and subtlety present in the original language of a source text “must” be translated (Nabokov 130). According to Nabokov, much knowledge is also required to translate a text with the “absolute exactitude” necessary to carry out an accurate translation (134). This added knowledge may include having familiarity with languages other than the source language if the author and/or their culture was influenced by a country of a different tongue. Additionally, Nabokov articulates that, to avoid the “ignorance” he lambastes throughout his commentary, one ought to “acquire exact information” and gain knowledge of “a number of [other] relevant subjects” such as expertise on other writers who may have influenced the author (137).
Along with the diverse education he mandates, Nabokov maintains that, when evaluating the form of a source text, no additions can be made to translate the original rhyme or meter. He believes any such addition “completely [breaks] up the original sense” of a text (142). Instead, Nabokov advocates selecting essential phrases that cannot be left out to ensure preservation of the author’s original diction. Furthermore, Nabokov states it is preposterous that any translation could claim it emphasized communicating a work’s content over its form. In his approach, Nabokov stresses that content must be maintained without compromise, and that any other strategy turns one’s translation into an “imitation” of the original (135, 134). As a result of these many requirements, Nabokov’s theory sets an extremely high bar for translating literature.
Regarding the translation philosophy of Eugene Nida, his beliefs center around the idea that no translation will ever be a perfect representation of an original work. Nida opines that the various idiosyncrasies unique to each individual tongue demonstrate that “there can be no absolute correspondence” when translating (Nida 346). While he still believes the goal of translation should be to produce as close an equivalent as possible, this lack of perfection leads him to claim that it is inevitable that a translator will have to make their own interpretations at many points throughout the translation process (346). He subsequently proposes two methods of translation he feels to be most effective at achieving equivalence. One, formal equivalence, focuses on staying true to the source text’s original message in both form and content, ensuring the elements in both languages match as closely as possible (349). The other, dynamic equivalence, focuses on producing what Nida deems an “equivalent effect” in its readers (350) and seeks to make the text as meaningful to them as possible.
Another key concept of Nida’s theory is the idea that there are many differing types of translations that can be done (347). Some of the reasons that equally valid approaches may differ, he expresses, include the nature of the message one is trying to portray and the objective of the original author (347). In addition to Nida’s statement that these variations can be executed, he goes on to say that works must be translated differently depending on the ability of the audience to “decode” the work they will be reading (349). For example, he mentions that, in some situations, it can be more beneficial to take liberties that make the text more impactful to its readers rather than simply making it intelligible to them (348). To Nida, it is these situations that require the adaptations for the translator to make themself perfectly clear (349). In summary, Nida’s perspective on translation allows for many methods of approaching a text that vary greatly depending on the circumstances.
There is very little common ground to be found between the translation theories of Nabokov and Nida. This divide becomes particularly clear when examining the assumptions of the differing “camps” the two men are in. For example, take Nida’s opinion that there are many valid ways to translate and adapt a text depending on the literary situation (Nida 348). This is similar to the viewpoint shared by translation theorist John Dryden, who believes that someone translating “too faithfully is, indeed, [translating] pedantically” (Dryden 18). However, though Nabokov recognizes that language differences make exact translations difficult, he believes failing to convey every original detail in a translation makes a mockery of the source text and ceases to be faithful to it (Nabokov 134). This stance is also espoused by translator Lawrence Venuti, who states that taking liberties from an original text to fit a translated version also leaves the translator particularly susceptible to their own biases (Venuti 550).
When it comes to the perspectives on culture’s role in translation, the philosophical clash between Nabokov and Nida is also evident. A Nabokov translation is one that inherently foreignizes, due to his demand that the authenticity of a source text remains intact. Reading and interpreting these works often takes much effort on the part of the reader. This can likewise be tied back to the wide knowledge base Nabokov requires of a faithful translator, as works in his style come by default with a heavy dose of contextualizing footnotes (this is what translation theorist Kwame Anthony Appiah terms a “thick translation”). On the contrary, translations executed in the style of Nida are extremely domesticating. These renderings adhere to a much looser set of restrictions than Nabokov imposes, as the primary goal of Nida’s approach is to make the text as meaningful as possible in the target language. Consequently, a Nida-esque translation will have far fewer footnotes and sound more “natural” to its intended audience than one from Nabokov.
When attempting to discern which of these approaches is best for a present-day translator, the decision to imitate Nabokov or Nida rests on both the type of text being translated and for whom it is being translated. Nabokov’s rigid doctrines and explicit criteria best lend themselves to more “content-based” literature, like articles from academic journals or works chronicling historical events. This approach would also be favorable if the likely readers of the translation are looking to analyze the text in an academic sense, even if that was not the original purpose of the work. In contrast, Nida’s approach is preferable when dealing with more “meaning-based” texts, including stories that convey morals at their endings (fables). Additionally, when translating for an audience that will be reading for pleasure, Nida’s method is advantageous because it allows a text to be molded into something digestible. However, there is one additional factor that must be considered: the legacy of ethnocentrism that exists in translation history. As outlined by Venuti, the “violence” that has often ensued from over-domestication can be dangerous to cultural diversity (Venuti 550) and is something one must always keep in mind when translating any work today. All in all, though, the merits of both Nabokov’s and Nida’s approaches make them useful strategies when applied to the proper translation situations.
Works Cited
Appiah, Kwame Anthony, and Mona Baker. “27 – Kwame Anthony Appiah: Thick Translation.” The Translation Studies Reader, edited by Lawrence Venuti, Routledge, 2000, pp. 417–429, Dryden, John. “Two: John Dryden – On Translation.” Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, edited by Hugo Friedrich, 1st edition ed., University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 17–31.
Nabokov, Vladimir. “Thirteen: Vladimir Nabokov – Problems of Translation: Onegin in English.” Theories of Translation: An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, edited by Paul Valery, 1st ed., University of Chicago Press, 1992, pp. 127–143.
Nida, Eugene A. “4.9 Eugene A. Nida.” Translation – Theory and Practice: A Historical Reader, edited by Daniel Weissbort and Astradur Eysteinsson, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 346–351.
Venuti, Lawrence. “5.18 Lawrence Venuti.” Translation – Theory and Practice: A Historical Reader, edited by Daniel Weissbort and Astradur Eysteinsson, Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 546–557.
