Los Angeles Review of Books and Yefe Nof Translation Residency

The Los Angeles Review of Books and Yefe Nof present the third year of their joint translation residency. Applications are open to emerging translators who have not yet published a book-length project.

 For more details, see the original announcement.

Translations from Italian and into Italian

A couple of links for those interested in Italian translation:

Nota del Traduttore, a YouTube series from Italian publisher Gruppo Mondadori, in which several Italian translators speak about their work.

Backstories: Afro-Italian Women Writers, in the July/August 2021 issue of WORDS without BORDERS, The Online Magazine for International Literature: 

This issue presents writing by Afro-Italian women. In the face of xenophobic rhetoric and policies, Black Italians have pushed their country to confront its colonial past and engage with its present diversity.

An article from the Economist on the art of translation

The Economist, has recently published Daniel Hahn on the art of translation, an article which deals, among other things, with the intersection between writing and translation:

“Translating becomes a sort of replicating of an idealised version of that writing experience, so that I can write a novel as if it’s from scratch, but I know it’s going to work because it’s been road-tested in another language. I’m constantly writing these great novels, which is an amazing privilege.”

'It's a silent conversation': authors and translators on their unique relationship

From the Guardian, an interesting article on authors and their translators:

From Man Booker International winner Olga Tokarczuk to partners Ma Jian and Flora Drew … leading authors and translators discuss the highs and lows of cross-cultural collaboration.

CAT tools and translation style

Most professional translators use Computer Assisted Translation (CAT) tools. Many of the translators who don't use CAT tools, however, claim that CAT tools are useless for more creative translations: no time is saved by translation memories – no repetitions, fuzzy or 100% matches – while using the tool weakens the translator's writing style.

I believe that these translators are both right and wrong. Yes, segment matching is less useful for translating documents that are not repetitive, but the use of translation memory is still of great help even for texts that are not repetitive at all: concordance search – offered by all translation memory tools – is what helps most, here: it lets us see in our translation memories how we translated similar words or phrases before, even in sentences that are not close enough to the one we are translating to appear as a fuzzy match.

On the other hand, indiscriminate use of CAT tools, especially in documents that need a more creative approach, may hamper translation style if the translator uses the CAT tool as he would normally use it for technical texts.

One of the drawbacks of CAT tools is that they make it far too easy to carry over the sentence structure of the source language into the target language. CAT tools offer segment joining and splitting as a partial remedy, but busy translators working under time pressure seldom use these features, which, in certain instances, are not available (usually you cannot join across hard returns), or are cumbersome: what if you need to move the first sentence of a paragraph to the end of the same paragraph? You cannot do that by just joining two sentences together.

Other drawbacks are:

• Using the same sentence order in the target language as in the source language;
• Using the same number of sentences in the target language as in the source language (even when the target language text would be better by joining or splitting sentences);
• Letting the sentence structure in the source language affect the target language – for example, use of a sentence pattern in the translation that is similar to the sentence pattern used by the source language, even when a different sentence pattern might be better in the target language;
• Writing numerals in the target language the same way as in the source language – even when the two languages may differ on such things as the separators used for thousands and decimals, or which numbers should be spelled out and which should be written in digits;
• Patterning punctuation and capitalization in the target language after the source language – for example, use of capitals after a colon when translating English into Italian, or leaving a space before a colon when translating from French;

All these kinds of problems (against which translators should pay attention even if they do not use CAT tools) are exacerbated because text segmentation makes it more difficult to see the structure of the page, especially when using more modern tools like Studio or memoQ that use a table approach – MSWord-based tools such as Wordfast Classic make it easier to see where on the page any given sentence goes.

So, if concordance is the feature that best helps translators of more creative texts, but slavish adherence to the source structure is what may most hamper them, what's the alternative?

• For certain translators the answer is "don't use CAT tools", but what if you want to take advantage of CAT tools helpful features without risk damaging the beauty of your translation? I believe that an answer is the following workflow:
• First you change the segmentation rules in the translation tool, to segment not at the sentence, but at the paragraph level. If the segment on which you are working is an entire paragraph, the tool cannot lull you into using the same number of sentences, the same sentence structure or the same sentence order as the source text. You are free, for example, to move text from the beginning of a paragraph to the end, if that better suits your style.
• After changing segmentation, next you should consider the translation produced in the CAT tool as a mere draft to be exported and fine-tuned outside the tool: this way you can perfect your final version in a word processor without being distracted by the sentence-to-sentence pairing offered by the CAT tool.
• After revising your translation as a standalone document, you should finish your work by comparing it to the source, to make sure the meaning and style of the original are conveyed and preserved in the target.
• Finally, in this workflow you create an updated translation memory by aligning the source text to the final draft produced outside the CAT tool. This way, your translation memory is up to date, and available for future projects, while your translation does not suffer the stiffness that may be introduced by mechanical use of CAT tools.

While I propose paragraph segmentation, I know that other translators who use CAT tools for creative translation prefer to start with normal segmentation. That way they are sure not to miss any sentence, and they take care of any necessary changes to sentence structure afterwards, when they revise their translation outside the CAT tool.

Both options of this workflow are illustrated in the following diagram:

Summary workflow for the use of CAT tools in creative translation

I've deliberately not given step-by-step instructions for specific CAT tools: Paul Filkin in his excellent blog  Multifarious already described how to use Studio for a similar purpose in his article Translating Literature... and you can adapt this method to other CAT tools.

Bear in mind that while this approach may suit transcreation or creative translation, it is not what works best when dealing with technical translations: it is a technique that helps slow you down, not speed you up. For most freelancers, it would give flexibility with one hand while taking away speed with the other. Besides, in technical, legal and most other commercial translations, preserving a similar structure between source and target is usually a good thing.

From BOMB magazine: An interview with Mary Jo Bang, poet and translator

Mary Jo Bang recently published a new translation of Dante's Inferno - a modernized translation that seems to have caused quite a stir.

Zachary Lazar interviewed the translator for BOMB magazine:

Imagine a contemporary translation of Dante that includes references to Pink Floyd, South Park, Donald Rumsfeld, and Star Trek. Now imagine that this isn’t gimmicky—this is the hardest but most important part to imagine. Imagine instead that the old warhorse is now scary again, and perversely funny, and lyrical and faux-lyrical in a way that sounds sometimes like Auden, sometimes like Nabokov, but always like Mary Jo Bang. 

The article also links to the entire translation of Canto XXXIV.

A very brief excerpt (verses 61-69):

"Quell'anima là sù c'ha maggior pena", disse 'l maestro, "è Giuda Scarïotto, che 'l capo ha dentro e fuor le gambe mena.	“That soul up there suffers the worst,” My teacher said. “Judas Iscariot. His head stays inside, while his kicking feet stick out.
De li altri due c'hanno il capo di sotto, quel che pende dal nero ceffo è Bruto: vedi come si storce, e non fa motto!;	Those other two whose heads hang down, The one dangling from the dark mug is Brutus— Look how he thrashes without uttering a word—
e l'altro è Cassio, che par sì membruto. Ma la notte risurge, e oramai è da partir, ché tutto avem veduto".	The other is Cassius, who looks much more muscular Without his skin. But night’s coming again And we have to go. We’ve seen all there is to see.”

Literary translation funding available from the National Endowment for the Arts

I've received the following message, which I believe should be of interest to literary translators in the USA:

The National Endowment for the Arts is pleased to announce that application guidelines are now available for the FY 2014 Literature Fellowships for Translation Projects. Through fellowships to published translators, the National Endowment for the Arts supports projects for the translation of specific works of prose, poetry, or drama from other languages into English. We encourage translations of writers and of work that are not well represented in English translation. All proposed projects must be for creative translations of literary material into English. The work to be translated should be of interest for its literary excellence and value. Priority will be given to projects that involve work that has not previously been translated into English. 

The deadline for application submission is January 3, 2013. For full grant application information and guidelines, go to: http://www.arts.gov/grants/apply/LitTranslation/index.html 

Fewer than five percent of all books published in the United States are works in translation, and an even smaller percentage of these books are works of fiction or poetry. To address this lack of foreign literature in the U.S., the NEA began awarding literary translation fellowships in 1981. Since then, it has been one of the most reliable sources of funding for literary translation in the country, awarding 339 fellowships for works in 62 languages from 72 countries. 

The NEA's website highlights many recent recipients of NEA Translation Fellowships: 

• Writers' Corner features recent fellowship recipients, including bios, excerpts from the work to be translated, and a statement about the importance of bringing these works to American audiences.
• The Art Works blog features interviews with recent translation fellows, including:
• Johanna Warren, recipient of a 2013 NEA Fellowship for the translation of short fiction by contemporary Salvadoran author, Claudia Hernándezo   David Hinton, recipient of a 2012 NEA Fellowship for the translation of selected poems of Mei Yao-ch'eno   Esther Allen, recipient of a 2011 NEA Fellowship for the translation of Zama, a 1956 novel by Argentine  writer Antonio Di Benedettoo   Charlotte Mandell, recipient of a 2010 NEA Fellowship for the translation of Zone by Mathias Énard
• The NEA's weekly podcast includes interviews with leading artists and arts experts, including
• Natasha Wimmer, recipient of a 2007 NEA Fellowship for the translation of Roberto Bolaño's epic novel 2666o   Unai Ellorriaga, recipient of an NEA International Literary Award for Plants Don't Drink Coffee, and Amaia Gabantxo who translated the novel from Basque to English

A master translator speaks

From Worldcrunch, a brief but interesting article on Josée Kamoun, the French translator of Philip Roth, John Irving and Jonathan Coe: Why Philip Roth Sounds So Good In French: The Method Of A Master Translator

“The translator dances the tango with the text. When the text leads with the left foot, the translator steps back with the right. It is an extremely tight embrace, and, if possible, graceful...”

Edith Grossman, translator of the Quijote

Hillel Italie has written an excellent article on Edith Grossman, celebrated translator of Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Cervantes.

The article quotes Grossman on the inadequacy of reviews with regards to translations, in a passage which I think will really resonate with many literary translators:

'Ably translated,' compared to what? The reviewer clearly doesn't read Spanish. How would they know if it is ably translated? They quote long passages to indicate the style of the writer and never credit the translator.

Many translators will also be interested by the description of how Grossman arrived at her translation of the famous first lines of the Quijote, as well as by the analysis about the English market for literature in translation.

Should the translator contact the author?

Should the translator contact the author, and if so, how much weight should the translator give to the author's overt intention as against his or her intentions as perceived or inferred from the text of the book?

[...] the translator also has to decide whether to be loyal to an author’s perceived intent or to the inner workings of the actual text

A very interesting post by A.M. Correa in the Words Without Borders blog.

"The sorrow with any translation"

A couple of interesting quotes from a recent, excellent article (from "The Australian") on new translations of Virgil:

"The sorrow with any translation is that you're never really quite there, [but] you may be someplace almost as good."
[Stanley Lombardo, professor of classics at the University of Kansas]

A translator must strive to see the work in its own terms, [Ruden] believes, while knowing that such a goal will always be just out of reach. "But it's something that you keep pushing and pushing and pushing, until you pass out from exhaustion."
[Sarah Ruden, poet and classicist]

The entire article is very much worth reading, and a welcome change of pace from the humdrum translations we might be working on.

The translation of Aesop's Fables

Aesop's fables have been so frequently published that it is widely assumed that in Europe only the Bible has more editions.

The Chronicle Review has a very interesting article (No Children's Tale: Aesop's translators have had varied agendas) on the varied history of the translation of Aesop's Fables, and of how they have changed with the times and with the different intentions of the various translators.

Today we assume that translators always work from the original text. It was not always so, hence (for example) the translations of Russian authors into Italian that were actually translations of the French translations. Even so, it is startling to read that

Caxton's translation is an English translation of a French translation of a Latin translation prepared by a German in 1476.

That German, at last, presumably translated from the Greek.

A very interesting article, well worth reading.

An English novelist's take on the translation of his books

David Baddiel struggles with fiction in translation in the Times Online.

Now, say what you like about the irrelevance of authorial intention but the truth remains that I never meant the phrase “careers officer” to be heard in the reader's head a bit sarkily.

An interesting, though lightweight, article about how David Baddiel discovers that his authorial intentions have not been faithfully carried out by his German translator... and about Baddiel's thoughts on the trustworthiness of the translation of fiction.

Translation is so much more than finding a true expression of a text in another language.

(From Times Online)

Interesting article from the Times Online, with an extract of the speech given by Ali Smith on the occasion of the Oxford Weidenfeld translation prize.

A short passage from the article:

Translation is so much more than the taking of a text and the finding of a true expression for it in another language. It’s an understanding of it in both languages, its original and its new form — and of the cultural shift between.

Problem of translating Shakespeare for the Japanese Stage

An article published a few days ago on the Sidney Morning Herald describes the problems faced by
Japanese translators in adapting the bard for the Japanese stage, especially considering time limitations.

"Official" Translations (2)

A reader has answered my pot about "Official" translations with the following interesting comment:

This is not so vague as you seem to say , it's just literary translators' lingo. And there may be reasons to say so: just imagine I want to quote Rilke's Herbsttag. If I look for a translation, I will find something like this: http://luxuslinguae.splinder.com/post/5589473
A translation by Pintor, one without any credits, one by an amateur, one by a blogger. Which one is the "official"? Pintor's, I would say (although I know there are is a more recent one, in a beautiful edition of Einaudi's Pleaide, and I would choose it as the official one, in primis because I know the translator, as she was my teacher at university and I know she spent something like 3 years on it). What has made it official: the translator's quality, the fact that it is published by a renowed publishing house, etc. At any rate, one shouldn't compare technical translation with literary translation, and not only because of remuneration. This is, of course, my humble opinion.

An aside: I am not sure where I have made any comparison between technical and literary translations, apart, maybe, by my being a technical translator commenting on something that falls in the province of literary translators.

However, I would like to answer to the main points noted in the comment: If calling something the "official" translation in this sense is current lingo or jargon among literary translators, then I shall defer to my colleague, as I acknowledge that current widespread usage normally trumps abstract rules.

Personally, however, I would prefer to call such translations "authoritative", or even "canonical". I realize that I am probably splitting hairs, but "official", in my mind at least, implies some official body which sanctions what is good and what less so.

Also, my colleague gives a good example of an official translation that is clearly prima facie better than the other translations found ("A translation by Pintor, one without any credits, one by an amateur, one by a blogger"). What about the case when there are several different authoritative translations for a given work? Is one of them to be considered the "official" one (and if so, on which grounds)?, or could there be more than one "official" translations?

"Official" Translations

From time to time people post questions on ProZ's KudoZ section to ask for the "official" translation of this or that bit of literature: a poem, a quote from a novel, or whatever.

I think that, as translators, we should be more careful how we use words: what these people are asking are probably "published", or even "previous" translations, not "official" ones: apart from such things as UE directives, International treaties, and some legal documents, I don't think there is such a thing as an "official" translation: the image that comes to mind is of some obscure office at the UN, UNESCO, or other suitably elephantine international red-tape factory, with someone wielding a big red stamp to be applied to "official translations": maybe something like

THIS TRANSLATION IS DEEMED OFFICIAL AND APPROVED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED NATIONS DIRECTORATE for EMERGING ALTERNATE DOCUMENTATION (the UNDEAD).