M. Phil in Literary Translation - Portfolio
Portfolio of translations:
TRANSLATION PORTFOLIO:
By the last day of Trinity term (end of academic year: this year - 31st May 2011) unless otherwise agreed with the course director, you should submit a portfolio of translation work. The actual volume of work may vary, but as a general guide, between 35 and 40 pages of translated text (a minimum of 6 text types) should be submitted. Since you are free to choose your own material, you should include a photocopy of the original with your submission. Although, as a general rule, the common language of the course is English, you may include translations into another language by prior agreement with the course director. In practice, this permission will be granted provided a suitable examiner is available.
Translation Portfolio: FURTHER DETAILS
Brief Description: The student will prepare a portfolio of translations prepared in line with professional standards. Each translation is accompanied by a one-page introduction (and, possibly, concise annotations).
The introduction discusses questions such as...
• why this text was selected;
• why a translation of this text seems apposite;
• how this text relates to texts available/not available in the market place;
• how you approached the translation and why;
• what difficulties you had; ...
The annotations explain translation solutions in accordance with the introduction.
The selection of translations chosen for submission should be done with a view to providing a portfolio, which reflects their strengths as translators in terms of either specialisation or breadth of experience [selecting from a range of genres: poetry, narrative, essay, (auto)biography, theatre, film /sub-titles/ & a range of modalities of literary translation: translation, version, adaptation, imitation]. More than one version of some texts may be included.
The portfolio should be prepared with regard to professional requirements so that it could form the basis of a portfolio submitted for the purpose of obtaining commissions.
This exercise aims to enable students:
- To work independently, developing their own criteria for successful translation strategies, on the production of a portfolio in consultation with their supervisor, and incorporating feedback into their final translations
- To prepare translations with a prospective customer in mind and write an introduction in which they outline the customer profile
- To develop the knowledge and skills required for producing a publishable translated version of a literary work
- To show an awareness of the practical skills necessary to market yourself as a literary translator and to liaise with publishers, editors and authors of literary works.
- To annotate the translations appropriate to specified needs
Students have individual supervision amounting to about two hours in length, either face to face or by e-mail, with their academic supervisor during the compiling of this portfolio.
Assessment Strategy
The portfolio will be assessed on the quality of the translations, on the choice of appropriate texts, on the quality and relevance of the introductions (and annotations) and on the professional presentation.
Please consider the criteria which follow.
SOME TRANSLATION EVALUATION CRITERIA
The general aim of our Literary Translation MPhil course is to produce translations of potentially publishable quality in the domains of literary translation: literary prose (novel, short story &c), poetry, biography, history &c. On points of detail, different criteria may apply in the case of different pairs of languages, or different text types. On matters of general principle, varying positions have been adopted by translators, theorists and critics, and it is important to be able to situate one's own translation practice with reference to those positions.
FIDELITY
For example, there is the question of whether a translation ought to emphasize its literal fidelity to the source text, or whether it is entitled to aim for a freer relationship to its source, basing its main claim to success on its viability as a new text in a new language. The "faithful versus free" debate has taken many forms, and adopting one or other position (in a more or less rigorous form) does not automatically answer all other questions associated with a particular text. One may hold that the first duty of a translation is to be faithful to the source-language text (ruling out what are called "belles infidèles"), while still recognizing that the resulting translation must be consonant with other important criteria. Even an extreme commitment to fidelity, privileging the forms and meanings of the source text, does not mean that the translation is reduced to a mere "comprehension test". Showing understanding is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. A creative response can be achieved within the constraints of accuracy. A sense of faithfulness to target-language style may require changes in construction or sentence structure. If one's principal aim is a faithful version, such changes should always be attempted where necessary, but never where there is no imperative need. Translations should not be approximations or paraphrases, except where a direct translation is impossible for reasons involved with peculiarities of TL (style, available vocabulary &c).
If, on the other hand, one feels that a lesser degree of fidelity is necessary or desirable when translating a particular text, one should be able to justify that position. An obvious case, which would be accepted even by strong proponents of fidelity, would be where one is translating rhymed verse into rhymed verse, and cannot always be fully "faithful" both to the rhyme-scheme and to the meaning of each line. Sometimes culture, rather than word forms, may prompt the translator to consider departing from word-for-word correspondence: finding an equivalent proverb in the target language, or rendering indecent expressions where a direct translation would have a different force in the target language, compelling the translator to choose between equivalent effect and precise semantic translation. A more debatable case for "freedom" would be where the translator wishes to rewrite the source text as the original author might have written it in the target language, culture and time ("now and in America", as Robert Lowell put it), or even by interpreting not only what the author has done, but also what he or she "wanted and ought to have done" (Goethe, quoted by Auden and Mayer). All of these positions may be defensible in different circumstances; the translator must at least be able to show an awareness of what choices are being made, and what costs, losses or advantages are associated with each choice. If opting for a free version or imitation rather than a close translation for an element of your portfolio, it might be helpful to include a strict literal rendering alongside the freer version, in order to establish that freedom does not derive from misunderstanding.
As our MPhil course is based in a number of foreign language departments, we may tend to lean towards the traditional view that fidelity should be the default position when proving one's competence as a translator. This conforms, for example, with the general position taken in the Code of Practice and Professional Ethics adopted by the Irish Translators' and Interpreters' Association ( www.translatorsassociation.ie ), which states, under the heading of Impartiality (4.1): "Members of the Association should endeavour to the utmost of their ability to provide a guaranteed faithful rendering of the original text which must be entirely free of their own personal interpretation, opinion or influence". We are aware, however, that literary translators and scholars have frequently argued that such a criterion of impartiality is illusory or inappropriate for the literary translator. What we require, then, is that departures from the fidelity approach should be clearly signalled, and if necessary defended.
FLUENCY
Next, the question of fluency. A traditional view of translation holds that while accurately reflecting the SL text, the translation should read fluently in the TL. As far as possible, it should not be recognizable as a translation. There is a school of translation which thinks a foreign text should retain its foreignness, but this is seldom the effect required by commissioning editors (rightly or wrongly). Being faithful to TL style implies that the same word will not always be rendered by the same word in the translation.
If adopting the contrary view, be prepared again to document and defend it.
RULES AND WHEN TO BREAK THEM
Insofar as your chosen text has technical or cultural references, these should be researched and accurately translated. Proper names (of public figures) should be translated ("l'empereur Guillaume II d'Allemagne" = "Kaiser Wilhelm II"; "Papa Woytyla" = "Pope John Paul II"). The precise rules for this will vary between pairs of languages. Appropriate equivalents should be sought for cultural artefacts or institutions. Does "samovar" stay as "samovar" in the name of local colour, or become "kettle"? There is no absolute rule. In what contexts should "salle Colbert" be glossed as "National Assembly"? When should "Leinster House" become "the Irish Parliament"? The underlying principle is that you should be aware of the traditional conventions, and have a good reason if you decide to break the rules, or to assume local knowledge on the part of your readers.
back to top