Vista de Implementación

If full equivalence with the source text is the criterion by which the semantic components of the target text are to be judged, the stand-ard for the lexical components must be adequacy. A kind of mirror-image literal accuracy (word for word translation) so often

79 See also F. Güttinger (1963, pp. 118 f., 120) and E. A. Nida (1964, p. 243).

What Nida calls the “lexico-grammatical features of the immediate unit”

corresponds with our term “microcontext;” what he calls “discourse context”

is our “macrocontext.”

80 In German the intonation can be implied by supplemental words; see Sec-tion 1 above. A good English-German example is given in F. Güttinger (1963, p. 148): “Thou wilt not murder me?” the queen says to Hamlet. A. W. von Schlegel translates, “Du willst mich doch nicht mordern?” because this is not a question with an open answer. The expected answer is expressed in English by the speaker’s intonation, and in German translation it is implied by the supplemental word.

demanded in the target language cannot serve as an objective cri-terion because the vocabularies of any two languages (with their structural and conceptual differences) simply cannot coincide completely.⁸¹ Therefore the critic has to determine whether the components of the original text have been adequately carried over to the target language on the lexical level. This involves observing whether the translator has demonstrated competence in dealing with technical terminology and special idioms (Pelster, 1966, p. 63ff, esp. p. 78; Güttinger, 1963, p. 195ff), “false friends,” homonyms, untranslatable words (Mounin, 1967, p. 62ff; Koschmieder, 1955) names⁸² and metaphors, plays on words, idiomatic usages and prov-erbs,⁸³ etc. Naturally in any such investigation the respective requirements of the various types of text should also enter into con-sideration.⁸⁴

For example, in a content-focused text a metaphor may be con-sidered as translated quite adequately if it is represented in the target language by an expression of the same semantic value although not by a metaphor or a comparable image. A form-focused text, how-ever, would demand that whether the metaphor be traditional or a new creation by the author, it should be represented in the target language by an equally idiomatic metaphor of similar value or sig-nificance,⁸⁵ whether a traditional one is available or a new one must

81 See U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff (1963, p. 144): “... actually, we can almost never translate an individual word, because apart from technical termi-nology, two words in different languages never have precisely the same meaning.”

82 See here among others, F. Güttinger (1963, p. 76 ff).

83 For the inclusion of these among lexical components, see E. A. Nida (1964, p. 95). For Spanish/German examples, see E. A. Seibel (1963, p. 11 f).

84 This aspect is not sufficiently appreciated by O. Blixen (1954, p. 38 f.) in his discussion of translation problems with regard to idiomatic usages and proverbs. In contrast R. Kloepfer (1967, p. 93) offers some excellent obser-vations, especially for the appeal-focused text – although he does not discuss them as such.

85 For example (A. Malblanc, 1961, p. 330): “D’abord la surprise le cloua sur place” (“At first the surprise left him riveted”) = “Dennoch blieb er vor

be created. This demand is not as difficult as it would seem to be at first sight. With reference to H. Weinrich, F. Vonessen and F.

Schelling, Rolf Kloepfer (1967, p. 116) observes that “the bolder and freer the thought, the more specific a metaphor is, the easier it is to express it in another language. There is not just ‘a common tradition of imagery that is shared by Western languages,’ nor a range of concrete images shared by all humanity, but rather certain basic human ‘structures of imagination’ – whether paralinguistic or supralinguistic – by which the creative human spirit can conceive images of original insight.” This applies also to criteria for appeal-focused and audio-medial texts. It is the same with idiomatic usages and proverbs.

The play on words represents another example of this problem.

Word-play on the lexical level does not need to be imitated in texts that are content-focused unless they happen to find close parallels in both languages.⁸⁶ In a form-focused text it should be represented by some parallel structure, in the same passage if possible, espe-cially if there is some reference to it later in the same text. Otherwise a similar play on words could be introduced in some other passage more conveniently adapted to the target language.

Überraschung wie angewurzelt stehen” (“He stood as one rooted in position by surprise”). Or, “Quel bon vent vous amène!” (“What good wind brings you here!”) = “Welch guter Stern hat Sie denn hergeführt!” (“What lucky star has brought you here!”). Or (D. Murray, 1968, p. 54): “Bodidioms was now an old hand at writing political articles” = “B. war jetzt schon ein alter Hase ...”

(“B. was now an old hare ...”); while in a content-focused text either “experi-enced” or “a veteran” would qualify as adequate. Similarly, “We are likely to have our hands full” = “Wir werden alle Hände voll zu tun haben” (“We will have our hands full”) could be rendered in a content-focused text as “sehr viel zu tun” (“have plenty to do”). It is not the words of the metaphor, but the semantic value of the metaphor that should be translated (E. A. Nida, 1964, p.

94), and as with idiomatic expressions, it is their significance in their respec-tive languages that must be considered. See also F. Güttinger (1963, p. 64).

86 That is, unless the meaning of the entire passage depends on the word play.

In that event there should be an explanation in a footnote (E. A. Nida, 1964, p. 195).