DIRECT VS INDIRECT TRANSLATION1

DIRECT VS INDIRECT TRANSLATION
The degree of latitude which translators enjoy may be seen in terms of another
distinction which the relevance model of translation has had to adopt: direct and
indirect translation. This dichotomy addresses the need ‘to distinguish between
translations where the translator is free to elaborate or summarize [i.e. indirectly]
and those where he has to somehow stick to the explicit contents of the original’
[directly] (Gutt 1991:122). Obviously, this is not an either/or choice but rather the
two ends of a continuum. Indirect translations are intended to survive on their
own, and involve whatever changes the translator deems necessary to maximize
relevance for a new audience (i.e. the predominantly ‘descriptive’ mode of the tourist
brochure type of translation in the example discussed above). Direct translations,
on the other hand, are more closely tied to the original, a case of what we have called
‘interpretive’ resemblance.Guided by a notion of faithfulness, the translator designs
a direct translation in such a way that it resembles the original ‘closely enough in
relevant respects’ (Sperber and Wilson 1986:137

).

DESCRIPTIVE VS INTERPRETIVE1

DESCRIPTIVE VS INTERPRETIVE
In dealing with these form–content problems, the relevance model of translation
employs a range of cognitive tools, including inference and the ability to perceive
and interact with textual salience functionally.An important distinction entertained
by the text user relates to two ways of using language:‘ descriptive’ and ‘interpretive’.
These reflect the two ways our minds entertain thoughts.An utterance is said to be
descriptive if it is intended to be true of a state of affairs in some possible world.On
the other hand, an utterance is said to be interpretive if it is intended by the speaker
not to represent his or her own thoughts but those of someone else.
To see the descriptive vs interpretive dichotomy in practical translation terms, let
us consider two translation situations, one involving the production in English of
a tourist brochure (with the instruction of producing a text that is ultra-functional
in guiding tourists round a city), the other the production of an advert (with the
instruction that the translation is for use by top planners of marketing strategy).
Thus, while the resultant English tourist brochure could conceivably be composed
without reference to the original, the translation of the advertisement would be
crucially dependent on the ST

The tourist brochure would be an instance of descriptive use in that the TT is
intended to achieve relevance in its own right, whereas the advertisement translation
could succeed only in virtue of its resemblance to some SL original. In practice,
this points to a greater freedom enjoyed by the translator of the tourist brochure
(hence the luxury of producing what is almost akin to an original text). The advertisement’s
translator, on the other hand, can work only interpretively (resigned to
the limitations of a medium called translation).

Task A8.7
➤ To what extent do you think ‘interpretive’ translation is tantamount to ‘literal’
translation, and ‘descriptive’ translation to ‘free’ translation?
➤ Find a tourist brochure and translate a portion into another language.Comment
on whether your translation is interpretive or descriptive. Can you conceive
of how the tourist brochure might sound, were you to adopt an alternative
strategy?
Task A8.8
➤ What problems are likely to be encountered in translating a sacred text
descriptively?