>>73518329>>73518869>>73519005The debate between liberal and exact approaches to translation is a fascinating one, involving the perspectives of Ludwig Wittgenstein, St. Augustine, and Vladimir Nabokov. Here’s a comparison of their views:
Wittgenstein’s Language Games: Wittgenstein’s concept of “language games” suggests that the meaning of words is shaped by their use in specific contexts1. He argued that language is an activity, woven into the fabric of life, and that words have meaning only within the “games” they are part of. This view could support a more liberal approach to translation, where the translator seeks to convey the meaning as it would be understood in the target language’s cultural and linguistic context1.
St. Augustine’s View: St. Augustine’s early thoughts on language, as interpreted by Wittgenstein, posited that words are primarily labels for objects2. However, this view is considered by Wittgenstein to be a simplification, not accounting for the complexity of language use. Augustine’s broader work suggests a deep interest in the nuances of language, which could imply a more nuanced approach to translation than a simple one-to-one correspondence between words and objects3.
Nabokov’s Exactness: Nabokov, on the other hand, was a proponent of exact translation. He believed that the translator’s duty is to be as faithful as possible to the original text, preserving its form, content, and style4. Nabokov’s approach is less about adapting the text to the target audience and more about maintaining the integrity of the original work.
Similarities and Differences:
Similarity: All three thinkers acknowledge the complexity of language and the importance of context in understanding meaning.
Difference: Wittgenstein and Augustine (as interpreted by Wittgenstein) lean towards understanding language as a dynamic and context-dependent system, which could justify a more liberal translation approach. Nabokov, however, emphasizes fidelity to the original text, even if it means retaining complexities that might not easily translate across cultures.
Why Nabokov’s View Prevails: While the liberal approach aims for the translated text to be easily understood and culturally relevant to the target audience, Nabokov’s exact approach ensures that the original author’s voice, style, and nuanced meaning are preserved. This is particularly important in literary translations, where the beauty and intricacy of the original text are considered integral to the work. Nabokov’s method respects the original work’s literary and artistic merit, ensuring that readers of the translation can experience the text as closely as possible to how it was intended by the author.
In conclusion, while liberal translation prioritizes accessibility and cultural relevance, Nabokov’s exact approach prioritizes the integrity and artistic value of the original text.
