Like-Blog
Presenting you the most interesting translation solutions
Why Like-Blog? Now, first of all, this blog is a blog that you should like (and read regularly) – at least, if you are interested in translation. Then, the topic discussed here is one in which the meaningful likeness between a text and its translation in the language pair English-German plays a key role. On this page, I will take a close look at some interesting translation solutions that I have come across in the course of my work as a translator and translation scholar.
A translation solution is only as good as the arguments that support it. This means that any translation criticism, whether positive or negative, needs to be justified. The quality of a translation solution shows only when we compare it to other possible translation solutions in a given translation situation. Therefore, a translation critic should not only say why a translation solution is bad, but also demonstrate what a better solution might look like. I will try to stick to these principles of translation criticism. So if you have any questions regarding my line of argument or if you disagree, please, let me know your opinion by phone at +49 4171 6086525 or by e-mail to bittner@businessenglish-hamburg.de. So much for the introduction. I hope you’ll enjoy reading this blog!
Dog whistles (December 2020)
The literal translation of certain expressions – especially, if such a translation cannot be found in the dictionary – is often frowned upon as a linguistic blunder by people who are conversant with both the source and target languages. We would agree with these people that literal translations are definitely reprehensible, if they cause the corresponding meaning in the target language to become unclear. However, if the meaning in the target language is clear, then a literal translation might be acceptable – apart from the fact that sticklers for stylistic perfection will find fault with unusual expressions.
The British translation scholar Peter Newmark once argued that the English language would benefit from the literal translation of some words and expressions. He suggests, for example, that the German expression “Guten Appetit!” should be translated as “Good appetite”. In other words: a literal translation is fine as long as the meaning remains obvious. As soon as that is not the case, a literal translation should be avoided.
Comprehension is generally guaranteed, if the literal translation is based on a meaning that can easily be deduced from the word itself, that is, from its non-figurative meaning. Often, a logical connection between the two meanings is helpful; however, it may not be sufficient, as the following example shows.
The Tagesschau online news of 30 September 2020 discusses the first TV debate between the American President, Donald Trump, and his challenger, Joe Biden: “Beim Thema Rassismus beschuldigte Biden Trump, nichts für die afroamerikanische Bevölkerung getan zu haben. Trump habe ‚alles als Hundepfeife benutzt, um rassistischen Hass, rassistische Spaltung zu erzeugen‘. Trump entgegnete, Biden habe Afroamerikaner ‚so schlecht wie jeder in diesem Land‘ behandelt.”
Biden actually said: “This is a president who has used everything as a dog whistle, to try to generate racists hatred, racist division.” And Trump’s retort ran: “[...], you have treated the black community about as bad as anybody in this country.” Where is the problem with the German translation? You may want to find out for yourself before reading on.
What I do not understand is the sentence “Trump hat alles als Hundepfeife benutzt”. This is a literal translation of “Trump has used everything as a dog whistle” – a sentence that, like its translation, may not be easily understood. The reason is an obvious omission: Trump has used everything he has said as a dog whistle. Here, the term “dog whistle” refers to an expression or statement that has a secondary meaning intended to be understood only by a particular group of people. The logic behind this figurative meaning of “dog whistle” is: just as the ultrasound signals of an actual dog whistle can only be heard by the dog, so can the encoded message of a certain type of political speech be correctly decoded and interpreted only by those who know the code. However obvious this logic may be: even an improved rendering such as “Trump hat alles, was er gesagt hat, wie eine Hundepfeife benutzt” would not be understood immediately.
WELT online solves the problem by explaining the term in question: “Herausforderer Joe Biden schrieb am Mittwoch in einem Tweet, er habe genug vom ‚rassistischen Hundepfeifen‘ von Donald Trump. ‚Hundepfeifen-Politik‘ meint die Verwendung codierter Sprache, die nur von der eigenen Anhängerschaft erkannt wird.” My own solution would be a translation that can be understood: Dies ist ein Präsident, der alles, was er sagt, in unterschwellige Sprachmuster für seine Anhängerschaft kleidet, um rassistischen Hass, rassistische Spaltung zu erzeugen.
With this translation, the blog post should actually be finished. Yet, apart from the dog whistle translation, also the translation of Trump’s retort is unsatisfactory: Biden habe Afroamerikaner so schlecht wie jeder in diesem Land behandelt. What is this supposed to mean? Everybody in the United States (including Biden) treated the Afro-Americans badly? Well, the pronoun “anybody” is not the same as “everybody”, just as “irgendwer” is not “jeder”. The intended meaning is: Biden hat die Afroamerikaner schlechter behandelt als sonst jemand – he treated them worse than anybody else.