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!
Global warming and sustainability (October 2021)
“Can Steven Chu Win the Fight Over Global Warming?” by Michael Grunwald appeared on Time.com on 23 August 2009. The third sentence runs: “In his nerdy professor style and referring to ‘Milankovitch cycles’ and the ‘albedo effect’ as well as melting glaciers and rising seas, Chu methodically explained that the science is clear, that we’re boiling the planet — but also that science can save us, that we can innovate our way to sustainability.”
This sentence was rendered in German as: “Er wirkte wie ein streberhafter Professor, als er sowohl über „Milankovitche Zyklen“ und den „Albedo Effekt“, als auch über schmelzende Gletscher und das Ansteigen des Meeresspiegels sprach. Dabei erklärte Chu systematisch, dass die Wissenschaft eindeutig zeigt, dass wir den Planeten kochen – aber auch, dass die Wissenschaft uns retten kann, dass wir auf den Weg zur Nachhaltigkeit zurückkehren können.”
In this translation, several aspects could be criticised: for example, that a hyphen is missing in the noun phrase “Albedo Effekt” (which refers to light reflected by the earth’s surface or atmosphere) and that the rendering “den Planeten kochen” is less suitable for the figurative meaning than “den Planeten kochen lassen” (let it boil) or “den Planeten zum Kochen bringen” (cause it to boil). These aspects, however, are not the reason why I am discussing the above passage; I am interested in the translation of the final that-clause.
Translating “dass wir auf den Weg zur Nachhaltigkeit zurückkehren können” for “that we can innovate our way to sustainability” is problematic in two ways. First, to innovate is about moving forward, not about going back or returning (“zurückkehren”). Second, the translator misinterpreted the expression “our way to sustainability”, regarding it in its entirety as an object of “innovate”. Such an interpretation is theoretically possible; yet, in the given context, it is not particularly plausible. The syntactic misinterpretation is probably also the reason why the translator rendered “innovate” as “zurückkehren”, because to innovate a particular way seems less natural than to return to a particular way.
If the syntax is interpreted correctly, we get “our way” as the object of “innovate” and “to sustainability” as an adverbial that also refers to the verb. That is, we innovate our way in order to achieve sustainability. For the translation, we suggest: ..., dass wir Nachhaltigkeit durch Innovation erreichen können.