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!
George Santos (March 2023)
The present blog post is different. Although this month’s topic is – as usual – based on a translation that made me stumble, the reason for such stumbling proved to be not so much a translation error but a mere problem of contextual word usage in the target language. If the solution to the problem had been as obvious as I thought at first, I would have looked for another, real translation problem to discuss in this blog post. However, the rather straightforward vocabulary problem turned out to be quite interesting and insightful on closer inspection – which is why I chose to analyse it, here.
I owe the idea for this blog post to George Santos. Indeed, this comparatively fresh-faced 34-year-old Republican member of the U.S. Congress portrayed his life in his CV somewhat differently from how it actually was. In an interview with the New York Post, he said, according to CNN.com, December 27, 2022, among other things: “I’m embarrassed and sorry for having embellished my resume.” It is clear what “embellish one’s resume” means; but how should “embellish” be translated in this context?
Under the heading “FBI ermittelt gegen US-Abgeordneten Santos”, tagesschau.de writes on 2 February 2023: “In einem Interview räumte der Republikaner ein, er habe seinen Lebenslauf „beschönigt“.” In my opinion, the verb form used here is wrong in this context: in German, a CV is “geschönt”, not “beschönigt”.
To support my assumption, I first refer to my native German language competence. However, this might be deceptive at times: after all, different speakers of German speak German differently – depending on regional origin, social background, education, etc. What do you think? Would you go along with my assumption?
To know that a CV can be “geschönt” but not “beschönigt” is not enough, though. I also want to know why. Looking up the terms in the Duden does not yet bring the hoped-for clarity. There, “beschönigen” means “etwas [Schlechtes, Fehlerhaftes] als nicht so schwerwiegend darstellen, etwas allzu günstig darstellen; schönfärben” – in English “to whitewash”. The meaning of the verb “schönen” relevant in our context is: “schöner, angenehmer, besser erscheinen lassen” – which seems to be not much different from the meaning of the other verb. Should it, perhaps, still be possible to “beschönigen” one’s CV?
An Internet search shows a first trend: the number of “geschönte Lebensläufe” clearly exceeds the number of “beschönigte Lebensläufe”. Given the possibility of a near-identical meaning of the two verbs, what are the contexts in which you use either “schönen” or “beschönigen”? The answer to this question can be found in the Digital Dictionary of the German Language (dwds.de). The dictionary specifies for both verbs significant direct objects. For “beschönigen”, these are, among others: Lage (situation), Realität (reality), Ding (thing), Übergriff (encroachment, assault), Resultat (result), Bilanz (balance sheet or result), Vergangenheit (past). The verb “schönen” has, for example, the following direct objects: Arbeitslosenstatistik (unemployment statistics), Abgaswert (exhaust value), Lebenslauf (CV), Bilanz (balance sheet or result), Teilnehmerzahl (number of participants), Publikation (publication), Arbeitslosenzahl (number of unemployed). That which is “beschönigt” is typically something unspecific, not clearly defined – or something that you cannot touch, like a behaviour. By contrast, things that are “geschönt” tend to be specific and concrete – either a clearly named or quantified result or something tangible.
You will have noticed that the two lists of direct objects have one word in common and that this word also can have two meanings: the noun “Bilanz” can mean either balance sheet or result. The first meaning is, here, the concrete meaning (a balance sheet being something that you can touch and that shows specific figures), whereas the second meaning is rather unspecific – referring as it does to an unquantified, general result, such as the (not so good) overall record of a Prime Minister’s time in office. Thus, in the first case, the “Bilanz” would be “geschönt”, while, in the second case, the “Bilanz” would be “beschönigt”.