Why is translation into the mother tongue more successful than into a second language?
By Omar Jabak,
Binnish, Idlib, Syria
Get the List of 5,400+ Translation Agencies Now!
No Recurring Membership Fees!
It is commonly believed that translators are
better at translating into their native language than into
a second language. The underlying reason for this assumption
is that translators have a more profound linguistic and
cultural background of their mother tongue than of a second
language which they have to learn in order to be well-versed
translators. By the same token, the translator who translates
into his or her native language has a more natural and practical
knowledge of the various linguistic elements of his or her
native language, such as semantics, syntax, morphology and
lexicology than the translator who translates into a foreign
language. In addition, translation into the first language
enables translators to render cultural elements such as
proverbs, idioms, metaphors, collocations, swear words and
others into proper equivalents in their mother tongue because
such translators are born and bred in the culture into which
they translate these culture-bound aspects. In fact, the
translators' first language is naturally acquired in a culture
and environment where the first language is naturally acquired
and practiced. On the other hand, their second language
is, for the most part, learned, rather than acquired, later
on in the course of their life. As a result, the linguistic
and cultural knowledge of their second language is always
in progress and never complete. In this respect, James Dickins
(2005) points out:
Translator training normally focuses on translation into
the mother tongue, because higher quality is achieved
in that direction than in translating into a foreign language.
(2005: 2)
On the linguistic level, translation into the first language
provides the translator with some advantages, such as an
instinctive knowledge of morphological, semantic, syntactic
and lexical aspects of his or her mother tongue because
the translator acquires these linguistic elements naturally
in the course of time. These various aspects constitute
the translator's increasing linguistic reservoir. In contrast,
translation into a second language not only provides the
translator with some kind of bookish knowledge, but it also
puts him or her at the mercy of references, such as grammar
books, and general and specialized dictionaries as the translator's
second language is, in most cases, learned outside its natural
context rather than acquired. Every time the translator
is unsure of the morphological, semantic or lexical rules
of the second language into which he or she translates,
he or she will have to refer to references and dictionaries
for help. Sometimes, he or she consults more than one reference
or dictionary to decide on the right meaning of a certain
word or phrase, and the search for appropriate equivalents
in the target language may take even a long time. In this
respect, Katherine Reiss (2000) argues:
Due to the fact that differences between the grammatical
systems of languages are frequently quite great, it is
the morphology and syntax of the target language that
clearly deserve priority unless there is some overriding
factor either in the nature of the text or some special
circumstance. (2000: 60)
As far as the morphological aspect is concerned, translation
into the mother tongue tends to be more successful than
translation into a second language because of the translator's
inherent knowledge of the morphological rules of his or
her first language. The following invented example in Arabic
may illustrate this point. The sentence is hwa akbaru waladin
fi ala'ila. This Arabic sentence corresponds to the following
English sentence: he is the eldest child in the family.
Such a sentence may confuse a novice translator whose first
language is Arabic because "akbaru", which is
morphologically equivalent to the comparative English form
"elder/older", is, in fact, used here to refer
to the superlative degree. For a translator whose first
language is English, such a sentence will not pose any challenge
because his or her morphological competence will automatically
lead him or her to the right choice. Furthermore, the semantic
knowledge of the translator who translates into his or her
mother tongue is an added asset to good translation because
he or she does not translate words in isolation but meaning
in a given context. In some languages, one word can be used
to refer to more than one thing and only those translators
who translate into their native language are aware of such
a semantic feature. This, however, may cause confusion or
translation loss when translation is done into a foreign
language. Michael Hanne (2006) highlights this point by
stating the following example:
European cultures traditionally make a firm distinction
between emotional and intellectual activities,
attaching them to the heart and the head
respectively. In traditional Chinese culture, I understand,
no such distinction is made, since the heart is
referred to as the location of mental activities of all
kinds. Take these sentences from Herman Melville: "I
stand for the heart. To the dogs with the head. I had
rather be a fool with a heart than Jupiter Olympus with
a head" (2006: 209)
Despite the fact that translators' best friends are assumed
to be monolingual and bilingual dictionaries, the translators
who translate into their first language perform well even
without the help of such dictionaries because, by intuition,
they are more aware of the lexical aspect of their native
language than that of a second language. In addition, they
are fully equipped with the lexical knowledge of their first
language which will help them match correct lexical items
in both the source language and the target language. By
virtue of this knowledge, for example, they can decide what
verbs collocate with what nouns, what adjectives collocate
with what nouns, what adverbs to use before what adjectives,
what tense to use, whether a feminine, masculine, singular
or plural should be used, and other important lexical information
. Roman Jacobson (2001) further illustrates this point by
providing an example form Russian:
In order to translate accurately the English sentence
"I hired a worker," a Russian needs supplementary
information, whether this action was completed or not
and whether the worker was a man or a woman, because he
must make his choice between a verb of completive or noncompletive
aspect…and between a masculine and a feminine noun. (2001:116)
It is worth mentioning that both the linguistic and cultural
elements in the source language and the target language
should be well-observed in order that translation is carried
out successfully. However, the transference of cultural
elements into cultural equivalents tends to be more daunting
for the translator who translates them into a second language
than for the translator who translates them into his or
her first language and culture. Eugene Nida (2001) asserts
the existence of this dividing line between linguistic and
cultural challenges facing translators:
In fact, differences between cultures cause many more
severe complications than do differences in language structure.
(2001:130)
As far as culture is concerned, translation into the first
language provides the translator with an in-depth knowledge
of the various aspects of his or her culture because most
texts are normally coloured with cultural elements such
as idioms, proverbs, metaphors, swear words and other cultural
features. When translators translate into their native language
and culture, they are fully aware of the cultural sensitivities
of the target language and can best render the cultural
elements of the source language into proper equivalents
in their own language and culture. On the other hand, the
translator who translates into a foreign language and culture
may not be able to see and recognize the cultural aspects
of the foreign or second language because he or she is an
alien to that culture no matter how many cultural references
or phrases he or she memorizes. In such a situation, if
any translation were to be done, it would not sound very
successful. Peter Newmark (1981) suggests:
He [the translator] will be 'caught' every time, not
by his grammar, which is probably suspiciously 'better'
than an educated native's, not by his vocabulary, which
may well be wider, but by his unacceptable or improbable
collocations…For the above reasons, translators rightly
translate into their own language, and a fortiori,
foreign teachers and translators are normally unsuitable
in a translation course. (1981: 173 Check page number)
In general, cultural pervasive aspects, such as proverbs,
idioms, metaphors, swear words and others challenge translators
|
