Translation Criticism Framework

After assessing translation criticism approaches developed by Torop, Berman, and

Popovich, I would like to present my framework, which, in my opinion, borrowed the
most critical and applicable aspects of the approaches by the mentioned above scholars.

Prior to presenting my framework and explaining the specifics and underlying

reasons for the chosen design, I believe I should discuss the peculiarities of the given
field as well as share my opinion regarding the popular approaches for translation
criticism. First of all, I believe that translation criticism, similarly to the translation
itself, is quite a subjective and controversial process. Language is a dynamic
phenomenon, and because of its relation to people and cultures, it has to be flexible,
somewhat vague, extremely responsive, and adaptive due to the specifics of a modern,
globalized society. Consequently, translation criticism should consider these aspects and
also comply with similar criteria because criticizing something uncertain, which can
only be right or wrong to a certain extent, is a task that also requires flexibility,
compromise, and the ability to be as unbiased as possible.

Torop’s approach to translation criticism is extensive, meticulous, and accurate,

but it is also exceedingly exhausting and dependent on research. There is no doubt that
research is critical, but translation is also an art, and in some cases, art cannot be defined
or framed into a particular theory. Translation, unlike the common laws of physics, is
not static; it varies in genres, topics, time periods. There is logic in criticizing technical
translations using the criteria of accuracy, precision, and brevity; however, translating
literature goes far beyond these criteria as it includes the style, cultural aspects, genre,
semiotic aspects, and so on. In my opinion, assessing all of these aspects is destructive
as it prevents people (critics) from appreciating the work as they should. Moreover, the
nine stages of Torop’s approach can frequently address aspects that can be not actually
relevant for a particular translation.

Berman’s approach is more oriented on understanding, appreciating, and only then

on criticizing. Reading both the original text and translation as the primary step of
translation criticism is reasonable since the critic firstly looks at the bigger picture.
Learning about the translator and their experiences, logic, expertise, and other aspects of
their lives that might have influenced the translation is another advantage of Berman’s
approach. However, Berman was too optimistic, and his approach appears to be genetic
and simplistic, which surely can be enough in numerous cases but should not be
perceived as a totally universal approach.

I believe combining Berman’s attitude of appreciation and understanding with

some parts of Torop’s meticulousness will bear great fruits. One should start from
reading the original text to identify parts of the text that can lead to misunderstandings
or might lose something while translating. These aspects should be highlighted and put
in mind before the second stage, which is reading the translation. Logically, while
reading the translation, one should identify similar challenging points which might be
misinterpreted in the translated text. Then, keeping in mind that “translation processes
are semiotic processes,” one should study cultural aspects presented in original text and
then in translation to identify the proximity of rendered semantic message from the point
of cultural perspective. Here, it is critical to remember that, for instance, finding
equivalences in both cultures, for instance, some folk character like the boogeyman, is
not always the right choice since some texts benefit from presenting the specific notion
of a particular culture, while other focus on describing different aspects; thus, in this
case, it is impossible to be correct or incorrect when choosing either variant.

Afterward, it is essential to learn about the author of the original text and about the
translator since their biographies and life experiences can serve as an explanation for
their ideas and choices in the texts. I believe after reading both texts and identifying
these specific moments, and learning about the motivation of author and translator
regarding particular choices in writing and translating, one should implement Torop’s
adaptive, specific, and theoretical critics to assess the quality of translations of key
points. Understanding the culture, lexical and semantic aspects of the text and translation
allow the critic to assess the quality of the translation and evaluate the translator’s
choices.

Overall, my translation criticism framework will look this way:

1) Reading original text and identifying challenging aspects that require a cultural and
lexical understanding of the source culture and language;

2) Reading translation and identifying challenging aspects that require a cultural and
lexical understanding of the target culture and language;

3) Studying the biography and experiences of the author to realize what factors
motivated them to make particular choices in writing the chosen piece of literature
(themes, type, genre, style, cultural colouring);

4) Studying the biography and experiences of the translator to realize what factors
motivated them to make particular translation choices (explore whether the author with
his cultural background or experience can somehow relate to the described experiences
and so on);

5) Studying both cultural to ensure that meanings presented by the author find reflection
in the minds of target audiences by implying Torop’s adaptive criticism;

6) Assessing translation from Torop’s specific and theoretical criticism approaches.