In all the files I have, I have recently come across my M.A. paper and decided to publish the below abstract on the translation methods with which I identify myself:
“On the continuum of translation methods presented by Newmark (2003: 45-46) we have a “word for word” approach at one end and “adaptation” at the other extreme. What falls in between is a communicative translation which “attempts to render the exact contextual meaning of the original in such a way that both language and content are readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership.” Using Dodds paraphrase (in Anderman and Rogers 1999: 57), communicative approach is about “getting the language right, which in short means getting the grammar, the lexis and the idiom of the (…) language right (…).” Following the ideas of functionalists, I also believe that the main role of a language is to involve people in the act of communication; when translating I try to apply the same principle.
Although communicative approach seems to be a reasonable compromise between other available translation methods, the application of such a technique reserves the translator the right to a freer manipulation within the frames of the text. This, however, can find its justification in an assumption that a translator should render the author’s thoughts, not words and this I also put into practice. Although word for word translation and communicative approach seem to be quite distant from each other, I also apply the technique of literal translation. This is done on the grounds that sometimes it is better to keep closely to the text rather than to “overtranslate”. Too great “involvement” with the text most often obscures its accuracy. For this reason, literal translation has its advantages.
A successful completion of any translation requires a certain amount of research. The most important thing is to become an “expert” on a given subject and this, of course, entails reading as many TL reference materials as possible. Effort put increases the authenticity of the text and has a positive influence on the overall intelligibility of the publication. Nonetheless, I often have to make autonomous decisions as to which term to apply because there is no consistency in the linguistic code related to a given subject.