FairLoc came into being in part to counteract a growing sense that translation is a mechanical practice that can easily be automated. But if you look at the history of translation as a craft, it has long since been entrenched in the world of academia and intellect. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, for example, the Toledo School of Translators was considered a European centre of culture and learning. At the crossroads of the Arabic and the European world, it was a repository of thought, knowledge and contemplation, attracting scholars from far and wide.
Today, translation students study extensive programmes at Bachelor’s and Master’s level which examine the works of academic heavyweights from Umberto Eco to Jacques Derrida and Susan Bassnett. These students not only consider the practical elements of translation, but they also reflect on how the act of translating intersects with other disciplines such as philosophy, art, culture, morality, ethics and history.
What this means is that the study of translation equips human translators with a number of tools and considerations that they can then deploy in their professional lives. These are skills that require a deep level of reflection and which no machine can match. To get a sense of what these entail, let’s take a quick crash course in the academic theory and practice of translation:
Domesticising versus foreignising translations
One of the key threads to run through academic translation theory is the difference between the domesticising and the foreignising approaches (sometimes also referred to as exoticisiation). In other words, to what extent should the translator change the text so that it conforms with the world of the reader, and to what extent should we allow it to remain strange, foreign and somewhat unknowable?
Sometimes domesticisation can zap a text of what makes it appealing. It can also ring untrue if the world conjured up by the translator grates against the imagined world held in the head of their reader. Go too far in the other direction, however, and a foreignising text can feel strange and impenetrable. It may even trigger accusations of cultural appropriation if certain terms or references are retained in a way that feels tokenistic or exploitative, or if their retention serves to other or to essentialise the foreign culture.
The best translations combine these two approaches in a way that gives us a new understanding of the foreign world, without reducing it to something simplistic or false. When deciding whether to domesticise or foreignise a particular excerpt or reference, human translators will consider dozens of different factors, from possible misinterpretations and reinterpretations to contemporary debates around cultural borrowings and the ethics of each choice.
The hermeneutic approach
The study of hermeneutics is associated with scholars such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Hans-Georg Gadamer. It concerns the study of interpretation and accepts that language is not a transparent medium for the communication of information as it is wrapped up in a web of cultural, social and historical factors.
In practice, the hermeneutic approach therefore involves not just consideration of the actual source text, but of the author and their historical and cultural context in order to tease out a more nuanced reflection of its many layers of intended and unintended meaning. However, the study of hermeneutics also recognises that the translator brings their own biases and preconceived notions to their interpretation of any text. Gadamer refers to this as a fusion of horizons, suggesting that the worldview of the translator inevitably influences the process of textual interpretation.
Human translators are aware of all these factors and can bring them into play in their problem-solving. For example, if something does not seem quite right, the translator can reflect on the author’s background and on their own worldview in order to enter into a dialogue with the text and iron out any kinks. This enables deeper meanings to be brought to the fore and for an altogether more considered and conscientiously crafted translation to be produced.
The translator’s (in)visibility
You may have heard the old adage that a good translation is one that reads like a native text. The idea is that the translator ought to disappear and leave no trace of themselves in their work. However, this notion was challenged by the American scholar Lawerence Venuti in 1995 when he published his book The Translator’s Invisibility.
In this publication, Venuti argues that because translation is necessarily an interpretative process, the translator should be afforded a more visible and active role. Rather than downplay the mediation of a translator, he encourages translators to make bolder and more deliberate choices in their work. This includes retaining elements that may seem foreign or challenging to readers, and which thus remind them that they are reading the product of another culture with its own complexities and idiosyncrasies.
Above all, Venuti’s work has reinvigorated centuries-old debates about the ethics and power dynamics inherent in translation and how different cultures and concepts of existence are represented across linguistic domains. These are complex yet important debates, especially in our current world which is at once globalised yet also steeped in misinformation and competing agendas. Professional human translators consider their position and their visibility carefully as they work, and make decisions on how to represent the words they have been entrusted to translate.
The human toolkit
All of these theories – and many more – leave the translator with a deep understanding of their craft and many tools they can use in their work. Now contrast this with the approach of the machine, which simply cobbles together a patchwork of old translations and uses datasets to guess at what word a human might use next.
It picks its words blindly, without any understanding of the wider cultural context from which its text has come or into which it is going to be inserted. Unlike a human translator, the machine has no sense of itself and its own biases, and it cannot reflect on these or mitigate against them in its work.
In short, the machine is a blunt tool that can hammer together a translation of sorts, but it is completely unlike the refined and complex human mind, with its knowledge of and appreciation for the ethical, cultural and philosophical considerations of translation.
So there you have it! We hope you have enjoyed this crash course in translation theory, and that it has given you a fresh appreciation for why FairLoc exists! To learn more about FairLoc, or the wonders of human creativity in translation, check out our About page here.
