The Practice and Strategies of Retranslation – Lessons from an Interview Study

Abstract

Our starting point in examining the practice and strategies of retranslation is the following two questions: what do we mean by retranslation, and what justifies the creation of retranslations? A review of the literature reveals questions surrounding the definition of retranslation and explores the various motivations behind retranslations, as well as reasons that legitimize the creation of new translations. The definition of retranslation is still debated in the literature today: retranslation can be interpreted chronologically, focusing on the fact that it follows the previous translation in time. At the same time, Peeters and Van Poucke (2023) emphasize that the definition of retranslation may also focus on the fact that the retranslated text is new and different from the previous one. Regarding motivations behind retranslations, it is crucial to note that although the retranslation process is difficult to justify from the perspective of a reader who is not translation-conscious (Kappanyos 2023), we can still identify five different reasons behind retranslation. First and foremost, there can be errors, omissions, and over-translations in the previous translation; we can also mention the aging of the translation; changes in the source language text; the unexpected success of the work; and, ultimately, the idea that each generation must retranslate its classics.

The pilot study seeks to answer the following questions: What strategies do translators use in the retranslation process? How does the process of retranslation differ from that of the first translation? The strategies and working methods used in retranslation constitute an area that cannot be explored solely through the examination of the target language text. For this reason, the interview research presented in the study, conducted with four renowned literary translators, provides an opportunity to form a realistic picture of the process of retranslation, of today's expectations of textual fidelity, and literary translators' relationship to and use of previous translations. All of the literary translators participating in the research, by name Péter Ádám, Ildikó Lőrinszky, Kornélia Kiss, and Júlia Jancsó translated 20th-century French novels into Hungarian that already had previous Hungarian translations. The results of the interview research highlight that the four literary translators use different strategies in the retranslation process, using the previous translation of the given work in different ways: while some literary translators do not use the previous translation at all in their own work, others report that the previous translation is a huge help, as it can be used for proofreading. In addition, the literary translators unanimously agreed that the first translations, produced in the 20th century no longer meet today's standards, and therefore retranslation is what can restore and authentically convey the author's intention to Hungarian readers. Although the interview protocol did not address the importance of critical editions, this issue nonetheless emerged as a significant finding of the research. In the case of certain works, the need for retranslation was not only justified by changes in standards and the "aging" of the translation, but also by changes in the source text itself. In some cases, the first translator would have had access to the critical edition, but used an earlier edition instead, while in other cases, the first translation predates the publication of the critical edition. In such cases, the new translator can work with a revised, critical edition and thus present an improved version to the Hungarian audience. Based on the results of the interview research, it can be stated that, in the eyes of the literary translators participating in the research, textual fidelity is the most important factor, and they are aware of the great responsibility that literary translators have in the reception history of a work: the interviewees strive to convey what the author created in the source text authentically, both in terms of content and style.