Dear Ramia,

Let me start by saying that translation from one language to another language is a high demanding task, namely when poetry is involved. Your question -- Which is more important in translation, faithfulness to the source text or markedness of the translated text? -- has not to be seen as a either/or question, because both alternatives may be the case. Of course, if a translation is not faithful to the source text, we may say that it is no translation at all. This aspect notwithstanding, we can leave our mark when we are involved in a task translation. This happens, for example, when we performed, say, an excellent translation. Of course, this is a short answer to your question.

Best regards

Taking into account that translation can be considered as a kind of reporting speech, faithfulness is relative. It ranges from a verbatim, could be 'phonetic' representation of the ST, to a semantic one. A translator sometimes finds himself in need to use the original language form, i.e. 'phonetic' translation. He may translate even language errors of the original form, hence submits to such extremes of faithfulness. All these strategies do not contradict with markedness, particularly when they are done on purposes. A translator after all is a new author.

Dear Ramia Mirza,

Generally speaking, the application of semantic method to objectively transfer the author's intended message from the source text to the target text emphasizing formal/ textual equivalence enjoys a long history, and it was mostly adopted and used for  translating holy scriptures and literary texts (see Catford). However, the notions of objectivity and faithfulness fail to satisfy the inherent intricacies associated with different languages where cognitive side of narratology entwines with heremeneutical strategies which translators utilize to translate different text types. Consequently, universalist ideology- the fact that all languages have potentially  the same  resources for creating specific messages,  was soon replaced by more particularist views contending that each language has its own mechanisms for conveying meaning. The dynamic textuality model of equivalence offered by de Beaugrand as well as suggestions made by other scholars like Koller, Gutt, and Baker reveal that equivalence is not always absolute ;  rather , as you have rightly observed, it is marked because micro and macro-semiotic structures generated by context (i.e., register and genre) result in the markedness of the translated texts. for further details, I refer you to a book titled "Teaching and Researching Translation" by Hatim and Mason (2014 ).

Best regards,

R. Biria

Word-by-word translation is not correct. As each language has its different structure and fragrance. The same thing can be expressed differently in different regions and language. Use of idioms are also different.

A translator has a duty to preserve the meaning of the texts, but has to use different sets of vocabulary, syntax, grammar etc.

I think it should be the combination of the both. A lot depends on the peculiarity of the language being translated and the target language. One requires to realize the cultural significance of the language and events of both the languages. 

I also see translation becomes a kind of experience where 'faithfulness to the source texts' becomes important due to certain possibility of plurality and irrelevance of meaning. Impossibility of translation of certain cultural traits in the expression could be dealt with the utmost care for 'markedness' of the translated text. This is how it becomes a mixed and complex experience. However, readers tend to respond to the translated text with the lot of 'personal' influence and preoccupation.

A translator after all is a new author.I support Sadiq Al Shamiri Views about your query.

The purpose of the target text is also is a determining factor that should inform the translator's decision.The translator has muchness freedom when translating a contract than when translating poetry!

ofcourse faithfulness to the source text. because the aim of translation is not to write or compose new thing. on the contrary to tranfer a written text as it is to an other language. that is why the translater must be faithful to source text. or else he would put forward some things by himself and claim that they are in the source text which is not fair but an obvious slander. but the best translation is the one which is both  faithful to the source text and marked in terms of translated text

I accept the views of Kiran Grove and Sadiq Al Shamir. Translation activity shifts the source text from one context to the other. Each language has its unique system and so equivalence is not always possible.  Moreover a poet can translate another poem. Therefore translation activity is an active creative process.