Today, grammatical, orthographical, and stylistic errors are found in the language of some works translated from world literature. It can be said that such flaws in a number of publications attract the reader's attention. This issue becomes even more relevant, especially considering that these translated works are also read by schoolchildren.
It is interesting to know, what are the main reasons for the emergence of linguistic and stylistic errors in translated literary works? Does this stem more from the translation process or the editing stage?
Translator and editor Aygun Aziz, providing a comprehensive statement to AzEdu.az on the topic, noted that the market-oriented policies of publishing houses also harm translation work from one perspective:
"Today, the occurrence of grammatical, orthographical, and stylistic errors in a number of literary works translated from world literature into Azerbaijani, as well as in self-help books that have gained a wide readership, is by no means accidental. Especially considering that these works are also read by schoolchildren, the resulting concern is understandable. Therefore, the issue should be regarded not only from an aesthetic but also from an educational perspective as a serious problem requiring extraordinary mobilization for its resolution.
I primarily see the reasons for such flaws in the gaps within the translator–editor–publisher chain. The main responsibility, undoubtedly, falls on the translator: even if they know the source language well, translators whose writing culture in their native language is not adequately developed mechanically transfer the original syntax into Azerbaijani, consequently disrupting the natural flow of the language. Disregarding stylistic differences and treating translation as a word-for-word technical conversion also deepens the problem. When our translators translate idioms and phrasal verbs from foreign languages, they render the text completely incomprehensible, misleading the reader. Such things lead to very significant distortions. The text, literally, becomes disfigured. Korney Chukovsky wrote about this: “A translator cannot be content with knowing two languages; they must be a writer in their native language.”
Weaknesses in the editing stage, where the editor fails to perform their job adequately, approaching their work with indifference and negligence, also lead to translation errors reaching the reader:
"The biggest problem for almost all publishing houses in Azerbaijan is the editor's lack of knowledge of the original language of the text being edited. The editor's unfamiliarity with the source language leads to their work being limited solely to stylistic editing. On this matter, Vladimir Nabokov said: “A beautiful translation poorly edited is more dangerous than a crude but honest translation.”
The market-oriented policies of publishing houses also harm translation work from one perspective. It is easy to blame and criticize, but the world is spinning rapidly (both literally and figuratively), there is an abundance of literature, and they compete with each other in a good sense as they want to translate more books to keep up with the times. However, factors such as rapid publication and low fees directly negatively impact quality. We can cite the translations of Constance Garnett, who introduced the giants of Russian literature, L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky, and A. Chekhov, to English readers, as an example. She rapidly translated complex Russian novels, resulting in numerous stylistic errors. Therefore, her translations were criticized by both readers and literary critics".
So, is the implementation of certification, specialization, or special control mechanisms necessary to improve translation quality?
"Of course, a certificate alone is not enough to improve translation quality. Testing can reveal superficial technical knowledge, but the level of linguistic intuition becomes apparent during the translation process. As early as the 17th century, the poet, playwright, and critic John Dryden wrote: “Translation is ‘the transposing of the soul, not of the words’.”
For high-quality translation, translators need to specialize, and the institution of professional editing needs to be strengthened. A dedicated school for this should be established. Those involved in translation must approach their work responsibly, be able to value words, and possess a rich vocabulary. Friedrich Schleiermacher very aptly noted: “The translator must either leave the writer alone as much as possible and move the reader toward him, or leave the reader alone as much as possible and move the writer toward him, but in both cases, the responsibility rests on him.”
Consequently, linguistic flaws in literary translations and general discourse are more the result of an unsystematic approach. This problem can only be solved with strong linguistic knowledge, seasoned translators, responsible editorial work, and public conscience.
Additionally, I would like to note with a heavy heart that, based on observations, the lexical repertoire of writers in the last 30–40 years has significantly narrowed compared to previous generations. In the works of Azerbaijani writers from the 1950s–60s–70s, an abundance of words and stylistic flexibility were clearly visible. In their texts, one would swim in an ocean of words, expressions, and phraseological units. Today's young generation – especially the Y/Z generation (those born in the 1990s and subsequent decades) – is unaware of a large part of this linguistic treasure. The impoverishment of speech, repetition of expressions, and loss of semantic nuances are not merely individual problems but indicators of the weakening of the general linguistic environment. All of these are compelling reasons to sound the alarm.
In this regard, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, also emphasized the importance of protecting the language:
“We have protected our language throughout all periods, and the Azerbaijani language we speak today does not differ from the Azerbaijani language spoken by our ancestors. Once the language is lost, national identity will also be lost, and after that, statehood will also be lost. Therefore, protecting the Azerbaijani language is the duty of each one of us.”
Poor translators particularly suffer from anemia:
"Finally, I present some quotes from the book “The High Art” by the renowned children's writer, publicist, poet, translator, essayist, journalist, and literary critic Korney Chukovsky, in my own translation. These are important recommendations to follow.
“The translator's work is effective when, without deviating from the original, but at the same time avoiding word-for-word, literal translation, they can convey the richness of thought, the depth of feelings, and the charm of the work through rich linguistic creativity without tiring the reader.
Poor translators particularly suffer from anemia. For this very reason, their texts turn out dry, boring, and monotonous. Their lexicon is extremely poor. All foreign words have only one meaning for them. Let's look at examples:
"HORSE" for them is just a horse. Why not “stallion”, “mare”, “steed”, “packhorse”, “trotter”, “foal”, or “chestnut horse”?
For these people, “BOAT” is always “boat” everywhere; it is never “sailboat”, “rowboat”, “motorboat”.
“PALACE” also doesn't change. Why not say “castle”, “mansion”, “edifice”, or “pavilion”?
Why do many translators only use the word “THIN” when writing about a person? Are other words scarce? Can't it be “skin and bones”, “scrawny”, “lifeless”, “frail”?
Why do they write “VERY COLD” instead of “frost”, “biting cold”, “bone-chilling”?
Why only “HUT”, and not “shack”, “cabin”?
Why do they only write “INTRIGUE” instead of “sedition”, “fraud”, “trick”, “trap”, “deceit”, “chicanery”?
When there are substitutes like “sorrow”, “grief”, “longing”, “melancholy”, why should the entire text be filled only with the word “SADNESS”?
Poor translators seem to think that girls can only be “BEAUTIFUL”. However, girls can also be “pretty”, “charming”, “pleasant-faced”, “graceful”, “delicate”, “attractive”."
Again, I would like to give an example of a fragment from Korney Chukovsky's book, which I translated and mentioned above, and which, though seemingly amusing at first glance, represents a very serious and unforgivable translation error stemming from negligence:
“Sometimes not only the translation, but even the entire creative fate of the translator themselves depends on a single word.” (Lev Ginzburg)
“This happened in the 1930s. A jubilee book about Maxim Gorky was being published at the Academy. One of the members of the scientific editorial board called me and asked if I knew an English writer named Orchard.
- Orchard?
- Yes. Cherry Orchard.
I burst out laughing. I explained that Cherry Orchard is not an English writer or anything of the sort; it is Anton Chekhov's work “The Cherry Orchard”. That is, in English, the word “çerri” (“cherry”, note: A.Ə.) means “cherry”, and “orçard” (“orchard”, note: A.Ə.) means “orchard”.
They said no, I was mistaken, and sent me a stack of newspapers from September 25, 1932, containing the text of Bernard Shaw's telegram to Maxim Gorky.
As I understood it, in this telegram, Bernard Shaw praised Gorky's plays, stating that they featured weak-willed and lifeless characters, similar to those in Chekhov's “The Cherry Orchard”. However, a TASS employee carelessly translated this, "creating" a mythical hero of the British Empire named Mr. Cherry Orchard, a bourgeois writer, from Chekhov's play, and reproached him because his characters did not resemble Gorky's.”
