Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 1996. Vol. 1. Eger Journal of English Studies.(Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 24)

Péter Ortutay: How to evaluate translation?

misinterpretations. It is needless to quote examples: the Hungarian history of translation abounds in them. 1.1. At the same time, if we say that there is no, or at least hardly any professionally objective translation criticism, then it will not be very difficult to understand the reasons for it either. After all, it is possible to give an objectve evaluation of something only in cases when there are scientifically elaborated sound criteria at our disposal, a kind of gauge if you please, which, however, are missing even now, in an era of conspicuous achievements in the field of linguistics and translation studies. And instead of trying to elaborate the above mentioned objective criteria for assessing the quality of translations, there are still always hot - and absolutely useless - debates both in Hungary and abroad about whether it is possible to translate in general and at all, and then whether it is possible to evaluate objectively a given translation or not. Let me quote some typical points of view. In the opinion of certain authors "professional translation is an art; and it is more than harmful illusion to demand or to try to give an objectively accepted clue, pattern or key. It is impossible to evaluate any translation objectively either in principle or in practice" (András, 1988:137). Another author, however, is of the opposite opinion, and it is stressed in the title of her article already: "If the exercise is translation, then we must have a key" (Előd, 1988:187). According to others, too, "it would be most expedient to have standards for assessing translations" (Fehér, 1988:199). Earlier István Bart had already elaborated a definition to explain the essence of these 'standards' or - as Bart puts it - 'gauge' (mérce): "Translators of fiction have only one choice and alternative, have only one possibility and no other. It is to recompose the hie et nunc valid message of the original into a new work of fiction. That is the only requirement or gauge" (Bart, 1981:269). Had the problem been as simple as Bart thinks it to be, furthur investigations and research would be quite useless. But the problem is that in case of literary works the notion 'valid message' is a rather broad and evasive category. First of all, "a work of literature is always open, and the bigger is the degree of this openness, the better it is for that work itself' (Eco,1975:12). 128