CHAPTER FOUR
2. TEXTUAL ANALYSIS 1 Title
The first strategic problem arises in the title, which risks translation loss at what Hervey, Higgins and Loughridge identify as discourse and intertextual levels. At the discourse level, Simenon’s own title is not entirely congruent with the narrative, in that the charretier of the title does not feature prominently. The narrative is more concerned with the English aristocrat Sir Walter Lampson and the inhabitants of the
Southern Cross. The title is, however, indicative of the early stage of Simenon’s career, in that the source texts from this period do not follow the later formula of including the Commissaire’s name combined with another aspect of the narrative. This device reflects the formulaic nature of the Maigret corpus and the genre as a whole, and thus has a significant intertextual function. Effberg’s translation dates from 1934, and his title, Die Nacht an der Schleuse, reflects Simenon’s practice in the early period of his career, since it does not refer to Maigret. However, translation loss is incurred at the discourse level: the title is not strictly accurate, since more than a single night is described in the course of the narrative, and the murders themselves occur on two separate nights. Jutta Sonnenberg’s target text, on the other hand, dates from 1966, when Simenon was established as an author. Her title, Maigret tappt im Dunkeln, is more akin to those of the source texts that appeared at the time of the translation, taking Maigret’s name and a further aspect of the text. Loss thus occurs nonetheless at the intertextual level, for although by naming the Commissaire it echoes the later established pattern, it is very non-specific, in that it could apply to any Maigret novel: he always ‘gropes in the dark’ at the beginning of an
investigation. Taking into account the fact that Simenon’s own title does not fully correspond with the narrative, an apt rendering of the title would be an adaptation of Sprick’s 1983 translation: Der Treidler der >Providence<, which involves transfer of the invariant semantic core, and retains the slight incongruity of the author’s own title. The contemporary translations (Effberg and the unattributed 1934 translation) and Baldick’s title, Lock 14, reflect the early publication of the source text.15 The unattributed translation’s title, The Crime at Lock 14, is problematic, because it
15 The original title of this translation, however, was Maigret Meets a Milord, which, like Sonnenberg’s
implies one crime will take place at the lock. A solution to this difficulty would be the removal of the definite article: Crime at Lock 14. A further possible alternative would be Murder at Lock 14. This minimises loss, because it preserves the specificity of the source text title and the narrative, whilst being intertextually appropriate for
Simenon’s novels of the time. 2.2 Chapter Divisions
A further general point merits note at the outset in relation to the discourse level. Where the other translators maintain Simenon’s chapter titles and structuring, Effberg omits the headings, and changes the chapter divisions, making the source text’s chapters into smaller entities and generally splitting where the source text has a line break to indicate a change of direction in the narrative. For example, chapters one to three of Effberg’s translation correspond to chapter one of the original and the other target texts. In terms of discourse, this entails inappropriate translation loss: the overall effect of the translation is of a more fragmentary narrative, with events
seeming to occur at spaced intervals, rather than consecutively. The overall coherence of this translation would be improved if the original chapter divisions were retained, as has been done in the other target texts.
The above issues relating to the titles and chapters are evidence of the need to translate contextually, taking account not only of ‘lower’ levels of Hervey, Higgins and Loughridge’s formal properties, but also of the ‘higher’ levels of discourse and intertextuality, as suggested in chapter one.
2.3 Passage Analysis QUOTATION I The novel opens:
Des faits le plus minutieusement reconstitués, il ne se dégageait rien, sinon que la découverte des deux charretiers de Dizy était pour ainsi dire impossible. (p.7)
This passage is significant, in that it presents a concentration of salient contextual and linguistic features, which gives rise to a number of strategic problems at the
sentential, intertextual, semantic and cultural levels. Effberg’s target text begins:
Auch die nachträgliche, auf das genaueste vorgenommene Aufreihung der einzelnen Vorfälle führte zu keinem anderen Ergebnis als dem, daß der schauerliche Fund, den die beiden Fuhrleute von Dizy gemacht hatten, eigentlich in das Reich der Fabel zu verweisen war. (p.5)
Sonnenberg opens her translation as follows:
Auch bei sorgsamster Prüfung aller Tatsachen ließ sich aus ihnen nur ein einziger Schluß ziehen, nämlich der, daß die Entdeckung der beiden Fuhrmänner aus Dizy sozusagen unmöglich war. (p.5)
The passage is significant at the sentential level, since it is designed to catch the reader’s attention by beginning in medias res. The reader is plunged straight into events, and is given more information gradually: the facts are mentioned before something of the mystery is revealed. The sentential sequence in the original thus shifts from the particular to the general, prefiguring the plot, and therefore having ramifications at the discourse level: moving from small details to more general conclusions about who committed the crime and why. Both translations follow the basic structure of the source text extract. However, in Effberg’s translation, the reference to ‘Vorfälle’is delayed in the sentence, tempering the emphatic effect. The order is also important at the prosodic level: the stress in the French text falls at the end of the phrase, that is, on ‘impossible,’ marking this as the most important piece of information. Sonnenberg’s target text is also constructed in such a way that
immediately before the closing Verbklammer (verbal bracket),16 the finite verb form ‘war.’ (Conventionally, the penultimate position is where the most important piece of new information is placed in a subordinate clause in German). The discovery made by the two drivers17 cannot actually be ‘impossible,’ because, however surprising it may seem, it did take place, and, by placing the notion of apparent impossibility in
penultimate position, Sonnenberg more effectively conveys the irony at work in the source text.
Effberg’s decision not to place the information at the end of the passage incurs inappropriate translation loss at the semantic level, particularly in terms of
connotative meaning: ‘in das Reich der Fabel’ is not only less explicit than Sonnenberg’s ‘unmöglich,’ and therefore less emphatic, it further adds an
inappropriate supernatural element and subjectivity into the text, having connotations of myths and fairytales. Translation loss is thus also incurred contextually, in that figurative rhetorical devices such as this are not part of Simenon’s writing style, and references to the supernatural do not occur. However, Effberg’s translation can be understood intertextually, against the background of the system of native German- language detective fiction, where the supernatural does feature. In E.T.A. Hoffmann’s
Das Fräulein von Scuderi, for example, malevolent external forces appear to be at work.18 The murderer Cardillac’s actions are presented as being outwith his control: he explains he is the plaything of an evil star. Thus, though the supernatural may be considered inappropriate in terms of Simenon’s œuvre, it is found in German- language detective fiction. It is therefore not necessarily unexpected for the target audience, and this may explain Effberg’s idiom. Overt subjectivity is also found in ‘der schauerliche Fund,’ the translation of the source text’s neutral ‘la découverte.’19 Simenon’s authorial style is more matter-of-fact, as found throughout his œuvre, and potentially attributable to his early career as a journalist (see chapter two).
Furthermore, the addition of ‘schauerlich’ tempers the effect of surprise achieved later, when the revelation of the nature of the drivers’ discovery takes place.
16 A.E. Hammer, Hammer’s German Grammar and Usage, revised by Martin Durrell (London/New
York/Melbourne/Auckland: Edward Arnold, 1991; first published 1971), p.455.
17 ‘Driver’ is the term used in the unattributed 1934 English translation (see, for example, p.171, p.172
and p.173). Baldick’s chosen expression is ‘carter,’ which suggests one who drives carts, rather than barges.
18 E.T.A. Hoffmann, Das Fräulein von Scuderi (Cologne: Anaconda, 2007 [1818/1819]). 19 The supernatural and subjectivity are central to the writing of the German Romantic period.
Admittedly, because of the formulaic character of detective fiction, the reader
anticipates that a crime will have occurred; however, the popularity of the genre rests to some extent on the reader being able to suppress previous experience.
The 1934 English translation runs:
From the most meticulous reconstruction of the facts, no conclusion was possible other than that the discovery made by the two canal men of Dizy was, so to speak, impossible. (p.171)
Baldick’s translation:
Nothing could be deduced from the most minute reconstruction of the facts, except that the find by the two carters from Dizy was so to speak impossible. (p.1)
In the unattributed translation, loss occurs firstly at the level of language variety, with regard to tonal register. ‘Meticulous reconstruction,’ in particular, manifests an increased degree of formality compared with the original. The loss of the authorial style is inappropriate, not least because the style contributes to the readability of a Simenon text. There may, however, be a contextual explanation for the decision motivating this translation. There is some precedent for formality in English-language detective fiction: in chapter two, it was shown that Poe and Doyle’s detective writing employed stylistic formality. These two writers are widely read, and as such the formality of their writing style may help shape an English-speaking target audience’s expectations, and this, in turn, may have acted as an influence (or a constraint) upon the translator.20 However, adopting this formal tonal register creates too great a degree of varietal and contextual loss, and thus it is preferable to retain instead the relative simplicity and informality of the source text.
Lexical loss also arises in this translation, from the use of ‘possible’ and ‘impossible’ in very close succession. This weakens the sentential focus on
‘impossible.’ The apparent impossibility is the most significant piece of information
in this extract; thus its undermining constitutes inappropriate loss. In order to preserve the sentential and lexical effect, a possible alternative would be ‘no conclusions could be drawn.’
At the semantic level, the translation contains an instance of generalisation: that is, the use of a hyperonym, or a term with a broader meaning than that of the source text expression, namely ‘canal men.’21 In this case, the loss of the source text specificity of ‘charretier’ is avoidable. The fact that the men are drivers is significant in the context of the plot: they are about to uncover the misdeed of one of their own kind. The irony of the situation is thus reduced in the target text, but would be preserved with the use of ‘drivers.’
In a similar vein, Baldick’s rendering is more formal than the original text, most obviously in the expressions ‘deduced’ and ‘the most minute reconstruction.’ The translation reads almost like a formal legal report, but Simenon’s style is relatively informal throughout his work, and is thus a crucial element in the reading experience of a Simenon text and its specificity. Again, the translation decision incurs avoidable loss at the level of language variety, which affects the contextual level, and would be minimised if the informal style of the original were to be preserved.
Secondly, at the semantic level, it is questionable whether ‘minute’ is an apt rendering of ‘minutieusement.’ If Popovič’s transfer of the invariant core is applied
here, a more felicitous translation of the source language expression would be ‘careful.’ ‘Minutieusement’ and the English ‘minute’ do not share a common
semantic core, making ‘minute’ a faux ami. In any case, ‘minute’ generally collocates with ‘detail;’ thus the combination ‘minute reconstruction,’ creates further semantic loss. A more idiomatic English translation, that takes accounts of all of the above, would be:
Even when the facts were carefully put together, no conclusions could be drawn, except that the discovery made by the two drivers from Dizy seemed somehow impossible.
QUOTATION II
The omniscient third-person narrator then outlines the events that took place before the ‘découverte’:
A ce moment, il y avait dans le port, au-dessus de l’écluse 14, qui fait la jonction entre la Marne et le canal latéral, deux péniches à moteur avalantes, un bateau en déchargement et une vidange.
Un peu avant sept heures, alors que commençait le crépuscule, un bateau- citerne, l’Eco III, s’était annoncé et avait pénétré dans le sas. (p.7)
Here, strategic problems arise at the grammatical and discourse levels. The passage is also significant for its use of lexis from the canal and nautical semantic fields. Lexical loss should be minimised, for specificity here lies, firstly, in the creation of a word system (which is also a discourse-level issue, because it helps create cogency) that constitutes the major lexical element of the novel, and secondly in the relation of that word system to Simenon’s own biography, a contextual factor in translation.22
The corresponding paragraphs in Effberg’s target text run:
In diesem Augenblick befanden sich in dem Hafen oberhalb der Schleuse Nr. 14, die die Verbindung zwischen Marne und dem Seitenkanal bildet, zwei zu Tal fahrende Motorboote, ein Kahn beim Löschen und eine leere Zille. Kurz vor sieben Uhr, als gerade die Dämmerung einsetzte, hatte ein Tankschiff, Echo III, seine Ankunft angezeigt und war in die Schleusenkammer eingefahren. (p.5)
Sonnenberg translates as follows:
Zu dieser Zeit befanden sich im Kanalabschnitt oberhalb von Schleuse vierzehn, die die Verbindung zwischen der Marne und dem Seitenkanal
22 See Hervey, Higgins and Loughridge (1995), p.59, for a more comprehensive explanation of word
herstellte, zwei stromabwärts fahrende Lastkähne, ein Schiff, das seine Ladung löschte, und ein Schlackenräumboot.
Bei einsetzender Dämmerung, kurz vor sieben Uhr abends, hatte sich ein Tankschiff, die ›Eco III‹, angemeldet und war in die Schleusenkammer eingefahren. (p.5)
The first translation problem is grammatical: the use of the present tense finite verb ‘fait’ in the source text. This indicates the imparting of factual data, for a map can verify that the Marne and the secondary canal do meet here.23 Verisimilitude is thus created. Effberg mitigates potential loss by employing the present tense ‘bildet.’ The second difficulty occurs at the discourse level. The use of successive temporal
markings builds a sense of tension that rises until it finds catharsis in the revelation of what the two drivers have found. It is therefore important, in terms of discourse, for the temporal markers to occupy the appropriate syntactic position and for the
translator to maintain this syntax throughout the opening pages, so that the impression of a countdown is given. Effberg does this, beginning both paragraphs with explicit temporal markers.
Semantically, an instance of mistranslation occurs in Effberg’s version, in the reference ‘eine leere Zille.’ The corresponding source text expression is ‘une
vidange,’ which refers to a boat that clears debris from the bed of a stretch of water. Effberg’s translation implies an empty barge, which, despite being an item of technical vocabulary from the appropriate field, does not convey the invariant semantic core.
The final point of interest in Effberg’s translation is the Germanisation of Eco III. This suggests a target audience bias, which results in unacceptable loss, because it effaces the specificity of the cultural otherness inherent in the name. Effberg’s
strategy throughout normalises references with cultural values: the markers of difference found in the original are effaced where feasible. The fact that the text is a translation is thereby obscured.24
23 Charles Hadfield, The Canal Age (Newton Abbot/London/North Pomfret: David and Charles, 1981;
first published 1968), p.187.
24 For a discussion of this type of issue, see Ovidi Carbonell, ‘Exoticism in Translation: Writing,
Representation, and the Postcolonial Context,’ in: Isabel Santaolalla, ed., “New” Exoticisms. Changing Patterns in the Construction of Otherness (Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi, 2000), p.57.
Sonnenberg deals with the strategic problem of tense by using a preterite form, ‘herstellte,’ which could be taken to imply that this is simply another piece of
narrative, rather than fact, thereby entailing unacceptable grammatical loss. Effberg’s choice of the present tense form ‘bildet,’ therefore, is the more appropriate of the two. It transfers the invariant core, in this instance both semantic and temporal, giving an impression of factual authenticity. With regard to the discourse level problem, Sonnenberg does not place the second of the two temporal markers here in the most apt syntactic position. Rather than appearing in initial position, ‘kurz vor sieben Uhr abends’ falls in second place, and thus the sense of accumulating tension is lessened. This loss can be mitigated, as Effberg’s version shows.
With regard to the lexical and contextual strategic difficulties, three terms from Sonnenberg’s translation merit careful scrutiny. These are ‘der Kanalabschnitt’ (‘le port’), ‘ein Schlackenräumboot’ (‘une vidange’) and ‘die Schleusenkammer’ (‘le sas’). Isolating the terms in this way may appear to go against the ethos of this project, but they will be considered contextually, that is, in the wider context of the novel and background culture, even if they are isolated from their immediate co-text.
‘Der Kanalabschnitt,’ is an instance of partially-overlapping translation.25 The French expression ‘le port’ implies a much larger construction, possibly with a city or large town built around it. The German ‘der Hafen,’ employed by Effberg, is similar, and both seem to suggest a stopping point on the coast rather than on an inland canal. Sonnenberg’s rendering is partially overlapping, in that it retains the reference to a stopping place for boats, loses the allusion to a larger construction and adds the explicit reference to the canal. The wider context of chapter and novel makes it clear that ‘coastal stopping point’ is not the meaning intended by Simenon, for the narrative