It is commonly agreed that the task of the translator does not consist in a linguistic transcoding, but in a production of a communicative act. This is, of course, an act sui generis, since translators do not transmit a ‘personal’ message, but puts their skills at the service of an already existing message. Nevertheless, the mere fact that this act generates a text means that the translator is performing an act of ‘writing’, to be intended as the production of a communication, as the producer of the source text did. The difference between the two acts – the one of the source writer and the one of the target writer – is to be found in the content and purposes of the act performed, but not in the nature of the act of writing itself. This is crucial because it directly concerns the status of translators, and ultimately the dignity of their role. Are translators mere transcoders, or are they real communicators/writers? That is the question.

The British writer Hilaire Belloc was particularly clear on this. Speaking of the skills the translator must possess, he noted that:

He must write well in the tongue into which he translates, for a translation is a bit of writing like any other and varies like any other in vernacular excellence. (Belloc, On Translation, 1931)

According to Belloc, translating is writing, and the work of the translator can be compared to work of the source writer. For this reason, the translator’s writing must be a quality work too. In other words, the quality of the translation cannot depend only on a formal adherence to the source text, as could be the product of a simple transcoding. Rather, the correspondence between the source text and the target text should be based on communication analysis, since communication is the core and purpose of writing. Therefore,the translator must also be a good communicator and writer. More.

See: Translation Blog