A comparative Study of Agnes Grey’s Spanish Translations

Introduction

Agnes Grey is a novel written by Anne Brontë in 1846 and first published in 1847. The English source text used for this study corresponds to the edition published by Penguin Books in 1988 and reprinted in 2004 – this version is the one used here. The two Spanish translations used for this study were first published by Alba Editorial and Ediciones Cátedra in 1997 and 2000, respectively. Specifically, Alba Editorial’s third edition from Brontë 2016 and Ediciones Cátedra’s fourth edition, also from Brontë 2016, are the books used for this analysis. It is worth mentioning that another Spanish translation of Agnes Grey, which was carried out by Laura Fernández, was published by Editorial Alma in Brontë 2020. As for The Tenant of Wildfell Hell, the second and last novel written by Anne Brontë in 1848, Alba Editorial published in Brontë 1997 a Spanish translation, which was analysed by Torralbo Caballero in 2020.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the fidelity of both translations in terms of content and style and to compare the method followed by the two translators: Menchu Gutiérrez López in 1997 and Elizabeth Power in 2000. It is worth mentioning that their translations have been selected because their methods are clearly different. Accordingly, the main contribution of this work is an extensive comparative analysis based on 87 examples. These examples have been selected as they are the most representative. Likewise, they are divided into 16 tables, each corresponding to one or several chapters, to provide clarity. In addition, the examples provided in the tables can be easily found in their respective books as the pages are included.

Theoretical Grounds

The term “fidelity” can be related to several aspects in translation. However, this study refers to “fidelity” as applied to sense in translation, which means being faithful to the source text’s message, to the target language’s mechanisms and to the translation’s readers (Hurtado 202).

As for the translator’s method, some translations could be adequate, and others could be acceptable, according to Gideon Toury (Zaro and Truman 51): the former refers to “when the translator basically follows or adheres to the norms of the source culture” (Zaro and Truman 51), and the latter refers to that “the translator keeps mainly to the norms of the target culture” (Zaro and Truman 51). In other words, adequate translations are more literal translations, showing the source text’s style, and acceptable translations are more focused on the target audience, showing a more natural and colloquial style.

Comparative Analysis

Agnes Grey can be considered an autobiographical novel written in first person and in a simple style, i.e. few adjectives and short sentences and descriptions. Through the exhaustive comparative analysis presented in this article, it is shown that, although both Spanish translations are faithful to the source text, the methods used by the two translators are rather different. Specifically, and following Hurtado’s classification (252), the translation provided by Menchu Gutiérrez López is focused on a communicative method – i.e. a text closer to readers in terms of style, but reflecting the original content – whereas the translation by Elizabeth Power is based on a philological method – i.e. footnotes are included when necessary and information about the author, the social context and the novel itself is provided by way of introduction in the first pages of the book (Table 1).

From the beginning of the novel there is a clear difference between the two translations. While the syntax of the sentences of the TT2 mainly follows the same structure of the original sentences – examples 1 and 2 – TT1 tends to use a simpler structure, although it is true that TT1 occasionally reflects the original structure – examples 4 and 6. Moreover, TT2 uses formal words (emolumentos, prebenda, parte alícuota and aflicción), thus reflecting the formal tone of the source text, and TT1 tends to use more casual expressions (modesta renta, casa, una buena parte, se puso en marcha and cayó una buena). It is worth mentioning that this pattern is followed by the two translations throughout the whole text. Thus, the explanations of the following tables will be mainly focused on specific aspects (Table 2).

As mentioned above, the same tendency of the translations in Chapter 1 is followed in Chapter 2: the sentence structures in TT2 are the same as in the source text – examples 10, 11, 12 and 13 – while in TT1 sentences are shortened and more direct. However, TT2 uses two colloquial expressions (encontraría a mis anchas and mantenerla a raya), unlike TT1.

All the examples in Table 3 – except example 19 – show again that the Spanish sentences of TT2 are a literal translation of the source text, including the vocabulary (vara de abedul, intervención paternal and política). In contrast, the words in TT1 are more colloquial (cachete. deberes and batallas), and sentences are shortened (imponía las suyas, bajo ningún concepto and lo más inteligente).

By way of exception, Table 4 presents two examples of the TT2 including set phrases (sacarle de sus casillas and hacía la vista gorda). In turn, TT1 uses an idiomatic expression (convertir la habitación en una leonera) (Table 5).

Example 25 also shows a natural and colloquial way of translating a sentence (coquetería propia de las mujeres), unlike TT2, with a more faithful translation in terms of style (afectación de ceñirse un corsé). In addition, the syntax in TT2 is the same as the source text – i.e. two comparative sentences – whereas TT1 uses first a comparative structure and then a conditional sentence. Example 27 shows that both translations reflect the semantic meaning of the original sentence, but once again TT1 uses more colloquial expressions (los voy a hacer papilla and me lo voy a pasar de lo lindo) (Table 6).

These examples strongly show that the original sentences are very naturally translated in TT1, whereas translations in TT2 are too literal (reservas, industria, transacciones and mis veinte años de estancia sobre la tierra) and formal (hacer economías) (Table 7).

Once again, examples 33, 34, 37 and 38 include literal translations in TT1 (inflingiré, ansiosa, atractivos superficiales, mente and asuntos enojosos), while TT2 renders natural translations (cansaré, preocupación, hacerlas lo más atractivas, espíritu and fastidioso asunto). Despite the naturalisation of TT1, example 34 includes an exclamation that does not exist in the source text, thus modifying the original style, unlike TT2. However, TT2 follows the original syntax in example 35 (ninguno de los cuales), making reading difficult to some extent. In addition, TT1 uses a set phrase (ligera de cascos) that implies a sexual connotation, thus changing the original meaning (Table 8).

Example 39 – corresponding to Chapter 8 – shows a colloquial expression (una pasa), which refers to the wrinkled face of a person who could be young or old; however, it perfectly reflects the original meaning, as TT2 does, but in a direct way. The other two examples – corresponding to Chapter 9 – are two different but correct options, although pedazo de and animal in TT1 provide a stronger semantic connotation (Table 9).

Except example 43, in which TT1 provides a literal translation (soy un excelente juez), all the translated sentences follow the same pattern: TT2 provides literal translations, whereas TT1 uses idiomatic expressions (andando como un pato), colloquial words (pillarle) and natural sentences and syntax (a mi regreso and ¡Si se hubiera…, le habría…!).

Table 10 shows two aspects: on the one hand, example 48 includes two literal translations rendered by TT2 that could be strange for Spanish readers (se ponían mentalmente en su lugar and juzgándolos de un orden de personas), so the natural translations provided by TT1 are more appropriate (ponerse en su lugar and teniéndolos por seres). On the other hand, Spanish readers could be more familiar with the word críticas than with reconvenciones; however, the latter is the option that provides the original meaning (Table 11).

In these cases, TT2 uses formal words (replicado, replique, renuencia and cambiantes veleidades) as well as literal translations (lenguaje algo fuerte and humor feroz), in contrast with the colloquial translation in TT1 (contesté, le lleve la contraria, lo último que quería, caprichosos cambios de ideas, ese tipo de lenguaje y humor de perros). It is worth mentioning that both translators provide a neutral translation when translating the way of speaking of certain characters – example 52 – so this characteristic is lost in both translations (Table 12).

TT2 provides once again literal translations and more formal nouns and verbs (sacrificaran, susceptible, aprecia, apreciarlo, ceremonia fraternal, paso boyante, mejilla arrebolada and promulgará), as well as a milder tone (el mayor picaro and estarían encantadas de aceptarlo) than that used in TT1 (el mayor sinvergüenza). On the other hand, colloquial words (despachado, atraída and gustarle) and expressions (no se tome las cosas tan a pecho, lo proclamará a los cuatro vientos and se morirían por cazarle) are used by TT1 (Table 13).

Apart from formal words (rudeza, lo monopolizó, fatuo, perentorio anhelo and sucumbir) in TT2, there is a literal translation (una apasionada explosion de llanto), which reflects the poetical style of the source text, unlike TT1. However, example 68 shows that TT1 includes the exclamative phrase displayed in the source text. Moreover, the colloquial expression pedazo de is included in example 64, thus providing a stronger semantic connotation than TT2 and reflecting the original semantic connotation (Table 14).

Once again, formal words proliferate in TT2 (exhortaciones, renuencia, hermano famélico, ínfimo bocado and ominosos), whereas TT1 reflects more common words and expressions (consejos, rechazo, pedazo más pequeño, perro hambriento and alarmantes) (Table 15).

Naturalisation is very appropriate in TT1 (mi misión era oír y callar, haya ido a parar, después de haber caído tan bajo and porque habíamos nacido el uno para el otro). Moreover, the ironic tone of the source text is reflected in abuelito and señorona, unlike the options provided by TT2 (abuelo and matrona muy seria). However, literal translations in 76 and 81 from TT2 reflect the original style and meaning.

Finally, Table 16 also reflects the pattern followed by both translators throughout their respective translations: TT2 uses formal (en boga, cuitas, anaqueles and invalidado) and literal words and expressions (conspicuo, profesora consumada, ascendido la cuesta, señal tácita and objeciones), whereas TT1 uses more common and colloquial words and expressions (que había llevado, problemas, estanterías, despejado, el más constante, buena profesora, subir, me dio a entender claramente, and dudas).

Conclusion

The extensive comparative analysis presented in this article reflects two ways of translating Agnes Grey. Both are faithful to the content of the source text; however, the style of the translations depends on their readers. Elizabeth Power’s translation follows a philological method in which the original syntax and formal sentences mainly prevail throughout the whole translation, thus reflecting the original style. Nevertheless, Menchu Gutiérrez López’s translation is based on a communicative method, thus prevailing usual words and expressions with which current readers could be more familiar. Thus, the aim of the two translations is different: Power’s translation is addressed to students, researchers, and readers for educational purposes, whereas Gutiérrez López’s translation is focused on entertaining readers and providing them with enjoyment.

By way of conclusion, the translation methods are different. However, the essence of the source text is reflected by both Spanish texts.