Studia Islandica - 01.06.1994, Blaðsíða 204
202
tures of the original text peculiar to its time, origin, and
sociocultural background. According to Hönig and
KuBmaul this calls for interpretation on the part of the
translator: “Er prazisiert den Ubersetzungsauftrag und legt
die kommunikative Funktion des ZS-Textes fest, wobei er
sich an den pragmatischen Erwartungen seiner Adressaten
orientiert.” (1982:58) Having assessed the communicative
function or functions, it is up to him to decide on the nec-
essary degree of modulation necessary between the under-
lying assumptions of the source text culture and the corre-
sponding preconceptions of the target text culture.
As our investigation has indicated, the four translators
whose work has been discussed here differ considerably in
their assessment of the need to mediate between cultures.
Press’s edition, published at the beginning of this century,
offers the least external assistance in the form of glossaries,
introductions, etc. Press goes to considerable lengths to
anglicize person and place names and bynames, yet leaves
legal and social customs, such as inheritance, divorce, sys-
tems of government, etc. for the reader to decipher if he
can. Her renderings are literal to the point where they are
unsettling, if not unintelligible, as has been demonstrated
in many of the previous examples.
The result is a work that demands a high degree of sus-
pension of the normal demands of reception. The reader of
this translation must be prepared to enter into a foreign
environment and must be content with only a partial under-
standing of the events going on around him.
The other three translators go to much greater lengths to
mediate between cultures. They are aiming at a more
dynamic equivalence, one that seeks to make the text more
receivable to a different audience. Veblen uses repeated
allusions to and comparisons with contemporary events
and realities. Arent interprets many difficult or ambiguous
passages directly or allegorically, while Magnússon and