Questions: Benjamin's 'The Task of the Translator'

Question 1

A translator renders a Rilke poem so that every sentence has the same semantic content as the original, but uses natural English sentence structures that differ from the German syntax. By Benjamin's standard, how should this translation be evaluated?

• A. It is ideal — semantic accuracy is the highest goal of translation
• B. It may be adequate in content but sacrifices fidelity to the mode of intention — the 'how' of meaning, not just the 'what'
• C. It is a failed translation because it changed the German sentence structures
• D. Benjamin's theory cannot evaluate it — he only wrote about philosophical prose, not poetry

Answer: (B)

Benjamin distinguishes meaning (what is said) from mode of intention (how it is said — syntax, rhythm, connotations, linguistic texture). A translation that preserves semantic content while flattening the syntactic and rhythmic structure has captured the meaning while potentially losing the mode of intention. For Benjamin, fidelity to form may matter more than semantic equivalence. Option A reflects the conventional (non-Benjaminian) view that his theory explicitly challenges.

Question 2

What does Benjamin mean by the 'afterlife' (Nachleben) of a translated work?

• A. The commercial success a work gains when translated into widely spoken languages
• B. The original work's continued influence on future authors who write in its tradition
• C. The work's continuation under transformed conditions — a new existence in a new language that extends without merely copying the original
• D. The historical record that a translation creates, preserving the original from being forgotten

Answer: (C)

Nachleben (afterlife) names what translation creates: not a copy or subordinate version, but the work's continued existence in a new linguistic context with new resonances. The translation is a new phase of the work's life. This is why Benjamin can claim translation reveals the original's potential — the afterlife discloses aspects the original's own language could not fully express, by placing it in relation to another linguistic tradition.

Question 3

Benjamin's theory implies that a good translation reveals a kinship between languages that neither language could fully express on its own.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: True

True. Benjamin imagines an underlying 'pure language' (reine Sprache) — an ideal totality toward which all particular languages aim, which no single language achieves alone. Translation brings two languages into relation, making visible their different modes of approaching the same referents and, in doing so, revealing their underlying kinship. The gap between French *pain* and English *bread* is as revealing as the overlap. Translation is the practice that makes this kinship visible.

Question 4

Benjamin argues that translation is fundamentally very difficult because languages are incommensurable — no expression in one language has an equivalent in another.

• T. True
• F. False

Answer: False

False — this is an important misreading. Benjamin is not a pessimist about translation; he redefines what it is and elevates it philosophically. He does not argue for untranslatability but argues that translation is a philosophical act exceeding semantic transfer. His concept of the afterlife assumes translation happens and is valuable. The incommensurability between modes of intention is not a barrier to overcome but the very material with which translation works creatively.

Question 5

What is the difference between a text's 'meaning' and its 'mode of intention' in Benjamin's framework, and why does this distinction matter for how we evaluate translations?

Model answer: Meaning refers to what a text says — its semantic content, the referents of its words. Mode of intention refers to how a text says it — its syntax, rhythm, sound, connotations, and the particular relationship each word has to its referent within its language. French *pain* and English *bread* share meaning (both refer to bread) but carry different modes of intention (different sounds, cultural weight, associations). The distinction matters because a translation that transfers meaning while ignoring mode of intention has, in Benjamin's view, missed the philosophically interesting level — the way the two languages are brought into illuminating relation rather than merely substituted for one another.

This distinction explains why Benjamin can claim that fidelity to form may be superior to fidelity to content. A translation that preserves syntactic rhythm at the cost of some semantic precision may do more to reveal the original's mode of intention than a word-for-word translation that flattens the linguistic texture. Benjamin is not prescribing a translation method but redefining what translation *is* — and this redefinition opened questions that drove translation theory through the rest of the twentieth century.