Translation, Transformation and Intertextuality:

Franz Kafka’s ​Metamorphosis ​and ​A Report to an Academy

Submitted in part for the requirements of the degree of Honours in Arts in English at Rhodes University
Supervisor: Dirk Klopper

Andrew Marais
G15M1326
24 September 2018

Illustration by Hannah K. Lee for ​The New Yorker

Introduction: Reading, Translation and the Kafkaesque

The basic act of reading, from the presentation of the text as symbols on a page to the
apprehension of the textual meaning in the reader’s mind, itself is a process of translation.
Consequently translation forms a fundamental structure around any kind of reading or textual
interpretation. Any act of reading thus brings with it a set of difference, between what is written
on the page and the reader’s apprehension of its semantic contents. Theodore Adorno comments
on, that this structure of difference is directly linked to the question of how language and written
text are apprehended, where “Each sentence says interpret me, and none will permit it” (1981:
246). Resistance to interpretation is evident at all levels of textual comprehension, creating a
dilemma for the inference of meaning in any language. The reader is required to interpret what
has been presented by, translating the combination of graphic symbols on the page into his or her
own system of meaning, correlating the text as presented by the author with the text as received
by the reader.
While the basic act of reading requires a simple understanding of a narrative or argument
being presented, it is exactly in this ‘simple’ act that slippages of meaning and mistranslation can
occur. Meaning can thus be misunderstood or incorrectly apprehended, creating a divide between
what has been written and what has been read. This predicament is amplified in the act of
translating a work across different languages. Due to differences in cultural comprehensions and
linguistic structures there can never be a perfect one-to-one ratio of meaning between a source
text and target text1. What is said in the source language cannot be transferred in an exact way
across languages, so the meaning projected by the target text will differ from that of the source
text. This difference in meaning provides insight into the vast variability across languages and
cultures in the conception of physical and mental realities and the formulation of experience.
This essay focuses on transformation and intertextuality in the practice of translation. At
its core is the question of, how linguistic indeterminacy is managed in the practice of translation,
how meaning is transformed across languages, and how the relationship between the original text
and its translation can be seen as a form of intertextuality. In exploring this question, this essay

1
Source text here referring to the original text in its author’s language and target text here referring to its work of
translation.
1
will examine two texts by the Czech German writer Franz Kafka. First published in 1915,
Kafka’s novella ​Die Verwandlung has been numerously translated into English under the title
Metamorphosis​, and is Kafka’s most popular work in the Anglophone world. The translation
used in this study is the one produced by Michael Hofmann in 2006. Kafka’s short story ​Ein
Bericht für eine Akademie ​was written and published in 1917, and has been translated into
English under the title ​A Report to an Academy​. This study will be looking at Ian Johnston’s
translation.
Focusing on these two texts and their translations, this essay seeks to determine the ways
in which translation of the literary text from German to English results in transformations of
meaning that at once linguistic, cultural and narratological. But there is an additional level of
interest insofar as both texts portray a transfiguration between human and animal, with Gregor
Samsa’s metamorphosis into an “ungeziefer” or insect-like pest and Red Peter’s evolution from
chimp to ‘man’. Accordingly, while the essay is essentially concerned with the intertextual space
between the original work and its translation, it is also interested in the relationship between
language and being. Where Gregor’s transformation is realised through a loss of communication
and physical alteration, Red Peter’s change is due to newfound linguistic abilities.
Kafka is hailed by Michelle Woods for relying on the surface value of the physical text in
the creation of eaning (2), resulting in what Woods deems, the interpretation of a “perplexed
refrain” (1). By both presenting and withholding direct metaphor, Kafka’s blunt prose draws
attention to the transformative power of language, evidenced, in ​Metamorphosis​, by the short but
provoking sentence, “Es war kein Traum” (Kafka 1) or “It was not a dream”. The now
ubiquitous term “Kafkaesque” refers to the subtle misdirection and alienation inherent to his
works. As Peter Heller puts it, “The subjection to the experience of not understanding seems to
be major point of reading Kafka” (386). He continues by detailing how Kafka’s readers are
drawn into poignant dramatisations of the failure to arrive, to communicate and ultimately to
understand the world around them. Such failure to arrive at communicative abilities and
understanding is exacerbated by reading Kafka in translation, where the reader is exposed to a
larger inability to understand and to translate what is considered unfamiliar into terms that

2
reassure or make familiar. The statement “It was not a dream” does not so much delimit the
narrative as highlight the indeterminacy and subtle transformative power of language.

Language, Cognition, Metaphor and Unfamiliarity

To explore this transformative power, this essay will observe several principles
surrounding the construction of meaning and intertextuality. The principle of linguistic relativity
draws on the notion that the individual linguistic realities of languages affects the worldview and
cognitive categories of its users. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Whorf have theorised that the ‘real
world’ is to a large extent unconsciously built up on the linguistic habits of a group. They
claimed that varying intellectual systems of representation exists in language, shaping the
thought of its speakers in a general way. Theories surrounding linguistic relativity by Sapir and
Whorf are expressed in the following quotes:

“Both simple and complex types of language of an indefinite number of varieties may be
found spoken at any desired level of cultural advance. When it comes to linguistic form,
Plato walks with the Macedonian swineherd, Confucius with the headhunting savage of
Assam” (Sapir 219).

“The categories and types that we isolate from the world of phenomena we do not find
there because they stare every observer in the face. On the contrary the world is presented
in a kaleidoscopic flux of impressions which have to be organized in our minds. This
means, largely, by the linguistic system in our minds” (Whorf 212).

Sapir points out that a vast number of languages of varying complexity inhabits all levels
of culture. Whorf states that the human mind is shaped by an infinite range of impressions,
subsequently structured by individual linguistic systems.
In Brown's summary, Whorf appeared to put forward two hypotheses; that there exists
structural differences between language systems, and that they can be paralleled by nonlinguistic

3
cognitive differences, of an unspecified sort, in the native speakers of two differing languages.
As well as that the structure of any individual’s native language strongly influences or fully
determines the world-view he will acquire as he learns the language (Brown 128).
This summary outlines that a bilingual/multilingual speaker could have parallel sets of
linguistic and nonlinguistic information that will act on their understanding of concepts, or that
their linguistic realities will act on each other and thus present varying representations.
Moreover, language ​determines (​ or influences) thought with linguistic categories that limit and
determine ​cognitive​ categories.
These concepts will be used to elaborate on the vast amount of impressions and
perceptions that are shaped by linguistic realities. To do this these key concepts will be used to
highlight differences across variations in meaning and introduce intertextuality. This notion will
argue that through the act of translation a new text is created, in place of a reproduction of the
original. Kafka’s texts will identify how meaning becomes realised and altered through
representation, and how those representations are subsequently changed through the act of
translation. What is here being discussed should then be considered a transformation, whereby a
new cultural text has been produced. Here the relationship between texts is integral, however this
paper will focus on the new meanings being produced through translation, rather than on a
derivation of the original. Considering that this transformation is not simply a matter of linguistic
equivalence, it is of cultural appropriateness, where the metaphoric nature of language means
that images and their subsequent meanings differ and mutate across languages and/or cultures.
Focusing on the metaphorical nature of language, the conceptual metaphor is valuable in
disambiguating the space wherein transformation across languages occurs. The notion of
conceptual metaphor outlines that comprehension is largely gained through a relationship
between concrete and abstract notions. The figurative aspects rely on information that is
grounded in reality, creating meaning through the conceptualisation of non-concrete ideas. In his
paper ​The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor George Lakoff makes the following points; that
the nature of metaphor is seen as the main mechanism through which we comprehend abstract
concepts and perform abstract reasoning. By which the Metaphor is also fundamentally
conceptual, not linguistic. Consider the figure of language in outlining a positive effect, we

4
understand that positive moves up whilst negative moves down, such as the representation of
temperature on a graph. The man-made notion of positive being aligned with ‘up’ pinpoints how
fundamentally metaphor affects thought and comprehension. Metaphorical language is therefore
a surface manifestation of conceptual metaphor which relies on non-metaphorical understanding.
For example, the colour perceived as red is found in reality, it is also associated with blood
which is red in colour. Red is also then figured with imageries of pain and violence.
Imperatively, these understandings are based on correspondences not similarity - with concepts
becoming socially accepted through use. These points then outline the key make-up of
understanding representation in language. Metaphor thus allows an individual to understand an
abstract concept or subject matter in relation to concrete non-metaphorical concepts. Aside, this
system operates through unconscious or even automatic assumptions made through convention,
much like linguistic systems. This is then central to our understanding of experience and then to
our responses of that experience. The perception of these experiences is then subsequently
dictated by cultural understanding and convention.
These conventions are then determined by various ‘mappings’ across conceptual
domains. These domains differ across languages, which are affected by social factors such as
history and previously established niches of understanding. This mapping of concepts results in
various networks which create a summary of understood notions within a culture or language.
These networks can then be aligned with the concept of linguistic relativity, constructing a map
not of disparate networks, but of a network of networks. Relationships can then be formed across
languages, identifying that in each network there are varying understandings of similar concepts
- each having individual nuance that could contradict meaning in a different language.
Through this exploration of figurative semantics, this paper will outline how metaphor
varies in numerous ways across different languages. This results in a complication, where
translations cannot impart every figurative implication of both languages. This results in a
remainder or liminal space of meaning that must be omitted for the sake of comprehension.
Moving past linguistic relativity and conceptual metaphor, the idea of cultural translation infers
an amalgamation of the two. This implies that where varying cultures and language communities

5
hold individual systems of conceptual metaphor translations must then be treated on a highly
contextual basis.
Buden et al iterates that if translation was based on ‘what is already there’, the statistical
chance of translated pieces being nearly identical would be high (218). If languages are merely
separated by varying systems of grammar and symbols then meaning could be transferred to a
one-to-one degree. However in reality translation is formed on the basis of a shared sense or
commonality in understanding. This then gives substance to the idea that translation is not an
uncovering of a universal meaning across languages but is contingent on the construction of a
bottom-up commonality or the creation of shared concepts. This conflicted sense brings to light
the expanse of variant meanings. These meanings are subjective to the culture or system in which
the experiences come about, in that someone from a tropical community might not understand a
figurative concept around a trait known to members of an arctic community.

“As even the most rudimentary translation exercise soon reveals, translation is above all
an initiation into unsuspected complexity. The simplest of texts turns out to be not as
straightforward as we thought. Putting what we find in one text into another language and
text and culture throws up unsettling questions about our sense of our own language and
makes the familiar alien.” (Buden et al 218)

Here Buden et al shows that such figurative concepts transform across labels, bringing
into question the nature of those concepts as well as introducing their mutability. Across
languages, concepts are ascribed with labels which are used to identify and relate those concepts.
This raises questions about the sense of our own language and makes the familiar alien,
transforming established concepts. This reveals a radical insufficiency of cultural shorthand, or
rather an understanding of the cultural shorthand in proximity to a familiar shorthand. That is to
say, the cultural categorization of society as made of recognizable types designated by labels,
such as ‘‘dyslexic’’, ‘‘epileptic’’,‘‘gay’’, or ‘‘Muslim’’. They have the ability to reduce the
multidimensional complexity of humanity to defining traits. Once an object has been described
using such a label, they become transparent (Buden et al 220). This transparency localises the

6
effect of linguistic relativity, outlining the possibility of variations in meaning and the creation of
new meaning.
Taking Buden et al’s considerations into account, as well as that of Lakoff and
Sapir-Whorf, these concepts formulate an understanding that language determines the perception
of an observable reality. Subsequently, multilingualism would allow a speaker to subscribe to
varying figurative understandings, broadening perception. Furthermore, in the act of translation it
is imperative to consider the transformative effect of cultural metaphor across languages as well
as understanding that in place of a subordinate imitation of the source text2, the target3 or
translated text becomes a new entity. Hereby, source text and target text will be referred to as ST
and TT respectively.

Translation, Transference and Transformation

Having considered the theoretical framework for this essay, these concepts will
subsequently be contextualised against the textual analysis of Kafka’s works. The following two
texts have been chosen to evidence the linguistically relative space between translations, along
with the transformation that occurs across German and English. As translated works their
linguistic differences as well as subject matter which directly relates to the topic of
transformation directly attends to this essays focus. Where ​Metamorphosis deals with a
figurative transformation centering on otherness and difference, ​A Report to an Academy puts
forward the notion of linguistic transformation as closing the gap between the human and animal.
Metamorphosis sees Kafka’s tragic protagonist Gregor Samsa suddenly transformed,
unable to communicate or relate to his human family. Its title ​succinctly draws attention to the
transformative focus of this investigation, “Verwandlung” or “Metamorphosis” referring to a
transition between one state and another. This brings to the fore integral notions around the
transformative aspect of both the text in translation as well as the questions brought up by the
two texts. Questions around the role of Gregor’s transformation and ability to utilise language;
the role of Gregor’s new form in relation to his social standing within society; how these roles

2
​ in Bericht für eine Akademie.
​ST or original text, ​Der Verwandlung/E
3
​TT or translation, ​The Metamorphosis/A Report to an Academy
7
are shown through content and metaphor; how the original German language performs against
those of the translation; as well as highlighting the difference in meaning that plays out between
the ST and TT.
A Report to an Academy ​considers an ape that is able to ‘ascend’ and take up a position
within human society through its newfound use of language. By constructing Red Peter as an
ape, Kafka knowingly positioned his protagonist as a being that is largely considered a close link
in the human evolutionary chain. By depicting Red Peter as such Kafka’s narrative instantly
projects a transitory state between human and animal. As the novella’s report progresses, the
links between animal and human blur, ultimately demanding the reader consider the
ramifications of such a transitory state - to internally define what is ‘human’ and what is
‘animal’. By ascribing such an animal with the ability to speak and converse Kafka’s text brings
to light the role of Red Peter’s ‘animality’ in the text; how this ‘animality’ is subverted through
language; how this use of language is considered intrinsically human; as well as how these
aspects are mirrored through the act of translation.
This section will deal with the implications of the theoretical matrix made up of language
cognition and transformation in translation on Kafka’s texts. In this consideration, cultural
differences between German and English must be observed, outlining differing histories and
worldviews and how this impacted the texts. Notably, these texts have been chosen not only on
the basis of language and translation but a clear consistent theme of transformation. This section
will investigate the differences between human and animal language, considering how the
fundamental effect it has on the state of each species. Furthermore, human, ape and ‘insect’
narrators are all utilised in portraying the events of the text, considering narratological presence
and impact these agents and their states will be discussed in relation to the transformation of
meaning. The analysis of the texts chosen will be conducted through such questions posed above,
as well as considering the theoretical framework directing the discussion.
Kafka is read in translation, and as Woods comments, not only in such linguistic forms of
translation but also within a network of translations (3). This network includes; the translation of
Franz Kafka the man, as a literary icon; the critical translations of his work against theory as well
as the commercial translation that has interpellated the author within the scope of his works to

8
the public eye. This network of linguistic, social and cultural translations has, through the near
century since Kafka first published his works, created a global image that has come to define
how Kafka is seen and read. This global translation infers a specific image of Kafka and his
works. The world over, Kafka is known for his captivating loneliness and frustration at the
world. This image has largely been constructed by those publishing Kafka’s works and
translating it across language and media. Thus it is imperative to note that there is a fine
disjuncture between Kafka the man and Kafka the author. Considering this, the acts of translation
that have shaped Kafka’s reputation and worldwide acclaim are removed from the original
German texts as well as Kafka himself. One imperative notion to consider within the study of
translation is the presence or role of the translator. Michelle Woods’ ​Kafka Translated offers
interesting biographical detail that fills in the gaps between Kafka and his translators. In her
book, Woods includes detailed accounts of the correspondence between Kafka and his first
translator, ​Milena Jesenská. What stands out within their correspondence is not the consistent
romantic allusion in Kafka’s letters (Jesenská’s letters were burned by Max Brod at her
discretion) but their close inspection of the resultant translations. Kafka’s correspondence shows
a deep interest in the removal of the translatory act from mere mechanical interpellation and
states that whilst his text guides Jesenská, it is as if her translation brings his work into
illumination (Woods 19). Whilst Jesenská’s translations were from German into Czech and will
not be analysed in this study, this correspondence between author and translator reveals how
Kafka praised her presence within the text, “then it is particularly beautiful, something even a
German doesn’t hope for; a German wouldn’t dare write so personally.” (Kafka 8). Translated by
Philip Boehm in 1990 Kafka’s letters to Jesenská reveal integral details around their translation
process in ​Letters to Milena​. With Czech as his mother tongue Kafka, would have had significant
sentimental reasons for praising Jesenská’s work however it can also be seen that what became
most imperative was what Jesenská’s contribution brought to the German text. This contribution
can be seen in the cultural identities encoded within the two languages and the relationship the
two developed. Between Kafka and Jesenská, he a German-speaking Jew in a Czech speaking
capital and she a Czech speaker writing from Vienna, an old German-speaking capital, their
collaboration could not have been more fortuitous for the construction of a common linguistic,

9
cultural and literary space (Woods 21). It is within that space where the cultural notion of
intertextuality is found and a subsequent relationship between the languages and their context is
formed. Where this interplay between Jesenská and Kafka resulted in a new text, one containing
Kafka’s text within the Czech language, the translated text involves both Kafka’s focus and
Jesenská’s point of view.
Bringing the German to English translations of ​Metamorphosis and ​A Report to an
Academy into view, Michael Hofmann as translator carefully considered the nuance of Kafka’s
text in the interpellation of meaning. When confronted with the act of translating Kafka’s works
Hofmann considered this comparison, of being ​“a passenger, riding in relative safety (and
deserved penury) in a vehicle that has already been built” (Knight n.p.). Here Hofmann
recognises the need for fidelity and responsibility to the original text. This statement reveals
Hofmann’s awareness of the need to focus in on the semantic framework (vehicle) laid out by
Kafka. He goes on to mention that the resultant style of his translated work is in fact mediated by
a careful consideration of Kafka’s sentence construction. As a translator Hofmann considered
this fidelity imperative, so as to maintain the contextual meaning of Kafka’s prose and allow the
language to speak for itself. In an interview with Asymptote, Hofmann declares his ‘task’ or role
as translator, as a job which entails not breaking up the original sentences and maintaining a
clear focus on the story. “​Stay inside the machine. The significance will take care of itself—it
doesn’t need my help” (Knight n.p.). This consideration then somewhat removes Hofmann’s
contributions in the development of the translated work as a subsequent ‘new’ text but also
infers that Kafka’s style be maintained whilst making it suitable for the English language, “I
think about my original, and perhaps unusually strongly about a kind of ecology of English”
(Knight n.p.). Hofmann’s statement shows a particular focus on the structural impact of
translation, highlighting the need for linguistically contextual reshapings that allow for the
transference of meaning across languages. Where he mentions ‘ecology’ Hofmann is referring to
the way in which sentences and their constitutive words form a unified body of semantic quality.
In crossing over languages, this ecology must be kept in mind so that the translated text is able to
be understand as the original is. Quite clearly this interpellation requires a significant
contribution from the translator, where Hofmann’s text includes a reimagining of the text within

10
the English language’s environment and construction. In the introduction found in the Penguin
Classic copy of ​Metamorphosis and Other Stories,​ Hofmann relays the method of Kafka’s
inference, paying close attention to the way in which Kafka’s text is constructed. This
construction is imperative in what made Kafka’s original text so compelling. Hofmann insists
that his role was merely a transference of Kafka’s original meaning, yet it is exactly in that
careful interpellation where the English translation becomes a text of its own. Where the base act
of translating these works would require a simple, if not direct, re-construction, Hofmann
carefully insured that Kafka’s text worked as it does in the original German. ​In order to do this
Hofmann knew that what is essential of Kafka’s prose is an abundance of somehow intangible
meaning, his role required him to adequately refer to the original text and Kafka’s style in
English. “​Pulsating with meaning and yet somehow intangible, we obscurely feel, we practically
know there is something more going on in a story” (Hofmann ix). It is exactly this density of
meaning on Kafka’s side that gives rise to the profusion of interpretations found in the texts.
Here then a direct translation of Kafka’s prose, of any kind would ultimately fail at conveying
exactly what makes Kafka’s text ‘Kafka-esque’. Where this term is widely used, both correctly
and incorrectly, it refers to this “over-plus of meaning” (x) that makes Kafka’s text so
significant.
The sense of intangibility and vast potential of Kafka’s text must thus be translated so
that it could ascribe the same sense of the German text, under the English language’s specific
range of meaning. Hofmann, and ​Jesenská each then had a significant role to play in the
conveyance of this “Kafka-esque” nature. Where Jesenská had a closer relationship to Kafka’s
multilingual and multicultural background and context, Hofmann had only the German language
link. Compared to the Czech translation, Hofmann’s English version had wider gaps to cover,
needing to interpellate the contents of Kafka’s underlying meaning further than Jesenská, whom
was in close relation to Kafka’s Czech heritage. It is then noted that Kafka’s multilingual
background, is exactly what infers the “Kafka-esque” nature, the conveyance of multicultural
understanding and perspective. Through the confluence of linguistic and cultural backgrounds,
Kafka’s German is more than just German. It has been informed by Czech, as well as the
culturally ascribed modes and contexts of Kafka’s experience with those two languages. It is in

11
this consideration that a multilingual quality of meaning is apparent, or as previously mentioned,
a linguistic intertextuality. Interestingly Claire Kramsch notes in her paper ​Multilingual Like
Franz Kafka​, that Kafka did not necessarily have a ‘mother tongue’ and that whilst his parents
spoke to him in German, he only ever considered it a ‘ bureaucratic language of exchange’
(Cramsch 317). Cramsch also notes that Kafka spoke and wrote in German with the inflections
of his hometown, Prague (317). This would have resulted in a particular dialect of German,
where Kafka’s cultural affiliations have bled into his linguistic reality. ​Joachim Neugroschel
maintains the view that much of Kafka’s writing was influenced by historical, political, and
social circumstances (ix). This is further realised in the way in which these circumstances shaped
language in European Jewish communities throughout the 18th and 19th centuries (Neugroschel,
x). Already then, there exists a form of underlying intertextuality, with the semantic
considerations of the Czech cultural ascriptions informing Kafka’s German, and subsequently his
texts. Without yet venturing into Kafka’s textual corpus, his multilingualism already presents a
point of linguistic relativity. Cramsch considers the effect of this cultural exchange by observing
that Kafka was “making visible the absences, the alterities in the heart of the German language
what Deleuze and Guattari call: ‘stealing the baby from its crib and walking the tightrope’”
(331). It is within that exact frame, with Kafka drawing out the “absences” in language, and by
way of the multilingual approach afforded by the various instances of translation where the text
transforms and the intertextuality between languages and texts ascribes new meaning. Put
directly, Kafka’s individualised and Czech-informed German allowed him to create such a
striking prose, resulting in the phenomenon of the Kafka-esque. Furthermore, Kafka’s texts
explore such themes of linguistic difference and alienation. Kafka’s body of work speaks for
itself through themes of communication, transformation and silence. In ​Metamorphosis Gregor is
unable to properly convey his fear and pain, or at least, his family are unable to understand what
Gregor is able to say. ​A Report to an Academy explores the identifying power of language and
Red Peter’s transformation through linguistic ability, from ‘mute’ animal to eloquent ‘being’.
Each work deals with a transformation as well as their outcomes, with Kafka realising his
narrative contents through an aspect of existential entrapment (Cramsch 319) and through
language seeks to provide closure.

12
 Translation and Textual Equivalence

Having considered the various facets of the theoretical framework of this study, as well
as the linguistic positions of Franz Kafka and his translators, an analysis of each texts ST and TT
may now be considered. This section will observe Kafka’s original texts and align them against
the translated works, assessing various points of departure in the extrapolation of certain
statements and processes within the texts. Here, the act of translation, and parts of its process
must be considered in the transformation of meaning, and as such certain necessary departures
from the German prose will be investigated. In doing so, this analysis seeks to outline key
semantic choices and the resultant conveyance of meaning to determine the effect of transferring
meaning from language to another. In addition, this analysis seeks to identify how the
transformation of ST through translation results in the reading of a new subjectivity within the
text. This will be assessed through Kafka’s textual notion of eluding the reader’s attempts at
maintaining a position of control over language. The reader’s ability to obtain a sense of mastery
within Kafka’s language ultimately results in the relegation from master to subject of language.
This agency held within the use of language is key to construction of a linguistic reality.
For the purposes of this essay each of Kafka’s texts will be considered in differing forms
of analysis due to their contents. For ​Metamorphosis its opening chapter will be analysed in
terms of semantic and syntactic structure, apprehending how ​Die Verwandlung is able to
construct its meaning in German and how Hofmann’s English text constructs its own meaning.
The analysis of ​A Report to an Academy focuses on Red Peter’s acquisition of language and
‘humanness’, relating how Kafka’s original text and Ian Johnston’s translation gives Red Peter a
voice with which to construct agential sentience of a kind.
The following section will interpellate theory with translation, identifying the different
worlds held by each language system and relating meaning in one language (German) to the
meaning in the other (English). Within the process of a translation, it is imperative to consider a
principle of equivalence between ST and TT. This principle can be categorised into dynamic
equivalence and formal equivalence (Thabane 64). In her paper on assessing the difficulties that
face translating German to English, Thabane asserts that dynamic equivalence is concerned with

13
semantic fidelity, tone, register and stylistic quality; whilst formal equivalence deals with
spelling, syntactical structure, punctuation and lexis that is peculiar to either language systems
and their use (64). Aspects of this principle will be dealt with, considering the disparities in ST
and TT.

Metamorphosis

Die Verwandlung ​and its English counterpart ​Metamorphosis4 contain a rich expanse of
textual transformation. To examine this content, the aforementioned principle of equivalence
becomes imperative. Here both the source and target text will be cross examined and a brief
extrapolation of intended meaning in each will be given. This section does not serve to provide
“better” or more appropriate translation but instead investigate the effect that this translation has
on relaying the semantic quality of Kafka and attempting to delineate any new meaning that has
arisen. In this assessment, the act and process of translation will be interpreted as Hofmann’s
attempt at maintaining the particular style and conveyance of meaning found in Kafka’s original
text. As mentioned earlier, Hofmann’s input is here imperative, understanding that regardless of
shift in outcome the translated text has been mediated and altered into a new text or subjectivity,
aside from the original. To assess the original language textual fragments, brief translations will
be given with an outlining of semantic content with a subsequent reference to Hofmann’s
translation. The first line of the work has been chosen for its linguistic mutability, in that the
German text exhibits lexical choices that contain a range of potential meaning. Below are the two
extracts:

“Als Gregor Samsa eines Morgens aus unruhigen Träumen erwachte, fand er sich in
seinem Bett zu einem ungeheueren Ungeziefer verwandelt.” (Kafka 2)

“When Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from troubled dreams, he found himself
changed into a monstrous cockroach in his bed.” (Hofmann 1)

4
​Subsequently known as source text and target text respectively.
14
In the first extract, two German words stand out as having a vast potential for variation in
interpretation. They are “Ungeziefer” and “verwandelt”, each having a set of potential English
meanings. For “Ungeziefer”, may refer to “pest”, “vermin”, “insect” “bug”, “rodent”5.
Hofmann’s lexical equivalent is “cockroach”. In the German prose, the term “Ungeziefer” could
be understood as any kind of pest, be it insectoid or mammalian, where Hofmann has filled in his
own interpretation and given the term “cockroach”. This ultimately infers upon the English
reader the image of a black, beetle-like insect which is colloquially understood to be dirty.
Already, Hofmann’s translatory choice has narrowed down Kafka’s original ambiguous
conveyance. In this example a German reader would be left with a questioning sense of Gregor
Samsa’s new form, creating a detachment from a reliable, concrete sense of the textual world
inviting the reader to presuppose their own image of what Gregor the “Ungeziefer” could be. The
English reader is however, presented with a direct description of Gregor’s new form, “a
monstrous cockroach”. This elides some of the ambiguity contained in the German prose. It also
relinquishes some of Kafka’s sense of alienation with the text, providing the reader with a
tangible image in place of one with potential colloquial abstraction. What must be kept in
consideration is that Hofmann’s process of translation is ultimately subjective and his chosen
lexical forms will differ from ‘plain’ or direct translations as are being provided. This is
imperative to consider, in that Hofmann’s experience as translator would have inferred his choice
and resulted in a translation that seeks to align the reader with the contents of the original text in
such a way that is most relevant or contextually interpretable. This builds on the notions of
differing linguistic and cultural systems of representation for German and English audiences.
Where Kafka’s German text was able to escape a direct transference of image or quality due to
the frame of the German language6, Hofmann’s English text relies on the specificality of the
English frame. Considering this English frame, the example points out Hofmann’s ability to
suppose representation from one cognitive world to another. By interpellating what was ‘absent’
from Kafka’s text, the translator creates a new transformation. With regards to the original text,
the absence of specificiality was maintained to the point of Kafka insisting that publishers not

5
​My own, albeit direct, translation
6
​Having greater potential for semantic mutability in lexical items
15
attempt to portray the creature, or new form on covers of the book (Grey et al 284). This
highlights a further example of Kafka’s intertextuality. Subsequently, Hofmann’s choice of
“cockroach” could have been realised as “pest” or “vermin” however in the English context of
interpretation these choices might have then resulted in readers relying on the image of “pest”
and its colloquial understanding by English users. Here then alternate choices might have led
readers to perceive Gregor’s metamorphosis as something markedly to that in the course of the
narrative. Aside from “Ungeziefer”, “verwandelt” and indeed the title of Kafka’s German text
holds an interesting level of mutability and interpretation. In German, “Die Verwandlung” refers
to a process of transformation or change7. As the title of the Source Text this term is incredibly
productive and effective in giving the reader an ambiguous sense of transition in place of a
determinate heading that denotes a specific kind of change. In English, reader’s have been given
“Metamorphosis”, which along with many book covers depicting a large beetle-like insect
continues along the line of an establishment of a specific state change8 surrounding Gregor as a
“cockroach”. Indelibly, the constructed image that arises out of the text must be considered and
as is seen in the previous example as well, the constructions that are present are markedly
different. Where the German ST once again maintains an aura of ambiguity around integral
textual components, specifically here the transformatory event, as something that is not directly
marked as being a transition of physical, mental or other states. The vagueness of the German
text allows Kafka’s narrative to (seemingly) purposefully avoid specific description and allow
for a broader interpretation. The TT however, sees Hofmann utilise the word “changed” which
does allow for greater variation than “Metamorphosis” but once again is unable to tap into the
broader German use of “verwandelt”. This example directly addresses the varying cognitive
worlds that each language prescribes. Where the English term lends itself to a direct and physical
realisation of transformation, the German linguistic sense allows for the rejection of a specific
kind of transition, allowing readers to create a multiplicity of potential transformations - could
this transformation be physical, mental or even textual? Said multiplicity allows for a host of
explanations that may be offered for the mysterious ‘changing’ in Gregor’s state of being, as well
as other changes within the Samsa household and work (Thabane 61). Whilst the implications

7
​Once again, my own translation
8
​Where “metamorphosis” has entomological reference
16
then refer to Hofmann’s translation as removing potential for interpretative variation, it can be
referred back to the cognitive world presupposed by the English language. To allow for such
semantic ambiguity, Hofmann’s English text would have had to then include further information
that increased mutability. This could then be seen as being counterproductive in his sentiments of
maintaining Kafka’s text, by attempting to capture the “overplus” amount of meaning in place of
providing more information. The disparity found here between language systems highlights the
notion of linguistic relativity and displays how two realities of representation are being provided
by each text.
Aside, an interesting point of departure between the source and target text, relates to the
placement of verbs and the subsequent conveyance of textual delivery. In that between the two
initial sentences there is a disjuncture between the German and English sentence constructions.
Thabane notes that the original German sentence has been constructed so as to instill a sense of
eeriness from the novella’s onset and subsequently delay full comprehension of the statement by
placing the verb at the end (71). This results in the reader only apprehending “die verwandlung”
right at the sentence’s conclusion, withholding the word from the sentence so that the reader
receives a sudden impact. With diligence to the construction of English sentences and verb
placement, it would have been ungrammatical for Hofmann to present “When Gregor Samsa
awoke one morning from troubled dreams, he found himself into a monstrous cockroach in his
bed, changed”. Here then we see a disjuncture in formal equivalence, which does not necessarily
alter the semantic quality of the sentence but alters the tone and pacing withheld in the sentence.
Whilst not altering the text significantly, this example pinpoints a minute example of semantic
disjuncture between texts. It is created, however, due to the constraints of the linguistic reality of
the English language. The disparity in tonal realisation allows for the German text to withhold an
aspect of its corpus, creating an impassable divide between languages and creating an ‘absence’
that the new linguistic realisation (TT) must somehow accommodate for. Hofmann’s English text
however makes due with the reformation of the sentence and elides the potential9 suspense.
The above examples of both semantic and tonal change reveal the difference in resultant
translations, in both aspects of subjective input from Hofmann as translator as well as the subtle

9
​At least in part, of the suspense held within the original German sentence.
17
differences in sentence construction between languages. This difference ultimately presents the
space between linguistic realities and pinpoints the bodily space in which the new text arises.
Therefore, as readers it becomes evident that due to not only the principle of equivalence but also
the structural natures of both languages equates to the creation of new textual realities. While
Hofmann’s translation does its best to maintain its position within Kafka’s ‘machine’ it
nevertheless must depart and form a new text that is differential to that of the German linguistic
representation. Ultimately, Hofmann’s (and indeed other translations) text can be seen as not
only mediated through his agency as translator but also as subject of the two languages. In place
of Hofmann being able to merely recreate ​Die Verwandlung in English, he adhered to the ways
in which English shapes the realities of its subjects. Having considered semantic and syntactic
examples of intertextuality across linguistic systems, ​Ein Bericht fü​ r eine Akademie p​ rovides
evidence for the transformative power of language in both figurative and physical realisations.

A Report to an Academy

The case of ​Ein Bericht fü​ r eine Akademie and ​A Report to an Academy​, translation by
Ian Johnston sees a higher level of equivalence, being a short piece in the form of a speech given
by Red Peter the ape. It thus elides a subsequent close analysis of disjuncture in translation, as
has been provided with ​Die Verwandlung/Metamorphosis.​ Instead ‘Kafka’s ape’ will be assessed
for its textual ability to utilise language as instigator for sentience and agency. What also arises
from this approach is the distinction between animal and human, with Kafka outlining an
exploration into the nature of being tied to linguistic ability. ​A Report to an Academy’s narrative
contents cover an ape’s deliberation of his own coming to terms with language use and
humanness. In the short story Red Peter, an ape from the Gold Coast, has been captured by
humans and has since learnt to speak and use German. He subsequently comes to terms with this
new found aspect of communicative cognisance. The brief narrative is structured around Red
Peter’s speech to an audience of university academics, recounting his experience in learning to
apprehend language and thus his experience in communicating with humans as an ape. In his
speech he expresses the tribulations of acquiring language as well as his traumatic experience
with humans. His sentiments cover the abuse he has encountered as well as the gap that he has

18
attempted to cover in conveying his internal thoughts and provocations with humans. Notably,
this story attempts to cross the divide between animal and human through the use of language,
thus bringing to light the ability of language (or at least communication) to bring about sentience.
Kafka’s prose holds the vehicle of language as transformer closely, with Red Peter making close
consideration of his diction choice and use of language. Here Red Peter is highly aware of both
his animal status and the complication of his linguistic ability. Kafka has thus chosen to
interpellate linguistic difference as the bridge between animal cognition and human ‘being’. This
displays a new facet of the varying cognitive worlds across languages.
Kafka’s text could then be seen to provide an interpretation for the ability of language to
create differing ontological certainties around beings, or rather subjects, of language and nature.
Seen below is an excerpt that covers Red Peter’s attempt to prove his ‘humanness’ or ability to
enter in positions of human conversation. In the extract, Red Peter is discussing the wounds he
received in his initial capture, outlining the cruelty he experienced, as well as positioning his
cleanliness and ‘proper etiquette’ expected of a human whilst still being considered an animal by
onlookers. This outlines Kafka’s approach through morality and behaviour expected of human
beings.

“man wird dorts nichts finden als einen wohlgepflegten Pelz und die Narbe nach einem -
w​ä​hlen wir hier zu einem bestimmten Zwecke ein bestimmtes Wort, das aber nicht
missverstanden werden wolle - die Narbe nach einem ​frevelhaften​ Shuß” (302).10

“​People will not find there anything other than well cared for and the scar from—let us
select here a precise word for a precise purpose, something that will not be
misunderstood—the scar from a ​wicked​ shot.” (2)

Here Red Peter’s close examination of the language he uses is noted, where he displays a distinct
regard for linguistic reflection in maintaining his desired semantic conveyance. Red Peter
carefully considers the right word to use for the inflicted wound, making sure he does not elide

10
​My own formatting
19
semantic nuance for the conditions of the wound. In this utterance Red Peter can be seen to
express a deep consideration for his communicative ability, understanding that the words he
selects could be received incorrectly, a consideration that most humans gloss over. The subject
matter here is also imperative, he is discussing the wound he received from a human, and thus
discretely picks out “frevelhaften” which directly translates to “sinister” or “nefarious”.
Johnston’s choice in translation is “wicked”, denoting negative intent and an effacement of
conscientious action/behaviour. Whilst those who then considered him an animal would not have
taken his pain into account, Red Peter clearly sees this act as an infringement of his personal
capacity. Through language this becomes a human capacity. The distinction here is drawn in that
through Red Peter’s ability to use language and express his painful experience, the pain was still
present before his ability. In this sentence, the reader is able to discern that Red Peter subscribes
to a sense of morality, inferring on a wholly, human, notion to infer the suffering he has
experienced. Importantly, Red Peter’s pain precludes language highlighting his human captors;
lack of concern. This further outlines Kafka’s construction of language as a ‘humanising device’,
through which expression allows Red Peter to share his sentiments with the academy, and the
establishment of a foundation of morality.
In the paper ​Heidegger’s Animals,​ Stuart Elden discusses the metaphysical consideration
of animality and existence. Elden confers that Heidegger’s ​The Fundamental Concepts of
Metaphysics delineates the concept of a human Dasein, or “being there”, a peculiar notion that
stresses the particular experience of existence felt by humans. This human Dasein is then
constructed around the presence of language, politics and calculations (Elden 286), inferring that
to be ‘human’ a being must utilise these three areas of deliberation in their reflection of reality.
Above it has been shown that Red Peter has already expressed two of these, the use of language
and an understanding of morality (politics)11. A further inference of the human Dasein qualifier
is found in the following excerpt, where Red Peter can be seen to cognitively assess his past and
the capacities of his relegation as animal.

11
​This argument does not necessarily state that animals contain ‘human Dasein’ and instead is merely inferring
Kafka’s narratology and fictional discourse.
20
 “Diese Leistung wäre unmöglich gewesen, wenn ich eigensinnig hätte an meinem
Ursprung, an den Erinnerungen der Jugend festhalten wollen.” (299)

“​This achievement would have been impossible if I had stubbornly wished to hold onto
my origin, onto the memories of my youth.” (2)

This utterance sees Red Peter calculate what has made his new ability possible, the rejection of
his former identity as mute ape. Not only that but this particular expression sees Red Peter
undertake a process of introspection, as well as the alignment of his identity with that of the
human. For all intensive, textual and narrative, purposes Red Peter is quite clearly positioned as a
being that qualifies for the notion of the human Dasein, of maintaining a particular presence
within the world of humanity and animality. This presence is realised through specific use of the
words “Leistung”, “Ursprung”, and “Erinnerungen”, accomplishment, origin and memories
respectively. These three nouns can be said to be particularly human in nature, realising
particular tenets of the human consideration of being. Kafka then is allowing Red Peter’s
linguistic ability to cross the human/animal divide. This is done hesitantly, as David Schalkwyk
states, it appears that Kafka is suggesting that there is more humanity to the ape than is widely
conceived (111). This allows Kafka’s short story to infer an animal’s place within the cognitive
world of linguistics, providing a further interpretation of the possibility of language as well as a
further unsettling nature that surrounds what may be conceived of as ability and ‘being’.
A Report to an Academy ​thus extends past the provided notions of differing linguistic
realities and their interplay, proceeding to Kafka’s notions of animal being. What remains stark
is the human subjectivity found within Kafka’s ‘animals’. In the case of ​Metamorphosis a​ nd
Gregor’s insect-like transformation, the text sees the human subject trapped in a carapace that
refuses explanation and removes the ability of language, “No pleas on Gregor’s part were any
use, no pleas were even understood” (Kafka 24). This example sees an inversion of Red Peter,
where Gregor’s loss of his human form not only disables communication but also agency and
ability to provide for his family. Thus ​Die Verwandlung deals with a particular strangeness and
frustration that arises from the loss of Gregor’s status and identity. It creates a new aspect of

21
subjectivity that is informed by language ability and responsibility12. The novella is therefore
partly concerned with the disjuncture between the human and the other, where Gregor has
inexplicably become the other.
Red Peter begins his existence as the other, as a primate, an animal which is largely
linked to humanity but remains distant. This link is characteristic of an attempt to bridge the gap
between human and animal, with Red Peter’s ‘apeness’ providing an uncannily familiar example
to that of the human subject. In contrast to Gregor Samsa, Red Peter is given the position of
human subjectivity through language. His original ‘closeness’ to the human, on an evolutionary
scale, is extended by further capacities for language and a consideration of morality. Kafka’s
text humanises Red Peter, even positioning him with the characteristic Kafka alienation from
other humans. Red Peter’s conflicting status of difference and similarity can be directly linked to
the varying language systems and their interlinked relativity. For example, German and English.
Such as the way one may observe a gap between the construction of meaning in one language
and another - revealing a new method of expression - it is Red Peter’s awareness of his apeness,
or difference to humanness, that reveals his humanness. Such a level of introspection is
undeniably human and confers Kafka’s ability to create a gap in language and in experience that
does not impose boundaries but rather breaks them. Through this Kafka provides new ways of
understanding the imposed difference between human and animal, rendering the unfamiliar
somewhat more familiar.
This expression of humanity or sentient cognisance reads as Kafka’s interpellation of the
virtue of language. He crosses the divide between human and other by way of relation and
communication, begging the question, if a being is able to express itself as you do, does that not
make it the same? Moreover Red Peter’s ‘humanisation’ embodies an understanding of
interpretation as familiarisation, such as that of language - translating the unfamiliar. Once
translation has occurred the new form does several things, highlights difference from the original
but also provides a capacity for further comprehension and understanding. Between expressions
in two forms, such as language systems, there arises a new space that holds not a combination of
the two forms but an original space that allows for deeper apprehension. As provided in this

12
​Or lack thereof
22
essay, an example is of Red Peter’s state of being, it is both human and not human. The
possibility here is of new forms that supercede established notions, both of communication and
being.

Conclusion: Languages in the World

For the past century or so Franz Kafka’s works have perplexed readers, stories which
seem to bring to light existential bafflement with the everyday mundanity. Except his themes of
alienation and estrangement are closely entangled to considerations of the ineffably beautiful.
Despite the anxiety, there exists an excitement for the unknowable and mysterious. One could
argue that this arises from Kafka’s broad linguistic abilities and his careful consideration for the
ambiguity of representation. English readers are afforded a rare, multilingual view of abstraction
by reading Kafka in translation. Not only are they provided with Kafka’s daring extrapolation of
the undeniable strangeness of reality, but an interpellated view that combines cognitive realities.
In reading Hofmann’s, Johnston’s and ​Jesenská’s translations, Kafka’s multilingual perspective
is expounded to reader’s across linguistic realities, giving further propensity for interpretation
and reinterpretation. This act of semantic transformation speaks broadly to areas of linguistic
cognisance, outlining the need for perspectives that are not limited to one language. In one
consideration, language proves able to transform the tangible reality around us, and in another it
allows for the very reception of experience - presenting a delimitation of what is perceived of as
qualifiers of ‘being’.
Such a multilingual approach to literature and indeed reality allows for further
consideration of new possibilities. These possibilities shed light on the socialness of what we
conceive of as being and behaviour, it allows for an approach that deals with the spaces that are
created between realities. Thus, in place of relying on one system of familiarity, the Kafka-esque
speaks to the unfamiliar new spaces. This multilingual approach might bridge the gaps evident in
societies stricken by difference and otherness. Such as approaches for education and interaction
in South Africa. Where literacy levels are suffering due to the privileged status of English, there
are ten other official mother-tongue languages which hold their own wealth of culture and

23
identity. This rich expanse of linguistic diversity could benefit from multilingual initiatives,
encouraging young South Africans, and indeed other citizens around the world, to preserve their
identities and enable an influx of variation and creativity. If more consideration was placed on
efforts in translation and respect for linguistic integrity was encouraged, might South Africa hail
in an era of understanding and enable accurate further cultural translation?
This essay sought to identify the spaces in between languages, to reveal what is
translatable and what is not but also to extrapolate on the possibility of interplay between
cognitive realities. By understanding the cultural implications of transferring meaning from one
language to another, readers may become aware of the possibility of an ‘overplus’ abundance of
meaning that is inherent to our reality, and limited by singular linguistic approaches.
Multilingualism may allow for a greater understanding of what is possible, with the
determination of nuance and detail that is left between languages. By combining linguistic
realities readers might reconsider their approach to the relationship between the familiar and
unfamiliar, as well as what is considered the human and the other. In doing so, and in part by
observing such texts as ​Metamorphosis a​ nd ​A Report to an Academy,​ Kafka’s interest in the
consideration of interspecies translation may allow for further understanding of the natural
world, and give rise to further communication with the natural world around us as well as the
unknown.

Word Count​: 9000

24
Bibliography:

Adorno, Theodore. ​Prisms.​ Cambridge: MIT Press. Web. (1981): 246 - 247.
Brown, Roger. “In Memorial Tribute to Eric Lenneberg” ​Cognition​ 4. (1976):125-153.
Buden, Boris; Nowotny, Stefan; Simon, Sherry; Bery, Ashok & Cronin, Michael. “Cultural translation:
An Introduction to the Problem, and Responses” ​Translation Studies.​ 2.2. (2009): 196 - 219.
Elden, Stuart. “Heidegger’s Animals”. ​Continental Philosophy Review.​ 39. (2006): 273–291.
Gray, Richard T., Gross, Ruth V., Goebel, Rolf J., And Koelb, Clayton. ​A Franz Kafka Encyclopedia.
Westport: Greenwood Press. 2005.
Heller, Peter. “On Not Understanding Kafka.” ​The German Quarterly.​ 47.3. (1974): 373 - 393.
Hofmann, Michael. “Introduction”. ​Metamorphosis​. Franz Kafka. London: Penguin. vii - xv. 2008.
Kafka, Franz. ​Metamorphosis.​ Trans. Michael Hofmann. London: Penguin. 2006.
__________. ​Die Verwandlung.​ Web. Accessed through DigBib.org at
http://ndal8pcag/www/digbib.org/Franz_Kafka_1883/Die_Verwandlung on 10 March 2018.
__________. ​A Report to an Academy. ​ rans.
T Ian Johnston. Web. Accessed at
http://johnstoniatexts.x10host.com/kafka/reportforacademyhtml.html on 10 March 2018.
__________. “Ein Bericht für eine Akademie”. ​Drucke zu Leibzeiten​. New York: Schocken Books.
(1994): 299 - 313
__________. ​Letters to Milena.​ trans. Philip Boehm. New York: Shocken Books. 1990.
Kay, Paul & Kempton, Willet. “What is the Sapir Whorf Hypothesis?” ​American Anthropologist​. 86.1
(1984): 65 - 79.
Knight, Henry. “An Interview with Michael Hofmann” ​Asymptote Journal.​ (n.d) Accessed at
https://www.asymptotejournal.com/interview/an-interview-with-michael-hofmann/
Kramsch, Claire. “Multilingual, Like Franz Kafka” ​International Journal of Multilingualism,​ 5.4. (2008):
316-332.
Lakoff, George. “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor”. ​Metaphor and Thought. 2. Cambridge
University Press. (1992).
Neugroschel, Joachim, In: Glixman, Elizabeth. “An Interview with Joachim Neugroschel, Translator and
Editor of "The Shadows of Berlin"”. ​Eclectica Magazine,​ Jan/Feb (2006)
Sapir, Edward. ​Language: An Introduction to the Study of Speech.​ New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1921.
Schalkwyk, David. “A Report to the Academy: Talbot Taylor and the Rhetorical Roots of Contemporary
Language Theory”. ​Language Sciences.​ 27. (2005): 97 -112.

25
Thabane, Maathabe. ​The Challenges Of German-english Literary Translation: An Exploration Of Franz
Kafka's Das Urteil (The Judgment) And Die Verwandlung (The Metamorphosis).​ Rhodes
University Masters Thesis. (2015).
Whorf, Benjamin. “Science and Linguistics”. ​Language, Thought and Reality​. John B. Carroll, ed.
Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. ​Technology Review​ 42 (1956):229-231. 247-248.
Woods, Michelle.​ Kafka Translated.​ London: Bloomsbury. 2014.

26