Students read Ibsen in English, but the words on the page are a translator's choices, and different translations of The Wild Duck can shape how a scene feels. One version might render Gregers's speech with stiff formality, while another makes him sound conversational and almost warm. Comparing translations is a valuable assignment because it teaches students that interpretation begins before a critic ever picks up the text.

The assignment works best with a short passage, such as a single exchange between Hjalmar and Gregers in Act 3 or Hedvig's conversation with Gregers about the attic. Give students two translations of the same passage and ask them to analyze differences in diction, rhythm, and tone. Keeping the passage short allows for close reading without requiring extensive prior knowledge.

Students do not need to know Norwegian to do this well. They can ask what a word choice implies, how a change in sentence length affects pacing, and whether the translators make a character seem more sympathetic or more foolish. The goal is critical awareness of how language shapes meaning, not translation expertise.

Structuring the Assignment

A three-part structure keeps the work focused. In the first part, students identify three meaningful differences between the translations, and in the second, they explain how each difference changes the effect of the passage. In the third, they argue which translation better suits a particular interpretation of the scene.

• Identify three specific differences in diction, syntax, or tone between the two versions
• Quote the exact phrases from both translations that illustrate each difference
• Explain how each difference changes the audience's impression of the speaker
• Connect the changes to a larger interpretation of the character or scene
• Argue which version better supports a reading of the play and defend the choice

Grading Criteria

Rubric criteria should reward precise observation and interpretive reasoning. A student who simply says that one translation sounds better than the other has expressed a preference, not an analysis. A student who explains that a shorter sentence in one version makes Hjalmar's anger sound abrupt, while a longer one in the other makes him sound self-pitying, is reasoning from evidence.

Include a criterion for accuracy of quotation, since this assignment depends on exact wording. Careless transcription of phrases undermines the entire analysis. Students should also be rewarded for restraint, avoiding claims about the Norwegian original that they have no way of verifying.

Common Student Mistakes

One frequent mistake is treating the differences as errors, as if one translation were right and the other wrong. Teachers can point out that translation involves tradeoffs, and that students should discuss what each choice emphasizes rather than which is correct. This corrects a common misunderstanding of how translation works.

Another mistake is listing differences without discussing their effects. A response noting that one translation uses "shall" and the other uses "will" has found something but has not yet explained why it matters. Feedback should push the student to describe what the change does to the speaker's authority or formality.

Efficient Grading and Feedback

Because the assignment is short and the criteria are specific, it lends itself to consistent grading. Teachers can score each paper on observation, interpretation, and argument, and add a brief comment pointing to the strongest and weakest paragraphs. AI-assisted tools can support this by checking whether each claimed difference is paired with an effect.

Sharing a few strong examples with the class after grading gives everyone a clearer picture of what close reading looks like. The translation assignment tends to leave students with a sharper ear for language, and that benefit carries over to the rest of the unit. A small task can improve the whole course.