I believe one of the best chapters that were written for this book is the chapter entitled: "The Translator as Reader". I've just never really thought exactly how the functions of translating a certain text from one language to another could be seen as a type of reading that actually involves the reader in a much deeper understanding of the written word. For example, when Manguel writes how Labé uses "an arcane musical language which she, as a lute player, must have known well, but which is incomprehensible to us without a historical dictionary of musical terms". These sort of techniques for writing in one text can be viewed as puns and perhaps even witty, but when it comes to translating the text into another language, one must strive to not lose the original intent of the writing.
This makes translation tricky for most, and it obviously necessitates someone very familiar with the origin language that is being translated, right down to common knowledge of the time the text was written. I suppose I always knew that translating text was a sort of reading in a way, but I guess I never truly understood just how much of a reader's duty it is to continue a certain theme that is present in one text into its translation in another language. However, having been a student of the Japanese language for three years, I guess I should have realized this by how difficult it can be to explain certain puns to different people who are completely uninvolved in the Japanese community.
Do you think that translation is a more modern way of reading, however? I'm unsure of when texts began to be translated from one language to another, so was this sort of textual translation truly important in times long ago?
4 comments:
I think translation is not only a more modern way of reading, but also a more modern way of writing. When a translator escorts a text from one language/audience to another, they are essentially rewriting the text. Words can carry different connotations, and exact translations of a concept might not be available. The way a translator reads the text and then "re-writes" it can greatly affect the way the next audience perceives the text. This is one case where interactive reading affects many more people than simply the original reader. I wonder how much pressure translators feel to remain "loyal" to the original text.
I never truly thought of translating as a sort of writing as well. I agree that it does take a very good translator to be "loyal" to the original text.
However, there are so many translators out there who take liberties when re-writing the original text in order to sort of show a bias towards one character, theme, or whatever this translator desires. Some might even do it unconsciously. Do you think there is such a thing as a perfect translator?
I would feel so much pressure to be a "perfect" translator because not only would one want to convey the correct message from the original text, it is also so easy to make an error. As Manguel explains on page 269, such mnemonic devices as homonyms can change a pivotal sentence in a text to something completely different than it's original intention, and it could stress a different message than the author's original intention.
I have to agree with Tracey. Translating a text from one language to another is a very modern way of reading. For a translator to properly do their job, they must go beyond the meaning of the words on the page, and go straight into the mind of the author. Like Tracey said, some words may not transfer properly when crossing the language barrier and it is at the discretion of the translator to choose the words that properly convey the message that the original author is intending to send. If a translator does not truly understand the text they are working with, they may very well change that entire work. The words may be the same, but the meaning is entirely lost.
It's interesting that you bring up the idea of a "perfect translator." I'm studying German at KSU, and my professor CONSTANTLY warns us against using GoogleTranslate. While the automated translator will certain generate word-for-word translations, the machine cannot think or reason if its final product makes sense. A similar concept could be true if a live translator gets bogged down if they don't "go beyond the meaning of the words on the page," as Ashley said.
In addition to understanding a language beyond simple vocabulary, a good translator might need understand their audience too, because an accurately translated text could still be perceived differently in a different society. How much do translators heed their audience and consider reception of the text, and how much do they simply "reproduce" the work as the original author intended?
Post a Comment