Steiner and Bellos Comments

Steiner's chapter focused on how translation fundamentally changes any given text as it is transformed from one language to the other. However, rather than arguing that there is something lost in translation (as many of the readings we have done for this class have argued) Steiner describes translation as a method to reshape texts in a more positive light. He talks a lot about how readers of translated text begin reading with faith in the substance of the translation. Believing that translated texts must contain something of substance is crucial. This got me thinking about how translators often cut out sentences or full paragraphs in the process of translation. Throughout this semester, I was unconvinced that there was very much benefit in deleting thoughts put forward by the original author. However, after reading Steiner's thoughts, I have reshaped my opinion. I now understand that cutting out content which wouldn't engage foreign readers in the same way as readers of the text in its native language can serve to strengthen a translation rather than weaken it. Transforming text into something localized towards the new target audience through deletion of superfluous or confusing material can make it easier for new readers to understand the original author's main point, which is the primary intention of translation. 

Bellos' writing paired very well with Steiner's argument. The main question which framed his writing was, "How then should the foreignness of the foreign best be represented in the receiving language?". He goes on to discuss the concept of selective foreignism, which involves maintaining a foreign flavor in translated media by including select foreign words in the translated version. I think that there is an intersection between Steiner's and Bellos' thoughts; while removing certain aspects of an original text in order to localize it to new audiences is important, audiences do not necessarily want to forget that the text is in fact a translation. Including words and phrases to keep the text sounding as if it were produced in a foreign country can add to the experience of reading it. I agree with Bellos' arguments and suggested techniques to maintain a sense of foreignness in translated texts. So long as foreign words included in a translation are understandable through context, their inclusion can serve to transport readers to the country the text was originally produced in. 

Alexa

Steiner and Bellos

 What stood out to me from Steiner's reading was how in translation, there is always some sort of transformation. I thought his use of metaphors were very interesting. For example, his analogy of the original being a canvas. My interpretation after reading the article that as translators, we hold the power to bend the original. In my own metaphor, I would describe the translation as a ray of light and translators have tools like a glass lens or an object that can either blend or block that light. How each translator bends that light ultimately effects the quality and shape of that light and finding a balance in doing so is something that Steiner touched upon.

Another thing I thought of that was touched on in class was how much we pay attention to the text. I hadn't thought about how overthinking when reading the text can make things more difficult, and that often it is better to summarize or just keep the main idea.

In Bellos, I resonated with the idea of keeping elements of the original language, whether that be cultural aspects or making language specific features translate. Often, there is an issue with deleting a lot from the original that ruins the overall voice and tone. Even if there is a need to add notes or a small explanation alongside the translation, the sacrifice is worth it in many cases.

-Ariel

Steiner and Bellos

    Before reading Steiner’s piece, I searched up the definition of “hermeneutic.” According to Merriam-Webster, it is “the study of the methodological principles of interpretation.” To me, it was a reminder that we are not just translating the work, but interpreting its meaning. I went into the reading with that in mind.

    My first impression of “The Hermeneutic Motion” is that Steiner is a very abstract writer and stands out compared to the previous readings we’ve had. He has an interesting way of splitting the concept of translation up into the four elements described. It’s not the usual way of thinking that we usually see in translators’ articles. However, he maintains some of the same ideas that previous readings have touched upon. In one paragraph, he talks about how translations can “edge away” or “bring close” with regards to the “canvas” that is the original. It’s difficult to determine if one translation is “better” than the other; it is arguably up to the opinion of the reader. One of our early readings had the author comparing two translators’ works and preferring one over the other. However, there are some translations which capture the meaning of the original work better than others, which could arguably be considered “better.”

    In similar tandem to that point, Steiner also talks about the idea of “fidelity” and “balance.” A translator must be faithful to the original work; Steiner claims that reading too much or too little into the text, adding or cutting out details, tips this balance. Furthermore, anything lost must be restored.

    As for Bellos’s article, the beginning talks about how a work sounding like it had been written in the original language isn’t praise. To some extent, I agree; “domesticating” the work can take away from the original meaning, which Bellos acknowledges. However, the article later talks about the idea surrounding making a translation “sound foreign”, which, while an effective option in some contexts, isn’t always necessary. Many of the choices a translator makes ultimately depends on the context of the work.

    It’s easy, as English speakers, to take into granted how common the language is. English is used worldwide, even in places where it is not spoken. For example, Japanese katakana borrows many terms from English. This can give us a different impression of approaching translation than, say, translating to and from a less common language.

Alex

Bellos and Steiner

Bellos’s reading was very interesting and I was able to relate to his points. He talked about the importance of leaving the essence of the original version when translating with an example of a french book. Because if the translator translates everything into English, eliminating all the elements of french, the translated version will just be an ordinary English book. I was able to relate a lot with this reading because when I did homework and translated Japanese into English, I was usually on the side where I want to keep the Japanese culture element as much as possible. For instance, I used the word Oseibo instead of saying gifts or other similar words in English when translating Haruki Murakami’s Korokke. There are many different styles and ways of translating the same piece, but personally, I like using the original phrases in the original language when possible. It is also important that we try to convey the exact message of the original version when translating, however, I believe that if there are certain phrases and words that add some elements of the culture of the original version, I believe that we should keep the original language to remind readers that the setting is in the foreign country. In addition, I believe that translators should not interpret too far and create their new version, which could be better than the original. Because this means that the translator is not being faithful to the original version. Steiner mentioned the problem where the mirror will not only reflect but also generate light and I believe that translated work should just be a mirror and not generate light. 

Mitsy

Hermeneutic Motion Questions - Jon

 1. In the reading, Steiner writes that "There are originals we no longer turn to because the translation is of a higher magnitude". Do you agree with this sentiment and can you think of any examples in which this has happened?

2. What do you think of Steiner's cycle of translation (Trust >  Aggression > Incorporation)?

3. What do you think of Steiner's image of "invade, extract, and brings home"? Do you think that translation is so gruesome as he describes, like a "open-cast mine left an empty scar in the landscape"? 

Steiner and Bellos

The Steiner reading was very interesting and some things especially stood out including this quote, "No language, no traditional symbolic set or cultural ensemble imports without risk of being transformed." Steiner leaves a lot of room for interpretation for this and he gives quite a few examples of what happens when they are transformed. I was especially shocked that there are translations that have replaced the originals because of their own literary acclaim. I had actually never heard about this before so I am really interested in learning more about it. A metaphor he also uses is that about a mirror that not only reflects but also generates light. I think this is a valid metaphor and it makes a lot of sense but again, it is down to the amount of effort that someone makes in understanding the imported culture. If someone wanted to understand it without it being transformed or tainted, then they would make the effort to research and learn everything about it. So I feel like it is not so much a "risk" but rather a type of unspoken acceptance. 

Bellos talks about the interesting concept of leaving some foreign utterances as they are in translated works so that it retains some of its "foreignness" and that people don't forget that they are reading a translation from another language. This reminded me of what we talked about in class with the tree (whether to leave it in Romaji, use its biological name, or just leave it as big tree). I think depending on how important it is to the work (if it adds to context, plot, or characteristics etc.), I think it is almost necessary to include those, however, for this to work you would definitely need some type of footnote that explains throughout where it depends on the length of the utterance. I finished reading "Lolita" recently and there were lots of short paragraphs in different languages which since I wasn't that dedicated to the book, I just skipped through because there were no footnotes. I think this is definitely different from if it is one or two foreign words that recur, because I immediately gave up upon seeing the length of the foreign passage and the lack of footnotes/explanations. 

Celine

Schleiermacher and Deutscher

Deutscher's reading makes me think of how languages influence a person's way of thinking. He addressed examples of languages such as Germany and Spanish to explain how people think of an object differently as if it were a man or woman. I feel it is similar that there are numerous words describing feelings in Japanese, and those words hardly appear in English. Or, to be more specific, Japanese has many different words describing the same feeling, and the differences really depend on nuances. A typical one is "aware," which is also one of my favorite Japanese words because I can use(or understand) it in whatever ways I want without making clear distinctions between the various meanings involved with it. But when translating it into English, I must understand and try to choose the exact feeling that the author wants to express. Besides, I really like Deutscher's points that languages oblige a person's way of thinking and the example of "the sexual identity of the neighbors" that he gave. I never thought about this topic in this straightforward way. To address the discussion question, I agree that my thought is certainly influenced by my first language, in the same way that Deutscher mentioned——I'm not obliged to think about timing whenever they describe an action."

Schleiermacher's reading brings out the similar debate we've met before: whether to be more faithful to the author or be more friendly to the readers. I agree with his idea that the translators have to choose a strategy of whether to reshape the original text for readers to understand or preserve the text and let the readers try to understand new ways of thinking. I think this problem can not be generalized into a polar situation as well. Sometimes it's better to preserve the contents, but sometimes it's better to preserve the voice rather than the contents. For example, suppose the book has many contents relying on the historical background and traditional customs, as a reader. In that case, I would like to learn more about them and thus hope that the translator could preserve the original texts as much as possible. So as a translator, I would prefer to leave the reader for such books. But for translating other genres of books, I may not choose to do so. I think it's crucial to keep thinking of Schleiermacher's theory every time I do translations.

 

Nina

Schleiermacher and Deutscher

 The first reading talked about the usual trade off between being faithful to the author or creating a pleasurable reading experience for the reader. He put this in terms of either drawing the reader closer to him or author closer to him, which in my opinion a pretty good metaphor for it. Personally, I'd aim for something in between but realistically, that might be too hard and you could end up with a translation that's all over the place. The reason I say in between is because I think the point of the reader reading a translated book is to gain a new perspective, and somewhat explore a different culture but if you put it in the reader's comfort zone, they might as well go read a book in their original language. But at the same time, the book does have to be easily readable and omissions will most definitely necessary, so Ideally a mix would be best but probably hardest to pull off.

For the second reading, I liked the ideas it explored and agree with most of the points made. I believe the language you learn greatly influences your perspective and viewpoints, such as people not really using "you" in japanese, or saying "watashi wa" too much. But if you were translating to english, you have to add the subject which is something small in practice, but a difference non the less. The most interesting part for me was the Matses man for sure, I kind of understand that type of uncertainty, it's kind of like when you put 8 or 9 out of ten on a survey, when realistically you would probably be a 10. It's the little bit of uncertainty that makes you say "what if" but taken to an extreme level and I'd say it would definitely influence your perspective quite significantly. It would be interesting to ask the Matses man the same question in 5 years and see if the answer's the same because in English, I think most people within five minutes would answer "I have five wives" but in five years grow uncertain, changing the answer.

Jon

Schleiermacher and Deutscher

Schleiermacher talks about the balance between prioritizing the reader and writer in translation. As important as it is to maintain the authenticity of the writer's work, it is also important to make sure that the reader can enjoy reading the work. Prior to taking this class, I thought translating word by word is the most accurate and best way to translate a piece of literature. However, there are times where omitting a sentence or reference is better for the reader because it won't cause as much confusion. It really depends on every translator's decision when to keep the text authentic and when to omit or change the text completely. 

Deutscher's reading talks about how languages influence the way we think. As someone who speaks more than one language, I often find it difficult to express myself in only one language. There are always words and expressions in another language that doesn't exist in my native tongue that more accurately describe how I would feel. Moreover, as I live in the States for longer and speak a lot more English, the way I think in Chinese is more like English. 

Sophia

Schleiermacher and Deutscher

 Schleiermacher talks about the two ways to fully understand the foreign text: either move the reader to the author or move the author to the reader. It was also shocking to read the metaphor about the two fathers in the end. It clearly demonstrates how it is impossible to write in another language following the author's spirit. Therefore I believe that the balance between the two ways is the most important thing to consider during translation.

Deutscher gave many examples to show how languages can influence our thought, and it was really fascinating. It made me wonder about the limit of languages especially when he talked about colors. There were times I could describe my feelings in Japanese but not so clearly in English. I do think language is a factor that influenced our personalities and how we view the world. I feel Japanese and English both contributed to the way I think in addition to my native language.

Iris

Schleiermacher and Deutscher

 Schleiermacher's writing on foreignizing and domesticating translations is one that has almost certainly changed the way translations are done, in every medium where they are commonplace. Historically translations of things such as waka were in hindsight, completely and entirely domesticating, whereas now the opposite is also equally possible; we now have the ability to make our own choices. Specifically, the question of whether to foreignize or domesticate was once almost not a question at all, because it was always seen that translation from Japanese to English was translating up, whereas now they are treated as more of an equal pair, if not translating down. Personally I find the question of whether or not to bring the author to the reader or vice versa as Schleiermacher describes it, often to not be a choice that I am able to make. Rather, the choice is made by the audience, and what they think the power relation between the languages is, and how aware of the source language they may be. 

The Deutscher reading was much more interesting to me, and to some extent I do think that language inherently shapes they way we view the world, and ourselves. Japanese pronouns for example, always reflect the speaker's position relative to another, and to a lesser extent, they way we refer to others as well. In comparison in English we have "I my me", which are neutral in that respect, and "you" for referring to another. People learning the language tend to gravitate in my experience, to the same neutral watashi and anata, maybe even kimi, as neutral an expression as possible, where as a native is much more fluid in whic pronoun they use. While I can't prove it directly, I suspect that the use of pronouns that inherently describe relative position is one that changes how you view yourself in the context of the world, whereas in English the use of "I my me" is very much divorced from any context.

Steven 

Schleiermacher and Deutscher

 

F. Schleiermacher 

One thing that he talks about that is very interesting is how it is trying to translate the exact way the author would have written it is unattainable and the metaphor he uses for it with the fathers at the end. It definitely is a clever way of thinking about it and illustrates his point quite well. I think I definitely agree mostly with him in that a translation could never be exactly what the author had intended or would intend in that foreign language but it is important not to run too much with that freedom. 

Also to answer Hyunsoo’s question, I think for me I would try to leave the reader in peace and try to move as close to the author as possible. I think it’s because when a translator start to think about the reader too much, it adds many different motives to translating, for example the money involved, the fame involved etc. However, it all definitely depends on the circumstances. 

Guy Deutscher

This article was so interesting because it was an in-depth look into a combination of linguistics and psychology. I actually took a bilingualism class 2 years ago and had learned a lot about what was discussed in this article. I think there is much more to explore in this area as globalization takes over and humans are finding ways to make communication easier and simpler. Because of so many intricate details and links between language and psychology I wonder if it will ever be possible to completely let machines take over translations and interpretations. (I hope not) 

 

Celine

Schleiermacher and Deutscher

Deutscher’s reading was very interesting because this allowed me to think about language in a different way and to realize how languages interact with people’s personalities. He mentioned “Languages that treat an inanimate object as a he or a she force their speakers to talk about such an object as if it were a man or a woman.” as one of the examples and that was very interesting because I’ve always wondered why french assign sex to objects but I’ve never linked those to their ways of thinking and personalities. I believe that it is the same as Japanese because there are many words that cannot be described perfectly in English and also have different ways of saying the same thing such as the word “you.” The fact that Japanese has many different ways of expressing similar or same feeling might be affecting how I feel about things and the way I think might be different compared to English speakers even in the same situation. I do believe that language is a huge part of your identity so it definitely affects our personalities to a certain extent. Even though English is my second language, I sometimes feel that English also contributed when forming my current personality. One thing that was interesting in  Schleiermacher’s reading was that he defined two different methods of translating, which are moving the readers towards the author or moving the author towards the reader. I never thought about bringing the author towards the reader so I thought that was interesting to read.  

Mitsy

Schleiermacher and Deutscher

 Schleiermacher talks about having to make sacrifices choosing between the writer and the reader. Failing to find a balance between the two is difficult in that there is no perfect balance. While it is important to maintain the message, style and feel of the author's work, it is so important to maintain a style of writing that the reader will enjoy and be able to understand. Whichever side you as a translator decide to stay loyal to can have a huge effect on your work, but there is no way to perfectly please both sides. A lot of translation is compromising. This article also reminded me of our discussion in class about including information that readers might not know from the other culture. What is necessary and what can be excluded? What is the line?

In Deutscher's writing, he talked about our first language influencing the way that we think. When looking over my journey in learning Japanese and reading more advanced Japanese, I definitely believe English has influenced me greatly. Western ideals and English sentence structure makes languages like Japanese seem more jumbled or out of order, and that isn't to say there is something wrong with Japanese. Language is so complex and all languages are equal, meaning that no language is better than another. How I've grown up thinking reading English and speaking English is something I have to overcome learning any language and can affect how I view concepts.

-Ariel 

Schleiermacher and Deutscher Comments

 In the Schleiermacher reading, the author asserts that the role of a translator is to allow a foreign reader to understand texts originally written in different languages. However, Schliermacher argues that a translator must make a crucial decision in the strategy behind their translations; the translator must decide whether they aim to reshape the text to fit a foreign reader's understanding, or to preserve the text as much as possible and bring the reader to a new understanding. I wholeheartedly agree with this assertion. Readers are accustomed to literature written by people with similar culture background to their own. As such, reading a direct word-for-word translation of a foreign text can often leave people confused. Before taking this class, I would have believed that a direct translation of any text should be adequate for any reader to take on. Now, I have since grown to understand that sentences which hinge on the reader's background information pertaining to specific cultural references must be either cut down or sized up in order to unite the reader with the author's original intention. Balancing the line between preserving the author's original thoughts and cutting texts down as to not confuse the reader is a delicate one, but one that produces vastly different results depending on the route chosen by a translator. 

The Deutscher article was incredibly interesting. When I was younger, I read numerous articles on how language influenced one's perception of color. The case study was centered on a remote African tribe. Their language didn't have a word for blue, but it did have over 20 different words for green. The results of the study showed that the tribe's perception of blue versus green was much less acute than people whose mother tongue distinguished blue and green. However, the tribe was able to distinguish between shades of green which would be perceived as identical by the average American. After having read this study, I have often pondered whether language is a tool of limitless potential, or one of limitations. Deutscher's article provided many examples of how one's mother tongue can influence the way they see the world and process information around them, and those thought-provoking examples have allowed me to appreciate the value (and difficulty) of translating between languages. Translating words individually is easy; translating the experience of reading a given text from one language to another is the true challenge.

Alexa

Schleiermacher and Deutscher Reading

    In the Schleiermacher reading, it is mentioned that a translator has essentially two routes that they could take a translation. One being affecting the reader and leaving the author in peace, and the other being affecting the author and leaving the reader in peace. The decision that has to be made is whether the translator wants the reader to be on the same level of understanding of the original work as the translator themselves or bring the author's original work to a level where the audience is able to relate with it. Schleiermacher states that there is not reliable way of combining the two of these, but I wonder if there is a way to somehow grab instances of both. 

    Deutscher mentions the implications of different languages where language obliges us to think in certain ways. I agree with this statement as languages are sort of like a box that contains our thoughts. Language is what conditions us to think that a red circular fruit is called an apple. Deutscher provides some examples of how languages influence us. In the example about the word neighbor, he clearly demonstrates the differences between neighbor in English and neighbor in German or French. The subtleties of languages, such as the gender of a noun or the timing of an event, result in translators having to produce additional details from the original text from small nuances. 

- June

Schleiermacher discussion Questions, Hyungsoo

 1. Schleiermacher states that a translator either leaves the author or leaves the reader. Which path would you choose if you need to, and why?

2. Schleiermacher mentions two basic foundations: the understanding of foreign texts be acknowledged as a known and desirable state, and that a certain flexibility be granted to our native tongue. Which one do you think is more important, and why? Do you think there are other elements that compose the foundation?

3. Schleiermacher translated mostly from Latin to German. Would there be any differences or exceptions from his theory in terms of translating from Japanese to English, or translating other languages?

Deutscher Reading Questions from Iris

Given that English and Japanese are both languages that do not assign objects with genders, do you have or know of any gender connotations that influenced your understanding of the world?

In the reading, Deutscher talks about how languages influences thought. Do you think your thought is influenced by your first language? If so, in what way?

Deutscher mentioned many ways language influence our experience of the world, such as geographic orientations, grammatical genders, and colors. What did you think about the examples Deutscher mentioned? Would there be other ways language changes our perception of the world?

Notes on Deutscher and Schleiermacher

 Deutscher

To me it was obvious that language is not a constraint to one's mental, I'm surprised the falsified study got any traction at all. For example, artists can surely feel more than they are limited to in words which is why they express it through art. But as he said, although not a set limit, languages and their systems of grammar, etc., do create a mindset that you tend to stay within. The effect of gendered nouns is especially interesting to me as my primary languages are completely without gender. It's so strange to me that inanimate objects would have feminine or masculine energy, and would probably completely reshape the way those native speakers view the world. It's another aspect of language that becomes innate just like the geocentric knowledge that is mentioned in the article. At first it did seem absurd that they use cardinal directions in daily life but now I wish I had their ability to feel and recognize those directions at any moment. I think beyond the examples he mentioned, there are many more small scale differences between languages that influence the mindset of people. Thinking about Japanese, the ingrained systems of politeness in grammar may make it difficult for people to conduct themselves without a constant sense of where they stand in society. I've also always felt more articulate in English because it has so many more synonyms than Korean for example. I feel like the nuanced differences between the similar words help to truly express the exact way I feel. 

Schleiermacher

I like the idea of bringing the work into the world of the reader or sticking to the work of the author. I think it is true that you kind of have to choose one side to appeal to, and as a translator it is usually going to be the side of the reader for understanding. It's interesting that he stressed the importance of putting aside one's artistic self or personal preferences in writing to uphold the essence of the text for the reader. I think a good translator needs a strong artistic side to them, or else their work would be very flat. Another point that he emphasized that I don't see much inherent importance in is expressing a foreignness in a translated work that is in the readers native language. If any cultural context is not lost, why is there a need to express some foreign flavor? 

-Joanne

Schleiermacher and Deutscher

    What Schleiermacher talks about when discussing the idea of writer vs. reader is reminiscent of when we talk about making sacrifices in translation. It benefits one but comes at the drawback of another, and if you try to appeal to both, most of the time neither sides are happy in the end. As mentioned in the article, a translator seeks to impart what they have learned about the language and culture onto the reader. Thus, the idea of maintaining a balance in translation is key. Then the question we must ask ourselves is, when should we preserve the original language and when is it better for us to change it?

    It’s also important to realize we can’t completely avoid introducing something that readers might be unfamiliar with; whether it’s a foreign word or custom. In some scenarios, we would lose more from the writing if what we’re trying to localize is an important concept in the original piece. In that case, it’s sometimes better to just ask the reader to do a little research.

    As for Deutscher, the article starts off with an interesting thought, the idea that our mother tongue influences how we think. I agree with that notion, because I have experienced how learning a new language allows people to broaden their horizons of thinking. Learning foreign languages have not only made me realize how differently people speak, but how differently they think. Like the article mentions about the idea of language “allowing” vs. “obliging”, learning a language forces us to think in a certain way. Thus, the way we view the world, the way we interact with other people, are all influenced by the culture we are raised in and the language we speak.

    The article touches upon an interesting point; because of the natural structure of some languages, they force you to include details that other languages omit. An example they use is gendered terms, which is a fascinating concept in itself. I’ve heard of the experiment with the bridge before; it makes a good point of how the language shapes a person’s perspective of an object, even when speakers of different languages are shown the same object.

    I’ve also read on the concept of geographic coordinates in languages before, including the experiment where the person is blindfolded and spun around, so it’s interesting to read about it in class. To people raised with egocentric coordinates, the ability seems almost supernatural. Overall, this article was a really fascinating read and illustrated vividly how languages shape our mind.

Alex

Copeland and roundtable

In the reading, Copeland said “by trying to create an “equivalent” reading experience, they were perhaps being truer to the text than a translator who avoided “reshaping.” I agree with this statement she made because the whole point of translating is to provide the same experience as the readers who read originals. I believe that if people who read the original version and people who read translated versions can have a great discussion without feeling mismatched, the translator did a great job. Because this shows that the translator was able to deliver the message that the original writer was trying to convey. It is also true that reshaping too much can cause problems, so I also think that avoiding reshaping is one of the ways translators can take although that does not necessarily mean they are good translators. The roundtable discussion was also interesting to read because I was able to see different perspectives and discussions by different translators. After taking this class, especially after these readings, I really think that conveying the messages well while translating is much more important than trying to translate faithfully word by word.  

Copeland and Round-table Discussion

A topic that interested me while reading both articles was the idea of marketing translations. In the round-table discussion, the translators talked about bowdlerization and whether they should keep the erotic theme or not. Copeland also mentioned how the editors eliminated certain characters and themes since they thought it would be too confusing to the American readers. It was interesting how publishers achieve a balance between keeping the original and targeting the audience. The articles also mention the idea that there are untranslatable elements and how we should deal with them. Nathan posed an interesting question when they talked about making changes in the text: are we changing substance or are we going after fidelity along another route? On the other hand, Copeland talked about how translators can be truer to the text by creating an equivalent experience in the foreign language. These readings remind me how hard it is to make choices during translating, and there are usually no correct answers. The problem then, is how we can be loyal to the text. I think we do need to try to translate the untranslatable by creating a similar feeling of the content, which is, in my opinion, the way to be loyal to the author.

Iris

 

On Copeland

 I wanted to translate everything ... I was naïve.

I can't agree more on this sentence of Copeland. Yes, perfect translation would include everything from the original text. But we are not perfect. No one can be perfect. Even if the translator can be perfect, the reader cannot. Still there are something we cannot bring here.

Before starting this translation seminar, I was eager to translate everything, no matter what I'm translating. I was naïve. Throughout the seminar, I translated a lot. I did translate a bit, from Japanese to Korean, before taking this course, but the number of the document I experienced is less than the number of documents that I work on in a month right now. I still want to convey the most of the original text, especially when translating literatures, but I also learned that there is more important things.

Newspaper articles had to focus on conveying the fact, Legal documents had to focus on making everything clear and definite for possible legal issues. For Magazine articles, I had to focus on making it interesting and easy to read, while I have to create whole new sentence for a poetry. I'm still going to stick with proper nouns linked with footnotes with translating a literature, but the number of them would be decreased than I would have used before taking this course.

Hyungsoo

Copeland and Roundtable

Copeland talks about how some of the pieces a translator has to translate can be untranslatable, and that is entirely normal. From the beginning of taking this course till now, I've learned that while translating, there are a lot of words and elements that can be difficult to translate. We have to use our own judgment to decide what works best in the translated piece because it is more about translating the experience rather than the words. 

The Roundtable discussion also discussed similar issues. We have read and discussed a lot about translating faithfully in class. Just like what Copeland said, I think it is okay to not translate 100% faithfully. I think it is more important to be able to have the reader understand what the author is trying to convey than have them read word by word what the author wrote in the book.

Sophia