Repost of HM thoughts due Feb 17

 Hello Class,

I find Murakami's writing to be particularly interesting because of the characteristics of his characters. Having read The Brothers Karamazov, there are a few parallels between Dostoevsky and Murakami I want to talk about. Dostoevsky is known for his existential view. In The Brothers Karamazov, there was a discussion on the cruelty and flaw of God, because otherwise this world would not have any suffering. Thus, the argument was that there is no God, and if there is, it is an evil one. This rejection of a divine being and meaning in life reflects Dostoevsky's nihilistic perspective.  

The characteristic of Boku shows a nihilistic view from a different angle. He finds the world almost meaningless through an objective view and lives a mundane life. It is almost as if Boku is a student of nihilism! However, there is a key difference to distinguish between Dostoevsky's and Murakami's views. Dostoevsky promotes active nihilism, where one is tormented by the lack of meaning and rebels. On the other hand, Murakami's characters portray passive nihilism, where they kind of just coexist and accept the meaningless world (almost as if they don't care). It could also be argued that Murakami's characters are existentialists, where they try to find meaning through a quest like in A Wild Sheep Chase. In the last chapter, Boku breaks down and finally feels emotion, which could symbolize his growth out of a detached life, thus actually challenging Dostoevsky's view.

Test

 test

Schleiermacher and Deutscher Reading

 Does language restrict thought? Are what we are capable of thinking determined by the language we speak? These are the questions the author aimed to explore in the article “You Are What You Speak.” For example, Benjamin Lee Whorf claimed that Native American language prevents them from understanding the difference between objects and actions, which was later proven to be wrong. However, it still raised the question of whether our language affects our understanding of the world. From my own experience speaking Chinese, English, and some Japanese, I find that the challenge is not in understanding concepts but the context. Japanese is often considered a language requiring high context awareness. For English speakers learning Japanese at first, one may not understand who the subject in a sentence is. However, Japanese speakers know it from reading the context. For another example, in English we have gender pronouns, whereas in Japanese “you” is just “Anata.” It doesn’t mean that Japanese speakers cannot understand the gender of the target, but they can assume it, or think it is not relevant information.

From the article “On The Different Methods of Translating” by Friedrich Schleiermacher, the author talks about two strategies for translation. First, translate authentically and give the reader the same impression the translator had. This method’s strength is that it preserves the cultural and unique aspects of the original. On the other hand, the translator may translate the text as if the author had written it in the translated language. This is easier on the reader but may lose some cultural significance. While both have their pros and cons, personally I prefer the first method because of its authenticity to the original text.

-Allen

Deutscher & Schleiermacher Readings

 I really liked Schleiermacher's take on the ideal audience for a translation. I always thought it would be hard to make a translation that appealed to everyone. Those who simply want to understand, versus those who want to be challenged. Everyone has a different goal when reading a text.

I think a great translation can only be appreciated/understood by those reading, knowing they are entering an area of unique expression, and requires the audience's help to decipher what's going on. At the start of class, I wondered, "What's the point in trying so hard to faithfully translate when the audience won't reciprocate that amount of attention?" This reading helped reassure the value of our translations.

That said, I think Schleiermacher's statement isn't right. I agree that for a translation to be fully understood, the audience needs to have a certain mindset towards the reading. But translation is important for every reader, those who want to be changed by the reading, and those who simply want to understand what's being said.

Scheiermacher and Deuscher readings

The Schleiermacher reading made a lot of interesting claims, some which I agree with and some with which I do not. Scheiermacher's claim that translators have a goal to bridge the gap between reader and author; however, his following claim that their are only two ways to translate, translating how it sounds in the original language or translating how it would sound if written in the mother tongue. I certainly see the author's point and would mostly agree, but I feel that a balance can be met, it is just uncommon. We discuss in class all the time how we want to approach style and how this choice depends largely on the genre and target audience and whether or not we need to turn Japanese concepts in to Western or leave them as is. I do not feel, however, that a strick adherence has been or needs to be kept to one or the other, especially if the target audience is not one that is completely unfamiliar nor completely familiar with. For example, if a story is set in Japan and this setting is important, I would not first think to turn it in to an American equivalent. At the same time, I would likely change some of the super specific Japanese terms with more familiar ones. 

I also disagree with Scheiermacher's claim that someone who has a greater familiarity and education in their second language can never hope to be a good translator. I find this completely ridiculous, as many translators exist whom do not translation to or from their native language. Sometimes, someone's native language may not have any literature they would want to translate. Regardless, whether or not a language is someone's first (what is a first language really? who gets to decide?) does not determine their proficiency, understanding, or education in that language.  

The one thing I do really agree with Scheiermacher on is that fact that each language paints a slightly different picture. I have ready the article by Guy Deutscher multiple times before -- it is actually the reason I decided to switch my major to linguistics freshman year -- and while it does support the idea that each language has a nuanced impact on the speaker, especially a native speakers. While some things are near impossible to learn beyond acquisition age, such as developing an internal compass, but in most instances these things can be learned, even if an accent comes along with it. I agree with both Deutscher and Scheiermacher in the belief that languages affect thoughts; however, I would argue that his justification for his claim that one cannot translated without their native language involved. This just sounds like exclusionism to me. Deuscher's article does, regardless, explain why translation is so difficult, but I feel these difficulties only prove the need for translator's more, especially those with varying perspectives. 

Deutscher & Schleiermacher Readings - Sydnee

 I thought the Deutscher article was an interesting read having read some of Whorf’s writing on the influence of language on people’s realities, and was especially amused to find the note included at the end. My understanding of Whorf’s actual interest and hypothesis leaned toward the ‘weak form’ of linguistic determinism or linguistic relativism, which is more or less what Deutscher supported and gave examples of in his piece. One example I recall from Whorf was from an Native American language in which there were different tenses than English’s past, present, and future, but that was not extended to imply that time was fundamentally experienced in a different way by different groups of people. Rather, it was just the idea that this difference in grammatical structure could indicate something about how people think about time, similarly to the example in our reading about the egocentric versus geographic directions. Speakers of languages that exclusively use geographic directions don’t literally have innate compasses that tell them which way is north, but rather learn and incorporate directions and positioning into their lives in different ways. 

In the Schleiermacher reading, much of the discussion comparing foreignizing and domesticating approaches to translation were useful and overlapped with what we have discussed in class. However, I thought it also seemed to imply that a translation should commit wholly to one approach or the other, and that some mix of the two approaches could not end but in failure and confusion. I’m sure it wasn’t a truly binary statement, but it made me wonder if there is any sort of consensus on that idea among translators. Are there texts that possibly could benefit from partial domestication and partial foreignization? I think so, and assuming that this text is not brand new, it seems to me that readers who are interested in translated literature are more culturally informed than before, especially with the rise in popularity of Japanese culture, for example. The amount of ‘global’ cultural knowledge that the average person has ought to have increased since the internet and such, but I suppose that exposes that I kind of subscribe to the idea that domestication inherently assumes an abysmal amount of prior knowledge, when really it can be a useful approach for many other reasons. 

Deutscher & Schleiermacher Readings --- Sloane

 Schleiermacher's assertion that a good translator must resist smoothing over or normalizing foreign elements was a bit surprising to me. I feel like other voices we've heard from have often suggested that if something comes across as not particularly remarkable in the original language, it should not catch the foreign reader's attention in the translation. This seems to be in contradiction to this advice, if I am interpreting it correctly. I can't say I generally agree with deviating from this tradition, but I suppose that there might be times when what Schleiermacher is positing has its use. For instance, certain literary elements which are commonplace in Japanese but nearly nonexistent in English could be replicated without fully Anglicizing them for the educational purpose of exposing English-speaking readers to said aspects of Japanese literature. 

To connect to the Deutscher reading, I suppose Schleiermacher's principle of keeping the foreignness could be extremely beneficial in the case of translating a story originally written in Guugu Yimithirr in order to introduce a foreign audience to its geographic language system. However, this would only be desirable if such an education is the purpose of your translation. Such a focus on the cardinal directions would be extremely distracting and confusing for readers simply trying to gain knowledge of a historic account or a story that has some other more important central focus (which might be detracted from if the reader gets too caught up in the technicalities of the language). 

All in all, I can't say that Schleiermacher's approach to keeping a sense of foreignness would always work.  Discernment is always necessary when considering the best translation approach. The method you choose should be informed by the languages you are working with, the original style of the writing, and the purpose behind your translation.