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.
No comments:
Post a Comment