I actually vaguely remember reading the Deutscher article back in high school. The analogy of the Guugu Yimithirr seeing the world through cardinal directions has lived with me ever since. Interestingly, this article really reminds me of what we have been learning in LJ 410 - The History of the Japanese Language. Most likely, it was first the culture that changed to see the world in this way, for some cultural evolution or practical purpose. Due to this, the language then slowly followed suit over generations, each change in the language reinforcing that way of thinking as opposed to other ways of thinking, much like a feedback loop. Of course, that is just conjecture based on what we have learned in LJ410 about language change, and what I learned studying the changes in first person pronoun use in terms of class and gender over time for LJ410. It really is fascinating though. It is just as he said - the main difference in the way we see the world from different languages is based in what our language obliges us to think. Although I do believe that the obligation likely comes first, and then the language change follows, locking in the obligation. For example, the Japanese language started out almost entirely neutral in both gender and status (we see only fragments of Keigo having developed by the Nara Period, mostly used only for the highest elites and gods), but as Japanese society became more stratified, the language shifted to become more stratified as well, locking in stark differences via politeness and class based dialects. And as gender roles became more defined, particularly in the Edo Period, gender based differences appeared where they did not exist previously. Then, these get locked in, and reinforced by the language itself, since now people are obliged to think in that way. Although, they can always change back. As we are seeing now, hierarchical based differences died out during and post-Meiji period as the feudal society was abolished, and now even gender based differences are dying out, as equality becomes a societal value. So our language does shape the way we think about our world, but the reverse is also true. If we change the way we think about our world, our language follows suit - and this is really quite intuitive when you think about it!
The second reading is such a large burst of knowledge wrapped in hard to read 19th century prose that it is a bit hard to digest it all. The biggest thing I really latched onto was his notion that trying too hard to make the translation of the foreign language sound natural can 'damage' the native language, and that there are 'bad' and 'good' language changes, and being sloppy can make the 'bad' changes occur. I suppose he means that by translating these foreign sentence structures and phrasings in certain ways to make them work while not necessarily being fully correct in the native language, these can be absorbed and change the language itself. This is also something we discussed in LJ 410. Japanese has changed dramatically in many ways over the past 100 years due to the influence of direct English translations entering the nation. But I actually strongly disagree with Schleiermacher here, in that this is not a bad thing! At all! Language change is natural. Languages will borrow and change from the influence of other languages. As any historical linguist will tell you, this is a perfectly natural process that is neither good nor bad, and thus is not something the translator should necessarily concern themselves with. This notion of 'purity' in languages is a foolish, outdated notion, and strongly reflects the fact that he lived and wrote this 200 years ago. Schleiermacher’s worry makes sense within his nationalist-romantic framework, where language is seen as a cultural treasure requiring protection, but there is a reason that view no longer holds any water in modern linguistics. There is absolutely no 'pure' or 'correct' form of any language. And any language can handle these changes, regardless of how 'flexible' the language is, no matter if Schleiermacher claims otherwise. Languages evolve in complex, advanced ways. If a language cannot 'handle' a change, then either that change won't be adopted, or the language will adapt in the ways necessary to adopt it. This was basically the ABC 101s of historical linguistics in that it was the very first thing we learned in LJ 410. I believe that you can represent the foreignness of the language and of the original author's worldview and themes and imagery and way of thinking without worrying about this. You can do that and still make it an enjoyable, natural enough sounding read in the native language.
Once society is open to foreign ideas, like he said, readers will be able to appreciate the foreignness via word choice, sentence structures, and cultural ideas present in the translated text. There is no additional need to avoid certain sentence structures and word choices and cultural ideas for need of avoiding this 'poisoning' of the original language. In fact, it seems like he wants his cake and to eat it too, in that he emphasizes very heavily the need to keep this foreignness, yet in the same exact section fearmongers about this 'poisoning!' I think it's perfectly fine to express some of the foreignness in the way that you structure sentences or paragraphs. I think many readers will appreciate that, depending on the medium, if they are sufficiently open to foreign ideas to enjoy translations, which Schleiermacher deems necessary for translations to be successful in the first place. And if that ends up changing the native language, I do not think that is a bad thing, whatsoever. I would say that the translator does have the right to toy with the native language if it suits the needs of making a better translation that gives a feeling closer to the original - as long as the result remains readable and stylistically acceptable for the medium. But yes, it is obviously impossible to do this 'perfectly,' and no matter what, especially for people who know the foreign language as a second language, they will tend towards their native language, thus losing nuance. That is an inevitability. There are language barriers even between people who speak the same language! Also, while things involving more culture might be harder to translate, I do not think that immediately equals impossible. They are absolutely still translatable. It is just that the resulting translation would require its audience to be very open to foreign ideas, and would inevitably have a lower ceiling of quality (loss of nuance drastically increases) than other pieces of work. None of this is to say I disagree with Schleiermacher's other points. He brings up a lot of very valuable theory relevant to translation, and I have to say that I do agree with everything else. I just very firmly disagree with him on this particular point, and felt compelled to point out how his view on that merely stems from an outdated view of language. In short, Schleiermacher’s fear of linguistic damage reflects outdated ideas of linguistic purity, whereas modern linguistics sees change as natural. His broader translation theory remains valuable, but this particular concern does not hold up under contemporary linguistic understanding.
I do apologize for writing such a long post... I got a little carried away...
Dawson Maska
No comments:
Post a Comment