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.