On "The Task Of The Translator"
Benjamin argues that a translation which is not bad never “undertakes to serve the reader” (2000 :16). He supports this idea with the fact that “the original does not exist for the reader’s sake” (2000:16)”. The moment of creation of a poem similar to those of Baudelaire’s includes the transmission through the poet of ideas and feelings belonging to a superior being, therefore the original is written by the poet-prophet, and it is by no means created for the sake of those who will read it. So as to make a good translation, the fact that the original is not intended for the reader’s sake (and neither should be the translation) is to be taken into consideration by the translator. If a work is decided to be translated, neither this decision nor the translation process should be intended for the reader. Linked to this, is the notion of “translatability”:
“The question of whether a work is translatable has a dual meaning. Either: Will an adequate translator ever be found among the totality of its readers? Or, more pertinently: Does its nature lend itself to translation and, therefore, in view of the significance of the mode, call for it?” (2000:16)
If a work is translatable, which means is worth being translated, its encounter with one of its readers might result in the translation of the same. Even if this encounter, or the result of this encounter is not realized, that does not prove that the work is not translatable (ibid 2000:16). How does one decide, then, if a work is worth being translated or not? The answer might be related to the notion of universal language, or to the fact that the “kinship of languages” is hidden in elements which are language or culture specific (2000:17). “Languages are not strangers to one another, but are, a priori and apart from all historical relationships, interrelated in what they want to express” (ibid 2000:17). Then it can be said that, if a work will serve to show the differences of expression, make its readers aware of the different “modes” of expression and get them to acquaint themselves with the kinship of languages, it should be translated. Benjamin chooses to translate Baudelaire, for he believes he is the one who believes to be responsible to share with German speaking readers what Baudelaire says in French. This way, relating two different languages to one another, those who read his translation will come one step closer to the universal language.
“Wherein resides the relatedness of two languages, apart from historical considerations? Certainly not in the similarity between works of literature or words. Rather, all supra historical kinship of languages rests in the intention underlying each language as a whole- an intention, however, which no single language can attain by itself but which is realized only by the totality of their intentions supplementing each other: pure language” (Benjamin 2000:18)
Even the most similar words in two languages referring to or “intending” the same object, in other words the different signifiers in two languages of what seems to be the same signified, such as Brot and pain, are different from each other, for they are different modes of intention (ibid 2000:18). The act of translating (well) and reading of (good) translations help discover the hidden meaning of individual languages by showing what each of them lacks, and what one of them lacks is found in another language, and this way, one completes the other, until the pure language is realized as a result of all the various modes of intention (ibid 2000:18-19). Then, in light of these, it can be said, as Benjamin does, that what is included in the original work might not be found in its translation, but, I think, the original might lack what is included in the translation, as well, for as Tymoczko argues, there is always “loss and gain” in translation, and as Benjamin says, what one language lacks is present within the barriers of the other. Translation is more than helpful for comparing and contrasting of languages. As Akşit Göktürk says, it is “the language of all languages”.
REFERENCE:
Benjamin, Walter (2000) “The Task of The Translator” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.
Benjamin argues that a translation which is not bad never “undertakes to serve the reader” (2000 :16). He supports this idea with the fact that “the original does not exist for the reader’s sake” (2000:16)”. The moment of creation of a poem similar to those of Baudelaire’s includes the transmission through the poet of ideas and feelings belonging to a superior being, therefore the original is written by the poet-prophet, and it is by no means created for the sake of those who will read it. So as to make a good translation, the fact that the original is not intended for the reader’s sake (and neither should be the translation) is to be taken into consideration by the translator. If a work is decided to be translated, neither this decision nor the translation process should be intended for the reader. Linked to this, is the notion of “translatability”:
“The question of whether a work is translatable has a dual meaning. Either: Will an adequate translator ever be found among the totality of its readers? Or, more pertinently: Does its nature lend itself to translation and, therefore, in view of the significance of the mode, call for it?” (2000:16)
If a work is translatable, which means is worth being translated, its encounter with one of its readers might result in the translation of the same. Even if this encounter, or the result of this encounter is not realized, that does not prove that the work is not translatable (ibid 2000:16). How does one decide, then, if a work is worth being translated or not? The answer might be related to the notion of universal language, or to the fact that the “kinship of languages” is hidden in elements which are language or culture specific (2000:17). “Languages are not strangers to one another, but are, a priori and apart from all historical relationships, interrelated in what they want to express” (ibid 2000:17). Then it can be said that, if a work will serve to show the differences of expression, make its readers aware of the different “modes” of expression and get them to acquaint themselves with the kinship of languages, it should be translated. Benjamin chooses to translate Baudelaire, for he believes he is the one who believes to be responsible to share with German speaking readers what Baudelaire says in French. This way, relating two different languages to one another, those who read his translation will come one step closer to the universal language.
“Wherein resides the relatedness of two languages, apart from historical considerations? Certainly not in the similarity between works of literature or words. Rather, all supra historical kinship of languages rests in the intention underlying each language as a whole- an intention, however, which no single language can attain by itself but which is realized only by the totality of their intentions supplementing each other: pure language” (Benjamin 2000:18)
Even the most similar words in two languages referring to or “intending” the same object, in other words the different signifiers in two languages of what seems to be the same signified, such as Brot and pain, are different from each other, for they are different modes of intention (ibid 2000:18). The act of translating (well) and reading of (good) translations help discover the hidden meaning of individual languages by showing what each of them lacks, and what one of them lacks is found in another language, and this way, one completes the other, until the pure language is realized as a result of all the various modes of intention (ibid 2000:18-19). Then, in light of these, it can be said, as Benjamin does, that what is included in the original work might not be found in its translation, but, I think, the original might lack what is included in the translation, as well, for as Tymoczko argues, there is always “loss and gain” in translation, and as Benjamin says, what one language lacks is present within the barriers of the other. Translation is more than helpful for comparing and contrasting of languages. As Akşit Göktürk says, it is “the language of all languages”.
REFERENCE:
Benjamin, Walter (2000) “The Task of The Translator” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder