On “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign”
Berman sees translation as the “trial of the foreign”(2000:284), which has a dual meaning: 1- from the perspective of the translator and the readers of the target text 2- from the perspective of the source text which begins its adventure of survival in the foreign realm (the target realm). The translator will try to keep the foreignness of the text and the readers will have access to it (1), and the work will have been borne into another language (2). As Berman argues (2000:284) Hölderlin’s version of Sophocles makes the target reader feel the strangeness of the source text; however most translations have a tendency to “attenuate or cancel it” (2000:284). The violence of the work can only be freed (from its original language) by way of “accentuating its strangeness” (2000:285). This is the only way the target text reader will have access to the text.
In translating poetry, Alain seems to share Walter Benjamin’s approach (whether with or without being aware of his remarks): “I have this idea that one can always translate a poet exactly word for word, without adding anything, preserving the very order of the words, until at last you find the meter, even the rhymes...” (Cited by Berman 2000:285). Berman thinks that “thanks to such translation, the language of the original shakes with all its liberated might the translating language” (2000:285). Nevertheless, in this very article, he seems more interested in translation of literary prose than that of poetry. Due to reasons of brevity, poetry translation is more easily compared with the source text and criticized (2000:287). This handicap of novel translation is what Berman wants to remedy with his “analytic of translation” (2000:286). His “negative analytic” sheds light on “ethnocentric”, “annexationalist” and “hypertextual” translations. Berman speaks of deforming forces which do harm to the foreignness of the translated text and adds that every translator, consciously or not, serve these forces (2000:286).
A criticism prose often comes under is its “shapelessness”, which is the totality of languages coexisting in any language (Berman 2000:287). This is the result of the gigantic work the prose writer has to include in her/his work (ibid 2000:287). What makes prose be considered “bad writing” is in fact its richness: its polylingualism (ibid 2000:287). In my opinion, if works of prose, including those which are deemed the annals of world literature are criticized because they are rich, because they bring together different languages and/or vernaculars, then translations thereof are entitled to have the same richness and bring together different languages, as well, and this richness can be maintained with the help of keeping the foreignness of the source text in translation. Berman argues that “all translation is, and must be, the restitution of meaning” (2000:297). The ultimate task of the translator however, is not to neglect the other essence of translating, which is to maintain the trial of the foreign. Berman’s enumeration of tendencies is more than helpful in showing what should not be done so as to carry out that ultimate task.
Reference:
Berman, Antoine (2000) “Translation as the Trials of the Foreign” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.
Berman sees translation as the “trial of the foreign”(2000:284), which has a dual meaning: 1- from the perspective of the translator and the readers of the target text 2- from the perspective of the source text which begins its adventure of survival in the foreign realm (the target realm). The translator will try to keep the foreignness of the text and the readers will have access to it (1), and the work will have been borne into another language (2). As Berman argues (2000:284) Hölderlin’s version of Sophocles makes the target reader feel the strangeness of the source text; however most translations have a tendency to “attenuate or cancel it” (2000:284). The violence of the work can only be freed (from its original language) by way of “accentuating its strangeness” (2000:285). This is the only way the target text reader will have access to the text.
In translating poetry, Alain seems to share Walter Benjamin’s approach (whether with or without being aware of his remarks): “I have this idea that one can always translate a poet exactly word for word, without adding anything, preserving the very order of the words, until at last you find the meter, even the rhymes...” (Cited by Berman 2000:285). Berman thinks that “thanks to such translation, the language of the original shakes with all its liberated might the translating language” (2000:285). Nevertheless, in this very article, he seems more interested in translation of literary prose than that of poetry. Due to reasons of brevity, poetry translation is more easily compared with the source text and criticized (2000:287). This handicap of novel translation is what Berman wants to remedy with his “analytic of translation” (2000:286). His “negative analytic” sheds light on “ethnocentric”, “annexationalist” and “hypertextual” translations. Berman speaks of deforming forces which do harm to the foreignness of the translated text and adds that every translator, consciously or not, serve these forces (2000:286).
A criticism prose often comes under is its “shapelessness”, which is the totality of languages coexisting in any language (Berman 2000:287). This is the result of the gigantic work the prose writer has to include in her/his work (ibid 2000:287). What makes prose be considered “bad writing” is in fact its richness: its polylingualism (ibid 2000:287). In my opinion, if works of prose, including those which are deemed the annals of world literature are criticized because they are rich, because they bring together different languages and/or vernaculars, then translations thereof are entitled to have the same richness and bring together different languages, as well, and this richness can be maintained with the help of keeping the foreignness of the source text in translation. Berman argues that “all translation is, and must be, the restitution of meaning” (2000:297). The ultimate task of the translator however, is not to neglect the other essence of translating, which is to maintain the trial of the foreign. Berman’s enumeration of tendencies is more than helpful in showing what should not be done so as to carry out that ultimate task.
Reference:
Berman, Antoine (2000) “Translation as the Trials of the Foreign” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder