Translation as Negotiation
(October 10, 2019)
In Walter Benjamin’s 1923 essay “Task of the Translator”, he argues that the ultimate task of the translator should not be concerned about the literalness of the translated work that shows likeness to the original, but to move towards a pure language, “of finding that intended effect [Intention] upon the language into which he is translating which produces in it the echo of the original” (20), thus, “translation ultimately serves the purpose of expressing the central reciprocal relationship between languages” (17). In a sense, I would describe his concept of translation as an act of negotiation, and in this negotiation there should be an understanding of how historical transformations by translations are connected to the relationship between languages, thus affecting its continued life.
Firstly, Benjamin cautions the reader by stating that translation is a mode (16), in which case it presumes that the original’s essential feature is its translatability. However, he continues to explain that while “translatability is an essential quality of certain works [does not mean] to say that it is essential that they be translated” (Ibid.) In the same vein, Benjamin’s essay comes off as a warning that translators should refrain from interpreting the original text with additional information as the the text should not be concerned with the reader’s response. He refers to this as the “inaccurate transmission of an inessential content” (Ibid.) Regarding this argument, perhaps we can question if there is a “proper" way of translating, or if there is a “one-true” translation method?
Returning to Benjamin’s essay, there were two concepts that I found intriguing, and I do agree that they are related to each other – historical transformation by translation and relationship between languages.
Regarding historical transformation by translations, Benjamin explains that translations come later than the original, thus contributing to a stage of its continued life (16), to which a similar idea was shared by the Peruvian writer and philosopher Jorge Luis Borges, as he notes that “translations are a partial and precious documentation of the changes the text suffers” (2010, 57). Indeed, when we read about certain works that had been translated, we need to consider that there is already a divide between our present and the present that the work was part of. This can refer to social context, the generational language, and even material history (the experience of the book is different from swiping through digital pages on a tablet). Awareness is key into understanding that there was once a written work and that now continues to be a written work, albeit presented differently but promotes the concept of continuity. Although, this makes me question on how we should consider contemporary works with various translations being made available, either as soon as the original is published or even jointly published. In this sense, it would not be so much of a vertical comparison of the transformation (between timelines, generations, library movements), but perhaps calls for a transformation on a horizontal level (between peers, communities, culture). This, then, brings me to the second concept which is the relationship between languages in translation.
While there is a connection between the translation and the original, Benjamin makes an important note that “translation does not strive for likeness to the original” (17). This idea is best explored in the relationship between languages – for through time and space, words change and language evolves. In this sense, Benjamin makes a point that “all translation is only a somewhat provisional way of coming to terms with the foreignness of languages” (19). Borges has a similar notion, stating that “it is proven that each literary generation has its favorite words” (2010, 54) thus there would be a negotiation between these generational words that can affect the translation process, and regarding his notes on “Stories from Turkestan”, Borges explains that as stories propagate through time and space (geographical), it contends not only with language but with norms, eventually reshaping the stories, and each new version becomes a new myth (2010, 137).
Because “translation must serve the purpose of expressing the central reciprocal relationship between languages” (Benjamin, 17), it is important to be aware of the interconnectedness of languages. So that even if the grammar, syntax and vocabulary differ in usage, by focusing on the intent of language, we can see, according to Benjamin, that they act to supplement each other and create a pure language (18), and that “[the translator] must expand and deepen his language by means of the foreign language” (22). In this sense I do agree that language is treated as something alive, that changes and evolves, and when used in translation, becomes an added feature that is correlated to the original, even if there should be disparities in the word choices between the original and the translation. However, this begs the question of authenticity of experiencing the original text vis-a-vis the translation. As Benjamin states, “the language of translation envelops its content like a royal robe with ample folds” (19) that is to say, there is conscious effort to represent the text in a distanced manner so as to make the experience of the text as foreign. This can be problematic for while, indeed, the translation does not strive for likeness to the original, it may also come off as a variant, or one of the many forms to which the original is being represented, thus having biases, and depending on the translator, may involve omissions or revisions (which, in the words of Borges, is another documentation of the changes that the text suffers).
In conclusion, the act of translating does not discredit the original; rather, it breaks into and transforms the new language (often times elevating the status of the original), and in this process, the language of the translator becomes a part of the renewal of the original, contributing to its continued life. Thus, there is a connection between the historical transformations by translation and the relationship between languages as they both continue to inform and result the other.
Works Cited:
1. Benjamin, Walter, Harry Zorn, and Hannah Arendt. 1999. “The Task of the Translator”. Illuminations. London: Pimlico. (pg.15-25).
2. Borges, Jorge Luis, and Suzanne Jill Levine. 2010. On writing. New York, NY: Penguin Books. (pg. 53-63, 137-140)
英語論文翻訳 Thank you because you have been willing to share information with us. we will always appreciate all you have done here because I know you are very concerned with our.
ReplyDelete