| Friday, July 9, 2010

Lawrence Venuti’s ‘The Translator’s Invisibility’ is the first translation book I’m blogging about. I haven’t taken proper notes on the first chapter—‘Invisibility’—yet but whilst reading, Venuti’s words had me wondering: is it possible to produce translation perfection?

Basically, no, if we consider what the act of translation involves and what the translator is trying to do for both the original author and his reader.

Venuti talks about the difference between the ‘foreignisation’ or ‘domestication’ of a translated text, which could be summarised thusly: when translating a text, do you want to take the reader towards the foreign culture and understanding of life (foreignisation) or do you want to express the foreign culture and text in terms and concepts that the reader already understands in his language (domestication)?

I can see hints of didacticism and business in these ideas.

How much do you want to teach your reader about the foreign culture and ideas, and how much do you want to just give him what he thinks he wants and be done with the matter? Because, clearly, if you don’t tell him about something, he won’t know it exists.

Does your reader, in fact, want to be taught about the foreign text, culture and ideas or does he just want to ‘understand’?

Venuti quotes German theologian and philosopher Freidrich Schleiermacher:

“In an 1813 lecture on the different ‘methods’ of translation, Schleiermacher argued that ‘there are only two. Either the translator leaves the author in peace as much as possible and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him.’”

The problem is that there are three sets of knowledge, culture and history to contend with every time someone translates something.

The author knows certain things and is a product of a certain culture, which is itself part of a larger historical trend.

The reader knows certain other things and is a product of a different culture and a different history.

The translator supposedly sits in the middle, trying to bridge the gap, with a third level of understanding.

If 100% translation perfection is not possible, is 100% accurate communication and understanding possible? It would appear not, even with seemingly simple phrase or words.

Spanish PIGS, for example

Take the word ‘pig’. A simple enough word but why all the Spanish anger when the English-speaking financial press starts using the word in headlines to refer to Mediterranean countries en bloc (e.g. STUPID investors in PIGS).

In English, a ‘pig’ is a farm animal and—when used to talk about people—refers to someone who is ‘a slob, a coarse, obnoxious person, a person regarded as greedy’, or ‘a person who is unpleasant and difficult to deal with’.

The most direct and habitual translation of ‘pig’ into Spanish is of course ‘cerdo’.

Spanish shares the English definition of ‘pig’ but adds at least one more definition which is not present in the English understanding of the word: “mean, despicable, miserly, contemptible, stingy.”

Considering how much Spanish people like to be thought of as magnanimous, generous and ‘friends of their friends’, it’s perhaps not the best thing to call a bunch of businessmen and economists in the middle of a recession.

Moving back to the wider point, what implications does all of this have for translators, their clients and their projects?

What does it mean for communication and understanding in our globalised world? Will machine translation ‘gist of the text’ solutions ever be close enough to 100% to not need human translators?