Read on Twitter
A lot of comments from non-translators on the topic of translation online (especially in the anime/manga/gaming sphere) seem to go along the lines of "yes but I want the ORIGINAL meaning, not the translator's interpretation of it," which to me shows a deep misunderstanding...
...of both language, meaning & translation.
Here goes an age old question (see how the translator shivers in their boots!!!!!):
When people talk about ~the text's
original meaning~.... what ARE they really talking about???¿¿?
Here goes an age old question (see how the translator shivers in their boots!!!!!):
When people talk about ~the text's
original meaning~.... what ARE they really talking about???¿¿?
Is it, perhaps, the individual meaning of words? Surely if we translate the individual blocks that make up a sentence as they are (i.e. word-for-word translation) we'll get the objective meaning of a text, right?
objective meaning of a text, right?
Except there is very rarely a single meaning to words. Words and language are not maths. Words and language don't exist in a void - they exist in a context. They carry cultural baggage, notions. A sentence arranged in the exact same way doesn't always result in the same meaning.
Meaning in words is dictated by who reads them, what time period they read them in, where they read them, where they come from, their life experience, what they consider tabboo, what they don't, etc etc.
A great example of how words =/ maths is the internet-favourite sentence "I never said she stole my money," where if you stress a different word every time you achieve 7 different meanings (nifty, ey?), as a basic example of that.
The thought that language is somehow...
The thought that language is somehow...
...objectively, scientifically static & conveys a universal immovable meaning, as if it were a maths equation, is false.
Okay so, then what about the author's intent? Shouldn't we translate a text based on what the author, Holy and Mighty Creator, meant to convey??
Okay so, then what about the author's intent? Shouldn't we translate a text based on what the author, Holy and Mighty Creator, meant to convey??
If so, then boy oh boy: there's an entire branch of literary thought called death of the author that dismantles the idea that the only possible reading of a literary text is through the author's intent and bias; that this in fact -limits- a text's possibilities.
This is why authors like JK Rowling have been the subject of debate in literary & fan communities: if you deny your readership to draw its own conclusions and readings from a text by repeatedly having a hand at it post publication, what freedom of interpretation is there?
Some would argue that a piece of media/art only acquires meaning upon being interpreted by an audience, and that any interpretation is just as valid. In the realm of translation, it's often forgotten that a translator is ALSO a reader themselves.
They ingest the text, draw conclusions, and put down their own interpretation of it. If any&all interpretations are valid, because content only has meaning through consumption, then surely a translator's interpretation, as one more reader, should be just as acceptable.
(Of course, in turn readers of said translation are free to draw their own conclusions too.)
And authorial intent becomes particularly sticky when you start talking about games & localisation, because there are MANY people working on one project. As a translator, whose opinion do you consult? Whose interpretation is the most valid?
And what if you can't even ask that question? What if the author is straight up dead (like, 100-years-ago kind of dead, ancient-history kind of dead), and interpretation is all you have? Or what if you can't contact the author, as is often the case in the manga/LN sphere?
What if the author themselves refuses to attach a specific meaning to something, BECAUSE they want audiences to speculate?
meaning to something, BECAUSE they want audiences to speculate?
The point of this thread isn't to cancel a specific translation strategy, or True Meaning of Meaning, or pinpoit the One True Path Of Translation (that's a scam, there is no true path, we're all just lost lambs)...
...but to some shed light on how complicated the process of decision making in translation is, the many different scholarly opinions on it (you don't know the half of it, its a rabbit hole), and the many, many more factors outside a translator's control that affect it.
Sometimes a translation has nothing to do with the original meaning, but rather is based on the purpose a text will serve in its target culture (functionalist approach).
Sometimes a translator doesn't even -have- a say in what that purpose is (it's on whoever is paying them)
original meaning, but rather is based on the purpose a text will serve in its target culture (functionalist approach).Sometimes a translator doesn't even -have- a say in what that purpose is (it's on whoever is paying them)
Basically language is complicated, words don't have fixed meanings (much less across languages), translation isn't a robotic process of substituting A with B, and lets be honest is anything even real???
And if you're still sitting there thinking "alright i get it, but I want to make MY OWN interpretation of the og text, not an interpretation based on someone else's interpretation! I want to know exactly what the author said! I don't want someone tampering with my experience!"
Well then my dude, my buddy, my friend... there is only one way to go for you:
Learn the source language
Learn the source language
P.S. YO so this thread got waaay more attention than I was expecting & i'm seeing people asking for further resources on some of the ideas I talked about, so here go a few academic books/essays I recommend if you wanna get started on translation theory
For a general intrduction to the yarn tangle that is translation studies:
MUNDAY, J. (2001) - Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Application
PYM, A. (2001) - Exploring Translation Theories
MUNDAY, J. (2001) - Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and ApplicationPYM, A. (2001) - Exploring Translation Theories
For more on the functionalist approach to translation that I briefly touched upon:
NORD, C. (1994) - Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist approaches Explained
VERMEER, H. J. (2000) - Skopos and Commission in Translation Action, in THE TRANSLATION STUDIES READER
NORD, C. (1994) - Translating as a Purposeful Activity: Functionalist approaches ExplainedVERMEER, H. J. (2000) - Skopos and Commission in Translation Action, in THE TRANSLATION STUDIES READER
Functionalist approach continued:
VERMEER, H. J. & REISS, K. (2014) - Towards a General Theory of Translational Action
VERMEER, H. J. & REISS, K. (2014) - Towards a General Theory of Translational Action
And last but not least, not really specifically related to translation but often brought up in academic discussions of literary translation:
BARTHES, R. (1967) - The Death of The Author
BARTHES, R. (1967) - The Death of The Author
The "I never said she stole my money" and language =/ maths was an example I used in an academic paper for my MA in translation on computer aided translation that I still refer to often, feel free to use it too cos it's a nifty one!!
Stay safe ya'll!!
(Also to other translation scholars reading this, feel free to add any additional resources?)
(Also to other translation scholars reading this, feel free to add any additional resources?)
((SO i ended up making and Expansion Pack to this thread at my own risk to clear up some missunderstandings, rather than bombard individuals:)) https://twitter.com/lauritaYellow/status/1262302874312343553?s=19
