Monday, January 23, 2012

LIT102 - Paper #1

I think this one is okay. Dunno. Translation theory is hard to work with.


Darlene McCoy
Susan Gillman
LIT102 - Translation Theory
19 January 2012
Translation - the Language Border Assassin
            José Martí, a Cuban national hero, wrote his famous essay, "Nuestra America" in 1891. Since then, many translators have undertaken the task of conveying his message through language barriers; namely the barrier between Spanish and English. Elinor Randall, translator, and her editor Phillip S. Foner performed the task in 1977, and Esther Allen took it upon herself to do the same in 2002. A modern Western mind might not find much difference in the translations - for when read casually, their meanings are more or less equal, which suffice for a casual reading. On the other hand, a further look into the texts reveals some interesting little tidbits that might shake up any notions of equality between the two translations. Not to say that one translation is perhaps better than the other - just that they are two different works.
            "Nuestra America / Our America" focuses on many ideas. One is: Martí calls for his people to reject European and US politics and culture. He declares that his people should value the naturality of their lands and culture, for they are just as wonderful as their counterparts.
            When examined for their fidelity as well as their fluidity, the translator of each translation becomes visible, and the works themselves become distinctly different. In a section of his essay, Randall translated Martí's original word to "plainsman." Allen translated it to "gaucho." These two words roughly translate to cowboy - but a "plainsman" is a North American cowboy, and a "gaucho" is a South American cowboy. This slight difference begins to shed light on the differences in the translation - Randall seems to be more loyal to her English audience, and Allen to Martí. "Plainsman" reads more easily to an English speaker than "gaucho" does - it is fluid - for a native English speaker should have no issue with understanding the word's meaning. Yet, "plainsman" does not convey the same meaning as "gaucho" does in the context of Martí's essay. "Gaucho" remains loyal to Martí's ideas presented in the essay; it is natural and perfectly fine as it is in its original form. Yet, "gaucho" alienates an English reader, making the translation more difficult to read. One might say that Randall values fluidity over fidelity, but if her intentions in creating her translation were to create a semantically fluid text for English speakers, it is clear that she values both. On the other hand, one might say that Allen values fidelity over fluidity, but if her intentions in creating her translation were to create a text that loyally conveys Martí's ideas to English speakers, she too, values both fluidity and fidelity. Who can say that one translation is better than the other? They are simply different works that convey different ideas.
            While "gaucho" and "plainsman" translated to the same semantic meaning, another original word of Martí's essay translated to two words that have different semantic meanings: stagnant (Randall) and sluggish (Allen). Stagnant refers to a fluid in a vessel that is at rest, while sluggish refers to people who are inclined to be slow or slothful. These meanings are similar, but their innate difference points to a problem in translation: not all words are translatable, because one language might not have a word that can semantically translate to a word from another language. Why else would each translator choose a similar, yet different word? It is unreasonable to believe that one of the translators was more upset at the scene of translation so she decided to be more negative with her translation. The translation machine is not a consistent function, nor will it ever be, because the inputs do not always produce the same outputs. Therefore, each original work put into the translation machine will come out different than the one entered before it, making the outputs separate entities.
            A translator may intentionally mistranslate a word for some purpose. In Allen's translation she uses the word "mestizo." Randall uses "halfbreed." "Mestizo" is a Latin American word that semantically translates to "halfblood," which is similar to "halfbreed." Yet, "halfbreed" carries an unpleasant connotation. Say if, Elinor Randall had an intense hatred for Martí's people, she could use the word "halfbreed" to connote negative ideas about them. If this were true, then, a reading of her translation could change because of one little word! A mistranslation can change an entire reading of a work - making it different from other translations.
            It is important to note that a translation does not solely depend on the translator. Language itself complicates translation, for language transforms over time. For example: both translators use "Parisian" when referring to a person who hails from Paris in their translation. Yet, as Martí was not fond of French ideas, if he lived today, he might use the term "les parigots," which is a derogatory term to describe a person from Paris. Both terms, "Parisian" and "les parigots" mean a person from Paris, but "les parigots" carries some rather nasty connotations with it. "Les parigots" did not exist in Martí's day - he could have never used it; but the fact that it exists now is evidence for the transformation of language over time. Because language transforms over time, a translator cannot know the exact historical context and semantic meaning of a word written an amount of time ago. This lack of information can create difference in translation, thus different works.
            Why does it matter that a translation is a bit different from another?  Translation is power. Slight differences in translations can mean big changes for those who read them. A country shows its dominance by forcing others to learn its language. In Allen's translation, Spanish words are simply intergraded into the work. English words are italicized and capitalized. The italicization sets off the English words, making them stand out and seem foreign. The capitalization of "Government" and "Creator" imply that they are English words that convey an idea of "government." In her translation, though it is in English, the dominant language is Spanish, which adheres to Martí's ideas presented in the essay. In Randall's translation, Spanish words are not used, and English words, specifically "government" and "creator" are engrained into the work - they are neither capitalized nor italicized. In this translation, English is the dominant language on all counts. Therefore, it is important to note differences in translation and to give each translation of a work its own existence, because translation is power, and power must be held in check so it is not abused!

No comments: