The
linguistic theorists suggest that the differences in translations come out of
the “semantic void”; that is, that language can only allow for so much
commonality between a text and a translation of it. There are some words and
concepts that simply cannot be translated completely, and concisely at the same
time. They also suggest that the differences between two translations are due
to the translators’ attempts to navigate the void; in the sense that, each
translator is going to approach the void from a different cultural and social
perspective, and because language is intrinsically tied to culture, these
different cultural approaches are destined to produce different translations.
The literary translation theorists suggest something similar, but different. They seem to believe that the differences in translations come partially from the different perspectives of the translator. This is where the two theories overlap. But the literary theorists also seem to believe that the main cause of variance comes from the translators’ artistic choices, and their interpretations of the original text. This can be seen through Pope and Fagles’ different choices in first words in their translations of The Iliad. Pope sees Achilles as the main subject of the text, while Fagles seems to believe it is rage in general, not just that of Achilles, that drives the text forward.
These two theories both make claims that I believe carry some truth. It seems absolutely true that the semantic void produces difference. Likewise, the translator’s perspective and artistic interpretation has to inform the work he or she produces. The theory I would like propose is that these two ideas are not separate at all. In order to cross the semantic void; to navigate the troublesome field of language, a translator’s strongest tool is his capacity for interpretation. The void that language produces is exactly what allows for that artistic interpretation to happen. The void presents the translator with a choice. But that choice is both a linguistic one, and an artistic one. The semantic void is the realm in which the translator becomes an author. In the void he is all at once a linguist, and interpreter, a preserver and an author who has to make the very same decisions the author of an original text must make. The only difference between a translator and an original author is the origins of the story itself. Homer claims inspiration from the Muses for his epics, and he, in turn, plays the muse for any who choose to translate his work. He, like the Muse, provides the story, and leaves it to the translator to write it down.
The literary translation theorists suggest something similar, but different. They seem to believe that the differences in translations come partially from the different perspectives of the translator. This is where the two theories overlap. But the literary theorists also seem to believe that the main cause of variance comes from the translators’ artistic choices, and their interpretations of the original text. This can be seen through Pope and Fagles’ different choices in first words in their translations of The Iliad. Pope sees Achilles as the main subject of the text, while Fagles seems to believe it is rage in general, not just that of Achilles, that drives the text forward.
These two theories both make claims that I believe carry some truth. It seems absolutely true that the semantic void produces difference. Likewise, the translator’s perspective and artistic interpretation has to inform the work he or she produces. The theory I would like propose is that these two ideas are not separate at all. In order to cross the semantic void; to navigate the troublesome field of language, a translator’s strongest tool is his capacity for interpretation. The void that language produces is exactly what allows for that artistic interpretation to happen. The void presents the translator with a choice. But that choice is both a linguistic one, and an artistic one. The semantic void is the realm in which the translator becomes an author. In the void he is all at once a linguist, and interpreter, a preserver and an author who has to make the very same decisions the author of an original text must make. The only difference between a translator and an original author is the origins of the story itself. Homer claims inspiration from the Muses for his epics, and he, in turn, plays the muse for any who choose to translate his work. He, like the Muse, provides the story, and leaves it to the translator to write it down.
No comments:
Post a Comment