1. Nathan argues that the dichotomy between translating literally and translating intention is a false dichotomy because they both work under the assumption that the original is complete and unmoving. How do you think translation changes when one assumes that the original is dynamic?
2. Natan argues that because language is a symbolic representation of objects and concepts, there is an inevitable discrepancy between the author's writing and intended meaning. Does this argument make translating into English while retaining Japanese writing style or cultural elements permissible?
3. The invisibility of translation is mentioned as a "strategy of fluency" to get rid of cultural and linguistic differences? Do you think too much is lost when the translation caters to the new language's audience and culture? Or do you think leaving cultural references creates an unnecessary barrier for a new audience's understanding?
No comments:
Post a Comment