Rebecca Copeland's article was incredibly interesting to read. I love how she captured the realization of a translator. She went into it with this idea of perfect equivalence in translation, but then realized how naive she was. Then, quoting Seidenstecker's point of choosing between two undesirable options. With her article as a whole, though, she points out how easy it is to zone in on a word, or a few words, and forget the piece as an entire entity. I think it is especially important when translating women's writing, or anything written by groups of people that have experienced some kind of discrimination, to look further into intention and voice. It is really fascinating that she pointed out that these voices can be more important than the stories they are telling. I think this can be true if the story is an extension of the voice.
The round table discussion was very interesting with its regards to equivalence. I think that while translating, I have heard and considered the term "equivalence" a lot, and just accepted it as a logical idea. Now, having read this article, I really wonder what it can really produce. While there are many logical similarities and relationships of some part of Japanese into English, they simply aren't the same. I agree with what Seidenstecker said, having accents or dialects that we think is perfectly similar to the Japanese still wouldn't work because the relationships, time, and place within the English are too glaringly specific and can't properly represent the Japanese.
No comments:
Post a Comment