Comments 11/23

David Bellos describes both the shortcomings of machine translating, and the situations in which it can be pretty reliable. It can absolutely come to the rescue to get across simple statements or pieces that are not too complex in grammar. This is why it worked especially well to get across necessary information between survivors and rescuers. Though, despite the growing use of machine translation, it is still lacking when compared to a human translator. Translation of literature is especially difficult for machines to do because of abstract meanings and abnormal grammatical usages. Since these programs are more statistical and are based off of routine phrases, there would be a lot lost in any media that has a purpose of creativity.

The article by George Steiner describes the difficulties of translation and provides examples of why translation is done particularly well by a real person. He describes the trust a translator has that there is meaning to be discovered in the piece. Then, there is the problem of translations and the lack of meaning, and can't be carried over to the target language. He continues describing the strategies of the translator in understanding meanings and then goes on to extract those meanings and recreate them in the target language. Next, he describes incorporating the meaning and form into the form of the target language. The fourth stage of the translation process he describes is bringing balance to the translation, so that it works as a creative piece. The restoration of balance goes beyond the "appropriative comprehension," as he says. I believe this has to do with how the original language must be deconstructed and understood in the target language, and much can be lost. However, there has to be some way of putting back in specifics of the original and maintaining fidelity, or exchange without loss.