RSS

#9 Nov 30- Gender ＆ Translation

張貼者： NTNU GITI BLOG on 2009年10月27日 星期二
標籤：
#9 Nov 30 Sherry Simon, Gender in Translation

4 意見:

素勳 提到...

In feminist translation, creativity, production, and rewriting are emphasized instead of reproduction, which may have a lot to do with the post-structuralist concern with the unstability of the signifiers. It would seem that equivalence and fidelity is no longer the issue now. And yet in chapter 3, missed connection: translating French feminism to Anglo-America, a lot of emphases have been placed on the misunderstanding arisen out of mistranslation and miss-translation (e.g. Cixous). So, the most appropriate way of “representation” of the “text” produced by the author---if not the intention/meaning of the author—does matters? That’s why Spivak would focus on the rhetoricity or the textuality in translation? For writers do not write in language but that are written through it--- or they do not produce texts, but are produced through intertextuality? Also, translators are not doing the translation, but are translated though it? (Still, certain key words are usually left “unstranslated”, e.g. joussance, chora …)

Then, there comes the problem of untranslatability of multiple languages in the text. Spivak italicized the “English” in her translation of Devi’s works, which may be a solution, but can we do the same in translating Chinese texts mixed with English? For English readers may not notice the italicized “English” while it would be quite obvious in Chinese texts. Language –switch would be another solution, e. g. in English-French text. But how do we translate a text like “Between” with multiple languages into Chinese? Or simply leave these passages untranslated with explanations attached in footnotes? (Like the translation of “Ulysses”?)

It’s interesting to find that a lot of Antoine Berman’s works were not translated into English, despite that he had modified his views on translation. As his call for a theory of a “translating subject” (p. 36)-- which is not the person of the translator--remains quite elusive to me. Is it the “positionality” of translator that Simon emphasized? Then, what exactly is the position translators situated in relation to the author? In-between? (A love-hate relation as proposed by some, or a love relation as proposed by Spivak—to the text, but what about the author? ) While the translators may be changed through translation—e.g. the female translators of Brock or Thomas Mann’s works---what about the authors? Were they changed? Also, were the original changed because of the translation? Was French feminism changed in some way because of the English translation? Simon has mentioned that the philosophical location of feminist can now be said be somewhere in mid-Atlantic? Is it really the case?

Finally, about Bible translation. Should the patriarchal tone of the Bible left untouched to reflect the historical truth, or should it be changed to adapt to a modern society? I guess it would depend on the “function” of the text---to be a text for sermon or a document of its own crime?

2009年11月29日 上午10:01
加真 提到...

Is it very difficult for a translator to see translating as a kind of achievement? Probably if one can choose between being a writer and being a translator, he/she will still think being a writer as a kind of literary recognition. Helen Lowe-Porter, Thomas Mann’s long-time English translator, felt slight disappointment that her creative writing was not well-accepted as her translation of Mann’s masterpieces. She kind of blamed this on the reading public for their being unable to appreciate her other role, a creative writer. “Once a translator, always a translator,” she said. Most famous translators in Taiwan are writers to begin with. The famous translators (and themselves not writers) that I can think of so far are 單德興 and 呂建忠. However, in Lu’s latest translation, Ovid’s Metamorphoseon, he only briefly explains the motivation of such a translation. He particularly made mention of his goal of being a translator. He knows very well that he can never write a first-class work, so, at least he can make efforts to translate the best masterpieces. It’s a pity that the translator himself does not realize that his translation work may be as dignified as creative writing. I think the “self-effacement” and “self-denial” attitude might affect a translator’s strategy in translating. Famous writer-translators, such as 余光中 and 楊牧, might translate very differently.

When Lowe-Porter said of the reading public’s impression that “Once a translator, always a translator,” I don’t know whether she will feel sad about Wiki’s summary of her original play in only one sentence. So, better start with one’s creative writing career if you are both writer and translator oriented. When you are a writer, your translator identity seems to be a plus, but when you are a translator, the readers don’t seem to believe that you can be a creative writer.

2009年11月29日 上午11:11
Craig 提到...

In her conclusion to Chapter 3, Simon touches upon the idea of bi-directionality in translation. That is, when we understand translation as a discursive operation, texts, cultures, languages, writers and readers on both source and target sides of the equation are enriched by the translation process. From Simon's discussion in Chapter 3, I would surmise that this is an outgrowth of struggles with both linguistic and cultural gaps, and here we discover that the impossibility of translation has the potential to generate new possibilities on a variety of levels. It seems the notion of bi-directionality has application in the area of theoretical writings, but I am not sure how it operates in literature, where the voice of the author may be privileged over other kinds of content, or in more straight-forward kinds of writing where struggles are less intense. Also, for bi-directionality to take place, it is still necessary to define terms such as fidelity, rewriting, content, subjectivity (habitus—this term shows up often in recent theoretical discussions on translation~ I think it is worth looking at) and other conventional notions of translation. Bi-directionality also relies on evaluating the difference between gross misunderstanding and enlightened/creative solutions to real problems, as well as discussions of politically motivated interpretations that the post colonialists are concerned with.

As for the Bible, it seems inclusion and equality are sometimes seen hidden beneath its veneer of patriarchy, a patriarchy created, codified and institutionalized by a political organization called the church. If the term “man” retains its inclusive meaning of “humanity” (men and womyn), then is translating this meaning as “people” rather than “man” really rewriting, or merely bringing out a meaning that has always been there but oppressed? If we believe the Bible is a sacred text, it is worthwhile to separate the word of god from words of mortal men prone to sin. I guess after thousands of years of patriarchy, it is difficult for some people to accept that a world built on greed, aggression, subjugation, power, ownership, prejudice (etc ad infinitum) might have been a mistake, but I wonder what universe they live in. Only the severely deluded don't see what a mess the world (a world built by men, though to some extent women are complicit) is in today.

2009年11月29日 下午1:05
明哲 提到...

Simon points out in chapter 1 that feminist translation appears not to comply with the fidelity directly toward the author or the reader, but the “writing project” instead. In other senses, translation as a transmissive carrier both socially and ideologically defined, gender identification in translated texts should more pertinently be appreciated via the consciousness of the participants (the author, reader, and translator) in the contextuality referred to. Since the translator’s mission is mainly to communicate, rewrite and manipulate a text and therefore contributes to the “production” of a new meaning, the hierarchy of gender identities in literary writings can also be attenuated in recognition of the mobility and performativity of its nature. The inclusive language discussed in chapter 4 is a good example. Although it is still a debate swinging between a faithful reflection of the “authentic” intentions of God and the practical fulfillment of the religious doctrines over human beings, it surely opens a new path to getting a universal acceptance of both sexes. In fact, neutral terms suggested by non-sexist biblical scholarships in translating the Bible give equal consideration to the authenticity of the “original” and the acknowledgement of the contemporary notions about gender equality. Such a shift is by all means inspired by the politics of the feminist writing and translation, as ideas like “womanhandling” realized to “foreground female subjectivity in the production of meaning.” (Godard, p13)
The signifiers representing patriarchical traditions particularly in the Creation story is accordingly amended to meet the unbiased understanding of the sacred writing. I remember during my Sunday School days, pastors (especially female ones) unweariedly reiterated the male predominance in the understanding of God’s creation work. Women in my church were also asked to always follow the leadership of male elders. No one ever tried to pose questions such as “why?” and “Is this possible?” It is interesting to find the Greek translation renders adam as anthropos, an androgynous term to identify with man and woman simultaneously, because this is just the proof supporting that translation is not only functioning as an absolute mirroring of the original meaning (based on Nida), but also a re-creating of the meaning itself.

2009年11月29日 下午1:55

張貼留言