In his article “On the Different Methods of Translating”, at first, Friedrich Schleiermacher’s idea of a good translation does not seem to clash with Etienne Dolet and Alexander Fraser Tytler, in the sense that a translator has to have a perfect grasp of the meaning of what the author tries to convey and in order to achieve that, the translator must immerse himself in both the target culture and its language. However, in his aricle How to Translate Well From One Language to Another Dolet reflects on the task of the translator as to make the author as clear and intelligible as possible. As for Tytler, who tackles with the same question in his essay on The Proper Task of a Translator , there is no room for obscurity and to imitate the ambiguity of the original is a fault. In my opinion, Schleiermacher’s theory of bringing the reader to author challenges this generalization. He, too, is in favor of a total immersion in the target culture and language as well as thoughts of the original author on the translator’s part but it should not be to the extent of losing the impact of the original texture of the author’s work on the reader. I believe that the idea of making the author explicit where he prefers to be ambiguous goes into the territory of author-to-reader theory, which Schleiermacher does not favor as an option since, for him, it means to distort the unique sense peculiar to an author’s linguistic and conceptual world.
The conceptual worlds of both the reader and the author are products of two different languages which are again products of two different cultures. For Schleiermacher, intercultural dialogue is the essential goal of the translation. He tackles with the issue of translation from a cultural perspective but that of the target one. He bas to find an alternative way of attaining an accurate understanding and enjoyment of the source language author by focusing on the reader mainly, which is the reader-to-author approach. As Lawrence Venuti notes in his essay Strategies of Translation, while "domesticating strategy" (author-to-reader approach) is an "ethnocentric reduction of the foreign text to target–language cultural values”, "foreignizing strategy" (reader-to-author) is an "ethnodeviant pressure on those values to register linguistic and cultural differences of the foreign text”. In that aspect, not only the translator but also the reader has to possess the same hermeneutical sensitivity. The reader is expected to be able to grasp and appreciate the foreign but first of all he/she should be willing to investigate further than what is presented to him/her. I think the main problem here is that this theory cannot be applied to genres like fiction which is regarded as the soul foundation of the author-to-reader approach by Schleiermacher. There, he only offers paraphrasing and imitations as the only strategies to be employed for this kind of work, and dismisses any other potential alternatives. In that sense, I think this theory also carries the risk of elevating the translated works and their readers to a higher status, thus countering the very aim of the theory – which is supposed to be providing an intercultural communication – by making it difficult for the original works to reach beyond their own linguistic/cultural territories. So, to what level can foreignization bring the reader towards the author is not answered in Schleiermacher’s work. On the other hand, his question “How then shall the translator convey to his readers, in their native language, this feeling that the text before them is truly foreign?” is dealt through a translation process that entails stretchment of the boundaries of the target language but in Schleiermacher's words "not every language is amenable to this kind of translation", again dismissing the possibility of the adaptation of this theory for a variety of so-called "inflexible" languages.
To sum up, I think that the two conditions he proposes for the success of the reader-to-author method, firstly the presence of a desire to immerse oneself in foreign works/worlds and secondly the necessity of natural flexibility of the reader's native language can be restrictive on the reader's but liberating on the translator's part . Restrictive for the reader because he/she has to be well-trained and equipped to grasp the idea and liberating for the translator because he is presented with a chance to go beyond the conceptual framework of his own language and be inventive, in other words, visible.
1 yorum:
In her response to the diferent theorists' understanding of translation, Deniz has chosen to dwell upon Schleiermacher in comparison to Dolet and Tytler. In my opinion, it is an effective method to compare and contrast the three theorists in order to emphasize the specific points in Schleiermacher's model. However, since Deniz starts the comparison in the very first sentence, she takes it for granted that her readers already know well about the theories of Dolet and Tytler. It might have been a good idea to introduce Schleiermacher's views briefly first before developing a detailed discussion on the different and common points.
As for the point of comparison, Deniz focuses on Schleiermacher's reader-to-author as against author-to-reader approaches, which, I also believe are the two basic themes of his theory. In that sense, she has effectively developed her arguments and the mentioning of Venuti, who must have been influenced by Schleiermacher's views is quite relevant.
Deniz presents her own comments on the reader-to-author approach in a critical manner, mentioning the risk of elevating the translator's works and his readers to a higher status and thus preventing intercultural communication. Though I need to hear some more clarification on that, I think the point she brings about is worthy of further discussion.
In concluding her arguments, Deniz asks a very clever question as to how the approach of bringing the reader-to-author shall apply to the works written in some other "inflexible" languages which are not amenable to such kind of translation strategy, quoting Schleiermacher, himself. I think Schleiermacher's own admisssion that this reader-to-author strategy can not be the standard procedure for all texts might serve as answer to that.
Finally,I think the conclusion is well-written in the sense that she not only reminds the reader of the two conditions Schleiermacher proposes for his reader-to-author approach to be applicable, but also points out her own opinions in terms of the respective effects of this strategy on the reader and the translator. In the last sentence, the implicit reference to Venuti and the visibility of the translator is relevant and well-thought.
Yorum Gönder