Response paper on “The Task of the Translator” by Walter Benjamin
In his essay The Task of the Translator, Walter Benjamin treats translation in an almost romantic sense. For Benjamin, translation seems to be a medium to reach what he calls “pure language”. This language can be realized through the process of translation in which two very different languages get into an interaction, which Benjamin denotes as the ultimate purpose of translation. The languages are naturally related in what they wish to say and according to Benjamin, the kinship of languages comes to be more evident in translation. The languages and thus the literary works change in time, or “slowly ripen” in Benjamin’s terms, and translation, as a communicative mode, is the one that keeps this ever-changing pulse of languages.
Benjamin goes on to argue that individual languages, words and sentences lack the profound meaning which actually gains its significance through translation that harmonizes all meanings in it and results in a universal language. Here, Benjamin totally focuses on the expression and language without content. Translations’, and thus the translator’s, ultimate task is not to transfer meaning but translate as close to the original as possible, via dealing mainly with the syntax and its way of expressing notions in the target language. The ultimate purpose of the translator should not be communicating or rendering the sense but to “redeem universal language from the exile in alien, to free it by translation from the work that enthralls it.” (1968: 94), which is a notion that I find rather mystic and romantic. For Benjamin, “genuine translation is translucid; it does not veil the original text nor shadow it. Rather it allows the radiance of universal language” (1968: 92) It is only in this way that the real meaning of “fidelity” can be achieved through an adherence to the syntax. It’s the syntax that gives the meaning to the words, which are “the translator’s raw material” (1968:92) and “…fidelity to the word, literalness of felt verbal meaning, is the colonnade through which the original can be seen.” (1968:92)
I think it is also remarkable that Benjamin does not take the reader into consideration. He starts his essay with the words, “In the appreciation of a work of art or an art form, consideration of the receiver never proves fruitful. No poem is intended for the reader, no picture for the beholder, no symphony for the listener” (1968:77) Disregarding the communicative value of the translator and the receptive end, I believe, seems to set the translator free off his/her bounds. However, I think such an aesthetic approach also carries the risk of producing an opposite result, i.e. an unaesthetical one, due to firm adherence to the syntax of the source language.
In his essay The Task of the Translator, Walter Benjamin treats translation in an almost romantic sense. For Benjamin, translation seems to be a medium to reach what he calls “pure language”. This language can be realized through the process of translation in which two very different languages get into an interaction, which Benjamin denotes as the ultimate purpose of translation. The languages are naturally related in what they wish to say and according to Benjamin, the kinship of languages comes to be more evident in translation. The languages and thus the literary works change in time, or “slowly ripen” in Benjamin’s terms, and translation, as a communicative mode, is the one that keeps this ever-changing pulse of languages.
Benjamin goes on to argue that individual languages, words and sentences lack the profound meaning which actually gains its significance through translation that harmonizes all meanings in it and results in a universal language. Here, Benjamin totally focuses on the expression and language without content. Translations’, and thus the translator’s, ultimate task is not to transfer meaning but translate as close to the original as possible, via dealing mainly with the syntax and its way of expressing notions in the target language. The ultimate purpose of the translator should not be communicating or rendering the sense but to “redeem universal language from the exile in alien, to free it by translation from the work that enthralls it.” (1968: 94), which is a notion that I find rather mystic and romantic. For Benjamin, “genuine translation is translucid; it does not veil the original text nor shadow it. Rather it allows the radiance of universal language” (1968: 92) It is only in this way that the real meaning of “fidelity” can be achieved through an adherence to the syntax. It’s the syntax that gives the meaning to the words, which are “the translator’s raw material” (1968:92) and “…fidelity to the word, literalness of felt verbal meaning, is the colonnade through which the original can be seen.” (1968:92)
I think it is also remarkable that Benjamin does not take the reader into consideration. He starts his essay with the words, “In the appreciation of a work of art or an art form, consideration of the receiver never proves fruitful. No poem is intended for the reader, no picture for the beholder, no symphony for the listener” (1968:77) Disregarding the communicative value of the translator and the receptive end, I believe, seems to set the translator free off his/her bounds. However, I think such an aesthetic approach also carries the risk of producing an opposite result, i.e. an unaesthetical one, due to firm adherence to the syntax of the source language.
References
Benjamin, Walter, “The Task of the Translator” in Delos A Journal on & of Translation, National Translation Center, No:2, Austin, Texas: 1968.
2 yorum:
Why did you stop posting three years ago? These are really useful assessments, especially for the people who write scholarly articles on translation.
Yorum Gönder