Difference between revisions of "Journal for Lost in Translation Course"

Revision as of 06:25, 7 February 2011

Monday, January 31st, 2011

Munday reading:

• Jakobson's three aspects of translation are problematic. Do translations of Old English texts into Modern English constitute intralingual translations or interlingual translations? Where does one language end and a related one begin? Are there clear boundaries between langauges, and how does translation theory account for changes in language over time?
• Other than a passing reference to Princeton and U. of Ohio, Munday doesn't seem to be very aware of any translation programs/efforts/history in the United States, although he mentions a few in Canada and several in Europe. Is this because there aren't any (hard to imagine) or is his sphere limited?
• The Holmes map of translation studies is fascinating when viewed in light of biblical texts in Old English. I can see where each subdivision of translation studies touches Old English on the Pure side of the map, but the Applied side of things is less obvious. Perhaps this is true of all archaic languages.

Saturday, February 5th, 2011

In reading chapter 8 of Munday, the most thought-provoking section for me was the discourse on translation and post-colonialism. At one point, Munday says (quoting Bassnett and Triveldi, 1999)"these power relationships [are] being played out in the unequal struggle of various local languages against the one master-language of our postcolonial world, English. Translation is thus seen as the battleground and exemplification of the postcolonial context."

The irony of this viewpoint, for me at least, is that my own project is to turn back the clock to the time when English itself was the "inferior" language of the colonized, and Latin the "master-language" of the conqueror. I wonder if a similar argument can be made (but in reverse) for the progression of biblical texts from Hebrew to Greek and then Latin. Greek was the language of Israel's Hellenistic conquerors, and Latin in turn is the language of Greece's Roman conquerors. I realize this is an imperfect argument, since the Greek New Testament was written well after Rome's ascendancy, but the general flow of linguistic cultures up to this point seems to have biblical texts being translated into the language of power.

In Anglo-Saxon England, then, it is perhaps no surprise that the first translations of biblical texts into the vernacular are at the behest of King Alfred -- at the very beginnings of unified English power structures. But it's still complicated. Before their conversion, the Angles and the Saxons were the ones who "conquered" the British Isles (where Latin was already spoken). And yet, Gregory's sending Augustine to evangelize the Anglo-Saxons is somewhat of a "colonistic" endeavor. In the midst of the Anglo-Saxon era, the Danes conquer the English (although with minimal change to politics and language), and finally the Norman Conquest results in dramatic change in language and culture.

So if Anglo-Saxon biblical texts (and biblical texts in general) are viewed, somewhat anachronistically, through the lens of post-colonial criticism...who is the conqueror and when? And what effects of conquest and domination can be seen in the translations, or even in the acts of translation themselves?

Monday, February 7th, 2011

In thinking of Walter Benjamin's approach described in Munday, I'm wondering if a metaphor for the translation process can be something along the lines of parent-->child or a "family tree." Derivative works (a la Cory Doctorow) are therefore not a negative, but an enhancement, a "value-added" proposition, not seen as identical or even striving for direct parity with the original--but encouraging a multiplicity of readings and understandings, and resulting in a related "family" of texts.