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

Revision as of 07:54, 14 April 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.

Wednesday, February 16th, 2011

Pound Article Derrida Article

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture.

• "In a letter to William Cecil, dated March 9, 1565, Parker commented that it would “do much good, to have diversity of translations and readings.”(Loc. 1848-49, Kindle Edition) -- As I mentioned in class, I think this is a good philosophy when it comes to translation. It's interesting to see it pop up so early, and it makes me realize the continuity between print text and digital text. The printing press allowed for comparative translations of a text to a greater extent than manuscripts did, just as the advent of the internet and digital texts facilitates it even more in our own era.

Monday, February 21, 2011

Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture.

• "In that each successive translation drew upon those that preceded it, the earliest of the translations—that of William Tyndale—can thus be seen to have had a considerable effect on its successors." (Loc. 2634-35, Kindle Edition) -- This is certainly valid, and I can acknowledge that Tyndale's translation is the easiest (perhaps only) translation for which we can trace "direct" influence. However, I still think that even Tyndale owes a debt to Wycliffe and the OE translators who first brought theological words, phrases, names, and theological/ecclesiological terms into the English language.
• "The King James Bible is, therefore, not to be dismissed as a mere tinkering with earlier versions--the verdict of our modern era, in which originality and novelty often seem to be prized above all other virtues. The King James Bible is an outstanding example and embodiment of the ideals of its own period, by which it must be judged. It is to be seen in the light of the Renaissance approach to human wisdom, in which one generation is nourished and sustained by the intellectual achievements of its predecessors." (Loc. 2658-59, Kindle Edition). This seems a tad overstated. Is originality not also prized beginning with the Renaissance? Also, I'm not sure how much they valued their immediate predecessors--from what I have read of the Renaissance, I was under the impression that they valued antiquity, which in this case would have been at odds with a vernacular translation. Perhaps there is a good distinction to be made between the "Reformation" and the "Renaissance." There is certainly much overlap between the two, both temporally, geographically, and ideologically. But I do think they have their own distinctive hallmarks. The King James Bible (and the rise of vernacular translations in general) seems to me more appropriately termed a product of the Reformation than the Renaissance.

Monday, March 14, 2011

Robert Alter, Pen of Iron: American Prose and the King James Bible

from Location 81-86 (Kindle edition): "The decline of the role of the King James Version in American culture has taken place more or less simultaneously with a general erosion of a sense of literary language, although I am not suggesting a causal link. The reasons for this latter development have often been noted, and hence the briefest summary will suffice for the purpose of the present argument: Americans read less, and read with less comprehension; hours once devoted to books from childhood on are more likely to be spent in front of a television set or a computer screen; epistolary English, once a proving ground for style, has been widely displaced by the high-speed short-cut language of e-mail and text-messaging. The disappearance of a sense of style even makes itself felt in popular book reviewing."

This seems like a really broad statement that would be hard to defend empirically. It falls right in line with the whole "the world is going to hell in a handbasket" and "back in MY day things were good" mentality. For one thing, it might be argued that "epistolary English" is a alive and well in the era of text messaging -- but as language generally does, the style has shifted to accommodate the medium. I've seen enough evidence of creativity amidst the evolving language of text messaging to suggest that even here, English continues to be a "proving ground for style" -- just not necessarily the sort of style that Alter himself might recognize as such.