Here's a fascinating piece from Religion Dispatches about Coleman Barks, an American poet and translator who has popularized the 800-year-old poetry of an 800-year-old Sufi mystic named Rumi--without even speaking the source language. Rumi is currently America's best-selling poet. (Someone let Aviya Kushner know that, see my previous post!)
That article is interesting for a variety of reasons, but one thing stood out for me: The common assumption in the field of translation is that the translator must be a fluent speaker of both source and target languages (preferably a native speaker of the target language), but we all know that some of the greatest translations of all time were of texts written in long-dead languages, from classical Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Sumerian, Hittite, ancient Chinese to Beowulf, Chaucher, etc. One of the most famous and well-regarded translators of Finnish-to-English literature, Richard Impola, doesn't really speak Finnish, actually.
So, what gives?
Clearly, oral fluency in the source language is not necessarily a prerequisite for being a (world class!) translator. And, indeed, people who are merely orally fluent in a language who lack other translational qualifications or experience often prove to be mediocre translators at best. Yet, fluency in the language is one of the first things that the industry (from professional associations to agencies) looks for when evaluating new translators. I suppose it's not a bad thing, but perhaps the industry shouldn't overvalue fluency in the source language and it shouldn't categorically reject people as translators who lack such fluency. Just a thought.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You raise some good points.
I'd like to comment that translation of literature has to stand up first as a work of literature; the quality of the translation seems secondary. A flubbed translation could still be good literature; or a good translation that is poor literature could be "adapted" into good literature.
A good example of the first is the Japanese translator Natsuko Toda, who is well known among translators for her flubbed translations in movie subtitles, yet whose subtitling is extremely popular among Japanese viewers.
Finally, my view is that although you don't need productive spoken fluency, you need deep understanding of idiomatic use of the source language, at least as it impacts the written language. This is like saying you need to be a fast runner to play soccer; necessary but far from sufficient. :)
As always, Ryan, you are a voice of reason. I was not aware of Natsuko Toda, which is a great tidbit!
I think a translator needs first and foremost to be well read in the source culture (including high and low culture), whether translating court rulings or literature. The soccer analogy is right on.
-MT
Post a Comment