SO WHAT DO I TALK ABOUT IN THIS COMMENT? I SUPPOSE THAT, IF ANYTHING, I DISCUSS MY APPRECIATION OF HOW TRANSLATION CAN BE INFLUENCED BY ANYONE (AND IT’S USUALLY UNWITTINGLY) – COULD I TEACH TRANSLATION IF I HAD TO? I MEAN, WHEN YOU’RE A PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATOR, OF ALL THINGS… WHAT DO YOU SAY TO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? READ ON.
I sometimes think that the comments I post on my Facebook business account are just way over the top: based on personal experience, it is my belief that they are far longer and more verbose than the average business blog posted by anyone else, and that plenty of people would be inclined to view them as little more than material which exists to “puff me up” more than anything else.
Nevertheless, I just can’t help feeling that I would be selling myself short if I didn’t discuss the art / practice of translation as much as I could to this day, whatever I may have said about it in the past. You see, I believe that translation is not something you could hope to master if you agreed to be taught it by someone who believed that they could do a proper job of teaching it purely with the provision of (direct) examples; conversely, I also doubt that I could teach translation confidently through the provision of static direct examples alone. Who knows? – maybe one day I will learn how to juggle or play a new musical instrument or something whereby I would quite willingly pay some teenager with a talent for whatever it is and who is frequently at a loose end, to teach me it in my spare time (just like Jim Carrey’s character in Yes Man learned how to play the guitar from some teenager in his bedroom – see it for yourself). I don’t know how to juggle or, say, play the trumpet, but if I did, I’m convinced that I could lean purely on what I know about the mere act of it as I taught it to someone.
Meanwhile, this world is likely not without people who think that learning a new language is just like that – at least, at the level of learning a handful of set phrases, some pages of vocabulary and a few universally applicable principles of basic grammar whereby, all things considered, nuances of meaning are not that much of an issue. Not everyone can approach certain related topics that are more obscure, such as writing style, with any kind of conviction or anything that passes for it. I think of Pat Condell: in his video “Politics and religion” he makes it clear that he is as critical of religion as he is because, “[religion] operates in this world of reason but outside the bounds of reason – which is a polite way of saying outside the bounds of sanity.” Well, if you ask me, it could be argued that, sometimes, the language used by people operates in this world of reason but outside the bounds of reason: like, it exists for nothing other than to state something which is outside the bounds of reason. Any instance of used language may be 100% grammatically correct and everything, but if what it says isn’t clear or doesn’t make sense to the reader / listener… well, what are they supposed to do or think? And, to wit: there can’t be many people who have never ever found themselves in such a situation. I mean, when you think about it, it is just so easy to connect this with the general concept of poor translation, do you know what I mean?
I state three sentences now (which are all “my own thing”):
1. My new car is red.
2. My towel looks very sad.
3. There was a big animal outside the building.
The first sentence makes sense: what it implies is indisputable. And anyone would find it easy to illustrate it – would they? I’m talking about, like, drawing a picture of a car coloured red, and made to look all shiny – maybe with a label on it saying “brand new”; and perhaps with a matchstick man in or beside it with a label attached to them saying “me”. But what if such an illustration were specifically supposed to have an intended message, that message being “My new car is red” (rather than e.g. “I was in the vicinity of a new car which was red” or “I found the new car, which happened to be red” or whatever)? What would you do then? What would you single out in the illustration, and how? The second sentence is a sentence that just about anyone would quickly dismiss as making no sense at all – it’s all self-explanatory. Just because a sentence is all grammatically correct and whatnot does not necessarily mean that it actually indicates something that is to be understood purely in logical and rational terms. Sure, you could suggest out of the blue that the second sentence above referred to some fictional world where towels came to life or something – anyone could do that – but think about it. Finally, the third sentence is an example of the kind of sentence which, if you ask me, people like to effectively pretend makes sense to them, without necessarily realising it. After all, are we talking about outside “this” building (as in the building that the speaker is currently in), or about a building that is in some location that can be referred to as “over there”? What is the animal, anyway? It is something that is always big, like an elephant or a giraffe, or maybe it’s something more common, like a dog, which is surprisingly or unusually big for its size? I could go on if I tried. Whatever unanswered question you can think of in connection with it, you tell me what you think the answer is – I will have no reason to argue with you, so why should I refuse to believe you? Ultimately, if you don’t know the truth and are indifferent to the matter, then your guess is as good as mine. To pretend that a sentence makes sense is to effectively think of and apply a context to it and thereby pretend that you understand it. Just don’t confuse this with the art of identifying the particular context of sentences in a foreign language which is a key part of the art of translation! It doesn’t matter whether or not you identify yourself doing such an act – if you do it, you do it, end of story.
I would suggest that one can relate all this to the general concept of differing cultural factors when it comes to translation. Is there any “default” way of explaining how cultural factors influence translation product, and thereby translation work – one which would allow absolutely anyone to understand the points being made when it was elucidated? Maybe I should work on one myself. The thing that really made me feel like writing this last bit was me finding that, when you look at adjectives which say something about people, there are some “stereotypes” of people that are this, that or the other adjective. For example, some people, when they hear the word “arrogant”, find it ever so easy to think of disingenuous career politicians or spiv bankers while sparing little or no consideration for other kinds of people who deserve the label. If you want to talk about “rude” people, how easy would you find it to bring up the “chav” or “redneck” stereotype? …and who else? We’ve all heard of the “blonde hair and blue eyes girl” stereotype (who’s usually from Sweden) who is just “sexy” by default, when we’re not attributing that term to certain celebrities. It does seem to me that the word “vain” is far more readily associated with the kind of self-absorbed young woman who spends too much money on clothes and cosmetics (think Hilary in the Fresh Prince of Bel Air), than anything else. But I am not aware of any stereotypes of people who are, say, patronising or blasé. On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if Edward Norton’s character in Fight Club has become a “depressed person” stereotype, and I’m sure I could think of other ones. Either way, while such stereotypes are good for drawing all of society’s attention to and awareness of certain kinds of people, we would do well to be on guard against them limiting our understanding of the world / society in which we live, do you know what I mean? And yes, I say that because I am a (professional) translator.