1. Charles Terry's pointers for translation mainly focus on the translation of Japanese writing into English, and the ways that the rules of Japanese writing differs from what we are used to in English. Do you agree with his assertions that the majority of these common traits/"clichés" of Japanese written works need to be changed and/or removed in translation to make them read acceptably to English-speaking readers?
2. Terry uses a long sentence from the book Miyamoto Musashi to demonstrate the level of detail that is typical in Japanese writing. In his translation of it into English, he ends up removing a lot of these details because he believe that if he left them all in "an English reader would not bother to read it" and "would find it difficult to follow." Do you agree with his thought process, and do you think that his decision to be unfaithful to the original in this way makes it a better translation? Do you agree with his belief that his job as a translator is to "try to say what an English writer would have said"?
3. Terry lists a number of Japanese words that do not translate exactly into English, the main example being bunka. Given his examples and argument, do you agree with his assertion that "there are very few words in Japanese for which there is an exact equivalent in English"? Can you think of examples that are either in line with or go against this argument?
1. Though cliches are considered negatively in English literature, I think in order to fully presenting the cultural differences of the original Japanese text it is necessary to keep some of the cliches.
ReplyDelete2. I don't know if I like the way he removes details from the original text. I think it is the translator's job to make the text not hard to follow while being faithful to the original text. By removing lots of details does make reading easier but doesn't this process sound more like summarizing instead of translating? I actually do not agree with his belief that "try to say what an English writer would have said." It is the specific cultural background makes a piece of literature unique. If a English writer was to write about a similar topic, he/she might have an entirely different approach given by his/her non-Japanese cultural background. So it would be almost impossible for a native English writer to such a Japanese book conveying the same ideology in English. Also, there are sooo many different English writers in the world and almost all have different writing styles. Thus, I think he's over generalizing the concept of "an English writer". I guess I just don't like the idea of translators being unfaithful to the original text.
3. I agree and I think that's how language works. I don't think any word can mean exactly the same from one language to the other. Some good examples can be 僕, 俺, and 私.
1. I agree that some of the Japanese cliches need to be changed because they would not make sense when being translated into English, and if they really don't work in English, it is okay to omit them. However, I think that it is important to keep the ones that work (even if tweaked) in because they show more of the culture.
ReplyDelete2. While I think it is best to stick to the Japanese text as well as possible, cutting out certain things is inevitable. But saying "an English reader would bother to read it" is too broad of an excuse to make certain omissions that might have been too much.
3. I agree, but this is with every language probably. It's hard to get two words of the exact same meanings if they originate in different places.
1. Especially because my mom is an editor, I am always being told to write more concisely and with less ambiguity. And that is definitely the sense I have about writing in English: people hate vagueness, making concessions (e.g. that's not to say that...), and so on. I have always struggled a lot with this. To me, there sometimes seems to be something nice, even charming, about giving credit to other theories, making rhetorical statements, or just being a little wordier than necessary in English. But the problem is that employing these devices often produces a result that hasn't really advanced anywhere from where it started. If I'm being honest with myself, I think these things are usually better omitted, certainly in critical/academic writing anyway (I didn't need to say "if I'm being honest with myself" there). Literature is a whole different question.
ReplyDelete2. I am in no position to say whether his decisions make it a better translation, but I do agree that the level of detail in the Japanese is ridiculous to the point of being excessive and even boring when translated into English. Perhaps if an author is known for having a wordy style of writing, and that style is apparent throughout their work, then translations should reflect that. However, if this is just an isolated instance of almost bafflingly excessive detail, I would agree that it should be paired down in translation.
3. This immediately strikes me as too broad an assertion. Indeed, the convention of indirectness in polite speech in Japanese results in many words being used to mean or imply different things than usual, like '難しい,' as Terry discusses. Of course, there's a whole host of intangible, conceptual words in Japanese like 'わびさび,' which are abstract to begin with and require a long-winded explanation when translated. As for more common, yet still somewhat abstract words like '幸せ,' there may be multiple possible translations, but the best choice is usually clear in any given context. So I would say that while many, perhaps most words in Japanese have multiple possible translations in English, context almost always makes the best choice clear.
1. Yes, I do think that some common traits of Japanese do need to be changed when translated into English (for example, to sound less wordy), but I think it goes both ways. I think Japanese style of writing is typically sounds less aggressive than English writing, using a lot of phrases like “...de aru darou” or “...ka to omou”.
ReplyDelete2. I do think adjustments like what Terry made are necessary, especially with long sentences like the example. If he translated that sentence word for word into English, I think the wordiness of it would distract readers from the actual story/ main point, and would make the original author sound like a bad writer.
3. I do agree that there are many Japanese words that do not have an exact equivalent in English. Onomatopoeias and words like gaman, oyakoukou...are just some that comes to mind when I think of Japanese words that don’t have an exact translation in English. There are also some English words used in Japanese that don’t have the same American English meaning. For example to my Japanese grandma, poteto (potato) are french fries, and napukin (napkins) are sanitary pads.