Discussion Questions for " The Hermeneutic Motion" by Steiner

1. Is the trust stage vital if it can never be final in its conclusion as it will be betrayed and treated as trivial?

2. Steiner mentions that the act of translators incarnate alternative energies and resources of feelings that they become marred and lame by what they have imported and their vein of creativity goes dry. Do you agree with Steiner why or why not?

3. The hermeneutic motion is made up of three stages but is lacking a fourth stage that makes it complete. What do you think the fourth stage should be to make the cycle complete? Do you agree with the author idea of the fourth stage and how the hermeneutic cycle is incomplete?

Discussion Questions for "On the Different Methods of Translations" by Schleiermacher

1. Of Schleiermacher's two methods, "bringing the author to the reader" and" "bringing the reader to the author" which do you believe is a better method?

2. Do you think Schleiermacher is arguing for the superiority of one of these methods? If so, which one and why?

3. Do you think it is possible for the translator to fully preserve the meaning and intention of the original text? Whether it is possible or not, do you believe it is an appropriate goal for a translator to have?

Discussion Questions for "You are what You Speak"

1. To what extent do you think language shapes ones perception of the world? Have you had any experiences in which you felt that your unique linguistic upbringing made you see or experience something differently from others?

2. How do you think the unique structural characteristics of Japanese are related to the way in which the language is used?

3. Do you think that there is any instance in which fundamental differences between languages may or should be kept in translation? Or would doing so simply produce a foreign-sounding if not incomprehensible text in the target language?

Discussion Questions for "Hearing Voices”

1. Do you agree with the author that translation incorporates a wide variety of different voices, or is it mostly a solitary enterprise as she had originally thought?

2. The author mentions how cuts to the novel "Grotesque" were accused to have been made to censor aspects of the novel. Do you think that it is ever acceptable to make modifications to a translation in order to better suit cultural norms, if it will ostensibly lead to a wider readership or less controversy?

3. How do you think you would have handled the translation of the word "fence/salt", and what do you think is the best approach to dealing with incorrect translations that had a major impact outside of the text such as this one?

Discussion Questions for "McClellan, Hibbett, Seidensticker, Nathan, Richie - Round-Table Discussion"

1. Seidensticker said, "I think that when the original author is flat, the translation should be flat but, of course, that's impractical. No editor would allow it." Do you agree with him that in a perfect world, the translation of flat prose should be flat? Extending upon that, if tasked with translating a very generic text with very generic prose, is it the translator's duty to make a more readable text?

2. In regards to the discussion on differentiating Tokyo and Osaka speech as well as the speech of different classes, how can a translator realistically transpose the sociopolitical implications associated with different forms of speech? Furthermore, in attempting to do so, how can a translator responsibly translate one dialect into another without offending speakers of either dialect?

3. On the debate of whether or not a man can translate a woman or a woman being able to translate a man, how does that debate extend to other elements of a person? Is a translation bettered by the translator mirroring an author in class, gender, race, ideology, or any other potential commonality?