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?
1. I think bring the author to the reader is a better method. It is the author trying to pass his thoughts his his readers so this method makes more sense to me.
ReplyDelete2. I think he's equally evaluating both methods. He gives credits to both methods but at the same time he said there are flaws inherent in them.
3. It's an appropriate goal for me I think. However, it is almost impossible to fully preserve all meanings. There are language barriers that are just not translatable and meanings have to be altered to make sense in other languages.
1.I think this really differs on a case by case basis. I think there is a lot to be said for letting the reader feel a little as if they are in unfamiliar territory, but I also think that steps should be taken to help the reader become familiar with the author's culture. Generally I think that "bringing the author to the reader" works more often than not.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think he really favors one over the other.
3. I don't think so. My reasoning is that because the text comes from a particular culture and is written in the language of the people of that culture, readers who come from that culture will understand it and feel it in a way that no second-language speaker ever quite could. Depending on your upbringing and the image you have of the world, any given text will come across differently.