Theme & discussion questions

I know this week we've got some difficult articles going, so I'm going to try to help out a bit here.

This week's thematic arrangement is philosophy; some articles are on the general philosophy of translating and more ethical dilemmas of translating, and some are leaning more toward the philosophy of language and meaning. Look for tidbits that might be pertinent for translation and read through that lens, and it might be less of a burden.

I will say this again next week when dealing with a more scientific article, but don't get bogged down in the numbers and statistics unless you really want to and can interpret them; otherwise it's a lot more work than necessary. Nabokov's article, I know, has a section of analytical poetry jargon, so don't worry too much about that unless you're able to understand what he's talking about with terms like iambic tetrameter and trochaic feet [among others]. The important parts are those about translation.

Good luck! Questions are below. They're only for a guide; you don't have to use them if you don't want to.

• How does language affect our perception of concepts? For instance, what differs between the connotations between "jungle" and "rainforest", and between "bread", "Brot", "pain", "pan", and "pane"? Alternately, how does translation expand the repertoire of symbols that we understand?
• What is the "silence" in language that Ortega y Gasset references?
• Would Gasparov have approved of Nabokov's method of translation?
• Nabokov's translation of Onegin is not popular. Why might that be?
• "The person who desires to turn a literary masterpiece into another language has only one duty to perform, and this is to reproduce with absolute exactitude the whole text, and nothing but the text. The term 'literal translation' is tautological since anything but that is not truly a translation but an imitation, an adaptation, or a parody." DISCUSS.
• Why might Bonnefoy say that a word that is "everyday speech used without special care and not charged with meaning" is difficult to translate? Compare to Rabassa's feelings on epithets and names [Craft, p. 3-5].
• "[D]o we have to have knowledge about these related elements [meaning of words, behaviour, intentions, beliefs] in order to have a satisfactory theory of interpretation?" DISCUSS.
• What do you perceive are the differences between Wang & Zhang's idea of interpretation versus the idea of translation?
• "Everything conceivable can at least be hinted at in words; but the inevitable residue of what we want to and cannot accomplish with them is the degree of ineffability that we can never escape, and perhaps do not want to escape." DISCUSS.
• "All thinking is by signs; and the brutes use signs. But perhaps they rarely think of them as signs. To do so is manifestly a second step in the use of language." DISCUSS.
• Can something—an idea, a concept, a word—ever translate so well across cultures that no cultural background is necessary to understand it? Is it ever possible, on the other hand, to not transplant cultures when translating?
• Should audiences somehow be aware of the cultural implications present in some pieces [i.e., those in the play Ch'unhyangjon]?
• Did the translation of Ch'unhyangjon cross the line into an adaptation or into an original work?
• "[T]ranslation is not symmetrically reciprocal between two languages. [...] [S]ymmetrical reciprocity does not take into account the unlimited responsibility imposed on the self toward the other." DISCUSS.
• Even if interest in a translated piece is more of a critical nature than of a positive one, wouldn't that still strike a blow for the continuance of literary tradition and survival of a literary piece?