|
|
Post by Researcher Irish on Oct 9, 2017 19:22:08 GMT 9
While I haven't been asked to do a translation like this myself, I was wondering what you guys would do if presented with a translation which conflicted with your own viewpoint? For example, if you had to translate a passage denying the Rape of Nanking or the existence of comfort women? Something I read made me think of this question.
|
|
Mumblesnore
Dead Stargod 
’Tis the season (for Eggnog)
Posts: 16,153 
CIR Experience: Former CIR
Location: Tokyo
|
Post by Mumblesnore on Oct 10, 2017 9:36:56 GMT 9
Hmm. Alternatively, what if you're interpreting for someone and then they start going off on a racist tirade?  |
|
|
|
Post by Ividia on Oct 10, 2017 9:47:28 GMT 9
I think it depends on the audience and the purpose of the piece.
For example, with your examples of the denial of various historical atrocities, I would say it would be most responsible to translate it as it was written - you can't hold a person responsible for their views if those views are cheeky huleezued. If it was to form an academic debate or any other kind of discussion, the other party needs to know those views in order to counterpoint them or critique them.
While it certainly wouldn't be fun and WOULD make me angry, I would not have an ethical problem with translating something like that, because it's important to know the good and the bad of what people are saying.
If it was more like, a popular piece aimed at winning over people with razzle and dazzle and not really dealing with facts or open to critique, I would probably not want to be involved as much.
So I suppose my answer is that it would depend on the purpose of the piece, but in principle I think it is more ethical to present someone's opinions exactly as they are - if you soften the controversial parts, they might end up getting more support/approval in the target language than they would otherwise, which would be the more undesirable outcome imo.
Edit: also I am a firm believer in the idea that the translator/interpreter should be "invisible" so changing the content of a piece to intentionally misrepresent them is is not only a huge breach of trust, it's also in my opinion, compromising the ethics of the profession
|
|
|
|
Post by Researcher Irish on Oct 10, 2017 19:04:52 GMT 9
Hmm. Alternatively, what if you're interpreting for someone and then they start going off on a racist tirade? It happened to me once where someone went off on a sexist tirade (Not a tirade but said lots of sexist things). In that instance I was able to translate what he said but change the order and my tone of voice to make it sound not sexist. I think it depends on the audience and the purpose of the piece. For example, with your examples of the denial of various historical atrocities, I would say it would be most responsible to translate it as it was written - you can't hold a person responsible for their views if those views are cheeky huleezued. If it was to form an academic debate or any other kind of discussion, the other party needs to know those views in order to counterpoint them or critique them. While it certainly wouldn't be fun and WOULD make me angry, I would not have an ethical problem with translating something like that, because it's important to know the good and the bad of what people are saying. If it was more like, a popular piece aimed at winning over people with razzle and dazzle and not really dealing with facts or open to critique, I would probably not want to be involved as much. So I suppose my answer is that it would depend on the purpose of the piece, but in principle I think it is more ethical to present someone's opinions exactly as they are - if you soften the controversial parts, they might end up getting more support/approval in the target language than they would otherwise, which would be the more undesirable outcome imo. Edit: also I am a firm believer in the idea that the translator/interpreter should be "invisible" so changing the content of a piece to intentionally misrepresent them is is not only a huge breach of trust, it's also in my opinion, compromising the ethics of the profession I would agree with you in most cases about invisibility. Seems like most of the prevailing translation researchers would disagree though. I read an interesting article recently from a translator of Slavic languages in English (thats the way he put it) and he said that during the Yugoslavian War he made a conscious decision to take on work from Bosnian artists to counter the narrative coming from the Yugoslavian side that the culture was all one and these people didn't need their own country. That would have absolutely no conflict with what you said but he said sometimes he would try to improve the quality slightly of some of the poetry he found to be lacking, in order to ensure it was better received abroad. |
|
|
|
Post by Ividia on Oct 11, 2017 8:43:57 GMT 9
Seems like most of the prevailing translation researchers would disagree though. I read an interesting article recently from a translator of Slavic languages in English (thats the way he put it) and he said that during the Yugoslavian War he made a conscious decision to take on work from Bosnian artists to counter the narrative coming from the Yugoslavian side that the culture was all one and these people didn't need their own country. That would have absolutely no conflict with what you said but he said sometimes he would try to improve the quality slightly of some of the poetry he found to be lacking, in order to ensure it was better received abroad. That's interesting, do they give good reason for that disagreement? Also with regard to that anecdote, I think deliberately changing the content of the piece to further a cause is no longer translation, it is propaganda (whatever your motives are). |
|
Mumblesnore
Dead Stargod
’Tis the season (for Eggnog)
Posts: 16,153
CIR Experience: Former CIR
Location: Tokyo
|
Post by Mumblesnore on Oct 11, 2017 8:50:33 GMT 9
The poetry thing rubs me the wrong way...
This dude thinks he's the arbiter of good taste? If he's such a better poet than the actual poets, then why is he a translator?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sheepy on Oct 11, 2017 14:59:08 GMT 9
I wouldn't have an ethical dilemma. If I am a working translator/interpreter, then I may have the choice from the get go to take on the task or not. If it is something I do not agree with then I wouldn't take on the task. However, if I do not have the freedom to say yes or no to a task and end up having to be in that situation, then I am on the same page as Ividia , and be that layer of "invisibility" and just purely relay the message so that it is identically understood. We, as translators/interpreters, don't have the authority to change the original message if it alters the writer's/speaker's original intent and emotion behind said message. Also, if there is anyone who does change the message to make it seem more likable in any aspect, then that individual isn't fit for the job. |
|
