Translating
Poetic Discourse
Introduction
The debate over
the merits of literal (form based)
versus free (meaning based)
translation has raged for centuries.
Hatim & Mason (1993) cite “fourteenth-century translator Salah
al-Din al-Safadi[‘s]” critique of literal translation methods
written seven-hundred years ago.
Yet the debate continues, as evidenced by Vladimir Nabokov’s
(1955) defense of literal translation.
Today translation theorists (Larson, 1998) propose that literal and free
represent opposite ends of a continuum rather than polar extremes. Both Hatim & Mason (1993) and Gutt
(1991) use the literal versus free debate to frame an exploration of the translatability
of poetic discourse. In this paper
I will review the ideas these authors present and examine their implications
for translations of ASL poetry into English. I will propose that such a task cannot be accomplished in
the traditional sense, that is, the differences between visual/ manual and
oral/ aural/ written modes of communication do not allow for translation in the
same manner that one might translate a novel from English to French because the
literal versus free debate can never be reconciled in this case. Instead, the translator must determine
the goal of their translation and be willing to accept that much of the poetic
quality of the ASL text will be lost in the translation.
Literal versus Free Translation
Before
I examine the problems translating ASL poetry into English I would like to take
a moment to define some of the terms used to discuss translation. A literal translation is form based in that the translator attempts to translate each
individual lexical item from the source-language text (ST) into the
target-language text (TT)[i]. The result is a target text that is not
likely to appear natural to the TT audience. For example the literal English translation of the Spanish
phrase “Como te llamas” is “How do you call
yourself?” While this
construction may be intelligible to a native English speaker discerning its
meaning would take more effort than would a more natural English construction
of the same message. Some of the
arguments against literal translation methods are that they ignore important TT
features such as grammar, syntax and cultural norms associated with discourse
genre and register.
On
the other hand a free or idiomatic translation strives to release the translator from a
strict adherence to ST forms by prescribing a translation based on meaning
rather than form. By applying free
translation principles to the “Como te llamas” example we come up
with the English translation “What is your name?” This translation is produced by looking
at the phrase as a whole rather than looking only at individual lexical items. This process includes examining the
function of the ST rather than its form, and then choosing a TT form that
performs the same function while also sounding normal to native target language
speakers. Among the arguments
against free translation methods is that free translations do not provide the
“textual sense” (Nabokov, 1955) of the author.
Larson
(1998) offers a range of translation options between the two options discussed
above. Larson defines
“interlinear translation” (Larson, 17) as “a completely
literal translation” (Larson, 17).
She goes on to discuss the limits of this type of translation as well as
provide examples of when this type of translation may be useful.
“For some
purposes, it is desirable to reproduce the linguistic features of a source
text, as for example, in a linguistic study of that language...Although...they
are of little help to speakers of the receptor language who are interested in
the meaning of the source language text” (Larson,
17).
This idea can be
applied to ASL-English translation by looking at ASL-English transcription
conventions. This method of trying
to represent ASL texts using English forms, also known as
“glossing”, would be unintelligible to TT reader who has no
knowledge of ASL. Take for example
the glossed ASL text[ii] in the
appendix, this type of transcription, used in linguistic studies of ASL, may
not be immediately understood by a bilingual ASL/ English user. Larson posits that most translators
that adhere to literal translation methods produce a “modified literal
translation. They modify the [word[iii]]
order grammar enough to use acceptable sentence structure in the receptor
language. However the lexical items are translated literally” (Larson,
18).
Free
translations focus on translating the meaning of the text as a whole as opposed to focusing on the meaning of each
individual lexical item. Larson
offers the following description, saying that free translations, “use the
natural forms of the receptor language, both in the grammatical constructions,
and in the choice of lexical items” (Larson, 18). This means that the translator must
consider many factors when crafting their translations, including the goal of
the original author, the intended audience of the ST, and the era in which the
ST was created. The translator
must then consider their own goals, why they are translating the text, for who,
and the impact of the ST message in their own era. With this in mind the translator chooses words, phrases and
TT structural components that preserve the register, style, and affect of the
ST. It should also be noted that
placed at the far end of Larson’s continuum are “unduly free
translations” (Larson, 19) which are no longer faithful to the original
text in one or many of the areas discussed above and are therefore inaccurate
and inadequate as translations.
Translating Poetry
The
special nature of poetic discourse makes it especially difficult to
translate. Hatim & Mason
(1993) and Gutt (1991) both discuss the conflicts facing translators in regard
to poetry. According to these
authors poetic discourse presents a special case where the poetic meaning, or
the poetic sense is often tied directly to the form of the TT. Poetic meaning is different than
denotative meaning in that poetic meaning is the artistic quality distinguishes
poetry from prose. It is this
duality that is often difficult to translate, as in Gutt’s example of a
German poem by Christian Morgenstern[iv]. According to Gutt, Morgenstern’s
poem is written in a particular style of German poetry and contains two types
of meaning. The denotative meaning
describes the actions of a weasel.
The poetic meaning gives the reason for the weasel’s actions,
“The shrewd animal did it for the sake of the rhyme” (Gutt,
383). It is from this last line that
we can see that the fact that the poem rhymes is essential to the meaning of
the text. If the poem did not
rhyme the last line would not have the impact that it does; namely, presenting
the absurd notion that the weasel acted in this manner in order to produce a
poetic event. It is because the
meaning is inexorably bound to the form that this type of text presents a
problem for translators, for as Gutt points out, “while English has ways
of expressing these denotations, and also of rhyming, it does not happen to
offer a set of words or expressions that fulfill both conditions at
once...Therefore, the translator has to make a choice about what properties he
wants to preserve” (Gutt, 383).
Gutt provides examples of translations that attempt to preserve the
poetic sense of Morgenstern’s poem.
Hatim & Mason (1993) present a similar case, and offer a list of
features that may be preserved, when translating poetic discourse, depending on
the goals of the translator ranging from “phonemic translation (imitation
of ST sounds)” to “interpretation (complete change in form and/ or
imitation)” (Hatim & Mason, 15). Gutt points out that, generally, as one moves form one end
of the continuum to the other the translator must sacrifice some aspect of the
ST meaning in favor of another, therefore preserving the denotative meaning may
come at the expense of the poetic sense and vice versa.
Translating ASL Poetry into
English
The
task of translating ASL poetry into English adds even more obstacles to the
list discussed above. As in
any language, ASL poetry incorporates features of rhyme, rhythm, and metaphor,
which may be difficult to translate into another language due to a lack of
convergence between TT forms that can reproduce ST denotative meaning and ST
poetic sense. These difficulties
are compounded by the difference in ST and TT modalities. Language properties such as rhyme,
punning, and metaphor in oral/ aural languages are often accomplished through
the manipulation of sound based phonological and morphological components of
the language. In a visual/ manual
language these same functions are produced through the manipulation manual
phonological and morphological components as well as the use of
spatial-linguistic components.
Thus, the choice of
translating meaning versus form is
compounded by the fact that oral/ aural languages do not have an equivalent way
of using three-dimensional space to produce meaning of any kind and therefore
cannot readily translate this aspect of poetic discourse in ASL.
Another aspect of
poetic discourse in ASL is the use of classifiers. Classifiers are signs that have a high level of iconicity,
though this iconicity is dependant upon the context in which it is used. For example the classifier handshape
that can be used to represent a car could also be used to represent other kinds
of vehicles, the audience knows what the vehicle classifier represents due to
the context in which it used. In
ASL poetry classifiers can be used to accomplish the linguistic tasks discussed
above, rhyming, punning, and metaphor.
Classifiers present a problem for translators is this; while classifiers
do have a denotative meaning they often do not have citation-form definitions. Take for example the ASL poem
“Eye Music” by Ella Mae Lentz. In this poem the signer uses classifiers to draw a metaphor
between telephone wires as seen from a moving car, to the lines and notes found
on a page of sheet music. While it
is possible to translate the denotative meaning of the poem English does not
have an equivalent means of representing the visual aspects of the ASL text,
and it is these visual aspects that contain the poetic sense of the text.
Other features of
ASL poetry highlight the dissonance between ST forms and TT expectations. For example, repetition of signs can
convey both denotative and poetic meaning in ASL. In this case, translation of the ST denotative meaning loses
the poetic sense held in the movement and repetition of the signs. However, an attempt to reproduce the
form, by repeating TT forms that carry glossed denotative
“equivalents” of
ST forms also fails to convey the
proper poetic sense because repetition in English carries a different poetic
sense than repetition in ASL.
When the poetic
meaning of the TT is bound to the form it becomes impossible to translate to
the text as a whole. It is here
that the translator must choose between translating the form, or translating
the meaning. Gutt gives examples
of possible translations of Morgenstern’s “Aesthetic Weasel”
that maintain the poetic sense of the work, but stray into the realm of unduly
free translation because they do not maintain the denotative meaning of the
poem. This is the problem that
appears when the poetic meaning of an ASL poem is tied to an aspect of the
visual/ manual (i.e. use of three-dimensional space) mode that does not
translate into an oral/ aural modality.
Because of these
problems in translating poetic meaning Hatim & Mason (1993) note that some
poets simply refuse to translate their poetry into other languages[v]. This has been the stance taken recently
by some people at Gallaudet University.
In a recent project, students in the MA Interpreting students were given
a text that consisted of a lecture and three examples of ASL literature. The students were asked to translate
the lecture parts of the text, but not the literature portions. The reason for this is that the goal of
the text was to present ASL literature while allowing the audience to focus
solely on the ASL features being discussed without auditory interference. In another recent event at Gallaudet a
Deaf poet presented her work at the end of an interpreted panel
discussion. The poet asked that
the poem not be interpreted, citing the differences between ASL and English as
the reason. If it is difficult, if
not impossible, to maintain both denotative meaning and poetic sense when the
translator has plenty of time to conceive their
translation, it stands to reason
that maintaining these elements in a live interpretation is out of the
question.
Conclusion
Despite
the many challenges facing translators working with poetic discourse there are
some solutions. For example, in
both of the previous examples involving Gallaudet University the signer
explained for the non-signing audience what they were about to see, giving them
and idea of both the denotative and the poetic meanings of the text. Both Gutt and Hatim & Mason offer a
similar solution, proposing that when an accurate translation cannot be produced
the translator may decide which aspect of the TT to translate, and offer an
explanation of whatever aspects are missing. Also, providing access to the ST along with this explanation
can help the audience understand what aspects of the ST the translator decided
to translate and which aspects they chose to leave alone.
I
would like to offer one more possibility for those seeking to translate ASL
poetry into English. This method
would automatically exclude spoken English translations[vi]. I believe that some of the visual
aspects of ASL may be reproduced in written English because the written form
can be manipulated in space in such a way that some of the spatial and iconic
aspects of ASL can be maintained.
Of course there are still significant limitations to this idea; for
example the ability of the signer to not only use space for linguistic
functions, but to use this space over time cannot be replicated with written
English. Also, written English
uses two-dimensional space while ASL uses three-dimensional space. Still, this is the only manner in which
some of these elusive aspects
of ASL can be replicated in
English. Even if this concept
could be realized the translator would still need to include an explanation of
their work with the translation.
Also, the discrepancy between classifiers and other aspects of ASL that
may not have a denotative meaning in English may never be rectified. In any case, a translation of an ASL
poem must be accompanied by the original work in order to make sense. Access to the ST is of paramount
importance in this case as no translation from visual/ manual poetic discourse
to an oral/ aural/ written language will be complete enough to maintain both
denotative and poetic meaning.
