How translated works really do differ from native works

[Moshen]

I'm slowly reading the book Is That a Fish in Your Ear?, which was brought up somewhere on this board recently.  I think anyone active in this forum interested in the dynamics of learning more than one foreign language would find the book compelling, informative and fascinating.

 

Just one of the many though-provoking topics in the book:  ways in which works in translation relate to the original language.  This has come up on the forum quite a number of times when people have commented that they're reading books in Chinese originally translated from English or another language prior to tackling books originally written in Chinese.  Most people have said that the books are easier because they're already familiar with the story (especially Harry Potter).  Less commonly remarked upon is that such books tend to contain fewer Chinese idioms.

 

In Chapter 17 of Is That a Fish in Your Ear?, the author provides a terrific example of exactly how the language/grammar in the translated work differs from language/grammar in works in the native language.

 

French has a grammatical structure called "left dislocation" that appears in sentences like "Moi, je veux une glace." (Literally, "Me, I would like an ice cream.")  In prizewinning novels written in French, this structure appeared 130 times in extracts of 45,000 or so words.  However, in translated works of similar stature, it occurred only 58 times in extracts of 45,000 or so.  Moreover, most uses of this structure in the translations were found in dialogue, which was not true in the French-original novels.

 

In other chapters as well, the author documents how translation kind of neuters aspects of the original language that are hard to convey in other languages.

 

I'm sure this general phenomenon would show up in comparing fiction originally written in Chinese with fiction translated from English, French, German, Spanish, etc.  The translations would contain fewer grammatical quirks and idioms specific to Chinese.

 

Your comments and examples of this?

 

[Tomsima]

I generally don't say anything on this topic, as any reading is better than no reading, so if Harry potter gets you sitting down with some written Chinese then it's got to be a good thing.

 

But. The misconception seems to be that these texts are easier because you know the story, which I don't necessarily think is the (only) reason. An obvious but rather extreme example: I know the story of 红楼梦 very well, but I still struggle through the original Chinese.

 

Native Chinese writing is flavoured with differing levels of old, middle and classical Chinese in addition to its application of more ornate or idiomatic language (that will also appear less in translated texts, as pointed out above). Here's the key point though: Chinese thinks different, expresses ideas differently, sees the world in a radically different way than Western languages. A translation is the constrained expression of 'foreign' ideas. Read too many books in translation and you will get the impression that certain structures, words etc. are high frequency, when they are not. Ultimately, read to much in translation and you will end up learning to speak, read and write in 'translationese'.

[Moshen]

Quote

Ultimately, read to much in translation and you will end up learning to speak, read and write in 'translationese'.

 

Yes!  David Bellos, the author of Is That a Fish in Your Ear?, makes exactly that point, that what you call "translationese" is a third dialect or language, different from both the native and the target language.  Translationese is like a language with all the messy edges smoothed off.  And one of the great pleasures of learning a foreign language is coming to appreciate those messy edges that don't come across in most translations.

 

Bellos apparently mainly translates from French and Russian to English, but since he also heads a university program that teaches translation, he's got many interesting examples from across the world.

[abcdefg]

On 12/20/2022 at 4:38 PM, Moshen said:

And one of the great pleasures of learning a foreign language is coming to appreciate those messy edges that don't come across in most translations.

 

Agree. And I think it's true with spoken language as well as the written word. 

 

On 12/20/2022 at 2:34 PM, Tomsima said:

A translation is the constrained expression of 'foreign' ideas.

 

Well said. Fascinating discussion. So many good points. These are impressions I've had, though in a rudimentary form. It's a pleasure to see them formulated clearly. I never was able to quite put this package of concepts into words when trying to explain to friends why it was worthwhile to learn Chinese at a level of decent fluency. 

[Guest realmayo]

Someone, I think Umberto Eco in Mouse Or Rat?: Translation as Negotiation, said that translation involves a period of grieving by the translator: the translator knows both languages, and knows that no matter how skillful his or her translation, there will always be parts of the original that will simply be lost in the translated version. He says it's OK to grieve for this loss, but eventually the translator must accept it and move on, otherwise they'll never get anywhere!

 

[Moshen]

Quote

the translator knows both languages, and knows that no matter how skillful his or her translation, there will always be parts of the original that will simply be lost in the translated version.

 

That's mostly true for literary translation and not necessarily for other types of translation.  There are loads of people who read Kant and Hegel in English rather than in the original German even if they know German quite well, because the English is clearer.  The translators had to straighten out some of the convolutions in the original in the process of translating.

[Guest realmayo]

Ah, well in that case langauges are identical! Which is a bold statement to make.

 

As for people preferring a translated-cum-edited version of a text, there were mutterings that the real winner of Mo Yan's Nobel should have been his translator for producing much better English books than Mo Yan produced Chinese ones.

 

[Jim]

J M Coetzee's just advised everyone to read the Spanish translation of his latest novel in preference to his original, I read.

[Tomsima]

I'm sure Roddy will remember our read of 荒潮 at the beginning of the pandemic and would surely agree the English translation 'Waste Tide' is an improvement on the original for the same reasons. This is called 'ennoblement' by Venuti, and is a process he lists as one form of 'violence' in the translation process.

 

Interestingly Roddy's translation 'Whisper' recently turned up on my local bookstores 'recommended literature in translation' table, good to see!

[Insectosaurus]

On 12/21/2022 at 12:30 PM, realmayo said:

there were mutterings that the real winner of Mo Yan's Nobel should have been his translator for producing much better English books than Mo Yan produced Chinese ones.

Interesting.  I always assumed the committee read the Swedish translations by Anna Gustafsson Chen rather than the English ones. 

[matteo]

On 12/21/2022 at 9:34 AM, Tomsima said:

Native Chinese writing is flavoured with differing levels of old, middle and classical Chinese in addition to its application of more ornate or idiomatic language (that will also appear less in translated texts, as pointed out above). Here's the key point though: Chinese thinks different, expresses ideas differently, sees the world in a radically different way than Western languages. A translation is the constrained expression of 'foreign' ideas. Read too many books in translation and you will get the impression that certain structures, words etc. are high frequency, when they are not. Ultimately, read to much in translation and you will end up learning to speak, read and write in 'translationese'.

 

I agree with the idea that each language has it's unique quirks and they are hard to replicate in a translation. It is always preferable to read a book in the original language to preserve the original intent of the author when you can (if you are lucky enough to know many languages :P).

 

I am a big fan of South-American literature and in the past I spent a lot of time reading the likes of Marquez, Vargas Llosa, Sepulveda etc.

As a kid I'd read the Italian translation, then growing up started more and more often to read the originals. 

What really makes a difference in my view, more than anything else is how the sounds play in your head and how that creates a different atmosphere. 

When you are reading a dialogue set in a Colombian village surrounded by the jungle, you expect the characters to speak in a tired, passionate Spanish. The Italian translation ruins the atmosphere. English goes down like Christmas Carols in Australia. 

 

That said, I don't quite buy the idea of "translationese". Most people live their entire life just speaking their mother tongue and reading translated books. I would argue that most of them (us) wouldn't been able to tell the difference between a book that's been translated and one that's been written originally in their language if they weren't told. There's plenty of authors who by choice write simply with no frills, and translators who try very hard to replicate the style and intentions of the original by adding dialect or local sayings. 

[Moshen]

Anyone who's read this far in this thread will enjoy this essay about untranslatable words, especially between English and Cantonese:

 

https://catapult.co/stories/how-untranslatable-words-have-connected-me-to-my-mother-cantonese-language-translation-kristin-wong

[abcdefg]

Interesting article! I remember being puzzled by the "love" vs. "like" usage Chinese early on. I had a girlfriend who would say "我爱吃火锅“ but was very reserved about using "love" in a personal way. 

 

And this passage rings true in 云南普通话 as well as in Cantonese. 

 

Quote

One year, they were shouting so loud across the table I thought they’d gotten into a fight. I asked if everything was okay. “Oh, everything’s fine,” my mom smiled in English. “We’re just talking about work.” Then she went back to shouting in Cantonese.

 

[TheBigZaboon]

I second that emotion. Japanese, like Chinese, also uses like (好きです) and love (愛する) in ways slightly different from what we consider normal in English. I suspect that the same is true in Korean, too. I aways found it funny when first studying Japanese to hear a stunningly attractive Japanese movie star express eternal "like" for her equally impressive costar. My personal prejudices would blame this on imperfect translations of English works into Chinese, Japanese, and presumably therefore Korean, in the early 20th century. The cultural interaction and exchange in that period was undeniable. But as I have no knowledge of 19th century and earlier forms of those languages, I can't say for sure what the standard usage for the two words might have been.

 

As to the liveliness of Chinese verbal interaction, I can attest to that, too. The first time I took my wife to the mainland, Qingdao, I think it was, I left her at a table in a small coffee shop at the airport while I went to the counter to order coffee. When I returned to the table, she was very, very interested in what the large family group at the next table was arguing about. Her Japanese sensibilities were put in a twist when I said they weren't arguing at all, just discussing the schedule for the next few days.

 

TBZ

[sanchuan]

Worth noting that most romance languages sit right in between the English and East Asian extremes when to comes to using the word love, opting as they do for less intense verbs or phrases in non-romantic contexts (cf aimer bien vs aimer, etc).