I have been a literary translator for the last 35 years and, as any translator very well knows, theories are only useful to academics. The only reality is constant practice, endless study , constant experience, deep knowledge of the author, and his/her culture and works, deep knowledge of source and target languages and writing skills. If you are translating fiction, it would be a good idea to be a writer, and if you are translating poetry, it would be a good idea to be a poet. There is nothing like practice, experience and study. All the rest is nothing.
That's fine by me, Francesca. I wouldn't dream of telling an experienced translator what to do, and I don't. But some experienced translators might be intrigued that what they do depends on the culture they are in and perhaps the century they work in. Cultural relativism and history may not concern you at all, but they might be of interest to others.
Thank you for answering! What you say it's fine of course. I only question theory over practice and experience, because I know some academics who are translators as well, and who published books and articles on translation theories but are very poor translators, being their experience and - allow me the expression - talent for translating, quite absent. I'm convinced that translation is an art, requiring attitude and constant practice, like every other art. About cultural relativism, you're right of course. That's another question and analyzing all this is wonderful. Only it shouldn't preceed, but follow, like every theory. Thanks a lot.
And also know about the subject that he would translate to TT. if he/she likes to translate political discourse, he/she should know about the speaker more. thank you for your comment Diano.
Without translation theory one has no reliable means of evaluating the quality of a translation. Without evaluation, all that remains is, "he said, she said".
Might I also add that the statement "as any translator very well knows" is a great example of manufacturing consent. Essentially, you're using a bunch of non-existent entities to bolster your opinion, shutting down any other translators opinion. Your statement could be re-phrased like this, "if you don't agree with me, then you're not a translator."
i just read Venutti's "Translator's Invisibility" last week, and now, after watching this video, I understand why I just couldn't agree with the idea of domestication and transparency as being necessarily imperialistic. The example of Catalan culture fighting for its survival through domestication just obliterates Venutti's main thesis.
Venuti's was a particular strategy which you could apply to a certain reality. That's fine. You go to Catalunya and explain that and do have your theory "fail". But you can't apply Catalonian translation policies everywhere and expect the same degree of success either. It's all relative to aims, political situation, etc. There is no one correct translation theory at the point, because unless you're in control of some kind of dictatorship, there is no possible universal standpoint when you're trying to do a job where maybe you can try to make ends meet only temporarily, if at all.
Dear sir, would you mind taking your time to talk about what really are the types of translation because it certainly sounds clear to me that the classification of the types of translation has been more than vague. Some scholars, for instance, talk about the methods of translation whilst others vow to talking about procedures of it. Doesn't it bother you at all? Maybe, if you know them, would you precisely tell me what are the types of translation?
There are real debates as to whether we should actually be talking about types translation. See my papers on skopos theory, especially "End of an era", as well as critiques of duality.
types of translation is something completely different than methods, techniques, strategies and procedures. there is huge difference between all these concepts
Could you please shed light on theroies that are considered as a univers theories and can be applied in any language? Also i would like to to specify a lecture to talk about translation from English into Arabic and what are the most efficient methods that produce a good tranlsted work. I know this lecture csnnot be achieved unless you speak Arabic or know more about Arabic.
Thanks for your response. If so, the wide spread Western translation theories need adoptation when they are applied to the studies of translations in other cultures.
I can’t with this type of comments. “If I had learned this school” or “I wouldn’t need school if I watched this video”. The reason why this video makes sense is because you attended school and reflected about those issue and came prepared to fully enjoy and take advantage of his content and thoughts. If you hadn’t attended the course, you’d absorb it in a more superficial way or wouldn’t even care about this video because it would go right over your head. I wish people understood that
Marxist reductionist historicism at its ugliest: thinking that because missionaries in the 19th century used equivalence for the horrendous purpose of bringing the Gospel to peoples that didn't know them (how awful to prohibit human sacrifices!) equivalence must be tainted, imperialistic. Never mind Cicero used that theory way before European colonists. But rejecting equivalence is itself a product of History and therefore not objectively true either. The imitation-of-the-source-language theory of translation is itself historically conditioned, part of a political agenda: that of empowering certain nations at the expense of others (as a first step to a global State). Relativism always falls into its own trap, at least for those who are lucid (and have studied Plato who was the first to use peritrope on the sophists). Cultural translation makes the target public uncomfortable (but that's good because they are little, well-fed bourgeois!) and doesn't tell anything special about the source culture--except that it sounds clunky, primitive, childish and incomprehensible. If the translation has some unheard-of subtleties, only the translator knows it--and he uses equivalence to understand the text, obviously. Cultural translation is highly elitist. Ultimately cultural translation, which is a pompous name for "literal translation", doesn't care about alien cultures. If it did, it would respect the target culture also. What cultural translation aims to do is to undermine the target language, to destabilize it. And at minimal cost or expenditure of brain cells for the translator since he has only to translate literally, which machines can do as well. Cultural translation, in as much as it is literal, will destroy the profession and lead to AI being the sole translator.
This was unnecessary, especially considering we lack this kind of content online when it comes to translation studies and it could be so helpful for new translator students as it is a great interactive way to learn through new perspectives. I disagree (still I respect your opinion) but even if the whole speech was a repetition, it would still be useful for learning and we should praise initiatives like this in our field :)
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
You are an awesome orator :) All the theories and norms you shared with us make up for many reading hours ! Thanks
yasiyor musun
I´m really glad I get to review everything after reading your book. It´s helping me a lot in my translation studies
Could you tell me which book of his did you read? and would recommend it to me
@@fouadmajidi2568 Considering the video subject I would say 'Exploring Translation Theories'.
I would also recommend 'The Moving Text' :)
@@lauravaz5712 thanks Laura, that is sweet of you.
@@fouadmajidi2568No problem! Best regards ☺️
this just makes translation much cooler
I'm planning to go for Ph.D on Translation Studies, Plz guide me.
You make a grear explanation. I want to learn more from you.
I have been a literary translator for the last 35 years and, as any translator very well knows, theories are only useful to academics. The only reality is constant practice, endless study , constant experience, deep knowledge of the author, and his/her culture and works, deep knowledge of source and target languages and writing skills. If you are translating fiction, it would be a good idea to be a writer, and if you are translating poetry, it would be a good idea to be a poet. There is nothing like practice, experience and study. All the rest is nothing.
That's fine by me, Francesca. I wouldn't dream of telling an experienced translator what to do, and I don't. But some experienced translators might be intrigued that what they do depends on the culture they are in and perhaps the century they work in. Cultural relativism and history may not concern you at all, but they might be of interest to others.
Thank you for answering! What you say it's fine of course. I only question theory over practice and experience, because I know some academics who are translators as well, and who published books and articles on translation theories but are very poor translators, being their experience and - allow me the expression - talent for translating, quite absent. I'm convinced that translation is an art, requiring attitude and constant practice, like every other art. About cultural relativism, you're right of course. That's another question and analyzing all this is wonderful. Only it shouldn't preceed, but follow, like every theory. Thanks a lot.
And also know about the subject that he would translate to TT. if he/she likes to translate political discourse, he/she should know about the speaker more.
thank you for your comment Diano.
Without translation theory one has no reliable means of evaluating the quality of a translation. Without evaluation, all that remains is, "he said, she said".
Might I also add that the statement "as any translator very well knows" is a great example of manufacturing consent. Essentially, you're using a bunch of non-existent entities to bolster your opinion, shutting down any other translators opinion. Your statement could be re-phrased like this, "if you don't agree with me, then you're not a translator."
i just read Venutti's "Translator's Invisibility" last week, and now, after watching this video, I understand why I just couldn't agree with the idea of domestication and transparency as being necessarily imperialistic.
The example of Catalan culture fighting for its survival through domestication just obliterates Venutti's main thesis.
Domestication is good for your readers to provide them something near to their culture.
Venuti's was a particular strategy which you could apply to a certain reality. That's fine. You go to Catalunya and explain that and do have your theory "fail". But you can't apply Catalonian translation policies everywhere and expect the same degree of success either. It's all relative to aims, political situation, etc. There is no one correct translation theory at the point, because unless you're in control of some kind of dictatorship, there is no possible universal standpoint when you're trying to do a job where maybe you can try to make ends meet only temporarily, if at all.
please if anyone one of you have something about psuedotranslation leave me comment and i will contact you
If you still need that o have some references
I would love to use the first five minutes for my class. May I please have permission to edit this video, I will give the credit to you.
I think that everything on You Tube is free for public use.
So be my guest..
I was about to ask a similar question. Thank you very much!
Dear sir, would you mind taking your time to talk about what really are the types of translation because it certainly sounds clear to me that the classification of the types of translation has been more than vague. Some scholars, for instance, talk about the methods of translation whilst others vow to talking about procedures of it. Doesn't it bother you at all? Maybe, if you know them, would you precisely tell me what are the types of translation?
that's the sae problem I am facing right now
why don't they gather and decide an unanimous definition of the types of translation?!
There are real debates as to whether we should actually be talking about types translation. See my papers on skopos theory, especially "End of an era", as well as critiques of duality.
types of translation is something completely different than methods, techniques, strategies and procedures. there is huge difference between all these concepts
17:19 polysystems
Thanks so much
highly informative!! thanks
Could you please shed light on theroies that are considered as a univers theories and can be applied in any language?
Also i would like to to specify a lecture to talk about translation from English into Arabic and what are the most efficient methods that produce a good tranlsted work.
I know this lecture csnnot be achieved unless you speak Arabic or know more about Arabic.
wow! mind blown; we really are problem solvers
Is translation theories necessarily universal or culture specific?
Historically, very culture-specific, I think. But the Western translation form was spread over the globe as a fellow traveller of modernity.
Thanks for your response. If so, the wide spread Western translation theories need adoptation when they are applied to the studies of translations in other cultures.
I know this was an old lecture, but I need the rest of it
Where can I find it
The corresponding paper is here: usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/research_methods/2010_rikkyo_paper.pdf
sir, could we apply the western theories in the Indian context?
Why not? Andy you can apply Indian theories to Western contexts, if they help. There are no rules!
sir, could u forward your Email ID .I need your help as am pursuing research on Translation Studies. My Email ID is Irshadelt50@gmail.com.
Dear sir, do you also like Taiji and Bagua?
與主題無關
this lecture would've sufficed instead of the four months of lectures at my uni which managed to teach me just as much
I can’t with this type of comments. “If I had learned this school” or “I wouldn’t need school if I watched this video”. The reason why this video makes sense is because you attended school and reflected about those issue and came prepared to fully enjoy and take advantage of his content and thoughts. If you hadn’t attended the course, you’d absorb it in a more superficial way or wouldn’t even care about this video because it would go right over your head. I wish people understood that
@@gilbertopereira7795 missed my point. I had a really bad lecturer on that exact topic and barely learned anything.
Greetings from Kurdistan. Can we say"TRANSLATION IS CONVEYING A MESSAGE FROM A LAGUAGE INTO ANOTHER USING numerous TEXTS"?
Marxist reductionist historicism at its ugliest: thinking that because missionaries in the 19th century used equivalence for the horrendous purpose of bringing the Gospel to peoples that didn't know them (how awful to prohibit human sacrifices!) equivalence must be tainted, imperialistic. Never mind Cicero used that theory way before European colonists. But rejecting equivalence is itself a product of History and therefore not objectively true either. The imitation-of-the-source-language theory of translation is itself historically conditioned, part of a political agenda: that of empowering certain nations at the expense of others (as a first step to a global State). Relativism always falls into its own trap, at least for those who are lucid (and have studied Plato who was the first to use peritrope on the sophists).
Cultural translation makes the target public uncomfortable (but that's good because they are little, well-fed bourgeois!) and doesn't tell anything special about the source culture--except that it sounds clunky, primitive, childish and incomprehensible. If the translation has some unheard-of subtleties, only the translator knows it--and he uses equivalence to understand the text, obviously. Cultural translation is highly elitist.
Ultimately cultural translation, which is a pompous name for "literal translation", doesn't care about alien cultures. If it did, it would respect the target culture also. What cultural translation aims to do is to undermine the target language, to destabilize it. And at minimal cost or expenditure of brain cells for the translator since he has only to translate literally, which machines can do as well. Cultural translation, in as much as it is literal, will destroy the profession and lead to AI being the sole translator.
Sorry but nothing new came from this speech
This was unnecessary, especially considering we lack this kind of content online when it comes to translation studies and it could be so helpful for new translator students as it is a great interactive way to learn through new perspectives.
I disagree (still I respect your opinion) but even if the whole speech was a repetition, it would still be useful for learning and we should praise initiatives like this in our field :)