ATA 56th Annual Conference Session J2
Thursday, Nov 05, 2:00 PM - 3:00 PM
Session Summary by
Drew Fernando
As you probably already guessed by the allusion to the
famous poem by Robert Frost, Session J-2 dealt with choosing between the possible
options when translating from Japanese into English. It was presented by
Professor James (Jim) Davis, director of the Technical Japanese Program in the
University of Wisconsin-Madison’s College of Engineering.
To begin with, Davis broke down translation into two
aspects: comprehension and expression. Comprehension is your understanding of
the source text, which would include things such as being aware of
field-specific uses of words or special contexts. Your comprehension of a
source text determines how you generate
choices. Expression determines how you choose
between the choices that you’ve generated, in an effort to be accurate,
consistent, or write something with a natural “feel.”
Davis then walked through no less than fifteen examples of
phrases which could be translated in a few different ways. The first example,
taken from an article about Turkey trying to purchase air defense systems,
presented two translation challenges in which one might choose between a few
alternatives.
Let’s look at the first example:
(NATOは) 放っておけば、NATOの防空システムに関する機密が中国に漏れかねない。
Davis presented three alternatives for放っておけばand
three alternatives for the rest of the sentence. For 放っておけばthey are:
“If the situation continues as it is,”
“If steps are not taken,”
“If NATO does nothing,”
Davis’ choice here was the third option. “I
prefer an active subject if I can identify one,” he said. It should be noted,
however, that the other two options were not labelled as explicitly ‘wrong,’
per se.
Moving on, three alternatives were presented for the second
part of the sentence:
“it is
possible that secrets related to NATO’s air defense systems will be leaked to
China.”
“secrets
related to NATO’s air defense systems could flow to China.”
“China
could obtain secrets related to NATO’s air defense systems.”
Davis chose the second option here, and walked through his
reasoning. The first option is a literal translation, and it was “long and
clumsy.” Davis indicated throughout the presentation that he tends to prefer
writing shorter sentences in English if he can. The third option reads
smoothly, but makes an omission because “could obtain” is technically true, but
doesn’t convey what the source text says about information being leaked. The
second option was the ‘compromise’ option, and Professor Davis’ choice.
Aside from a couple exceptions, none of the proposed options
throughout this presentation were said to be ‘wrong’ or ‘bad.’ Just as it’s
possible that both of the roads in
Robert Frost’s poem could conceivably lead to the same destination, translation
challenges almost always offer more than one acceptable ‘solution.’ But it
would have been a cop-out to leave things at a wishy-washy conclusion like
that, which is not what happened. Davis explained how to go about choosing
options that will best translate the meaning of the source text. “I’m
interested in translating meaning,” he said. “I’m not wedded to the words.
“When indicating his reasoning behind the choices that he thought were the
best, he kept bringing it all back to comprehension and expression, and the
various attributes they consist of. What are the connotations of this particular
word? Will one choice early on limit the available choices later in the passage?
Think about who or what you’re translating—what kind of language would a young
hacker use when talking about himself?
In other words, there are a lot of factors to consider when
deciding which ‘road’ to go down in your translation. But Davis finished by
saying: “Choice isn’t a bad thing, it’s managing choices wisely that matters.” This
presentation gave us a brief glimpse into how one of the best of the best in
our field makes his own translation choices.
(P.S.
I’d like to thank all the members of the JLD for being so welcoming and
helpful during my first ATA conference!)
No comments:
Post a Comment