Schleiermacher and Deutscher Response - Camille

 I enjoyed the framework Schleiermacher uses to describe translation strategies, as moving towards the reader vs towards the author. Though a bit difficult to parse, I think it is a clean way to describe the idea we've talked about previously of preserving an inherent "foreign-ness" of the text (towards the author), and what we want to retain from the original language. I also thought it was interesting how he discussed relationships towards language, the relationship between the author and their native language, the reader and their native language, etc. He seems to be arguing that an author's work is inextricable from their relationship to language, which seems reasonable to me, but frames translation as somewhat of a futile effort. 

I think linguistics is fascinating, so I really enjoyed the Deutscher article! It's interesting to think of linguistic features as a constraint, how do we describe things based on how we are allowed to structure a sentence. Having studied two second languages, one with grammatical gender (French) and one without, it always fascinates me that people who natively speak romance languages have a natural intuition for the grammatical gender of words, even though the rules are not always straightforward, and I have wondered what impact this has on their understanding of gender. I also wonder how growing up speaking Guugu Yimithirr would impact one's understanding of space, and how much it has to do with the language itself versus other cultural aspects. 

Schleiemacher and Deutscher Tai

Reflecting on Guy Deutscher's "Through the Language Glass" and Friedrich Schleiermacher's  philosophies, I find the exploration of human perception through language both intriguing and complex. Deutscher, in his book, illuminates how our native language subtly yet significantly shapes our habitual thoughts and perceptions. His examples, like the gendering of objects in languages and the unique spatial orientation in the Guugu Yimithirr language, highlight the diverse cognitive landscapes created by linguistic differences. This notion compels us to acknowledge the profound, often understated, influence of language on our worldview.

Schleiermacher presents two approaches in his writing: moving the reader towards the author or the author towards the reader. This highlights the translator’s role in bridging linguistic and cultural gaps. His insight into the translator’s task of either preserving the author's voice or adapting it to the reader’s context mirrors the subtle influences of language on thought, as discussed by Deutscher. Schleiermacher’s perspective highlights the complexities of translation, emphasizing the translator's balance between fidelity to the original and the linguistic nuances of the target language.

Both authors make us consider the deeper unexplored influences of language. Deutscher's linguistic exploration and Schleiermacher's philosophical approach to translation both suggest that our understanding of the world is influenced by the languages we speak and cultural nuances. These two readings have given me more insight into the intricate crossroad of language, perception, and cultural understanding. They highlight the significance of how linguistic diversity and translation shape our interaction with the world and our interpretation of it.

Musashi's comment

Through the reading, Schleiermacher's exploration of translation introduces two methods which is basically bringing the reader closer to the author and bringing the author closer to the reader. The first one  involves a more literal approach, retaining cultural references, while the second one prioritizes reader understanding, so sometimes altering the original meaning.  Deutscher's insights into language nuances, like gendered terms and directional references, challenge that language entirely shapes reality. Comparing Schleiermacher and Deutscher, both translation approaches showed me challenges. Bringing the reader closer to the author may result in the creating a different story and no longer has original meanings, while the opposite may risk removing important elements or misinterpreting emotions. The discussion gets deeper into the distinguishing objects across languages and the influence of language on reader's perception. The reader finds the idea that while languages may not differ significantly in expressiveness, the core difference lies elsewhere. The exploration of how language affects thought across cultures was very interesting to me and made me realize again about how the difference between cultures has significant impact on the translation process. It added a relatable touch to the discussion. 

Schleiermacher and Deutscher (Daniel)

I found Schleiermacher's explanation of the two methods of translating a text to be very fascinating. When comparing "bringing the reader to the author" and "bringing the author to the reader," he describes "bringing the reader to the author" as the translator attempting to enter into the author's mindset, understanding the historical and cultural context in which the text was written. Conversely, "bringing the author to the reader" seems to be where the translator acknowledges the reader's own knowledge and works to connect the author's ideas with the reader's own context and experiences. I believe that as a translator, you must work diligently to understand your personal approach (what strategy you naturally favor) and see in what ways you can find a middle ground between these two approaches if necessary.

I found the article by Deutscher to cover so many interesting aspects of language that I had never even considered. In particular, I found the analysis of the linguistic influence on spatial perception to be extremely eye-opening, as he illustrated how speakers of different languages navigate and remember space based on the particular language that they speak. He provided an example from the Guugu Yimithirr language, which revealed that this language in particular does not use words like “in front of” or “behind” to describe the position of objects. The language instead utilizes geographic coordinates, which is a concept that I had never even considered to be a real thing.

Deutscher and Schleiermacher (Kelly)

 Deutscher

I find Deutscher's essay quite interesting as it explores a concept that I've been curious about. Being bilingual, when it comes to speaking or expressing ideas, in one language it's a simple expression but in another language, it can long and winded explanation. I do agree that by simply not having a word to describe a concept, it doesn't mean we are incapable of understanding that concept. The limitations of language only define the limitations of language, not limitations of our perception of the world. However, language and body expression are the few ways we can express ourselves and if language falls short on us trying to externalize our experience of the world, it can be hard to express exactly how we feel. This is why I feel music is so popular because it adds a second sense (hearing) into describing our realities. There's no need to fret however since language is forever growing with new words and "slang" arising constantly. I find the discussion on grammatical genders quite interesting too since it reminds me of a friend who is studying French who has to constantly guess and memorize the gender of inanimate objects.

Schleiermacher

In Schleiermacher's methods of translation, he offers two kinds -- one on bringing the reader closer to the writer and the other, vise versa. I definitely agree with the first method of bring the reader closer to the writer by helping the reader get as close as possible to the true intentions of the writer by maintaining "the same image" the translator had gotten when reading the original work. I think modifying expressions, references, and subtle nuances to fit to the culture of the translated language rather than the original completely ruins a book. Why not just read a book written by an English speaking writer then? When Tengu gets translated as goblin and takoyaki becomes octopus fritter, I feel like it translates into a very different image in your head.

Schleiermacher and Deutscher (Cat)

 Schleiermacher

Schleiermacher brings up the concept of the translator either "bringing the reader to the author" or "bringing the author to the reader." I feel that both of these concepts are interesting in the sense that they both end up leaving out a lot of important information for the reader no matter which way you decide to translate. By bringing the reader closer to the author, some of the story elements may fall away because the author will have to attempt to explain somewhat niche elements or cultural references to the reader which may cause the flow of the text to diminish. This causes the translated text to not be as similar to the original text since the original text often doesn't need to explain cultural aspects or nuances to the reader since the reader is already inherently aware of those aspects. However, if the author decides to bring the author to the reader, the author may be removing elements that may be considered to be crucial to the original text. The author may also be removing the import that emotions or understandings or possibly mistranslating them when localizing them to the language they are translating into. 

Deutscher

Deutscher discusses how Whorf's belief that language shapes our perception of reality is not entirely true based on recent evidence disclaiming this way of thinking. Especially when it comes to the way certain languages organize the contents of a sentence, SVO, gender, etc. Whorf's ideas feel very tunnel-visioned. From personal experience, I feel that if this concept were true, then it would be very difficult for me to communicate in Russian with my parents and use both English and Russian interchangeably as in theory some of the concepts in Russian would be impossible to express in English and vice versa. However, I can communicate my thoughts and ideas just fine even when flipping back and forth between the two languages within one conversation. It was really interesting to learn more about the gender-ification of objects described in this paper. I have long been aware that the Russian language assigns gender to inanimate objects, but it is very interesting to see that an object's gender may alter from one language to the next as well as the general meaning or traits assigned to that gender. Discussion about directions is also very interesting to learn about as I have realized that I would simply not survive receiving directions in certain languages as I am directionally challenged and do not remember my compass directions from the top of my head. 

Schleiermacher and Deutscher - Jane

 Scheleiermacher repeated a lot of points that have been made regarding translating by other readings we have done. The part that stood out to me was the beginning when he discussed the 2 methods of translating and the section in the middle about the biggest humiliation a translator can feel. The 2 methods he mentioned (choosing to translate for the writer or the reader) neatly organized the multiple ways of translating onto a spectrum. I know I personally like to translate depending on my understanding of it while trying to do it as direct as possible. This kind of translating also leans into the topic of translating for your native tongue. If you translate directly, then the readers of the native language may not understand what is being said (maybe a joke or a relation that is made in the foreign language and not the native one). The failure to consider these factors or recognizes these risks in translating was described as the biggest humiliation a translator should experience. Because in the end, no matter how bad the original text may have been or how hard the translation process was, if the final translated product is not enjoyable to read, it is ultimately the fault of the translator and not the reader. This big responsibility that translators choose to take on and rise to the challenge is interesting and will forever be under appreciated.

Deutscher's paper brought to light a lot of oppressive tendencies that were seen in a lot of countries (*especially America) when it comes to cohesion of two or more different groups. Conformity is forced upon people when they are in new environments, especially ones where the language and culture are different. The way someone's language has taught them to think will have an everlasting impact on the way they see the world. Because of this, interpretation of/ conveying information differs greatly and in turn affects the way each person sees the world (whether it is directions, colors, feminine and masculine grammar, etc.) This did make me wonder: is language defined/influenced by culture or vice versa? This almost sounds like the question "which came first: the chicken or the egg," which would lead to the conclusion that it is both, there is no right answer.