Reading the excerpt from Schleiermacher, I thought it was a really interesting concept of the two methods: either moving the audience or moving the writer. And to not be able to entirely mix the two, I think I also do agree with that, as it makes for awkward translating when having to constantly choose between keeping it more faithful or to make it more localized. This is not to say it can't be both in the slightest in my opinion, but for it to be a good enough translation, I would think that the translator would need to lean more heavily on one side than the other and to firmly stand by that ratio of faithfulness and localization throughout the whole translation.
In Deustcher's article, it was really mind-blowing to think that our native language really plays a part in the way we think and the way we perceive certain things/situations. I never once gave that a thought but now that I think about it, I can see why and how that happens. Now I also wonder how having more than one native language would then affect the person's point of view and thoughts? Would they have a wider view of the world compared monolinguals? Then, how would these perceived thoughts differ with someone who becomes natively fluent in another 2 or more languages when they're much older? I was also amazed reading about the Guugu Yimithirr language, as it shows that not only can native languages change a person's perceived view of the world mentally, but it can also change it physically. I also think constant repetition plays a part in how native Guugu Yimithirr speakers are able to have such astounding spatial awareness, as it's been drilled into their heads that they need to be able to do it in order to communicate. This goes off of the topic of spoken communication but this also might show that it is easier for a person to master a set of skills if they start from really young and is consistent with the application of said skills.
No comments:
Post a Comment