The sentiment of Schleiermacher's entire text was incredibly intriguing, but I think the most interesting point in his writing came near the end when he wrote:
"What one produces in a foreign tongue is not original' rather, memories of some particular writer or perhaps the style of a certain period, representing, as it were, some general personage, appear before the mind's eye almost like a living image in the outside world, and the imitation of this image guides and defines what one produces. Thus rarely does anything come about by this means that might have true worth beyond mimetic precision, and one's pleasure in this popular trick is all the more innocuous as the person being imitated is readily visible throughout."
I found this passage particularly thought-provoking, as it echoes an idea that we read about back in September, with Seidensticker's idea of translators being counterfeiters. I've noticed that that analogy has stuck with a lot of us, and for good reason, as it is difficult for a more apt analogy to be found.
Deutscher's article, similarly, had many thought-provoking aspects to it-- most notably the idea that to some degree, language informs perception. The implications of this idea are vast, and I think that when thinking about language in its relation to culture, there is a lot of merit behind it.
No comments:
Post a Comment