Читаем Is That a Fish in Your Ear? полностью

(1) 28 lines (2) of 3 syllables each (3) in rhyming couplets (4) with the last line being the same as the first; (5) midway the poem changes from formal (vous) to informal (tu) and (6) the poet puts his own name directly into the poem.[1]

Hofstadter, a cognitive scientist at Indiana University, got many dozens of responses over the following months and years. Each one of them was different, yet each one of them was without doubt a translation of Marot’s little poem. By this simple device he demonstrated one of the most awkward and wonderful truths about translation. It is this: any utterance of more than trivial length has no one translation; all utterances have innumerably many acceptable translations.

You get the same result with ordinary prose as you do with a poem. Give a hundred competent translators a page to translate, and the chances of any two versions being identical are close to zero. This fact about interlingual communication has persuaded many people that translation is not an interesting topic—because it is always approximate, it is just a second-rate kind of thing. That’s why “translation” isn’t the name of a long-established academic discipline, even though its practitioners have often been academics in some other field. How can you have theories and principles about a process that comes up with no determinate results?

Like Hofstadter, I take the opposite view. The variability of translations is incontrovertible evidence of the limitless flexibility of human minds. There can hardly be a more interesting subject than that.

What is it that translators really do? How many different kinds of translating are there? What do the uses of this mysterious ability tell us about human societies, past and present? How do the facts of translation relate to language use in general—and to what we think a language is?

Those are the kinds of questions I explore in this book. Definitions, theories, and principles can be left aside until we have a better idea of what we are talking about. We shouldn’t use them prematurely to decide whether the following version of Clément Marot’s poem (one of many by Hofstadter himself) is good, bad, or indifferent. It’s the other way around. Until we can explain why the following version counts as a translation, we don’t really know what we’re saying when we utter the word.

Gentle gem,Diadem,Ciao! Bonjour!Heard that you’reIn the rough:Glum, sub-snuff.Precious, toneDown your moan,And fling wideYour door; glideFrom your oy-ster bed, coyLittle pearl.See, blue girl,Beet-red ru-by’s your hue.For your aches,Carat cakesAre the cure.Eat no few’rThan fourteen,Silv’ry queen—But no more’n twenty-four,Golden dream.How you’ll gleam!Trust old ClemGentle gem.<p>TWO</p><p>Is Translation Avoidable?</p>

Translation is everywhere—at the United Nations, the European Union, the World Trade Organization, and many other international bodies that regulate fundamental aspects of modern life. Translation is part and parcel of modern business, and there’s hardly a major industry that doesn’t use and produce translations for its own operations. We find translations on the bookshelves of our homes, on the reading lists for every course in every discipline taught at college; we find them on processed-food labels and on flat-pack furniture instructions. How could we do without translation? It seems pointless to wonder what world we would live in if translation didn’t happen all the time at every level, from bilingual messages on ATM screens to confidential discussions between heads of state, from the guarantee slip on a new watch we’ve just bought to the classics of world literature.

But we could do without it, all the same. Instead of using translation, we could learn the languages of all the different communities we wish to engage with; or we could decide to speak the same language or else adopt a single common language for communicating with other communities. But if we balk at adopting a common tongue and decline to learn the other languages we need, we could simply ignore people who don’t speak the way we do.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Дальний остров
Дальний остров

Джонатан Франзен — популярный американский писатель, автор многочисленных книг и эссе. Его роман «Поправки» (2001) имел невероятный успех и завоевал национальную литературную премию «National Book Award» и награду «James Tait Black Memorial Prize». В 2002 году Франзен номинировался на Пулитцеровскую премию. Второй бестселлер Франзена «Свобода» (2011) критики почти единогласно провозгласили первым большим романом XXI века, достойным ответом литературы на вызов 11 сентября и возвращением надежды на то, что жанр романа не умер. Значительное место в творчестве писателя занимают также эссе и мемуары. В книге «Дальний остров» представлены очерки, опубликованные Франзеном в период 2002–2011 гг. Эти тексты — своего рода апология чтения, размышления автора о месте литературы среди ценностей современного общества, а также яркие воспоминания детства и юности.

Джонатан Франзен

Публицистика / Критика / Документальное