Monday, February 24, 2014
Spivak and Howell: Non-proficiency and "native informants" -- Dickson's Question
Last week, we discussed the Spivak reading where she argued, "Translation is the most intimate act of reading" and that "the translator must be able to discriminate on the terrain of the original." What would Spivak say about Rebecca Howell's translation, since Howell is not proficient in the departing language? By working with a "native informant," like the way Howell worked with Qaisi, to what extent can translators meet the demands set forth by Spivak?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also kept thinking back to Spivak’s requirements for translators this week, especially when reading Howell’s Translator’s Preface. I did ultimately find Spivak’s standards to be impossible for most translators to live up to, and I think that translators can still create valuable translation if they don’t have an “intimate” knowledge of the language. However, with Spivak’s ideas in mind, I do have some problems with how Howell approached this translation.
ReplyDeleteHowell’s explanation of her work with Qaisi was a little strange to me. She calls this translation a “collaboration” with him first, explaining that he “acted as the literal translator for this project,” providing both a simple translation and “other English synonyms, context clues, and any historical background in notes” (xix). Also, the front cover explains that this work was “Translated by Rebecca Gayle Howell with Hasam Qaisi,” and, as Becky pointed out in her question, we don’t see any note or commentary from Qaisi in the text. Though I think in theory Spivak would be supportive of someone like Howell, who does not have an intimate knowledge of the language she’s translating from, working with someone who does have that knowledge, I do not think Howell has gone about it the right way or given Qaisi enough credit. From her description, it almost seems like these are translations by Hasam Qaisi that were interpreted or rewritten by Rebecca Gayle Howell. I would have at least liked to hear from our “native informant” about how he approached the project.
I totally agree, Liz. Howell is upfront about her need for assistance and the role Qaisi played, but this role, I do not feel, is minor or secondary but as vital as Howell's work. Hearing from Qaisi would've balanced things out. It would be interesting to hear Qaisi's thoughts on the final product. Without it, even though Qaisi is given translation credit, Qaisi does not seem to be regarded as an equal in the collaborative process.
ReplyDelete-Dickson