Hi Jim, I have been pondering about the theme translation as education. Education should also start from known to unknown. I am also an advocate for purpose driven and community owned approach. I think we should also let the community decide what unknown is relevant to their community. Then, there is a dilemma that how can the unknown be relevant. In what ways and when that expat can come into and serve the community? BTW, should we assume that the expat "expert" know what the community not knowing and still be vulnerable. There seems more material of translation from West to Africa or Global South in general, why can't the unknown of the Global South being translated into the languages in the West?
Hi Jeremiah, Not sure I follow you entirely. Education should go from known to unknown, which is why I suggest that translation must go from unknown to known. The reasons the 'unknown' of the global south can't be translated into Western languages, I suggest, is because many people who come from the global south would say that the unknown is not unknown at all, but known. Don't know what others hold on this?
I think we need to first clarify "who" regardless ethnicity and origin, the issue is about "knowing" or "not knowing", about "what". Then, we can put that into the context. When you talk about "unknown" of the global south, what the Global South don't know or the what the West don't know about the Global South. Is knowing and not knowing a dichotomy? We may also need to have more interdisciplinary studies of Epistemology and translation in different contexts. From the Persian Prverbs, "He who knows he who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him; He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child, teach him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep, wake him. He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise, follow him"
Good questions for clarification again. My central point is to say that I don't know about the 'other' person, typically of another culture. I want to encourage people to explore so as to get to know that other person. Yet, another person (or another community) will always be 'unknown' to me, no matter how hard I try to understand them, by comparison to how I know myself (and my community). The traditional way (in recent years) of getting around the above problem has been to get the person (or community) to describe themselves to us. The issue then becomes one of translation of what the person has said. When the 'other' person's words are translated into my language the unfamiliar is domesticated (drawing here on Venuti!), a parallel thing happens if the other person has learned my language (e.g. for globalised English). I am encouraging us to rely less on this process. The alternative process, is to share in the life(s) of the person. I take this latter method as being epistemologically superior. If we take either a translation of a 'foreigner's' words, or their use of our language, and include it as it is in our knowledge base, then I am referring to this translation process as being from known to unknown; because the person speaking knows what they are trying to say, but the hearer of a different culture does not know how to correctly understand it. Education amongst those receiving such a message comes to be from an unknown (accepted as if it is a known). Building on such unknown in the educational process is going from unknown to known, which is educationally illegitimate (education should always go from known to unknown). In terms of bible translation, what I am hereby suggesting seems to be that in order to do their job well a translator MUST learn about the other by sharing in their life (unknown) rather than take what the other says to them as if it is true. What may be known to the original speaker can nevertheless be unknown to the recipient of this message because of the vagaries of the translation process. It is important for the listener to realise this.
Ideally, the translator translate from what known as source/original speaker to what known as the target listener. My concern is the translator may not know very well about what as source because there is little resources knowing the historical language and context. I fear that scholars are making many educational guess result as what we think we known. I think the translator should know both the source and how to repack as target language to make unknown concept of the source to be known to the translation recipients of the target language. I think you're concern is about how do they know about the source should not be contextualized rather be told by people outside the community, then the issue will be contextualize missiology and contextual theology, rather than translation.
I may be missing the point, but I have found over the years that to attempt either process--to translate from the known to the unknown or vice-versa--always works better with a competent "dialogue partner," for example, when doing Bible translation into an African language from a largely English text, or writing an English article on some aspect of African culture based on African language source texts and insider information. Thus, when doing the Bible translation we would first thoroughly discuss the meaning of the passage in English and then try to perfect a rendering of that in the vernacular. On the other hand, when writing the cultural article, we first discuss the issues involved in the vernacular and then various drafts of a summary or explanation of those issues in English. The key of course is to pair two experienced dialogue partners who are equally competent in both language-cultures, that is, English-Western and Chewa (for example)-African.
Ideally, one would hope a translator would 'know' both poles in order to translate. Foreign translators tend to 'know' Greek and Hebrew and the history of the church etc., but not the indigenous language. Indigenous translators know the later, but less of the former. The solution prescribed tends to be to teach the indigenous person that knowledge of foreigners. This latter process I call 'education from the unknown to the known'. Indigenous learners being unfamiliar with the context from which they are being educated get what they get out of context, so as 'unknown'. It's like asking someone to understand the whole picture after looking at just one piece of a jigsaw. What I am arguing is that the role of the outsider is NOT to 'educate' indigenous people, because if they do so they always try to take the indigenous people from unknown to known. Instead, it is up to indigenous people to take the initiative to explore, say, Greek. (This may seem to be splitting hairs. I think it isn't.) Indigenous people then will immediately appropriate what they learn into their own worldview. A comparison; an American layperson can pick up a Greek dictionary (i.e. Greek-English) for the first time, and make use of the Greek term in that afternoon's sermon. That use of the term may be 'wrong' for a Greek scholar who knows more about it. But it is the way people think, and the way communities work. We cannot, or must not, expect indigenous (i.e. native speaking) bible translators to do otherwise. What then becomes the role of the 'outsider'? Presumably, it becomes trying to grasp the horizon of the indigenous speaker.
Here's my reflections on your above suggestions Ernest: if you put me, say as an Englishman and a Chewa speaker, together with a Malawian who knows English, in any kind of 'formal' context',then in today's world, I will find myself in a dominant position. When we discuss a passage in English, I will implicitly be 'teaching' the Malawian the context through which I am translating. That context will come to him as 'unknown'. He woudn't 'get it' without my help. He will again be dependent on me for translation of the next verse as I bring in another context. I see the whole picture, I give my Malawian colleague pieces of a puzzle. What might the alternative look like? A native Chewa speaker wants a bible in Chewa. Yet, without a lot of help from (Western) scholars, I think we'll consider that he will make a lot of errorts. Suggested solution: the Westerner to as far as possible put himself into the position of the Chewa speaker. This requires a profound learning of Chewa language, in culture. If the Westerner can get to the position where the Chewa culture is more than just a spattering of jigsaw pieces, he (or she) may become useful. That is, the Westerner must get to a position where he can perceive the foreign-ness of the appearance of his own language and culture to the Chewa speaker. In essence, I suggest (a thesis that) good translation must always be from unknown to known, hence its limitations. Even if someone 'knows' the contours of the source, they must unknow it for purposes of the translation ... discuss!
8 comments
Sign in to join the conversation.
Hi Jim, I have been pondering about the theme translation as education. Education should also start from known to unknown. I am also an advocate for purpose driven and community owned approach. I think we should also let the community decide what unknown is relevant to their community. Then, there is a dilemma that how can the unknown be relevant. In what ways and when that expat can come into and serve the community? BTW, should we assume that the expat "expert" know what the community not knowing and still be vulnerable. There seems more material of translation from West to Africa or Global South in general, why can't the unknown of the Global South being translated into the languages in the West?
Hi Jeremiah, Not sure I follow you entirely. Education should go from known to unknown, which is why I suggest that translation must go from unknown to known. The reasons the 'unknown' of the global south can't be translated into Western languages, I suggest, is because many people who come from the global south would say that the unknown is not unknown at all, but known. Don't know what others hold on this?
I think we need to first clarify "who" regardless ethnicity and origin, the issue is about "knowing" or "not knowing", about "what". Then, we can put that into the context. When you talk about "unknown" of the global south, what the Global South don't know or the what the West don't know about the Global South. Is knowing and not knowing a dichotomy? We may also need to have more interdisciplinary studies of Epistemology and translation in different contexts. From the Persian Prverbs, "He who knows he who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool, shun him; He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child, teach him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep, wake him. He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise, follow him"
Good questions for clarification again. My central point is to say that I don't know about the 'other' person, typically of another culture. I want to encourage people to explore so as to get to know that other person. Yet, another person (or another community) will always be 'unknown' to me, no matter how hard I try to understand them, by comparison to how I know myself (and my community). The traditional way (in recent years) of getting around the above problem has been to get the person (or community) to describe themselves to us. The issue then becomes one of translation of what the person has said. When the 'other' person's words are translated into my language the unfamiliar is domesticated (drawing here on Venuti!), a parallel thing happens if the other person has learned my language (e.g. for globalised English). I am encouraging us to rely less on this process. The alternative process, is to share in the life(s) of the person. I take this latter method as being epistemologically superior. If we take either a translation of a 'foreigner's' words, or their use of our language, and include it as it is in our knowledge base, then I am referring to this translation process as being from known to unknown; because the person speaking knows what they are trying to say, but the hearer of a different culture does not know how to correctly understand it. Education amongst those receiving such a message comes to be from an unknown (accepted as if it is a known). Building on such unknown in the educational process is going from unknown to known, which is educationally illegitimate (education should always go from known to unknown). In terms of bible translation, what I am hereby suggesting seems to be that in order to do their job well a translator MUST learn about the other by sharing in their life (unknown) rather than take what the other says to them as if it is true. What may be known to the original speaker can nevertheless be unknown to the recipient of this message because of the vagaries of the translation process. It is important for the listener to realise this.
Ideally, the translator translate from what known as source/original speaker to what known as the target listener. My concern is the translator may not know very well about what as source because there is little resources knowing the historical language and context. I fear that scholars are making many educational guess result as what we think we known. I think the translator should know both the source and how to repack as target language to make unknown concept of the source to be known to the translation recipients of the target language. I think you're concern is about how do they know about the source should not be contextualized rather be told by people outside the community, then the issue will be contextualize missiology and contextual theology, rather than translation.
I may be missing the point, but I have found over the years that to attempt either process--to translate from the known to the unknown or vice-versa--always works better with a competent "dialogue partner," for example, when doing Bible translation into an African language from a largely English text, or writing an English article on some aspect of African culture based on African language source texts and insider information. Thus, when doing the Bible translation we would first thoroughly discuss the meaning of the passage in English and then try to perfect a rendering of that in the vernacular. On the other hand, when writing the cultural article, we first discuss the issues involved in the vernacular and then various drafts of a summary or explanation of those issues in English. The key of course is to pair two experienced dialogue partners who are equally competent in both language-cultures, that is, English-Western and Chewa (for example)-African.
Ideally, one would hope a translator would 'know' both poles in order to translate. Foreign translators tend to 'know' Greek and Hebrew and the history of the church etc., but not the indigenous language. Indigenous translators know the later, but less of the former. The solution prescribed tends to be to teach the indigenous person that knowledge of foreigners. This latter process I call 'education from the unknown to the known'. Indigenous learners being unfamiliar with the context from which they are being educated get what they get out of context, so as 'unknown'. It's like asking someone to understand the whole picture after looking at just one piece of a jigsaw. What I am arguing is that the role of the outsider is NOT to 'educate' indigenous people, because if they do so they always try to take the indigenous people from unknown to known. Instead, it is up to indigenous people to take the initiative to explore, say, Greek. (This may seem to be splitting hairs. I think it isn't.) Indigenous people then will immediately appropriate what they learn into their own worldview. A comparison; an American layperson can pick up a Greek dictionary (i.e. Greek-English) for the first time, and make use of the Greek term in that afternoon's sermon. That use of the term may be 'wrong' for a Greek scholar who knows more about it. But it is the way people think, and the way communities work. We cannot, or must not, expect indigenous (i.e. native speaking) bible translators to do otherwise. What then becomes the role of the 'outsider'? Presumably, it becomes trying to grasp the horizon of the indigenous speaker.
Here's my reflections on your above suggestions Ernest: if you put me, say as an Englishman and a Chewa speaker, together with a Malawian who knows English, in any kind of 'formal' context',then in today's world, I will find myself in a dominant position. When we discuss a passage in English, I will implicitly be 'teaching' the Malawian the context through which I am translating. That context will come to him as 'unknown'. He woudn't 'get it' without my help. He will again be dependent on me for translation of the next verse as I bring in another context. I see the whole picture, I give my Malawian colleague pieces of a puzzle. What might the alternative look like? A native Chewa speaker wants a bible in Chewa. Yet, without a lot of help from (Western) scholars, I think we'll consider that he will make a lot of errorts. Suggested solution: the Westerner to as far as possible put himself into the position of the Chewa speaker. This requires a profound learning of Chewa language, in culture. If the Westerner can get to the position where the Chewa culture is more than just a spattering of jigsaw pieces, he (or she) may become useful. That is, the Westerner must get to a position where he can perceive the foreign-ness of the appearance of his own language and culture to the Chewa speaker. In essence, I suggest (a thesis that) good translation must always be from unknown to known, hence its limitations. Even if someone 'knows' the contours of the source, they must unknow it for purposes of the translation ... discuss!