Lost in Translation

Even though English is the dominant language around the globe, a significant amount of classical and contemporary literature is written in other languages. The only way these works are accessible to those who don't know the language is through translation. However, literature isn't easily converted from one language to another; even the simplest sentence can be translated with multiple interpretations. Translation changes text, and thus changes content. Nevertheless, translation is a necessity.

One important issue to be aware of is the consequences of twice-removed translations and translations from people unfamiliar with the language it was written in originally. These are unfortunately both common practices today. All texts are negatively affected when translated from one language http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifto another, so an effort should be made to keep this damage to a minimum. Since most literary damage occurs during the "leap" from one language to another, it seems logical to make this jump as direct as possible (i.e. foreign literature should directly be translated into English). However, this isn't always the case. English translhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifations via third languages- the English version being based on the French translation of a book originally written in Polish- continue to be published frequently. This ugly practice should decrease and awareness about it needs to be made. Foreign works that have been translated through this process should go back and be translated in a more direct and accurate fashion. Translation through a third language should only be used when it is a necessity.

Another interesting issue worth examining is why more foreign writers aren't published in America? Publishing Perspectives writes that there are many obstacles which explain this unfortunate phenomenon.

The often cited reason for the difficulty of placing translations with American publishers according to the article is the limited number of US editors who speak a foreign language. There isn't a large scale effort focused on bringing foreign authors into the US market. Put difficult economic calculations that publishers face in taking a translation to market in play, and the situation becomes significantly more gloomy.

Additionally, the books that are sold for translation here are more likely to come through the handful of US agents with close ties to one region or another, who are themselves usually working through professional relationships with particular agents or publishers abroad. If a foreign work has a US agent, it makes the entryway into the US market much easier. Usually, translations or partial translations are available this way, and the US agent will have the piece packaged in a way that’s the most accessible and maximizes its potential for the American market. Without a US agent, it takes a lot of work on the part of the editor in order for a foreign work to get published. Considering the massive influx of stories hoping to get published annually, editors have little time to do this, thus decreasing the changes for foreign works without US agents getting published here in America.

Along with that, especially in the case of foreign literature, there is a greater reliance on recommendation as determining factors on whether or not a foreign work gets published. Since editors don't always speak multiple languages, they have to go on reports from other people and the reputation of the author overseas, which makes it difficult for small, unknown authors from different regions.

In the end, an unfortunate cycle emerges for foreign literature where the difficulty of placing books in the US makes it less likely foreign publishers and agents will invest in packaging their authors to submit here, which makes it harder for US editors to develop an understanding of foreign markets and what authors might be the best match for their audience. This contributes to the slim chances translations have in finding success here in American markets.

Language Towards Africa- Part 2

Continuing my post on “Language Towards Africa”, there are many criticisms with the phrase “Sub-Saharan Africa” commonly used in scholarly context. According to Professor Godfrey P. Okoth (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3821/is_199710/ai_n8771151/print), the term “Sub-Saharan Africa” is an arbitrary, Eurocentric one that’s accompanied by excessively undesired rhetorical baggage. The term “sub-Saharan Africa” was created by European scholars to split Africa into two parts-where non-Africans are stereotyped to the north and Africans to the south. The phrase has strong rhetorical effects. The phrase is racist and balkanizes Africa-preventing it from achieving unity and contributing fully to the globe. This stifles Afro-centrism and Pan-Africanism which are necessary ideologies required to resist intellectual imperialism and post-colonial oppression.

Cultural historian and academic, Owen ‘Alik Shahadah (http://www.africanholocaust.net/news_ah/ language%20new%20reality.htm), explains that the term "Sub-Saharan" Africa is a colonial term used to confine Africans to a "make-believe location." European imperialists tied Africans to the bottom of civilization in an attempt to foreclose African contribution to society. It creates a superficial distinction between “civilized” and “uncivilized” peoples, condemning all of Africa to be generalized with primitive status. In other words, the term “Sub-Saharan Africa” is not objective geographic fact. Instead, it http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifis a product of a specific way of viewing Africa and of framing the distinction between what is and is not “African”.

Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe, Nigerian political scientist, historian, and Director of the Centre for Cross-Cultural Studies in Senegal, articulates an excellent example (http://www.africaresource.com/component/option,com_alphacontent/section,3/cat,36/task,view/id,281/Itemid,211/). He explains that Apartheid South Africa was excluded from the “Sub-Saharan Africa” definition but was added after the government became “African” after the liberation. There are other examples, but the basic point is simple: when we label countries “Sub-Saharan African” we are not just objectively describing their geographic position but are saying something about them.

What are we saying? The phrase “Sub-Saharan Africa” has a negative connotation of inferiority, helplessness, and chaos. The phrase creates this distinction where “Northern Africa” has made meaningful contributions to global culture and is not really “African,” and “Sub-Saharan Africa” is the largely useless and undeveloped mass that spans the rest of the continent.

As an everyday citizen, it’s difficult to truly imagine the rhetorical impact certain words or phrases contain. Nevertheless, the language we use to describe and discuss certain things matters. Failure to critically examine our rhetorical choices can have negative implications. This is what foreign diplomats need to be especially aware of. When speaking with others of a different region or of a different language, one needs to avoid unintentionally speaking something that could be taken offensively. In this world where relations with people matter, language matters.