Can we say that translation is part of our incorporated and objectified cultural capital?
Hmmm, interesting question... Do you mean the ability to translate or translation itself? If you mean the former I'd say incorporated, but if you mean the latter it would rather be objectified.
i didn't really made the difference that you made but you're right that we have to establish the difference between the two of them. that means that it's both, incorporated and objected because the translation itself is the result of the ability to translate and the ability to translate drives you to translation.... there is not translation without the ability to translate and vice versa. thank you for your contribution Christoph!
I have translated book-length philosophy texts from Spanish to English with the purpose of making such texts part of the Anglophone cultural capital. They are indeed objectified because they exist outside me the translator, yet within the Anglophone cultural context.
Thank you Nelson, i'm a translator myself and sometimes it's difficult to see that objectivity should be part of subjectivity when translating. Thank you for your contribution Nelson!
Dear Petra, What have you translated? It was Goethe who acknowledged the difficulty of distinguishing the inside from the outside, subjectivity from objectivity, but the truth remains that the text to be translated is an object preexisting our effort as translators and remaining objective, no matter how we transform it. Our transformation largely derives from the text itself.
I'm translating a book about posturomimogestuality, and it's a new field that i am discovering. How to translate a gesture? how to translate the plurimodality of a context? how can a simultaneous interpret translate the suprasegmental that can change the segmental context? i'm dealing with this kind of questions right now. any help would be welcome.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science