You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Three years ago I wrote in these pages on the subject of languages, cultures and translations from the perspective of an analyst (Clemmens, 1985). The present paper is closely related to my earlier topic, although it goes beyond it in some ways.
To begin with let us consider the question, whether the perspective of an analyst, or anybody else's for that matter, has any relevancy with respect to the issue of translations in particular, but languages and cultures as well. To phrase the question another way: Could there be such a thing as a topic or a subject matter to be translated, that has such overriding importance as to nullify all analytical and even all observational viewpoints? If so, we might call this the primacy of content over form or the primacy of the message. The language in which the message appears would therefore be of secondary importance. The translator would be considered a mere technician. If he were to be truly capable, he would deliver a perfect translation, which means that it would be equal to the original.
For many centuries, when translations were made mainly of the Bible and of a few classics in Greek and Latin, this was the accepted view, an almost self-evident truth. Today we know that there are good translations and bad ones, better ones and worse ones, but none are perfect. The original is always superior, although the content, or message, may be the same. To our ancestors, who were Bible readers, the message was all important. Today we care a great deal about the way the message gets delivered. The following question poses itself: What has happened to change our outlook so drastically from a message-centered system of belief to a messenger-centered one? The messenger, and in this instance, translator, introduces himself into the message.