Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Question #3
The speeches by Simon Lucas and Dan Michel have been textualized very differently. In the one instance, grammar has been edited, redundancies have been eliminated, and other features of oral language have been transformed into a more traditional written text. In the other, many of the oral features have been reatined in the written version. Which translations do you prefer, and why? What are some of the implications of each style? Argue your psoition with concrete examples from the text(s), showing HOW each written form has certain implications for meaning.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely believe that grammar should NOT be edited and redundancies are very important in oral stories. A big difference in oral stories (in my opinion)from traditional stories, is that they usually have a lesson to be learned whereas traditional written stories often do not. When teaching someone something, repetition is one of the best tools to use; thus it importance in oral stories. As for grammar, it must be left as it adds necessary flavor to the story and captures some of that "oral" experience. On page 41 of "Write It On Your Heart", the text appears as follows:
ReplyDelete"He took him.
He throw 'em in the air.
He went long ways and he landed.
Then he get up and looked around."
There are many grammatical errors to do with spelling, sentence structure and redundancy here, but without this it could be very plain and uninteresting:
"He then took hold of him in a firm manner and proceeded to toss him into the air. The Older one flew through the air for a long distance, getting up and looking around after he landed."
Without the short sentences, there is no pause to create tension build up, and the lack of slang (throw 'em), the "flavor" is lacking along with interest. The use of the word "He" three times also adds importance to the idea of WHO is throwing the older one; something that is lost in the boring version.
On my part, I believe that both speeches are useful in their individual ways. While one does try to remain closer to oral traditions, the reality is that when you think of the context of these speeches (where they were, who they were speaking too) it makes sense to modernize the story. I believe that educated people can appreciate both speeches and what the speaker is trying to convey, but perhaps the more modern approach is better appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI whole-heartedly agree that oral traditions are in important, and that it is necessary to pass stories down from generation to generation, but perhaps it is not necessary to rely on traditions quite so much in a formal environment such as where they are when they told the speech. Yes, there are many First Nations people in the room. But, I suppose it depends on the person who tells the story. Were Simon Lucas and Dan Michel concerned with trying to preserve their oral traditions, or were they simply speaking to convey one or two short messages to the crowd? If the concern is to make sure the message is understood, I can appreciate someone writing their speech down to make sure that the full message is passed to the listener.
It does seem to me that the purpose of a translation makes it important HOW that translation is done. While, at a personal level, I completely agree with Jim and prefer all the little language markers, repetitions, errors, etc to be reflected in the written story - that makes it come alive for me - I also think that this kind of written language might not be as effective in a speech that is attempting to persuade in a minstream context, for instance.
ReplyDeleteNow that I have my responses finished, I can not open them on this computer to cut and paste.. now whar?
ReplyDeleteThis is my Friday Jackie :(
Ah well, Jackie, we will figure this out. No worries, or panic attacks:) If you still can't load them on by our next class, we'll figure out a way (perhaps from my computer). If you are around this coming Friday (I know it is Reading Break) I could also help you with this. I won't be in the office on Wednesday or Thursday, but I will be available via email.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3.
ReplyDeleteI really think that it in this case it was okay to change the text to meet the needs of the audience. It depends upon the audience as well as intent. The speakers would have handled themselves differently speaking to a Caucasian audience and this would be reflected in the material handed out as well. People change things to make sure they get the message across. I think that in this situation, the written versions were suited for the purpose. I respect this choices made by First Nation speakers to match the needs of their different audiences. Why should this differ just because they are First Nations speakers? In English literature, there are many ways to represent different ideas, just as there are different ways of writing to attract different audiences.
I have to admit that I do prefer the original oral versions whether traditional or modern. I prefer to be present to hear the Elders speak, hearing them speak in their own languages, even if I have to rely on the script or an interpreter to translate, is such a wonderful experience. I enjoy videos for the same reason; it gives me a picture of the person, the audience and the location. I enjoy the audio especially for the stories that are more poetic. I have a harder time reading these kinds of stories as it takes more eye work and attention. Sometimes I just like to sit back and read. I appreciate Louis Bird’s book for that.
You make some excellent points, Jackie, and I couldn't agree more with both you and Jim. I like reading/hearing from the source, but I think playing around with the transcription and editing sure does highlight how much we do interfere with the texts, whether we want to or not. As I read your last post, I thought about the word "original." It's a word that I always have problems with, but I think that how you framed it "original oral" takes care of some of the problems with the term. To me, every telling, in the oral, is original...
ReplyDelete