reflection - olivia

I thought Seidensticker shared a lot of interesting thoughts and experiences of his translating. I agree with his statement that sometimes Japanese writing seems a bit vague and more unclear than maybe English writing. It's smart that he developed the concrete strategy of comparing the number of nouns in a sentence. He also talks about the issue of using the proper noun vs changing the translation a bit in order to keep the rhythm of the text. In my opinion, the flow and rhythm would be more important because that is more indicative of a writer's style and writing rather than a name. Like some of the other readings we've done, Seidensticker also discusses the idea of a translating being better than the original text or being improved from the original. I think I still don't believe that the original should be approved upon unless that is what the author wnats. 

I also thought it was interesting how Seidensticker says that he likes flawed authors and that his personal favorite is Kafu, because of their shared love for the city of Tokyo. It makes me think about what is important in writing and also in translating that work.

Comments on Seidensticker Reading - Yang

I thought the argument Seidensticker made about translating proper names was compelling. I agree that it is ridiculous to judge the quality of the translation solely based on how many proper names are translated and how many are omitted from the original. Also, I agree that excessively explaining the cultural nuances of proper names can mess up the rhythm and make the text harder to follow, such as the choice of whether or not to explain a concept such as "Oseibo" in Korroke in the text itself, in the footnote, or just leaving it as is. 

I think the comparison between the lengthy Japanese translations and the simplicity of the original sentence from Hamlet is strange. The sentence is short and concise, sure, but part of that is also due to the fact that it uses Shakespearean English. Japanese is naturally a wordier language than English as it uses individual characters rather than words, so I don't think it's fair to say that the Japanese translations "badly disturbed" the rhythm of the original sentence.

I have no idea why Italians call translators "betrayers," but his analogy of calling a translator a counterfeiter also didn't make sense to me. I get that he is saying the translator should reproduce every detail of the original work accurately, like what an actual counterfeiter would do, but I don't think it's a bad thing to have a translation that is "better than the original." Sure, it is not the translator's business to improve on the original, but if they happened to do so, I don't think it is a bad thing, and it should be considered praise for the translator. 

I fully agree with the quote "Translation is not interesting unless it's difficult. It becomes boring when it's easy." I think the fun of translating mostly comes from the difficult decisions you make, such as word choice, sentence structure, etc. If everything only had one correct answer and was smooth sailing all the way, it would become such a boring job so quickly that AIs should be the ones doing the work rather than actual human translators.

I definitely failed to pick up on why Komako became mad in Snow Country. I would not have considered that it's because of the differences in connotation between the phrases "good girl" and "good woman," so I guess Seidensticker was right that this lack of explanation will leave the reader as confused as Shimamura himself. Perhaps a better and more colloquial way to translate "shiru hito zo shiru" would be "if you know you know" instead of "he who knows knows," which seems a bit wordy.

Regarding the translation of the opening sentences in Snow Country, I get the fuss about the way Seidensticker translated the first sentence. But, as he points out, it is impossible to avoid the subject of the sentence in the same way the original does, so it is justified. However, I felt like his translation of the second sentence "The earth lay white under the night sky" is much better than the literal translation of "The bottom of the night turned white." The latter makes no sense and sounds awful.

Personally, I would hate to translate for Kawabata. Also, the Banana slander at the end was uncalled for.

Seidensticker Reflection - Ellerie

 What stood out to me most in this reading is how often Seidensticker talks about flaws. He mentions that he likes an author more if they have flaws, like how he believes Shakespeare did not write perfectly the first time because he is imperfect. It brings up the interesting point of how to translate while accounting for the original author's flaws. If the author makes a mistake, is it up to the translator to clarify? Even with the discussion of changing the translation because of ambiguity, how much can we justify with grammatical arguments, such as needing a subject, and how much is the translator trying to fix the author's vagueness. I feel like there's a thin line between accommodating for the language difference and 'fixing' an author's flaw, at least with the examples given in the reading.

Another thing that stood out to me that was mentioned almost off-handedly in the reading was the concept of dark and light in Japanese works. I'd never thought about the visual aspect of kana versus kanji on print before, but the idea of using the contrast is interesting to me. Especially with the cultural implications of kanji representing a Chinese influence and kana representing a more Japanese feel, it would be interesting to read a novel that plays with the contrast.

Seidensticker Comments- Carly

 There was a comment made in this reading about how it was difficult to translate from a language like Japanese into English because the amount of choices you have to make. However, I find it hard to believe that this is just an issue with unrelated languages like English and Japanese. I feel like this is not simply just a linguistics issue, but something much bigger than that. If a translator is particularly focused on rhythm and vocabulary, they would probably feel like a similar language would be easier to translate. I personally feel like even languages that are similar are very distinct because of the culture behind the language. This is apparent when looking at different dialects of English, although it is the same language you get a different feeling depending on what country or city that English dialect is coming from.

Another thing I found interesting while reading, is that Seidensticker is very particular about the writers he chooses to translate for. He specifically said that "postwar products" didn't interest him at all. I think it is understandable and probably a good thing as well. People who are closer in age to the writer will probably have some shared perspectives on what the world was like at the time a certain book was written, or a world event happened. Having this relation would probably produce more appropriate translations, having the prior context of how the world was actually reacting to an event in real time. Whereas, on the other hand, it would be harder to buy into a person translating a high school story when they are years or even generations removed from their school years. 

Seidensticker - Ryu

In his text, Seidensticker explores the challenges of translating between two vastly different languages, such as Japanese and English. One example he provides is a translation of a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet. In English, the line is not only elegant for its meaning but also for its simplicity. However, Seidensticker notes that when translated into Japanese, the number of syllables doubles, disrupting the original rhythm of the text. He argues that this distortion compromises the elegance of the piece, and I agree, particularly because Hamlet is an artistic work where rhythm plays a crucial role.

Seidensticker also highlights the issue of ambiguity in Japanese texts, where passages are often deliberately vague, leaving room for the reader’s interpretation. As a translator, this poses a challenge, as editors typically expect a clear translation, which can be difficult when there is little to clarify.

Beyond these translation difficulties, Seidensticker introduces an intriguing method for assessing translation accuracy: comparing the number of proper nouns in both versions of the text. If one contains significantly more proper nouns than the other, it may signal a poor translation. However, he cautions that relying too heavily on this method can affect the text’s rhythm. While I understand the logic behind this test, I believe that in practice, maintaining the rhythm and readability of the text is ultimately more important for the quality of a translation.

Comments on Seidensticker - Maya

This article created a rollercoaster of emotions I had about Kawabata. Seidensticker tells us about how his thought process would flow when he is translating, and he mostly gave examples from Kawabata. Honestly, I can see how much Seidensticker loves his work because if I were him, I probably would have started to dislike Kawabata; not as an author, but as a person. I felt like he was too narcissistic due to his unresponsiveness towards Seidensticker. In my humble opinion, Kawabata misjudged Seidensticker as a regular reader. If Seidensticker wasn't a translator but just a curious reader who wanted to know more about Kawabata's work, then sure, Kawabata doesn't really have to tell him who is doing what and can stay as vague as he wants, so I grew quite irritated at his responses. However, at the same time, it is true that English is a clear and concise language in contrast to Japanese, where a lot of things depends on the person's intuition that they have nurtured by being in a Japanese society. That's why, maybe, Kawabata refrained from giving clarity in order to make sure that the English readers were unable to get a clear picture, which is exactly Kawabata's style. Who knows, maybe he was very confident in Seidensticker. 

I also feel like people–including authors forget that translators are on the side of the author and the reader at the same time. However, in Seidensticker's case, Kawabata was treating him as if he was from the reader's side, and readers would treat him as if he was doing an injustice for the author, which is ironic because it is the vice versa for the in person translators. 

Anywho, I still maintain the fact that translators are merely a tool for the author to use for their work to reach wider audience, and I appreciate the fact that Seidensticker seems to think the same way as well; he also thinks that when a translation is better than the original work, the translator has crossed the border in which they weren't supposed to as it is not their job. 

Seidensticker Reflection - Aaron

    I think the author's view about whether translation can improve the original writing and choosing between certain words relates a lot to what we discussed last few weeks. Translation can never be perfect due to the differences between languages - such as the nuance or specific words. These specific expressions always seem to get lost in translation even in languages similar to each other. We talked about how translators don't improve or correct errors made by the original author but to make it sound similar in a different language and convey the original tone - like Seidensticker emphasizes - but he then says that sometimes it's better for translated works to sound better when doing a quick read, which was a little contradictory to me. Such an example is in Kawabata's Izu Dancer, where the omission of the subject introduces ambiguity in the text that encourages reflection. In the translation, the addition of the subject was incorrect, but - not only applicable to this text - also takes away room for the reader's thoughts. Sometimes the words used (or not used) are for the reader to think about and ponder upon, which I think is a fantastic element of writing in general.  

Reflection on Reading - Rachel

It was interesting to read Seidensticker's claim that a translator's job is all about making choices. I agree that prioritizing rhythm at the sacrifice of something else like explaining the meaning of a proper name can be a constant struggle when translating text from such different cultures. Especially with the grammar structure being completely the opposite with Japanese and English, it is challenging to maintain the rhythm while conveying proper meaning.

Another point in the text that I found interesting and has also been a common topic in our other readings is the fact that the translation should not be better than the original. While translators can point out mistakes the author made, it is not their responsibility to polish the text, rather their job is to simply convey the original intention and tone into another language. I think ambiguity is a factor that makes literary work interesting because it allows readers to interpret it in their own ways. With Seidensticker's example of Kawabata's The Izu Dancer translation, although leaving out the subject of the sentence might not have been intentional, it adds an extra layer of ambiguity that allows readers to ponder on the story. Seidensticker's translation added the subject, which not only was wrong, but also diminishes the room for reader's interpretation. 

I also agree with the point that a lot of decisions in translations are intuitive. In my daily life, I often struggle with explaining why certain phrases work better than others in certain cases. It's simply the natural flow or tone, less about concrete rules and principles of translation. For that reason, I think it's a great learning opportunity to read what the thought processes are for professional translators in order to expand my own vocabulary and build on my intuition.

Reflection - Sora

 I found it interesting when Seidensticker, mentions that translators are usually stuck between several possibilities and every possibility there is, are all inadequate and not perfect. Since I feel that although there are many things that cannot be perfectly translated, there are also many things where there are ways that can capture the same message or nuance as the original. 

As for the section where he mentions being criticized on his translations by critics, and about either sacrificing the rhythm for proper names or proper names for the rhythm, in my opinion I think it is better to sacrifice the proper names. Since rhythms of writings could be a very important part in getting the message across or the story to flow in a way the author wants to. If the authors are alive I think it is worth it to ask what aspects they would rather sacrifice to make the translation sound better. And if the author is not alive I think it is best to see how you felt when reading the original and decide what the most important aspect you felt was when translating to keep that.

On Nagai Kafu and Kawabata Yasunari Reflection -Jaxon

Seidensticker's opinion about whether a translation can improve the original work and translations mean the choice to sacrifice is related to the article we read last week I totally agree that a translation is never perfect because of the language difference. Even for two languages that are relatively similar, like Chinese and Japanese, there will be some expressions that will inevitably lose some meanings after translation. Beyond that, the editors in the publisher give requests for clarity which makes the job even harder. 

The word "counterfeiter" is interesting. In the reading, Seidensticker mentioned he got plenty of criticism from the Japanese side about his translation. Critics read and value translations in a lopsided view, or I can say people have different ways to compare and value a translated work. The number of proper names or one sentence's inadequacy doesn't mean complete failure for me, at least. Sacrifice a little ambiguity to reach a smooth rhythm or better imitation of the author's style is worthwhile, in my opinion. As a reader, a better reading experience is better than a bunch of obscure texts that "introduce the literature better."

The idea of fondness for authors of similar ages is interesting, too. Seidensticker said that he found himself not very attracted to young authors, and I don't know whether it's true for most people or translators. I enjoy reading authors from all periods, and I don't know if he is saying this because he has translated so many works of authors from a similar period. Maybe some people are born to like contemporary literature more than classical ones or vice versa? Since literature works from different periods are quite different, I usually see translators focusing on translating authors from the same period because those authors' works share something in common, like stories' themes, society background, and language style. 

Bowen Ran, Refelction

 After reading this article, I am left with many questions about the points the author mentioned but did not fully explain. These might be considered common knowledge, but I find them quite confusing.

My first question is why Seidensticker said it’s easy to hide the contents of a diary but impossible to hide the act of writing one. What makes this habit so difficult to conceal? Isn’t keeping a diary something you typically do in the privacy of your own room? I can’t understand how such a personal activity could be so hard to hide.

Additionally, Seidensticker emphasized that a translation should not surpass the original work. If it does, the translator has overstepped and made a mistake. I strongly agree with his idea that it is problematic for a translator to improve upon the original work—that is simply not the role of a translator. However, Seidensticker also mentioned that he likes the idea that a translated version of a book can seem better when doing a quick read. Don’t these two points contradict each other? It seems problematic to hold both views at once for me.

Eight Ways to Say You - Sora

 I found the reading very interesting, since she talks about how English and Japanese writing have completely different styles and ways of writing in general. She mentions how English writing has a linear flow, from introduction to body to conclusion while Japanese writing is circular. And the mentioning of the importance of translating culture as mentioned in other texts we read in the class. Such as the example she gives when translating the word juku where there is no equivalent in North America, so it is very hard to get the same tone due to the big difference in culture.

In addition, as Hirano mentioned, the use of “you” and the different ways to say it can tell the readers so many things about a character from that single word, such as hierarchy, mannerism, and politeness. Furthermore, even with the same way to say “you” the difference in kanji or whether it is in hiragana or katakana makes a great difference. For example 貴方（あなた）あなた、and アナタ, the kanji gives a feeling that the character is rather polite, while the hiragana feels younger and more casual, and the katakana version makes it seem more rude, or a non-native speaking.

Monday 9/23 Comments - Samantha M

I think it is interesting how the author touched on the differences between what is 'good writing' in English versus in Japanese. It sort of highlights how the expectations of the Japanese reader can be vastly different from those of an English reader, and equally underscores that there is an underlying cultural gap in when translating from one language to another. I feel there is a running theme in a lot our readings where the message is some variation of avoiding translating word for word to accommodate the English reader and their assumed inherent knowledge while preserving the tone of the original work. I like the first example the author gives of this where she tries to add more context here and there to help flesh out the readers understanding of what juku without putting footnotes or brackets that might 'distract' from the reading. I think that an argument against sort of English-afying/Americanizing a translation is that sometimes it feels as though it goes too far, loosing a lot of the nuance in the original.

"Whereas in English we stress clarity, in Japanese subtlety is preferred."

Eight Ways to Say You, Bowen Ran

 Reading Cathy Hirano's article was really enlightening. One thing that caught my attention was how she talked about the eight different ways to say "you" in Japanese, each with its own subtle meaning, which made me realize how complex language can be and how much is lost when translating into English, where we just have one "you."

Another interesting point was her challenge with translating humor and cultural references. For example, she had to swap out "Tokugawa Ieyasu" for "Buddha" so that English readers would understand the joke. It shows that translators have to be creative problem-solvers, not just language experts.

This resonated with me because when I tried translating Haruki Murakami's short story, I also encountered similar challenges, where I had to find new ways to convey wordplays involving kanji, hiragana, and katakana in English. Exactly as she argued in the article, I realized how important and difficult it is to preserve the original spirit of the text due to the culture gap.

Cathy Hirano's Translations- Carly Hayle

     I found Cathy Hirano's perspective on translating valuable, as she touched on a lot of the questions I had for what is and isn't allowed while translating. One of the main aspects I noticed which I believe makes a huge difference in translation is how good of a writer the translator is themselves. I think people who value the art of writing and don't just think of translating as a one-to-one task are able to produce translations that people are able to enjoy as if they are reading the original. Hirano using the word "arrogance" to describe her translating process is a harsh but accurate word. As a writer that pays attention to the reception by the target audience, I think a level of arrogance is needed in order to ask the author of a novel to change whole sections of their story in order to adapt it to a different demographic. Translators who do not have this quality run the risk of producing translations that the target audience cannot connect with. 

    Hirano touched on humor and tone in translations. Due to cultural differences, not only is it hard to contextualize jokes in another language, the sense of humor tends to differ depending on the country as well. I think I prefer her method of changing parts of the punchline to make the joke land in English. In Hirano's case, instead of focusing on how to translate "you" she emphasized how annoyed the character by using affected speech was a very clever way to get the point across. In her case, instead of simply saying "he said" or some version of that, she instead illustrates the setting of the place when translating. Although it would probably be challenging, I would also like to attempt to translate, not entirely focusing on equivalent vocab. Instead, I want to focus on making the translation immersive through culturally relevant discourse, even it means having to go over the same translation multiple times to get it right.  

eight ways to say you - olivia

Hirano talks about how translating literature is a complex and cultural process that requires creativity and is not just the substitution of words. I agree with this viewpoint and that there are many things a translator needs to balance, such as staying true to the author's intent, conveying the literal and emotional meaning, and addressing cultural nuances. 

Hirano uses the example of "you" to show how the various forms of "you" in Japanese could convey so much information such as social hierarchy, gender, formality, and the relationship between characters, while in English there is no equivalent. It's true that there are so many pronouns and name endings in Japanese that I also question how to convey while I am translating. I agree that it's important to subtly insert details of what these pronouns/ name endings indicate when translating to another language. I was thinking about these problems while doing the translation for Korokke as well because the girl and the guy in the story are speaking in different ways because of their difference in status since the girl is providing service for the guy. In the end, it seemed like something that wouldn't affect the storyline that much, so I decided it was fine to just hint in some ways that the girl was being more polite in her speaking. However, I wonder what a better way to approach these problems in the future would be. 

Also, it intrigued me how she says translators also need arrogance. Personally, I don't know if I agree that arrogance is an important trait for translators to have, but it kind of sounds like Hirano's form of arrogance means having a certain level of confidence in your translation, which I would agree with. 

Eight Ways to Say You - Aaron

 I agree with Hirano that translating a language such as Japanese to English is not so much a word-for-word due to the structural, cultural, and grammatical differences between the languages. She emphasizes how Japanese writing tends to be more subtle compared to English, and such is shown in examples where the subject is left out and left up to interpretation based on context. Translators must also balance the originality of a text while making it accessible to readers from multiple backgrounds. For example, in the text where the character references Tokugawa and is laughed at by his peers, Japanese readers may be familiar with his historical significance, as well as Buddha. However, since an average reader outside of Japan may not know much about Tokugawa Ieyasu, Buddha was used to replace the word as an equivalent historical/ cultural figure that carries a similar authoritative tone.

With "you" specifically, Hirano identifies variations of the word 'you' that reflect nuances based on gender, social status, and relationship to the listener. An example of such is when the child says "kimi" to Tonomi, which sounds a little snobby, and Tonomi reacts angrily. Hirano translates the child's question to adjust for his tone, from "Was that your brother?" to "That was your brother, I presume?" and also captures Tonomi's reaction to "You presume indeed. You jerk." This social nuance is captured through her translation and shows the appropriate emotions, and also shows that translation isn't all about linguistic accuracy but conveying emotional and cultural significance from the original language is just as important.

“Eight Ways to Say You" comments- Maya

”It is a balancing act, requiring sensitivity and intuition, a combination of humility, vigilance, and arrogance.” Personally, this quote would be the most important take that I would get from this article. When I first read it, I was mostly agreeing with sensitivity, intuition, humility and vigilance, but arrogance? I couldn't understand it at first; I thought a translator must always stay humble as to not disturb the author's intended message by unnecessary add ons. However, as I read her article, I realized that she had a Japanese way of thinking when she said "arrogant". Having "the ability to become the author in another language" sure sounds arrogant, but I felt like since she doesn't actually feel like she could be the author in another language (unless her translations are similar to that of Birnbaum's), then I do not feel like that could be called as arrogance. It would only be humble imitation, or not even imitation; a humble offering of help to broaden the audience of the author. Hence, I thought it was very interesting for her to say that a translator had to be arrogant. In my opinion, as long as one stayed humble as a translator who is only a "tool", I do not feel the need to have arrogance. An arrogance would only be present if one put new vocabulary or sentence structure (or rather the feel of sentence structure) to the already finished work.

Usage of "I" or "you" is also something that I have struggled a lot while translating. It is quite hard to give the readers the idea of how the characters are responding to a situation based on their choice of "I" or "you". It is also the same case with how people address each other in Japanese (e.g. -san, -chan). I always had an irrational judgment against translators who refused to use or give the idea of these name endings. I realized that most of the translators would be flat out ignore the usage of "I", "you" or "-san, -chan, -kun". I do understand how difficult it is to convey that, but in my opinion, at least in anime subtitles, people could definitely use -chan or -san if needed be since their audience most likely have an understanding on how they work. (I do not feel the same way with how people address themselves. The reason is because most of the time, when there is a change in tone that was achieved by a change of how a character addresses themselves and the other, it is quite easy to notice it with their voice. However, that change may not be that noticeable in the form of writing.)

This article also reminded me of the time when I used to use "boku" when I was smaller. Since I grew up with my older brother, I was only imitating him, and I did not see the importance of the words for first person, so "boku" stuck with me. It wasn't until my grandmother heard me on the phone and politely but firmly corrected me to use "watashi" when I was referring to myself. I think that was the first time when I actually became conscious of the difference between the languages that I was using in my daily life. Since Turkish doesn't have another word to say "I", I didn't think it was that important in Japanese as well. (Obviously it did matter to my noble women of a grandma).  

Eight Ways to Say You - Ellerie Ross

 This article brought up an interesting point about how the grammatical and linguistic differences between languages can cause issues in translating. This is something I often run into problems when I'm asked to translate a song or movie dialogue into English from Japanese. I often struggle with wording and clarity, and there are a lot of times when the interaction ends with the other person asking me, "Do you really speak Japanese?" When translating in and out of Spanish, or other romance language, it's often much easier to get the point across. The linguistic similarity between the languages enables that ease. With languages like Japanese, it's much more difficult with the added steps of having to wait for the end of the sentence to hear the verb, switch around the noun modifiers and subclauses, and add in any subjects or objects left up to context. This article did a great job pointing out this difficulty with the difference between directly translated passages and professionally translated passages. Even with the concept of many ways to say 'you', it is true that Japanese is a language with a lot of context packed into the specific word choice used. The formality of the sentence, the form of 'I' or 'you' used, honorifics, and other characteristics of the Japanese language cannot always translate smoothly to English.

I also thought it was interesting to mention that a translator needs both humility and arrogance to translate. While I understood the idea behind why humility is needed when working with another writer's text and words, arrogance was surprising. While doing this first translation homework even, I can feel the embarrassment of submitting my own words as the replacement for someone else's, knowing that there is probably a much better translation out there. It was comforting to know that this is a universal feeling among translators.

Ryu - Eight Ways to say you

 In the article, she talked about various challenges that she experienced when translating from Japanese to English. In the midst of the article, she points out the importance of collaborating with both the author and editors to achieve a translation that preserves the story’s essence while ensuring it resonates with readers from different cultural backgrounds. And I thought if the author is alive and you're lucky enough to make the English version with their help, that's wonderful but what if you're translation an old book or document. JK Rowling, I'm assuming, could not collaborate with every single translator that tried to publish Harry Potter, to make sure that each translator captured the subtle nuances and cultural differences. So in my opinion, the reader needs to compromise to certain extent, that the translated version and the original version have some differences and some words are simply untranslatable. In most cases, people who read the translated version can't comprehend the original version - that's why they read the translated version. The translators do not spend extra time to capture the subtle nuances to cater towards some very niche/minor bilingual individuals that read both versions and nitpick the differences. 

Japanese pronouns are very unique and it's a way to clarify the social hierarchy.  One of my favorite pronouns is, 貴様(きさま）It used to be the most polite version of "You" but nowadays, it means the most aggressive version of "You". If I were to translate this, I would just add some derogatory terms after "You" to show the anger or emotions that the person said it is experiencing.  

Comments on "Eight Ways to Say You" Jaxon

 I definitely think translating a language to another language that has a totally different language system and strong cultural context is not an easy thing. I know what 塾 is since we also have them in China, but since many English-speaking countries don't have such schools, they didn't invent the word. I thought footage could be a good way to do translation while keeping the text as original as possible, but I recalled my memories reading The Hunchback of Notre Dame and The Count of Monte Cristo with average 3 footage per page to tell me all the knowledge about Paris and Italy, and then I found the footage didn't help me very much since the culture is too different. Now I know The process of recreating the sentences and replacing the words can be important in translating. Especially for humor like wordplay that can be hard in another language, it tests the skills of the translators of the knowledge for both of the languages.

In Chinese, we also have plenty of ways to say "you" or "I" for different social levels or politeness but nowadays, we seldom use them even in written languages to show that the society is equal. 

The idea of English focus on "clarity" and Japanese focus on "subtlety" is interesting. I remember we talked in class that the language itself doesn't matter for "clarity," and so far, from what I have read in Japanese, I also don't find the sentences themselves being "vague." I feel from daily conversations to literature works, "implying" is an important part of Japanese. People need to "read the room," and for literature, to think behind the text to get things authors want to convey is fascinating. The different groups of readers' reading habits might also be considered for translators.

"Direct translations of English into Japanese, therefore, often appear crude and abrasive, insulting the reader’s intelligence with their bluntness, while direct translations of Japanese into English are often frustrating to read because they come across as emotional, even childish, and without any point or conclusive ending. " I'm very interested in translating English to Japanese, too, about the idea of insulting readers; intelligence. The skills of not only translating the meaning of the sentences but also translating the feeling of the literature style like vagueness or clarity are unique in literature translation.

Comments on "Eight Ways to Say You" - Yang

I agree that the most difficult aspect of translating between Japanese and English is finding ways to capture the "differences in cultural perspectives and ways of thought." 

Hirano's example of translating 塾 for The Friends shows just how hard it is to convey the same meaning to a different group of people, as cram school isn't quite the same concept in America. What she did (using cram school but adding more description) was smart though. I also thought it was smart to substitute the mention of Tokugawa Ieyasu for Buddha instead. It fits the description of "round and smooth" nicely and is now a figure that is recognizable in both a Japanese context and for the average American reader. This is especially impressive given how hard it is to translate humor between these two cultures without losing or significantly altering the original joke.

What she said about the differences in subtlety between Japanese and English books was interesting. I never thought about how translating from Japanese to English or vice versa could make the story sound too abrasive or inconclusive. It's also interesting how she describes English as a "linear" language but that Japanese is more "circular" at times.

It's funny how Yumoto uses the word "jersey" to mean a tracksuit in The Spring Tone, whereas, in an American context, people would picture uniforms for athletic teams. I'm not sure why Hirano thought sweater was the correct translation though, as it seems pretty farfetched. I thought it was brilliant how she tackled the translation of 君 in the same novel, as it has that sense of superiority that any variations of "you" do not have in English. Instead, she leaves the "your" unchanged but adds "I presume," which perfectly encapsulates that snobbish tone. 

Finally, I think the last paragraph about her son is very precious and proves how important translation is for connecting various countries' cultures and literature to one another. It also goes to show just how good of a translator Hirano is that even her ten-year-old son can appreciate the humor and other contents of a book that is originally written in a language that is foreign to him.

Comments on Eight Ways to Say You Reading - Rachel Nozaki

Cathy Hirano mentioned that the English writing style is more linear, with statements supported by logical explanations, whereas the Japanese style is more circular, with more subtleties behind the words. There was something in one of the previous articles we read that mentioned how there is a stereotype that Japanese is imprecise or vague. I didn't even know that was a common stereotype until reading that article, but when Hirano was comparing the Japanese and English texts of My Friends, I now understand that it can be perceived that it requires more energy for readers to read between the lines for Japanese much more than English. Growing up between both Japanese and American cultures, I relate to Hirano's perspective of how challenging it is to explain a whole cultural concept in a few words. Her example of "juku" and the connotations behind going to juku has much more cultural significance than simply saying "cram school."
Furthermore, one of the first things you notice when reading Japanese is that we rarely see the words "I" or "you" and it is up to the reader to interpret using context clues. Therefore, as Hirano states, when we do use "you" in a sentence, it usually has some sort of additive factor to establishing the characters' tone or relationship. I don't necessarily think her translations are spot-on in terms of conveying those nuances. Still, she does successfully convey similar tones without overly describing or making the sentences unnatural.

My comments on readings - Maya

 Michael Emmerich - I had always wondered how Japanese to English translations seemed to appear in front of the international readers. Since I believe that it is a translator's job to convey the feeling of the original work to the audience, I believed it would be hard to translate a lot of literary work from Japanese, a language with many nuances. Hence I wasn't as  surprised like Emmerich when I read the comments of students from the US. However, I would have assumed that the translations gave a glimpse of how Murakami felt like in Japanese, but I guess the difference in nuances doesn't only come from the language, but also from the culture a reader (and author) was born in. It may be harder to understand the feel of Murakami if one hasn't associated themselves and "gained" nuances of Japan and its language.

Found in Translation - There were many things that I appreciated a lot in this interview. For example, I completely agree with Jay Rubin, who thinks that people should read the original work/learn the language rather than the translation. I think it is quite similar to watching movies and anime in their original language with subtitles, rather than the English voice over. I also really liked this quote: "...you're not trying to explain the original, but recreate it so that it works in all the same gut levels." I always subconsciously knew that when translating but since my translation "works" were usually about explaining one person to another, I never considered how it may be in literary works. I was also surprised since I didn't know Murakami was a translator himself, but I guess that makes sense since he is unusually adept in Western culture while writing his works. 

How Haruki Murakami's '1Q84' Was Translated Into English - First and foremost, I would love to read Gabriel's work of Oe Kenzaburo since I quite liked the author's style when I read it in Japanese and see if the feeling of the literary work is the same as when I read it in Japanese. I also beliebe that I should read 1Q84 in English since the books seem to be translated by different translators, so I think it would be very educational and interesting to read all 3 books and compare different styles of translators. Also this one quote peaked my interest: "There's a generalization out there that Japanese is somehow imprecise or vague compared to English." I'm not sure if I agree with it or not since I believe that Japanese is a language with many nuances, but I'm not sure if that counts as being imprecise or vague. I think it may be about how a person interprets the word, but as Gabriel has said, it isn't that hard for people to come up with the same interpretation, so I guess I do agree with Gabriel here. One last thing about this interview is that although a translation may be better than the original work, I think it is rare and something that should not happen since translation is merely a tool to convey how the author has conveyed their literary work. I think it would be a breach of translation boundary if the translated work was better than the original work. 

The Mysteries of Translation - One can definitely understand whether a literary work has been well translated or not. Reminds me of the last book that I have read in Turkish; Dead Souls from Gogol. I must say, that was one of the worst translations I have ever read. The translation kept interrupting the flow due to interesting word choices and sentence structure. I am not sure what I want to bring into my comments on this article but it reminded me of the book that I have read, so I wanted to put it out there first. 

At first, I didn't understand what Lesser had meant by liking Birnbaum more, but as she gave us the examples, the difference between Rubin was quite big, I must say. It is true that Birnbaum's work sounds much more delicate and elegant,  but I can not say anything further than this since I have not read the original work. If the original work has the same feeling in my gut, then Birnbaum has done a superb job. However, if the original work is much closer to Rubin's then I must say I do not like Birnbaum's translation even if sounds fantastic. I still maintain that a translator's job is to merely translate the feeling that the original work is giving, rather than adding something to it, so as I said before, if Birnbaum's style is much more prominent than Murakami's style, then I would put my vote on Rubin's work. 

Monday 9/16 Reading Comments - Samantha M

 "You're not trying to explain the original, but recreate it..." This was a line from the interview with the translators Rubin and Gabriel. I feel like it sort of signaled to me that the translator really has to reform the narrative because there really is no way to realistically word for word translate something without at least some amount of information loss or bloat. This is sort of underscored to me by Emmerich's comments on the 1Q84 translation cutting a lot of words.

I found the mention the cover visuals playing a large role in the perception of Murakami's work interesting and it reminds me a little about our conversation on fonts previously, if only because it highlights the impact that visuals can have on our interpretation of a piece of literature.

I think it was also interesting to read the text where the writer expressed attachment to a particular translator right before reading an interview with the translators that the writer did not prefer. I feel like the article highlighted how much the translator can influences the reading of a work, even if the purpose of the translator is sort to fade into the background. 

comments on reading (olivia hwang)

 The Mysteries of Translation 

I thought the metaphor of the “golden prison” in English was a beautiful way to capture how there is so much to the English language and literature but there are also many limits to it, which is something that I definitely feel whenever translating between English and another language. It was also interesting to read the author’s points on how different translators translate literature differently, which leads to different experiences for the reader. Depending on who is translating, some versions might seem as if they lost the original writer, some have distinct tones/styles, and everyone has their own voice. It made me contemplate what kind of translator I want to grow into while taking this course. 

Found in Translation 

This interview influenced me to reflect on the artistic choices that translators have to consider, such as conveying the specific feeling and spirit of the original text. My perspective on translators changed from someone who not just interprets but can also create art. Similar to “The Mysteries of Translation”, the conversation focuses on the importance of translation not simply being a mechanical process of translating one word to another word between languages, but a means of preserving and conveying as much of the original text as possible. 

How Haruki Murakami’s ‘IQ84’ was Translated into English 

It was really intriguing to get a glimpse into what the routine of someone translating a book looks like- I feel like I understood how much stamina and patience is needed for such a huge project. Like ‘Found in Translation’, this interview mentions that when translating a living author’s text, there is a rare opportunity to receive feedback from them, like how Gabriel preferred one name for a specific character but Murakami actually ended up preferring the other one. Even when you spend a lot of time thinking of the best solution to translate a specific part of the story, the author might like something else more. The question of whether a translation can improve on an original text was also thought-provoking. 

Michael Emmerich 

It’s fascinating to read about how different people perceived Murakami differently based on their cultural backgrounds (East Asian students perceived themes like loneliness and healing while US students found his writing to be “realistic”.) I also thought it was interesting that Japanese readers initially thought that Murakami’s writing was light in the beginning and only later saw him as a serious and complex writer, while in western countries, they perceive him as serious from the beginning. Like some of the other readings, this one highlights that there are differences between translations of the same text depending on the translator. I think it’s cool that there is a growing interest in translators in due to each individual’s creative input and distinct style and they are receiving more recognition. 

Comments on Readings - Ellerie

For "The Mysteries of Translation", I found it interesting how the author mentions that they prefer one translator to another. I feel like when I read a translated story, I am thinking about the work as being written by the original author as opposed to the translator. Because of that, I usually don't pay attention to the translator's unique style. Reading the two passages provided, I enjoyed that of Birnbaum better. He had a style that seemed to flow more naturally and almost made me forget that I was reading a translated passage. Because of how different Japanese is to English, I find this difficult to do.

For "Found in Translation", it was interesting that, because of Murakami's interest in American media, his work is easier to translate into English text. Murakami almost seems to be writing from a different cultural standpoint, trying to include American concepts he finds interesting into his Japanese work. It is interesting that Jay Rubin seems to point this out more than J. Philip Gabriel.

For "How Haruki Murakami's '1Q84' Was Translated Into English", the idea of a translated work being better than the original was interesting to me. It would be difficult to say which is better, both from individual and cultural standpoint. I think a translated work surpassing the original work would mean that it didn't faithfully carry out what it is meant to do, which is to get across the emotional and cultural undertones of the story.

For the interview with Michael Emmerich, I found it interesting that the two different groups of students were able to have such differing opinions on Haruki Murakami's works. I wonder if that is because the translated work gives off a different feeling to the original in a way that portrays the writing as more difficult, or if the subject matter and writing style of the story is so different and more 'difficult' than the average works in the US as compared to Japanese works. It's interesting how much of the perception of foreign authors is based on cultural differences or the tone of the translator.

Comments on Readings- Carly

     A common theme that I noticed throughout the readings is the question of how big of a role the translator has in how the original author's writing style is perceived. When reading The Mysteries of Translation, I was shocked to read about how some readers feel a bigger impact than others, depending on whom the translator was. Lesser, dreaming about there one-day being "the perfect translator" felt a bit dramatic. However, when thinking about it again, I can empathize with some of those feelings as well. For instance, there have been times when I tried to read a fan-translated manga before purchasing, and the difference in the feeling I get while reading the official translations compared to the fan translations is stark. The official translations have a more easily digestible rhythm, and the way the sentences are broken up allow for the climaxes of the story to hit every time. When learning a language, one of the most difficult parts to grasp is the intonation, and I think this can even be felt in writing as well. This might be one of the most important factors that influences someone's reading experience for English-translated works.

    In the interview with Philip Gabriel about his translation of 1Q84, when he was asked about making an attempt to adapt to the previous translators of Marukami's works, it didn't seem like that was a big focus for him. Personally, I think considering how different translators choose to approach certain aspects of speech like certain jokes and puns, it would be very difficult to try and replicate the vibe of another translator. On top of that, being a translator is a job that required extensive training to build personal skill, so wouldn't a translator come into a job with the intention to use their own techniques to be able to bring the original piece to life in another language? Everyone has their own internal grammar and vocabulary acquired through their personal experiences, so it would be impossible to be able to completely morph your writing style into another. 

    Lastly, while reading, I thought about what different readers will value and what influence that may or may not have on the translation. The reason I thought about this is that initially I assumed that people who read Marukami's works have an interest in Japan or Japanese authors, so they would want the translated book to feel as "Japanese" as possible. With that being said, there are probably many other situations where the target audience of the book may just want to read a story that happened to be written by a Japanese author. In this case, I wonder how the original piece may be changed to fit the needs of the reader. Because even thought the original piece in Japanese exists, the translated piece relies on the translator's creative ability to capture the original meaning while also making it feel like it is not a translated work at all. 

Comments on Readings - Rachel Nozaki

 The Mysteries of Translation

I thought it was interesting how Lesser mentioned that although a translator doesn't want their voice to overpower that of the source author, it is undeniable that their own sensibility enters into the work they're given. Because everyone has their own writing style, I think that is what makes translating extremely challenging but also exciting to explore how to effectively convey the original story's emotions and feelings while creating a smooth flow in the translated language. 

Found in Translation

This interview was really insightful to get the behind-the-scenes for the translation process alongside the author. As Rubin and Gabriel mentioned, Murakami is heavily involved in the translation process, making me wonder what the dynamic is and how the conversations are like when deciding effective wording. I liked how Rubin explained that although there is never a guarantee that you are getting an unalloyed original, if the translation evokes strong emotions, it is likely that the original text conveys similar themes and tone. As a bilingual person, I often feel like the inherent nature of Japanese versus English bring very different tones to the story so I think it is extremely challenging for translators to develop ways to maintain the sense and feel of the original text.

How Haruki Murakami's "1Q84" was Translated into English

I never had a clear understanding of how long it takes to translate a book so it was interesting to read how Gabriel's goal is to translate 4 pages a day, 20 pages a week, and 80 pages a month. Especially for a long piece like 1Q84, the process seems extremely detailed and in need of many rounds of revisions. Towards the end of the article, it mentioned how there is a stereotype that Japanese is more imprecise and vague compared to English, and I did not know that it was a common perception of the language. Gabriel firmly said that it was a misconception, which I agree with because I've never felt as though Japanese lacks any details to communication. I also agree with Gabriel that because the sentence structure in Japanese is flipped from English, it becomes challenging to convey the right emotions and maintain a rhythm to the sentences if the verb comes at the beginning.

Fans Around the World Reading Haruki Murakami in Parallel Worlds

As mentioned in the other articles, the difference in language naturally can change the tone or seriousness of the text, which can cause the disparities in how readers perceive the work. I especially thought it was interesting how the book cover designs were emphasized as a factor that paved way to Haruki Murakami's international success. Often when I look for books to pick up at the bookstore, the covers play a large role when scanning shelves full of books. I think the visual continuity of his pieces make his work more distinct and noticeable, which I believe does play a key role in collecting people's attention.

Comments on Readings - Aaron

Mysteries of Translation

I found it interesting that Lesser mentions that it is possible to "lose an author through a change in translators," but also possible to "gain one in the same way." She mentions how she noticed that the translator for Murakami changed, and her reaction to reading Birnbaum's translation is much more enthusiastic than when she got used to "Jay Rubin's perfectly good translations." I believe that having a balance between the original author's tone and what the translator seeks to convey is important, as she talks about her experience about immediately wanting to know more about a translator versus only wanting to know a little more about the original author of the text. 

Found in Translation

The translators mention in the article that Murakami is a translator himself, which begs the question of why he doesn't assist in translating his own works, alongside these people. Furthermore, Jay Rubin mentions again the idea that some literatures in different languages fail to "make you afraid or delighted in some way." The two translators also talk about the idea of wordplay and how they aim to keep translations of puns/ humour as closely worded to the original text to preserve the tone as well. Like the example of "taking a 'paws,'" I think it's quite important for translators to have creativity as well as shown in such situation where they are tasked to maintain a pun in two such different languages as Japanese and English. I do resonate with the point that it is better to learn the language than read a translated text; when I consume Japanese literature (books, TV, or manga/ anime) gaining exposure to the translated form always seems to be a little lackluster when compared to the original. Whether it is a difference in speech manner or just the wording, it just never feels the same.

How Haruki Murakami's '1Q84' Was Translated into English

Gabriel discusses the lengthy process that translating 1Q84 took, and I can relate to such a task as I've worked with the Taipei Government's Tourism Bureau before to come up with and translate an original itinerary I made. Such an article that is almost 5-10 pages long in a Word document took a few weeks to completely translate, so the fact that Gabriel had to translate a literal book compared to a few pages seems so much more difficult. He also brings up the idea that nuances of Japanese food are obscured in translation, and from my work experience I can say the same when I translated Taiwanese food names to English for the article; iconic Taiwanese street foods, when translated into English, sound somewhat plain and not worth trying specifically. I agree that brevity is an important part of translation; while it is crucial to effectively convey the text's meaning to the reader, explaining too much also eliminates the uniqueness of the so called 'writer's voice.' 

Michael Emmerich: Fans Around the World Reading Haruki Murakami in Parallel Worlds

I find it normal that everyone around the world has a different image of Murakami - after all, like other articles have mentioned that translating brings about a different tone and demeanour of the author. Emmerich tells the author that he was surprised when his students said their impressions of Murakami were "difficult writer" and "realistic," which brings about the idea that maybe the translated works and/ or culture difference is a potential reason for this disparity. Similar to Hayao Miyazaki's works, which allude a lot to Japanese culture and history, particularly around the period of WWII, audience members who are not familiar with the tone and context may find the translated texts a little vague. Templado then writes about the difference in "voices" between Murakami and his translators, saying while the original text sounds "drier than Birnbaum's" and Gabriel's voice "wetter." While hard to put into words, reading the different texts in their respective writers' manners each evoke a unique feeling. 

Comments on Reading, Jaxon

 I get the same feeling as Lesser when I read "The Mysteries of Translation". Even nowadays, most people in the world are still monolingual and need translations, good translations that are for monolingual people. 

I tried to read French and English literature in primary school but the weird and long names in French and tedious depictions of building styles or house decorations that I couldn't imagine in my head as a Chinese made me wonder why someone would ever be interested in those as a child. Now I can read in three languages and when I translate something, I find myself becoming biased. As we discussed in class about the tree in front of the dorm, I want to keep the translation as original as possible but I didn't think about what readers will think of the word if they don't have any knowledge about trees and Japan? Will they give up reading just like what I felt when I read something that's completely out of my world?

From my reading experiences, I think I have never read one book translated by two different translators so I don't know how different they are like what Lesser described as the difference between Birnbaum and Jay Rubin.

In "Found in Translation", I like the point from Jay Rubin that we should read the literature work in their original language since it's inevitable to lose some information after translating especially for two totally different language systems like English and Japanese. I understand now all people can have time to learn a new language, especially languages that require a decent level to be able to read literature like Chinese. 

For "How Haruki Murakami's '1Q84' Was Translated Into English", the idea of "can a translation improve on the original" is interesting. In my opinion, proper localization might enable a book to sell better and get more resonance in another country. It's hard to say to improve unless the translator does a lot of modifications to the original work like what Lin Shaohua did for Murakami's work.

I read Lin Shaohua's translation of "Wind-up Bird Chronicle" and recently I read a small part of the original story in Japanese. They are actually very different because in Japanese it's written in casual form but in the translation, it's translated to written language in Chinese. However, the translator uses short sentences and casual diction to make the story close to causal language and at the same time, it makes fancier and dreamy depictions read better since it's a written language.

Comments on Reading

    I found "Found in Translation" interesting, since it was interviewing two translator who are translating Haruki Murakami's work together. Although they did not mention it in depth but I was curious about how the two translators and Murakami and the editor work together to put together the translated text when there are two people translating the same work, since their styles may differ greatly. 

    I was also interested in the part where they mentioned translating puns and humor with word play, especially when they mentioned how many translated texts skip the humor making it serious darker than the original. In the case of Murakami, as mentioned in the text it is influenced by Western literature so his humor is easier to convey, but I am curious how other texts where it is strictly Japanese humor may be translated if the author really wanted that to be translated accurately. But I really like how creative translators can be sometimes when translating texts with word play in it, and I think it really shows the style of that translator. 

    Another thing that stood out to be is the last phrase of the text, where J. Philip Gabriel states "We go through the trouble of translating works because we want to learn about the culture, but it turns out culture is the hardest thing to translate." This stood out to me because it confirms again, how there are so many unique cultural sayings or traditions that just cannot be translated because it only exists in one culture and not another. So it is almost impossible to be able to translate the exact context unlike universal things.

Comments on readings, Bowen Ran

    I really like the  interview with Philip Gabriel’s translation of Haruki Murakami's '1Q84'.  As it provides me some brand new knowledges about translate from an experienced translator's view. Before reading the article, I always imagined that translating would be relatively quick, especially for a seasoned translator. But  Gabriel mentioned he translates only about four pages a day, which is much slower I than expected, since it's basically editing an exsiting source instead of creating new content.

    Another point that shocked me was the possibility of a translation can surpass the original. I can not imagine how could a rendition be better than the original masterpiece. And again, Gabriel's explanation about authors like Kenzaburō Ōe tweaking their narratives during the translation process shocked me even more. As I never thought that it is possible to completly change pages of the original book that is published already, but if that is the case, than I think the idea that translated version can be better makes sense.

    

Comments on Readings - Yang

1. Wendy Lesser, “The Mysteries of Translation”

I agree with the article that it's completely different to read a book in its original language that you're somewhat familiar with (e.g. Japanese) and to read that same book translated into your native language. It just makes it a lot easier and enjoyable to read, even if there are elements lost in the translation. It seems the author had a weird obsession with Birnbaum. I thought the translation by Rubin was perfectly fine, if not even clearer. The author also thinks that it is the translator's job to disappear, going as far as saying that the ideal translator's job is to become an invisible man, which I do not agree with. I think it is good for translators to stay true to the original work, but they also have their own styles of translating and that's what makes reading these translations fun instead of just reading a 100% literal translation.

2. Interview with Jay Rubin and Philip Gabriel, “Found in Translation”

I found the last sentence of the article to be significant: "We go through the trouble of translating works because we want to learn about the culture, but it turns out that culture is the hardest thing to translate." This encapsulates why it is so difficult to translate certain Japanese expressions into English because there is a difference in culture and thereby a difference in the words we use (e.g. お疲れ様、いただきます). It's extremely hard to translate these expressions into other languages, as the equivalent simply doesn't exist. I'm curious why Murakami does not translate his own works if he is good at English and is a translator, as I feel he can give a more accurate translation. Perhaps it's just due to time constraints?

3. Interview with Philip Gabriel, “How Haruki Murakami’s 1Q84 Got Translated into English.”

First of all, it is insane to have a single story spread out over three books. I would definitely not be able to commit to reading the whole thing, let alone translating it, so major props to the three translators. I like how they talked about different translators having their own, unique styles and how they worked together to minimize that difference to stay mostly uniform throughout the three books. As with the "Found in Translation" article, Gabriel talks about how translating Japanese verbs feels like "giving away the punchline" as they are placed at the end of sentences originally. I wonder if there are ways to effectively prevent this from happening and to keep the action unclear until the end.

4. Michael Emmerich, “Fans around the world reading Haruki Murakami in parallel worlds”

I wonder why the students from the United States considered Murakami as "realistic" and "difficult" while Japanese readers originally regarded him as "light" and "shallow." Perhaps this is due to the differences in the writing styles of the original novels and the translated versions or just due to cultural differences. It's interesting how they chose a different Chinese translator (Shi) for "1Q84" despite the other translator (Lin) having experience translating Murakami's works for over twenty years. I feel like Chinese readers might actually prefer Lin for his Chinese classics-style writing to Shi's Murakami-like tone, in terms of readability and familiarity. It's cool how Shi is recognized for his work as a translator now and that there are more young people now who look up to the notable figures in this profession.

Ryu - Readings

The article that stood out to me the most out of the four was "How Haruki Murakami's '1Q84' Was Translated Into English."

I've always been pretty curious about how long it takes a professional translator to fully translate a book, and this article gave great insight about that. The translator, Philip Gabriel, mentioned that he typically translates about four pages per day, taking roughly ten months to complete a rough draft, followed by two months of revisions. That timeline makes sense, given the complexity of a novel like 1Q84, but I couldn't help but think—doesn’t it get after a certain period of time? Spending that much time with a single project must require quite a bit of focus and dedication, I assume. 

One part that really grabbed my attention was when Gabriel discussed the subtle difference between using "Buzzcut" and "Skinhead" for a character's nickname. I think this highlighted just how nuanced translation can be. Translators don’t just convert words from one language to another (word for word translation/literal translation) —they have to interpret the author's intent and the cultural weight/context behind each word. Capturing these subtle distinctions must be incredibly challenging, especially when trying to stay true to the original tone and meaning while making the text accessible for a new audience, who might not be familiar with the culture that the original author is writing from. 

TikTok Machine Translation- Carly

久しぶり is a phrase used to mean "long time no see," or "it's been a long time since you've done something." Although ”long time no see" is one of the translations for this phrase, in the context of it being left as a comment on a TikTok video, the intended meaning is probably something closer to, "I haven't seen your videos in a while." Or something like, "I'm seeing your videos on my feed again after a longtime."

In this video, a street photographer was trying to ask a few tourists if they would mind having their pictures taken. However, due to the language barrier they were having a hard time understanding each other, which led to the street photographer having to become very creative with his explanation. A commenter said ヘラヘラしてなくて好き. ヘラヘラ is commonly combined to make ヘラヘラ笑ってる or "carelessly laughing." The machine translated ヘラヘラ as "sloppy," but in this case, the commenter was most likely expressing how they appreciate the photographer taking the time to explain instead of making fun of them.

Machine Translation Examples

 In the past, I've noticed Google translate get confused with the particles so I wanted to try that. Interestingly, the causative passive example I tried worked when I had the phrases close together but not when they were separated by a line for some reason? But the あげる test worked fine either way.

machine translation examples

Occasionally when I watch reels on instagram I come across Japanese ones, and sometimes I see mistakes in the built in machine translation on instagram for the caption or the comments. As you can see from the comments in the screenshots below, some of them are pretty close to the Japanese meaning, while others are translated badly. 

Machine Learning Translation Examples

1. あざす

When translating the colloquial phrase あざす, which is a shortened version of ありがとうございます, Google Translate is unable to translate it while ChatGPT is able to translate the social intentions behind it.

2. ググる

When translating the slang term ググる, which is a shortened form of ググルをする, Google Translate is able to translate it to mean "Google" while ChatGPT explains slightly more.

3. 草

When translating the internet term 草, which is a way that people use to express laughter while typing, Google Translate maintains its original meaning of "grass" while ChatGPT is able to explain the meaning of it typed on the internet.