Is Translation the Goal?

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Is Translation the Goal?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Interesting article, hopefully to spark some discussion:

https://medium.com/@danibostick/purpose ... 6fee7acb5e
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 4791
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by mwh »

Excellent recommendation Barry. Thank you. But it applies to Greek as much as to Latin.

From the article:
Jim O’Donnell (…) said, “Let’s not teach them to translate. Let’s teach them to read.”

Yes!

From the BMCR review of Mark Edwards’ “Sound, Sense, and Rhythm”:
... Students expect to translate: teachers expect them to. But need E. have acquiesced? and so totally, so complicitly? His book, he explains in his preface, is for Classics professors "who spend much of their working lives teaching students to translate ancient poetry in class" (x). E. seeks to help them, to help them do it better, to "give them renewed interest in showing their students how to translate" (x, his italics). If only he had said "how to read"! For he is really doing two quite different things: he is drawing attention to certain highly significant properties of Greek and Latin poetry (and prose, I would add), and he is seeking ways to render these in English. I am not saying that the latter is a wholly worthless thing to do, but E's preoccupation with it throughout this book seems to upset the priorities. He clearly regards the question of "how to translate" as essential to his project. I think that is misguided. Anyone reading Greek or Latin, teachers and students alike, should view translation as a merely ancillary activity, not to be confused with the primary business of reading (and/or listening); E.'s treatment risks encouraging the confusion.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by jeidsath »

Mechanical translation processes (and cribs as well) are just too easy of a way to hide deficits of comprehension. Did you understand it when you read through it, or did you write down a gloss for all of the words -- many of the hard ones specified for you already by a commentary or direct citation of the passage in a reference work -- and rearrange the order, and then adjust the glosses to come up with your final translation? Your teacher can't know once it's on paper.

If you want to teach readers, you need comprehension-based testing, and viva voce, same-language, classroom exercises. Otherwise, the only people who learn to read will be the ones with the willpower to look dumber than their peers (perhaps for years) by avoiding the cribs and aids as they develop competence. That's a disservice to everyone.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

RandyGibbons
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 465
Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 9:10 pm

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by RandyGibbons »

My favorite line from the article: " [Emily Wilson] considers the typical instrumentalist use of translation “a complete waste of everyone’s time.” "

I have never taught a foreign language in a classroom, but in the many Latin and Greek literature classes I've attended as a student, I have come to the same blunt conclusion as Ms. Wilson (who by the way is now working on a translation of the Iliad). It is pretty much a waste of the student's time, and pretty much a waste of the teacher's time.

The usually given rationale for teachers asking their students to translate a passage is that this demonstrates how well the student understands the passage. In my observation, it usually doesn't do this very well. IMHO, having the student read the passage aloud in the original tells me much more about how well the student is processing the Latin (or Greek or Spanish or whatever). In general, I think asking the students to translate is simply a lazy way of avoiding the real effort it takes to apply the many excellent techniques suggested in the article to actually help the student in comprehending the original.

H.E. Nightingale
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2019 3:45 pm
Location: London

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by H.E. Nightingale »

I've always thought English --> Latin/Greek trnalsation is much better to test understanding and to practice. I also find it more enjoyable.

Aetos
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by Aetos »

I had just finished writing about 500 words on this subject and realised that it was utter rubbish; just another diatribe against the non-use of secondary sources. We already have enough of them to see whatever points are to be made on either side of the argument. As far as translation is concerned, I think it's a valuable tool for evaluating language acquisition at the primary level where the fundamentals of grammar, syntax and vocabulary are still being taught. Problems with morphology and syntax become instantly apparent in literal translations. I don't think doing translations really aid all that much in comprehension or appreciation of style and I really don't think that's their purpose. I think it was mwh who stated (or perhaps quoted, I don't remember) that all he had to do was listen to someone reading a passage aloud to know if he understood it. As far as producing polished translations, that's really for those who aspire to get published someday. I agree with most folks here that the ultimate goal should be acquiring the ability to read fluently, thereby gaining the most valuable tool there is for exploring and appreciating the ancient world.

P.S. Michael, I read the BMCR review of Edwards' book. I was very impressed with the analysis. I know it's probably way beyond my level, but I'd still like to read the chapters on Homer.

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by jeidsath »

Did anybody actually read any of Elizabeth I's translation of Tacitus that was discovered recently? The Guardian article had illegible images, but the ones from the Daily Mail could actually be read:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... -time.html

Her translation struck me as a horrible word-for-word mechanical Latin to English process. I wonder how much she could have learned from what must have been countless hours of drudgery.
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

And yet, the majority of classicists over the age of 20-something were trained in the grammar-translation method, and they don't seem to have done too badly. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for methods which emphasize reading and comprehension and fluency. But that method still produced many competent and even great classicists. Why do people suppose it succeeded as well as it did?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

jeidsath wrote: Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:45 pm Did anybody actually read any of Elizabeth I's translation of Tacitus that was discovered recently? The Guardian article had illegible images, but the ones from the Daily Mail could actually be read:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech ... -time.html

Her translation struck me as a horrible word-for-word mechanical Latin to English process. I wonder how much she could have learned from what must have been countless hours of drudgery.
And yet she persisted, so she must have gotten something about it. People do not elect such an activity unless there is a perceived benefit. Maybe what was echoing in her head wasn't what you see in her translation.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1739
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by Barry Hofstetter »

Perhaps some of Jerome's comments on translation might be relevant here:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001057.htm

My apologies. I've never been able to find an online Latin version of this letter, so unless somebody else can find it, we have to read a translator's thoughts on translation in translation...
N.E. Barry Hofstetter

Cuncta mortalia incerta...

User avatar
jeidsath
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 pm
Location: Γαλεήπολις, Οὐισκόνσιν

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by jeidsath »

The Latin: http://www.monumenta.ch/latein/text.php ... &inframe=1
And yet she persisted, so she must have gotten something about it. People do not elect such an activity unless there is a perceived benefit. Maybe what was echoing in her head wasn't what you see in her translation.
Maybe, but it's not exactly an uncommon story.

Image
Image
“One might get one’s Greek from the very lips of Homer and Plato." "In which case they would certainly plough you for the Little-go. The German scholars have improved Greek so much.”

Joel Eidsath -- jeidsath@gmail.com

seanjonesbw
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 7:06 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by seanjonesbw »

Barry Hofstetter wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:36 am And yet she persisted
✊

Timotheos
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2019 11:22 am

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by Timotheos »

Barry Hofstetter wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2019 3:34 am And yet, the majority of classicists over the age of 20-something were trained in the grammar-translation method, and they don't seem to have done too badly. Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for methods which emphasize reading and comprehension and fluency. But that method still produced many competent and even great classicists. Why do people suppose it succeeded as well as it did?
That's true, but I wonder if the same could be said for high school Latin students or university students who take Greek or Latin. Do they reach any degree of reading fluency after four years of grammar-translation? Classicists devote most of their waking hours to translating Greek and Latin, so after a decade of doing that probably anyone could reach reading fluency, despite the specific method.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2504
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: Is Translation the Goal?

Post by Hylander »

I wonder if the same could be said for high school Latin students or university students who take Greek or Latin. Do they reach any degree of reading fluency after four years of grammar-translation.
In my experience (I've never taught Latin or Greek, but I've been a student), students spend about a year on learning grammar. After that they read texts, and they begin to develop reading proficiency if they are really interested in learning the languages. Reading proficiency can't be acquired by being taught -- it's acquired by reading texts and trying to understand them, with or without the guidance of classroom instruction. Translation exercises in the course of instruction should be aimed at improving reading comprehension and checking the student's accuracy, though often -- in my own experience in high school -- they are treated as an end in themselves. But -- again in my experience -- classroom discussion after the year or so of grammar also focuses on explicating and understanding the texts, which in the case of Latin and Greek are the products of an alien culture and often in mutilated form.

Reading Greek and especially Latin poetry with comprehension, for example, is a skill that is developed over time by immersion in the characteristic figurative and allusive language of the poetry. But that applies to prose, as well. You can see this in a recent thread here:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=69738

Shaun got the grammar and syntax more or less right (his one error -- taking elegi as the subject of rigant was the result of the ambiguity in the case and number of elegi) but he coudn't make adequate sense of the couplet because he hasn't had enough experience with the figurative language and sentence structure (hyperbaton, particularly) of Latin poetry. Literal translation in a classroom setting, with proper elucidation of the difficulties, could help a student like Shaun develop the ability to read Latin poetry with fluency and enjoy it -- which is the ultimate goal of learning the language. Without the classroom instruction, students need commentaries and other materials to help them acquire the necessary background.

Learning to read Latin and Greek with proficiency and comprehension involves much more than just learning grammar and syntax, though a command of grammar and syntax is absolutely essential in order to proceed with the project.
Classicists devote most of their waking hours to translating Greek and Latin,
No, professional classicists don't translate, unless they're working on literary translations. They devote most of their working hours to reading Greek and Latin, as well as secondary materials in several modern languages, and writing and teaching.
Bill Walderman

Post Reply