Lost in Trumpslation: Translating the words of Donald Trump

Συνέντευξη με τη Γαλλίδα μεταφράστρια Bérengère Viennot για τη γλώσσα —άρα και τη σκέψη— του Ντόναλντ Τραμπ, αλλά και για τις διαφορές μεταξύ γαλλικού και αμερικανικού πολιτικού λόγου, για το επίπεδο της γαλλικής γλώσσας όπως το χειρίζονται πολιτικοί της ιθύνουσας τάξης και μη, και περί άλλων τινών ....

Lost in Trumpslation: An Interview with Bérengère Viennot


Last month, Slate France ran a fascinating essay by Bérengère Viennot, a professional translator, in which she reflected on what it means to make sense of the president-elect in French. In order to explain and expand on her essay in English, Rob Zaretsky of Los Angeles Review of Books interviewed Viennot.

… Come January 20, the head that will count will be the Donald’s. And yet, as the title of your piece announces, Trump presents “un casse-tête inédit et désolant,” or an unprecedented and depressing headache. Could you explain why?

Well, as I said, you have to be able to get into someone’s mind in order to translate his speech and reformulate it into your own language. Trump is not easy to translate, first of all, because, most of the time, when he speaks he seems not to know quite where he’s going. In my essay, I took the example of the interview he gave to The New York Times. He seems to hang onto a word in the question, or to a word that pops into his mind, repeating it over and over again. He shapes his thought around it and, sometimes, succeeds in giving part of an answer — often the same answer: namely, that he won the election. Trump seems to go from point A (the question) to point B (himself, most of the time) with no real logic. It’s as if he had thematic clouds in his head that he would pick from with no need of a logical thread to link them.

That is not at all the way I am used to thinking, which, in itself, would not matter so much, as I very often have to translate things that are unfamiliar to me. But here’s the other problem with Trump: even once you’ve understood his point (or lack thereof), you must still express it in your own language. You realize, at that moment, that you have written something very unpleasant to read. Trump’s vocabulary is limited, his syntax is broken; he repeats the same phrases over and over, forcing the translator to follow suit. If she does not, she betrays the spirit of the original piece. The translator has to translate the content and the style. So that is what I do, and reading Trump in French, which is a very structured and logical language, reveals the poor quality of his language and, consequently, of his thought.

Does this mean that Trump poses an ethical as well as linguistic challenge to the translator?
As a translator of political discourse, you also have the duty to write readable texts: so what am I to do? Translate Trump as he speaks, and let French readers struggle with whatever content there is? (Not to mention the fact that I will be judged on the vocabulary I choose — sometimes the translator is blamed for the poor quality of a piece.) Or keep the content, but smooth out the style, so that it is a little bit more intelligible, leading non-English speakers to believe that Trump is an ordinary politician who speaks properly — when this is obviously not the case?

But is Trump unique? After all, commentators on both sides of the Atlantic often lump him together with Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen, the former and present leaders of France’s extreme right-wing Front National. Leaving aside the debate over their ideological and political resemblances, do you find that Trump and Le Pen père et fille also share linguistic and rhetorical similarities?

Well, first of all, there is a real difference between the spoken words of the Le Pens. The elder Le Pen was — he’s all but retired — terribly shocking in his speech. Just like Trump, he would say what he thought — but his language, and his thoughts, were more structured than Trump’s. He would freely utter racist and anti-Semitic thoughts that are outlawed in France. For example, in 1987 he famously said that the extermination camps’ cremation ovens where Jews were burned were “a detail in history.” He was condemned in a French court for denying the nature of the Shoah. Tellingly, the court found that the phrase was uttered by “a politician skilled at political rhetoric and the nuances of the French language.” Quite simply, Jean-Marie Le Pen is a good speaker. He is well educated, and he knows how to address a crowd. Trump, on the other hand, gives the impression of repeating whatever he heard or read on the internet the day before. He is not an ideologue; he’s an opportunist.

What about Marine Le Pen, who inherited her father’s party five years ago?

She also is a very good speaker — far better than Trump. Her father’s racism is still there, but she is far subtler, and thus far more dangerous. First, there’s her appearance: she is a woman, she is blonde, and she is practical. Second, Marine Le Pen’s speech is more measured than her father’s; she has even condemned, on more than one occasion, what he had said, which led to a dramatic rift between the two. Her speech is also racist, but it pretends not to be, which partly explains her success. Somehow, it is no longer shameful to agree with the Front National’s ideas. Now you hear, “I’m not a racist, but you must admit Marine Le Pen is right when she says …” This would not have been possible with her father. Because her speech is “softer,” it makes her more popular and dangerous. And I don’t think either the father or daughter’s public utterances compare to Donald Trump’s. They don’t stutter, they don’t repeat themselves, and they are actually very good at speaking in public.

Do you think it is possible for a Frenchman or Frenchwoman who speaks like Trump to have the same political success in France as Trump has had in the United States? Pierre Poujade, a populist agitator of the 1950s, comes to mind, but I’m not sure if his public words were as impoverished as Trump’s.

I don’t think so — but on the other hand, there was a time when I did not think Trump could be elected or the Brexit could happen. As you well know, the French language is very difficult. Even the French make a lot of mistakes when they speak, not to mention their writing. On the other hand, there is also a sort of pride in having political figures who speak well. People would give less credit to a politician who speaks bad French. There is a saying by Nicolas Boileau (1636–1711) that every French student heard at least once in her life: “What we clearly conceive we clearly express, and the words easily come.”
Well, I never had the impression that Sarkozy was at a loss for words.

You know, when Sarkozy was president people were terribly shocked by his vulgarity, especially when he said “Casse-toi pauvre con” (“Beat it, asshole”) to a farmer who refused to shake his hand. Such a vulgarity was considered to be dishonorable for a French president. On the other hand, he was elected. But he used to be a lawyer and he was good at convincing people (with a dash of populism). So maybe one day, who knows, we will elect a president incapable of speaking properly, because he will not be intellectually fit. But our tradition of public speech still protects us from that kind of character — at least, I believe and hope.

Also, most French politicians are shaped by the same institutions of higher learning, the so-called grandes écoles, and in particular the École Nationale d’Administration [the National School of Public Administration], which guarantees a solid cultural background and public speaking skills. In fact, this is also a problem: some say that because these individuals study in these very elitist schools, they are completely disconnected from “normal” people.

The funny thing is that Trump graduated from an Ivy League school, the University of Pennsylvania. Perhaps its admissions process is slacker than ENA’s. But back to Trump. Do you think that the act of translation, particularly in the case of Trump, presents a kind of ethical X-ray? In other words, that the poverty of his language becomes manifest only when it is cast into another language?

I guess it does, but on the other hand, one doesn’t need to translate his discourse in order to feel it, do they? Can’t you feel, when you listen to him, that his words are shallow?

Shallowness is, of course, relative. One can drown as easily in the shallow end of a pool as in the deep end. In other words, shallow or not, Trump’s language connects with many Americans. Does that mean all of them are shallow?

The thing is, in France, politics are “a serious matter” in the sense that French politicians are never “natural.” They have always been very dignified. (This has begun to change with Sarkozy, but very slowly.) We would never have a president joking around like Obama does, or singing a song in public other than “La Marseillaise.” One of the criticisms of Hollande is that he doesn’t look dignified. (He appeared ridiculous giving a speech in the rain, or driving a scooter to see his mistress.) So that helps to explain why translating Trump into French is really shocking. We are used to hearing or reading people who take a lot of care in what they say — and when they don’t, when they utter something with a double meaning or that could be misinterpreted, everybody sees it, discusses it, and s/he has to justify it. And we tend to analyze the political discourse of foreign politicians just as we do that of our own — and in this case there is a translation of words and meaning but not a translation of context or culture. So you can imagine that if Trump’s culture is already very different from your “average” politician in the United States, it is light-years away from ours.

But as you have already suggested, light-years also separate the words of “average” French politicians — namely, those formed by elite institutions like ENA — from “average” citizens for whom the halls of ENA are as mysterious as, say, the double helix of DNA. Think about the distinction made by 19th-century nationalist intellectuals like Maurice Barrès and Charles Maurras between the pays réel (the fatherland) and the pays légal (the abstract nation), or the recent distinction made by the sociologist Christophe Guilluy between les métropoles (economically thriving and globally connected urban centers) and les péripheries (economically flailing and globally forgotten exurban regions). How different is the culture of la France périphérique from the culture that identifies with Trump, one we might call l’Amérique périphérique?

Well, that’s a really interesting question, and I would love to have a clear answer to that! We do have a dichotomy between the Parisian elite and the rest of France, and politicians tend to belong to the former, of course. The problem being that most of the people governing the country are disconnected from the realities of life — and that is what they are mostly blamed for. When they are asked the price of a Metro ticket or a pain au chocolat, they usually give ludicrous answers that show how far they are from “normal” people. So populist politicians like Marine Le Pen or Jean-Luc Mélenchon [the onetime presidential candidate for the leftist Parti de Gauche] actually call to the people we refer to as “la France d’en bas” [“the France of the common people,” or “France at the bottom”] by stating that they are different from the elites that have been governing the country. Now I don’t think one can really compare French and American cultures­­. Your country is still very young compared to ours; you’re still going through adolescence, and we are in old age! So our social gaps have very different shapes. French people who would vote for Le Pen or Mélenchon are very attached to what is considered dangerous socialism by Trump voters: health benefits for everyone, compulsory paid maternity and sick leaves, free public schools and universities, and, well, the taxes that go with all that. So I suppose the only common point there would be a growing discontent with the ruling class — but then again, not for the same reasons.

Well, perhaps this means we are all fated to be lost and buried in translation. But let’s check again on the state of our national languages — and our nations — once France has elected its own president. Bonne chance et bon courage!

Thank you, Robert. We’ll need it, too. And let’s hope neither of us will get lost in Trumpslation.

Rob Zaretsky is LARB’s history editor. His most recent book is Boswell’s Enlightenment, and his A Life Worth Living: Albert Camus and the Quest for Meaning was published by Harvard in November 2013, and recently reissued in paperback. He also teaches at the Honors College at the University of Houston.


https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/lost-in-trumpslation-an-interview-with-berengere-viennot/
 

SBE

¥
Δεν το διάβασα ολόκληρο, αλλά δεν με πείθει ιδιαίτερα ότι η μετάφραση των λεγόμενων του Τραμπ είναι ειδική περίπτωση, ούτε μου έχει φανεί ότι μιλάει με πολλούς ιδωματισμούς κλπ. Αν λέει ασυναρτησίες, μεταφράζεις ασυναρτησίες και ο αναγνώστης πρόφανώς αντιλαμβάνεται ότι διαβάζει ασυναρτησίες γιατί τις είπε ο Τραμπ, όχι γιατί δεν ξέρει ο μεταφραστής τη δουλειά του. Τώρα, η ανάλυση της γλώσσας του Τραμπ από άποψη φιλολογική/ γλωσσολογική κλπ είναι άλλο ζήτημα, και όχι ζήτημα μετάφρασης.
Όταν λέει π.χ. this is huge και το προφέρει yuge δεν έχει κάτι να εξηγήσει ο μεταφραστης. Η προφορά αυτή είναι τυπική αμερικάνικη, και μπορεί να τον διακωμωδουν γι'αυτό, αλλά μάλλον δεν έχουν προσέξει πώς μιλάνε οι ίδιοι.
 

daeman

Administrator
Staff member
...
‘Make America big again’? The headache of translating Trump into foreign languages.
The Washington Post, 23 January, 2017

When the video was released capturing Donald Trump making lewd comments about women, news outlets across the country struggled with how to present the crude words.

“Grab them by the p—y,” Trump said in the recording, The Washington Post
reported. “You can do anything.”

Around the world, reporters and translators dealt with a more complex dilemma: how to make sense of the shocking conversation in a different language.

In Chinese, for example, one language expert, David Moser, has argued there is no obvious way to say the word “p—y.” Some news outlets published more sanitized versions using references to “private places.”

“You can even play with their nether parts; anything goes,” was the rough translation in one Chinese media outlet.
Others opted for simply including the censored English word, “use p—y to grab them.” It’s fair to say this led to a decent amount of confusion among non-English speakers. And when Trump defended his conversation as “locker-room talk,” many people of non-Western cultures likely asked the question: What does “locker-room talk” even mean?

Since the beginning of his political rise, Trump’s remarks have been translated into a slew of languages worldwide, and his official swearing-in only elevates the power of his words. For some, his simple vocabulary and grammatical structure make his speeches easy to follow. But for others, his confusing logic, his tendency to jump quickly from topic to topic and his lack of attributions for so-called facts make his remarks sound like a puzzling jumble, and that creates a headache when translating Trump’s speeches for non-English audiences.
[...]


Άλλαξα τον τίτλο του νήματος και του πρώτου ποστ από το «Inside the mind of Donald Trump» σε «Translating the words of Donald Trump» because even a daeman fears to tread i
n that abyss.
 

SBE

¥
Δηλαδή μας λέει το δεύτερο άρθρο ότι δεν υπάρχουν σε γλώσσες πλην της αμερικανικής ονόματα για την περιοχή που χουφτώνει ο Τραμπ, από "σοβαρά" μέχρι "χυδαία", κι έτσι ο μεταφραστής δεν μπορεί να διαλέξει ό,τι νομίζει ότι είναι καταλληλότερο.
Ομοίως δεν υπάρχουν εκτός δυτικού κόσμου αντροπαρέες που κάνουν αντροκουβέντες.
 
Θα συμφωνήσω με την SBE. Μου θυμίζει το "πρόβλημα" που έχουμε εμείς οι υποτιτλιστές όταν μας ζητάνε να κάνουμε "tone down" τις χυδαιολογίες. Δεν είναι ότι δεν μπορούν να μεταφράσουν το pussy, είναι ότι δεν θέλουν. Σιγά τη δυσκολία που έχει να πεις ότι τους χουφτώνεις το πράμα ή το αποτέτοιο. Αν τους σοκάρει ότι ο πλανητάρχης μιλάει έτσι, ας το ξεπεράσουν. Όπως λέω κι εγώ όταν δίνω σε φίλους βιβλία που έχω μεταφράσει, "Δεν το έγραψα εγώ", και δεν το είπαν αυτοί, εκείνος το είπε. Εύσημα και μομφές, όλα σε εκείνον. Εκτός πια κι αν τόσο φοβόμαστε μη νομίσει το κοινό ότι ο διερμηνέας ή ο μεταφραστής έπαθε τρολιστικό παραλήρημα. :woot:
 

daeman

Administrator
Staff member

General "Buck" Turgidson: The Duty Officer asked General Ripper to confirm the fact that he *had* issued the go code, and he said, uh, "Yes gentlemen, they are on their way in, and no one can bring them back. For the sake of our country, and our way of life, I suggest you get the rest of SAC in after them. Otherwise, we will be totally destroyed by Red retaliation. Uh, my boys will give you the best kind of start, 1400 megatons worth, and you sure as hell won't stop them now, uhuh. Uh, so let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all" and he hung up.

Uh, we're... still trying to figure out the meaning of that last phrase, sir.

President Merkin Muffley: There's nothing to figure out, General Turgidson. That man is obviously a psychotic.




 
Top