Response to "The Translator's Intertextual Baggage" by Federici

“The Translator’s Intertextual Baggage” is an article written by Eleonora Federici and published in 2007. Throughout the article, Federici argues that the translator’s “baggage” which includes the entirety of the background knowledge of the translator, both culturally and linguistically, affects the overall translation immensely.

The baggage Federici emphasizes during the article depends mostly on the origin and identity of the translator. Federici refers to countless examples from different centuries to describe a translator and represents them as a traveler who are extremely curious, carrying their own cultural “baggage” and lenses. With the translation act, the translator brings linguistic, social, historical, and cultural hints from their cultural world to the source culture world. In addition, she also talks about the difficulties that the translator might face, which may include displacement, untranslatability, and intertextuality. Federici refers to the translator as a mediator, carrying transcultural interactions between cultures. I agree that the translator can be described as a skillful traveler and a “nomad-by-obligation”.

The first point I highly agree with Federici is the description of the translator as a skillful traveler. In my opinion, the translator has to be extremely talented with a deep knowledge of the source culture as well as the target culture. To fully understand the concept of two, sometimes multiple, cultures, the translator should be open to learning and should never underestimate the power of experience. Even though I cannot fully describe myself as a translator yet, my experiences from a young age create tremendous differences in grasping the concept of culture. Before, I mostly believed that translation studies could be understood and practiced only with theoretical knowledge, but now I highly believe that the translator has to be a literal and metaphorical traveler. What especially caught my eye in this essay was the definition made by Loredana Polizzi. She defines the translator as a “nomad-by-obligation” in her book Translating Travel: Contemporary Italian Travel Writing in English Translation. According to the Cambridge Dictionary the term “nomad” can be described as someone who moves from one place to another place regularly. In my opinion, the translator should always be on the move either physically to capture the essence of the language’s culture they are translating to or mentally to internalize the elaborateness of the language as well as the culture. The translator has to be a “citizen” of both cultures to deliver a high-quality translation.

The second point that Federici argues that I agree with is that the translator has a crucial role that involves building a bridge between two cultures. A successful translator feeds both of the cultures by diversifying the literary work. With the help of the translator, we get to understand and expand our horizons by reading different authors from different cultures. For example, if the translator had not built the literary bridges, people from our country would have never read Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, or Umberto Eco. The translator is both the constructor of the bridge and the carrier that utilizes the bridge the most. In the article, Federici points out that “the translations keep authors alive” which highly supports the constructor role of the translator. If the translator did not exist every literary work would be local and the authors would “die off” because of not getting globalized.

Unfortunately, there are several critical problems that the translator can face while translating and ultimately building the bridges. These difficulties may include displacement, untranslatability, and intertextuality. From my point of view, displacement is apparent in every type of translation due to the texts not completely belonging to one singular culture. Although the essence of the source culture would be more dominant even in the translated text, some crucial aspects could be changed to fit into the target language and culture. On the other hand, I think that none of the translated texts are fully the same as the source text. The untranslatability of some points in the source culture and language causes some things to get lost in translation, this is inevitable. In addition, a text could be related to other texts which would make it impossible to understand to a regular person who is not a translator. For the translator to understand the hidden meanings and the main ideas that lie between the lines, the translator has to experience the target culture. Even though it is not easy to understand the target culture, a passionate translator would overcome almost every difficulty that they may face. 

One point I do not fully agree with Federici throughout the article is the description of the translator as the rewriter or a manipulator. Even though the translator is sometimes forced to change some parts of the source text while translating, the term “rewriting” gives the meaning of the translator getting ahead of the author. In my opinion, rewriter or rewriting are such powerful terms to use for a translator. The words of the author of a literary work should come first and the translator should translate according to the author while keeping in mind the essence and the main idea of the work. Undoubtedly, there will be some parts that the translator has to change, sometimes due to the political view of the target culture, the religion, etc. The important point to remember for a translator should be to translate the text as closely to the source text as possible without losing the critical points that make the text the text. When it comes to the term “manipulator”, I find it unfit for the role of the translator. From my point of view, the word manipulator has negative connotations and these negative connotations do not fit the translator. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the word manipulator is the description of “someone who controls people to their advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly”. This definition does not fit for a translator and to call a translator a manipulator, the entire definition of the word should change and that is not possible. I understand the idea behind calling the translator a rewriter or a manipulator, but I do not believe they are the right words to use and other recommendations can be made. 

In my opinion, translators have one of the most important and prestigious jobs on the face of this planet. Without translators, every piece of literary work, every media outlet, and their productions would be local and the earth would be incredibly dull. Thanks to the translators and their baggage, we, humans, have the privilege to read, watch, and understand people all around the world.