French: "l’hypothèse d’un narrateur abstrait effacé"English translation: '. . .the idea of a hidden, impersonal story-teller . . " 
KudoZ The KudoZ network provides a framework for translators ... More  |
|
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | | French term or phrase: | "l’hypothèse d’un narrateur abstrait effacé" | | English translation: | '. . .the idea of a hidden, impersonal story-teller . . " | | Entered by: | Rick HAUSER |
| Options:
- Contribute to this entry |
French to English translations [PRO]
Art/Literary - Linguistics / narrative theory | | French term or phrase: "l’hypothèse d’un narrateur abstrait effacé" | The quote refers to a text by Gérard Genette around 1973, probably a 1972 text called "Discours du récit" , it exists in English translation, I live in the middle of nowhere and don't have access to a copy, thought I would try:
“the hypothesis of a covert, anonymous narrator”. The text I'm translating is a grant application, the academic submitting it would be expected to quote the correct version (and whoever's reading it might just recognize incorrect terminology). Full context:
Elle rejette donc «l’hypothèse d’un narrateur abstrait effacé», tel que le conçoit à la même époque [1973] la narratologie de Gérard Genette, par exemple.
Your opinions would be very welcome, I wouldn't ask except you have been so extremely helpful in the past. |
| | Clarification request(s) and responseScott Alexander: 11:09pm Nov 17, 2007: Ah yes, the joys of post-modern French lit-crit -- known for making simple things complex! :-)
Melissa McMahon: 1:22am Nov 19, 2007: Objection, Scott! Genette is a structuralist - for my uni French teachers this meant he was clear, methodical and teachable, UNLIKE the post-structuralists & pomos. Narrative is complex, there's no "making" here - I'm sure your mate Barthes would agree :)
|
|
| | '. . .the idea of a hidden, all-knowing story-teller . . " | Explanation:
Susan!
Just because post-modernism is abstruse doesn't mean we have to contribute to the obscurity ( I tell myself)! So, when I translate this stuff, I aim for base-level simplicity.
I think "hypothesis" is a false cognate in this instance, and would substitute "idea."
Your translation of "effacé" is neat, for "hidden" has a performative sense — in the post-modern ball-park.
"Anonymous" is off the mark. Presumably, we know who the narrator is — or at least we sense the identity of this manipulator, whether he is hidden or not.
"Story-teller" is interesting here. I get tired of all of the "narratologie", "narration" (and its variant (yawn) meanings. So, I thought you might aim for "folksy." Without story, there is no narration (hmm . . that requires some thought. See Bal et al.) — my suggested translation ("story-telling") is to the heart of the matter.
Now, are we supposed to interpret while translating? In this case — the grant application — it might be a good ploy. They would know that you understand the text — and that you are not aiming for a literal, word-for-word interpretation (since you can't get your hands on the existing translation — tendentious, in any event, I would reckon). But you would be showing your smarts — always a good idea with grant apps, no?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 22 hrs (2007-11-18 19:11:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I wonder why we all say "omniscient" or some variant thereof? Just because something is abstract does not elevate the term/idea to the level of being all-knowing. I suppose one might think of "disembodied." That, too, is dead-on with the post-modernists. I am thinking of Thass-Theinemann and his colleagues. Yeah. I like the sense of "outside oneself."
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days2 hrs (2007-11-19 23:28:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Dear Susan, I appreciate your response — I have thought about your problem a lot (Not that my understanding has deepened much . . .)
The "grant application" counts for a lot in what you will do. I have decided that you are right — literal probably will work best. I can't imagine the actual Genette translation is elegant — they wouldn't treat his work as "literature." And you have to count on panelists being literal-minded — whacha see is whacha get! I am constantly reminding myself to be straightforward when I am in such a circumstance. If your client gets the grant, then she can work with her funders to come up with a calculated middle ground.
So, what does it now become: " . . . the hypothesis of an idealized covert narrator . . . " I really like your "covert." What, otherwise: "self-effacing?" Can some one abstract do that?
Or: "[One] posits the hidden presence of an idealized narrator. . . " !!! Gad.
My! What an interesting situation!! All best to you!! RAH [Rick]
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days21 hrs (2007-11-21 18:34:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Did you like "idealized" for "abstract?" I could make a tenuous argument that both words bear the same relation to reality and to discourse.
Prior to typing this out, I had decided that you should keep "abstract," clunky as it is. Grant application, you know.
Most interesting, all of this!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 days (2007-11-22 15:44:19 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Well, cool!
Kant — hilarious! It is sometimes true, of course, that a translation catches an unstated essence . . .
In the gloss, you'll notice I changed my "all-knowing" to "impersonal." For a time there, I decided "idealized" had the same (operational) active sense as "abstract." Then I seized on "impersonal." It has the same (not necessarily preferred) sense, slightly negative, of "abstract" — unattainable, not in ordinary discourse.
But gad — ! My ". . .all-knowing" — off the mark, I'm afraid. Rather liked "disembodied. . ."
Hope your lady gets the grant!!! |
| Selected response from:
Rick HAUSER
United States
| Note from asker to answererThanks for all your thoughts on this. Don't really like "idealized" though I think I see where you are coming from, it's a question of the line between translation and interpretation (did you know on that note that Germans read Kant in English because it makes more sense in translation?!!)
1 KudoZ points were awarded for this answer |
|
1 hr confidence:   peer agreement (net): +1 |
| the hypothesis of a third-person, omniscient narrator
Explanation:
Genette classifies the "voice" of the narrator mainly along two separate (orthogonal) dimensions (the position and the level):
POSITION:
heterodiegetic vs homodiegetic:
Narrator is OUTSIDE the story (not a character in the story, "third-person narration")
vs
Narrator is INSIDE the story (a character in the story, "first-person narration")
LEVEL:
extradiegetic vs intradiegetic:
Narrator is ABOVE the story (omniscient)
vs
Narrator is AT THE SAME LEVEL as the story (non-omniscient)
http://courses.nus.edu.sg/course/ellibst/NarrativeTheory/cha...
Further classifications are possible but those given above are the basic ones.
http://www.signosemio.com/Genette/a_narratologie.asp
"Separate or (orthogonal) dimensions" above means that a narrator can be (either homodiegetic OR heterodiegetic) AND (either intradiegetic OR extradiegetic), for example:
extra diégétique intra diégétique
hétéro diégétique ILIADE (Homère) 1001 NUITS
homo diégétique MME BOVARY ILIADE (Ulysse)
(I hope that chart with 2x2 cells lined up properly in this font!)
Source (WORD DOC!):
www.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/.../Romanistik_III/Material...
This PowerPoint presentation:
www.uni-greifswald.de/~anglam/staff/Material/Knopf/Introduc...
gives "covert" vs. "overt" as yet ANOTHER (also orthogonal?) dimension of Genette's classification scheme:
covert narrator:
- invisible
- voice that reports information
overt narrator (expliziter Erzähler):
- seems to have a distinct personality
- makes his or her own opinions known
- makes explicit judgements or implicit evaluations
My guess is that "abstrait" and "effacé" both just mean "covert" here in Genette's sense so you might even be able to leave out the "anonymous" and just say "the hypothesis of the covert narrator."
Some say that "effacé" refers to extradiegetic (omniscient) narration:
le narrataire « extradiégétique », narrataire effacé, sans lien avec l’histoire relatée
http://fr.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761592739_2/narration...
narrataire effacé (extradiégétique)
http://www.erudit.org/revue/etudlitt/2004/v36/n2/012906ar.ht...
If, in addition, we assume that "abstrait" means "third-person", then possible alternative translations of the source term could be:
"the hypothesis of a heterodiegetic, extradiegetic narrator"
"the hypothesis of a third-person, omniscient narrator"
I'm not sure if this really helps but I do find this stuff interesting as Roland Barthes was one of my favorite authors in college! :-)
| | Notes to answerer
Asker: Thanks for all of this though I can't say you are simplifying my life here!!!
Asker:
Asker: I agree with you that the "narrateur abstrait effacé" in the context of free indirect style must by definition be a 3rd person omniscient narrator, and that this expression would be recognizable to all, but I'm also concerned that Genette, in this 1972 example, did not say "narrateur omniscient à la troisième personne", rather he seems to be playing with a new, not-yet categorised idea. Fully agree with your comments about the word "covert". Thanks again.
|
|
| | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
22 hrs confidence: |
| '. . .the idea of a hidden, all-knowing story-teller . . "
Explanation:
Susan!
Just because post-modernism is abstruse doesn't mean we have to contribute to the obscurity ( I tell myself)! So, when I translate this stuff, I aim for base-level simplicity.
I think "hypothesis" is a false cognate in this instance, and would substitute "idea."
Your translation of "effacé" is neat, for "hidden" has a performative sense — in the post-modern ball-park.
"Anonymous" is off the mark. Presumably, we know who the narrator is — or at least we sense the identity of this manipulator, whether he is hidden or not.
"Story-teller" is interesting here. I get tired of all of the "narratologie", "narration" (and its variant (yawn) meanings. So, I thought you might aim for "folksy." Without story, there is no narration (hmm . . that requires some thought. See Bal et al.) — my suggested translation ("story-telling") is to the heart of the matter.
Now, are we supposed to interpret while translating? In this case — the grant application — it might be a good ploy. They would know that you understand the text — and that you are not aiming for a literal, word-for-word interpretation (since you can't get your hands on the existing translation — tendentious, in any event, I would reckon). But you would be showing your smarts — always a good idea with grant apps, no?
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 22 hrs (2007-11-18 19:11:18 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
I wonder why we all say "omniscient" or some variant thereof? Just because something is abstract does not elevate the term/idea to the level of being all-knowing. I suppose one might think of "disembodied." That, too, is dead-on with the post-modernists. I am thinking of Thass-Theinemann and his colleagues. Yeah. I like the sense of "outside oneself."
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days2 hrs (2007-11-19 23:28:29 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Dear Susan, I appreciate your response — I have thought about your problem a lot (Not that my understanding has deepened much . . .)
The "grant application" counts for a lot in what you will do. I have decided that you are right — literal probably will work best. I can't imagine the actual Genette translation is elegant — they wouldn't treat his work as "literature." And you have to count on panelists being literal-minded — whacha see is whacha get! I am constantly reminding myself to be straightforward when I am in such a circumstance. If your client gets the grant, then she can work with her funders to come up with a calculated middle ground.
So, what does it now become: " . . . the hypothesis of an idealized covert narrator . . . " I really like your "covert." What, otherwise: "self-effacing?" Can some one abstract do that?
Or: "[One] posits the hidden presence of an idealized narrator. . . " !!! Gad.
My! What an interesting situation!! All best to you!! RAH [Rick]
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 days21 hrs (2007-11-21 18:34:10 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Did you like "idealized" for "abstract?" I could make a tenuous argument that both words bear the same relation to reality and to discourse.
Prior to typing this out, I had decided that you should keep "abstract," clunky as it is. Grant application, you know.
Most interesting, all of this!
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 4 days (2007-11-22 15:44:19 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------
Well, cool!
Kant — hilarious! It is sometimes true, of course, that a translation catches an unstated essence . . .
In the gloss, you'll notice I changed my "all-knowing" to "impersonal." For a time there, I decided "idealized" had the same (operational) active sense as "abstract." Then I seized on "impersonal." It has the same (not necessarily preferred) sense, slightly negative, of "abstract" — unattainable, not in ordinary discourse.
But gad — ! My ". . .all-knowing" — off the mark, I'm afraid. Rather liked "disembodied. . ."
Hope your lady gets the grant!!!
| Rick HAUSER
United States
Works in field
Native speaker of:  English
PRO pts in category: 1
|
| Note from asker to answerer| Thanks for all your thoughts on this. Don't really like "idealized" though I think I see where you are coming from, it's a question of the line between translation and interpretation (did you know on that note that Germans read Kant in English because it makes more sense in translation?!!) |
| Notes to answerer
Asker: I agree with you about keeping things simple, but actually I think there is a confusion here in our discussion of the problem between our varied, interesting conceptions of what Genette in French might possibly mean, and a strict translation question. The text I'm translating is a grant application by a French academic who has sub-ed the translation parts out to me anonymously, so to all intents and purposes I am pretending to be her (I'm a covert, anonymous but not omniscient translator!). This is not a context for putting [my translation] after the quote, rather I'm supposed to provide the terms the panel members will immediately recognize and understand. So... I agree about the strangeness of "effacé" becoming "anonymous", I was trying to use Google to find out what only a copy of the English translation could have told me (even if this is iffy). "Hypothesis", "idea", you are right of course, but I bet the published translation uses hypothesis!!! On reflection, I am now wondering, given all of the above, whether I shouldn't opt for something almost literal (and thereby at least recognizable). By the by, the general context of the discussion is free indirect discourse, which would explain abstract/anonymous. I guess it's not that important, but you have to be careful with narratologists, they are great sticklers for terminology!!!
HOWEVER, if I were translating the Genette text myself, I would go for just the sort of translation you have given. Thanks for your thoughts.
Asker: Well, as an ex-academic, I can quite imagine a journal article containing the "hypothesis of an abstract, effaced narrator", but covert does seem to be used in English when speaking of Genette (via Chatman?), and I did find a reference to a translation of Genette using "anonymous, covert narrator" by Googling "covert narrator" (mind you I also found this discussion), but what on earth else could "abstract" mean? Simply that one supposes he must be there, because he is not in any concrete sense. So he might be "invisible", since he isn't "silent", but why use a visual metaphor? "Anonymous" is probably a safer bet. Or keep the "abstract"?
|
|
| | Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Return to KudoZ list
| |
The translation workplace 
