Translations of the American Anthem - Essay Example

Translations of the American Anthem Rajashi Samanta Academia Research In a world of muti-culturalism, where we declare ourselves to be living in aglobal village, the issue of translating a national anthem is not only politically sensitive but problematic. This is so, simply because the act of translation is always seen as a transgression of the natural order of nationalism and belonging. Translating a national anthem not only takes us back to an epistomological search of our roots, but can break the much politicized realms of an imagined community of nationalists and the idea of a nation. When to come to discuss something as diverse and intellectually engaging as the translation of the American National Anthem, it is to be kept in mind that the issue would inherently move out from the general quarters of translationary activities and delve into the more serious issues of political intent and the inherent problems of multi culturalism. What the real problem happens in the act of translation is the intent of having the anthem in several National Languages or trying to have several versions of a National Anthem. In the translation of the anthem in 1919, prepared by Francis Haffkine Snow for the U.S. Bureau of Education, he makes a conscious effort to go beyond the confines of narrower linguistic theories to put linguistics into the framework of communication. His translation addresses the matter of text interpretation based not just on the words of the text but on the intent of the author, the relationship of the author to the intended audience, the culture and world view of the author and the original audience and also of the receptor’s audience. His translation is receptor oriented. Thus, his translation of the National Anthem of America is based on the wider context of the communication situation. If we compare the first six lines of the original anthem as written by Francis Scott Key: O say, can you see, by the dawn’s early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming, Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming? And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there; With Snow’s translation: Amanece: ¿no veis, a la luz de la aurora, Lo que tanto aclamamos la noche al caer? Sus estrellas, sus barras flotaban ayer En el fiero combate en señal de victoria, Fulgor de cohetes, de bombas estruendo, Por la noche decían: "!Se va defendiendo!" We find that the issue of sporadic rhythm in the translated text is not anomalies but a case of contextualism where the changes of rhythm take place normally in the linguistic texture of the translated text. One of the problems in translating a text such as a national anthem lies in the national sentiments associated with it. The idea of belonging to a territory whose easiest brand recall is an anthem and the task associated with the translation of this brand recall becomes difficult for the simple fact that the process of translation is seen as an operation performed on languages; a process of not merely substituting the text but also the associated contexts which are present or may be present in the text. The translation made in 2006, was called Nuestro Himno meaning Our Anthem, and was loosely based on Snow’s translation of the American Anthem. The traslation was more on the lines of a transliteration and was not a word-for-word translation of The Star -Sprangled Banner. The only changes to the first verse from this version are a replacement of "no veis" ("dont you see?") with "lo veis" ("do you see it?"); "barras" ("bars") with "franjas" ("stripes"); and "Fulgor de cohetes, de bombas estruendo" ("the brilliance of rockets, the roar of bombs") with "Fulgor de la lucha, al paso de la libertad" ("the brilliance of struggle, in step with freedom"). However, subsequent verses diverge significantly between the 1919 and 2006 versions. In the Samoan translation: O roketi mumu faaafi, o pomu ma fana ma aloi afi E faamaonia i le po atoa, le fua o loo tu maninoa. Aue! ia tumau le feilafi mai, ma agiagia pea I eleele o saolotoga, ma nofoaga o le au totoa Of the last four lines of the first stanza of Key’s poem: And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there; O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave? We find the re-iteration of the problem which Nida deals exclusively in his essay called Translation as Science and Art: The truth is that practice in translating has out-distanced theory; and though no one will deny the artistic element in good translating, linguists and philologists are becoming increasingly aware that the processes of translation are amenable to rigorous description. When we speak of the ‘science of translating’, we are of course concerned with the descriptive aspect; for just as linguistics may be classified as a descriptive science, so the transference of a message from one language to another is likewise a valid subject for scientific description. Those who have insisted that translation is an art, and nothing more, have often failed to probe beneath the surface of obvious principles and procedures that govern its functioning. Nida [1964: 3] If one were to do a Re-translation of the Spanish version and place it alongside the Original English version, the Spanish version would read: Do you see arising, by the light of the dawn, That which we hailed so much when the night fell? Its stars, its stripes yesterday streamed In the fierce combat, as a sign of victory, The glory of battle, in step with freedom, Throughout the night they proclaimed: "It is defending itself!" Oh say you! Is it still waving, beautiful, star-covered, Over the land of the free, the sacred flag? Its stars, its stripes, liberty, we are the same. We are brothers in our anthem. In the fierce combat, as a sign of victory, In the fierce combat... (My people, keep fighting!) .. .in step with freedom, (Now is the time to break the chains!) Throughout the night they proclaimed: "It is defending itself!" Oh say you! Is it still waving, beautiful, star-covered, Over the land of the free, the sacred flag? As compared to the original text: O say, can you see, by the dawns early light, What so proudly we hailed at the twilights last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, Oer the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming! And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there: O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave Oer the land of the free and the home of the brave We at once recognise the issues of contextualism as a hindrance. Not only does it change the systematics of the grammar structure of the original text, but it also changes the rhyme scheme of the original text. How much we tend to agree with Larson’s view that: Each society will interpret a message in terms of its own culture. The receptor audience will decode the translation in terms of its own culture and experiences, not in terms of the culture and experience of the author and audience of the original document. We cannot condone the fact that the Nuestro Himno is a deliberate distortion of the original song. This deviation, however, comes as a boon to its translational and linguistic perspective simply because the hiatus which it causes from its original text causes it to be looked upon as a different piece of art altogether. This is not to say that the Nuestro Himno has been successful in breaking the canon of standardization. The rebellious rendition has only problematicized the canon of translation of national anthems. It is interesting to note that whereas the American government recognizes the Himno nacional—La Bandera de Estrellas, the translation done by Snow in 1919, it does not look upon `Nuestro Himno as a song that affords the non English speaking immigrants the opportunity to fully understand the character of The Star-Spangled Banner, the American flag and the ideals of freedom that they represents. The lexical differences between The Star-Sprangled Banner and Francis Haffkine Snow’s translation in 1919 emanates from the essential lexical differences between languages: differences in the ways in which languages seem to classify the world, what concepts they choose to express by single words, and which they choose not to lexicalize. English chooses different verbs for the action/event of putting on, and the action/state of wearing. Spanish does not make this distinction, but differentiates according to the object that is worn. In the case of English to Spanish, a fairly simple test on the semantics of the NPs that accompany a verb may be sufficient to decide on the right translation. A particularly obvious example of this involves problems arising from what are sometimes called lexical holes that is, cases where one language has to use a phrase to express what another language expresses in a single word. A classic example is the use of the word aurora in the first line of Snow’s translation as compared to ‘the dawn’s early light’ of the original. The problems raised by such lexical holes have a certain similarity to those raised by idioms: in both cases, one has phrases translating as single words. Again, if we take the fifth and sixth lines of Snow’s translation, Fulgor de cohetes, de bombas estruendo, Por la noche decían: "!Se va defendiendo!" And compare them with the original: And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there We instantly realize that the Spanish translation has a passive-like construction, i.e. a construction where the PATIENT, which is normally realized as an OBJECT, is realized as SUBJECT. It is different from the English passive in the sense that in Spanish this construction tends to have an extra adversive nuance which is not suggested by the English. However, if we take into view Nida’s view: The real clues to meaning depend on contexts. (p. 29) as because the context actually provides more distinctiveness of meaning than the term analyzed. ‘‘ (p. 31), we can say that the Snow’s translation of The Star-Sprangled Banner is faithful, if not true to the original. However, faithfulness is something which the 2006 translation does not take into account. The use of the chorus is something which deviates totally from either the original text or Snow’s translation in 1919. Interestingly, its total deviation, many hold that it is a hip-hop-style remixes with new raps and chants, has shunned the essential translational belief that translation requires a thorough knowledge of two languages as it re-emphasized the importance of authorial intention behind the semiotics of a translation. Another interesting instrumental translation of The Star-Sprangled Banner was presented by Jimi Hendrix at the Woodstock in 1969. What is to be noted while dealing with translations of texts such as national anthems is the fact that it weakens the fences between languages, exposing their similarities, getting a consensus on their differences and easing interactions that will assist in developing cross-cultural integrative skills useful in an interdependent world. The discussion of the two translation of the American anthem makes it clear that whereas translation of national anthems may affect the imagined sense of one’s nationalism, its implications definitely helps in exciting the parameters of the means of translation as a means of linguistical and semiotic communication. Works Cited Nida, Eugene A. (2002) Contexts in Translating. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Benjamins Translation Library Bakhtin MM. 1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. The University of Texas Press, Austin, TX Becker A L 1979. The Imagination of Reality. Ablex, Norwood, NJ Ortega y Gasset J 1957. Man and People. WW Norton, New York Read More