What Did You Say?

The most intriguing part of this week’s readings, for me, was its discussion on languages. In Connecting Disconnection and Localized Globalism in Pacific Multilingual Literature by Juliana Spahr, she discusses the placement of languages in literature. While most Hawaiian text utilizes English as the primary language, the dynamic of Hawaii can be shown by including other languages such as Filipino, Hawaiian, pidgin, Japanese, etc. Spahr calls this a multilingual gesture and states “In these works, languages exist side by side, but their closeness often emphasizes the struggles between distinctive cultural traditions and values.” (138) I feel that the language barriers found in literature allow the reader to gain an exposure to various cultures and provides an opportunity to accept a different way of speaking. I was interested in Spahr’s analysis of how a foreign word can be dealt with by both the reader and the author. The author can choose to translate the word or, simply, not to translate the word.

I think the former is a much more powerful statement because it forces the reader to realize their limitations. The reader has to either accept that they are not “in the know” or they must pursue that knowledge of the language so that they can be. I really found it interesting that by choosing to not translate a word, the author is also able to make a political statement. It’s as if they’re saying, “Why should my language be inferior to yours? Why should I have to translate my language (and therefore a part of my culture and identity) to make it easier for you to understand? This is not a one way road, you have to explore other dialects as well. I will let my language stand on it’s on with no explanation.” I love that! I love that the italics of Hawaiian words in Trask’s writings show “emphasis on the history of how the Hawaiian language was outlawed in Hawaii.” (137)  I love that the foreign languages in texts can act as the dominant term while English has to “act as if it carries with it the translative obligation that…it is not entirely fulfilling.” (143)  The act of not translating a word could have such a powerful effect!

On the total opposite spectrum of this, I also love what translating a word can mean for the text. When the author chooses to reveal the secrets of their language, I suddenly feel enlightened to their culture. Translating a word brings in an element of closeness for the two languages and helps to bridge the gap between various cultures.

The link I post, here, is a video about how English might sound to non-English speakers. I think that it nicely ties into this week’s readings and highlights the fact that sometime we just can’t be “in the know.”