By Jennifer Plaistowe and Dr Marc Opper
When I think of awkward translation, the first thing that comes to mind is dubbing- that practice of silencing an actor or actress’ real voice, and then using someone else’s voice over the top instead. I know that dubbing allows foreign audiences to enjoy a range of shows and movies but, no matter how talented the actress, or how riveting the plot line, I always struggle to focus when it is so clearly not what the original audience experienced.
This led me to contemplate what differentiates dubbing from interpreting, which I always watch with a sense of amazement. Interpreters listen carefully to someone speaking, and then craft a true likeness of their message in another language. There is a slight delay between what the person says and when the interpreter begins talking, because the interpreter is not putting words into the mouth of a character, but processing the thoughts, words, and feelings of a real person.
So, the difference between dubbing and interpreting might be simple: dubbing is for characters, and interpreting is for real people.
But, what happens when fact blurs with fiction, and actors on the world stage become caricaturish players in a drama? How does the interpreter show their audience that the real person did say that, and that they have not taken on a side job as dubbers of slapstick comedy?
Enter President Donald J. Trump.
Trump has made the lives of translators and interpreters more difficult as, where US Presidents have traditionally presented themselves as honest actors, as dignified, or at least qualified, members of a benign elite, Trump presents himself as a clumsy weaver of fiction, as the enemy of the news, and as someone who will not be held accountable for what he said an hour ago. Language professionals are not enjoying syncing up with his way of writing and speaking, and they have to trust that the public will not shoot the messenger.
Just Quickly- the difference between ‘translation’ and ‘interpreting’
Despite the fact that the words ‘translator’ and ‘interpreter’ are often used interchangeably, it is more accurate to use the word ‘translator’ to refer to language professionals who work with text, and ‘interpreter’ to refer to language professionals who work with spoken words. A translator is given physical words to work with, and could be conceptualised as someone who is shown one puzzle and is then asked to make an identical puzzle using different pieces. An interpreter is more like a linguistic gymnast- interpreting requires a great deal of flexibility and mental athleticism because interpreters are not able to look at the whole before relaying the parts.
There are challenges to both of these jobs – imagine breaking bad news to a patient, or agonising over the wording of a bilateral trade deal. Now imagine that you are using someone else’s words to do this, and that you can’t control what is said or done. This has the potential to be difficult and uncomfortable, and interpreters especially might have to quickly decide whether to interpret nasty swear words verbatim, or tell a joke that just won’t work out.
Deciding how to re-phrase someone’s words is not usually a problem for translators and interpreters, meaning that the public is none the wiser as to the decisions that have gone on behind the scenes. This is changing, however, as translators and interpreters come forward with stories of how they have really struggled to decode Trump. He is especially difficult to interpret for because he lacks consistent flow in his speeches, veers off-topic, skids to a stop before finishing sentences, and replaces clear arguments with punch lines.
SAD just SAD
In a video called ‘US President Donald Trump: Lost in translation‘, BBC journalist and interpreter Siavash Ardalan explains that he aims to “become Trump” when he interprets for him, to give Farsi audiences an accurate idea of what he really sounds like. If Trump is offensive in English, Ardalan is offensive in Persian. If English audiences are confused by Trump, Persian audiences are confused as well. He does this because he knows that his listeners will base their impressions of Trump on his performance, and that he must act the part. Ardalan is an interpreter/actor because he embodies Trump in the empty recording booth, punching the air as he transmits Trump’s messages to Persian audiences.
It is not discussed in the video, but the alternative would be for Ardalan to make Trump sound more presidential- to dub over him. There are a few reasons that he might choose to do this: to shield listeners from sexually explicit content, to avoid coming across as mocking the US, or to present himself as a competent interpreter. In choosing not to dub over Trump, Ardalan has to trust that Persian audiences know that he is doing a good job, and that he is working hard to hold up a mirror to the original.
In an article in The Conversation, entitled ‘Trumpslation: why Donald Trump’s words give translators so much trouble‘, Dr. Severine Hubsher-Davidson presents an alternative approach taken by some interpreters and translators. She says that ‘while some believe that [Trump’s] inflammatory language should be neutralised and the style smoothed out, others are convinced that translators should translate Trump exactly as he speaks.’ She states that people in the first camp, the ones who want to smooth over his rhetoric, do so for two reasons: (1) to untangle his confused sentences, and (2) to avoid the discomfort of having to sync up with his words and train of thought. Where Ardalan likens interpreting for Trump to acting, Hubsher-Davidson likens it to suppression, explaining that language professionals are under psychological strain as they pass on messages that deeply offend them, or that they know to be untrue. Kumiko Torikai, a retired Japanese/English interpreter, captures the struggle:
“As an interpreter, your job is to translate the words of a speaker exactly as they are, no matter how heinous and what an outrageous liar you find the speaker to be … You set aside all your personal emotions and become the speaker yourself. It’s a really tough thing, not being allowed to demonstrate your own judgement about what is right and what is wrong. And that’s why I quit.”
Hubscher-Davidson argues that we should not be overly hard on language professionals who soften and improve Trump’s delivery. It might get them through his time in office, and afford them a certain degree of dignity in public. Although I think that it is a very sad fact that language professionals might have to turn down work, I think that it would be preferable for them to say ‘no’ than to say ‘yes’ and then dub over Trump’s delivery.
“BELIEVE ME”
Marina Gross is an employee of the US State Department, and has worked with many public officials as an official Russian/English interpreter. She is arguably in a more awkward position than Ardalan and Torikai, as she might become an active player in Trump’s presidency.
She was the only other American in the room during a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in July 2018, and members of US Congress are now calling on her to answer questions about what was discussed, or to hand over her interpreting notes for public scrutiny. There is no record or transcript from the meeting and, after Trump’s disastrous performance at the Helsinki Summit on 16 July 2018, many are concerned that Trump might have agreed to something that goes against US national interests. Gross, who was just doing her job, is in a difficult position because translators and interpreters are not supposed to comment on what they have heard or read, and are definitely not supposed to divulge details from private conversations to third parties. In Australia, the AUSIT Code of Ethics requires all language professionals be impartial and discreet on the job, unless required to cooperate with law enforcement.
It is unclear whether Gross will be called forward as a witness in future but, as speculation continues to swirl around Washington, she might become another reluctant character in the tragicomedy playing out in the White House.
Culture clash
I have made it clear that, were I to translate Trump’s words for public consumption, I would not soften his tone or choice of words. I believe this to be my ethical duty as a translator, but I also think that I am influenced by the society in which I live. In Australia, audiences are routinely exposed to bad language, sexually explicit content, and strong criticisms of public figures. The media does not hold back in its criticisms of Donald Trump, the leader of Australia’s closest ally, and journalists are aware that he could watch their coverage of him at any time.
This made me wonder how Trump is being portrayed in places where media outlets shield audiences from bad language and sexually explicit content, or where the media is not free to criticise people in power.
I selected two Trump statements that were particularly offensive- statements that led to strong criticism and derision in the English-speaking press. I then looked up coverage of these statements in Indonesian and Chinese news publications. My main question was, did they quote him verbatim (horrendous words and all), or did they tone down his rhetoric in keeping with cultural expectation / official policy?
I would love to take credit for finding and analysing the Chinese examples, but this was in fact done by Dr Marc Opper, who is an English/Chinese translator, interpreter, and cultural expert.
Please be aware that there will be bad language for the rest of the article: to misquote Trump, “I think [he’s] done more [bad language] in 500 days than any president has ever done in their first 500 days” (See the non-dubbed quote here).
Indonesian media
On 7 October 2016, the Washington Post released a highly inappropriate conversation between former businessman Donald Trump and radio and TV host Billy Bush. The conversation was originally recorded in 2005, just before Bush interviewed Trump for Access Hollywood (now just ‘Access’), but it was not released until 2016, when Trump was running against a self-identified feminist, Hillary Clinton.
In the recording, Trump brags about his celebrity status to Bush, and describes several times that he used his privileged position to take advantage of women.
Key phrases used by Trump included: “I moved on her like a bitch… I see her, she’s now got phony tits and everything”; “You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful– I just start kissing them… I don’t even wait”, and “Grab ’em by the pussy, you can do anything.” Following the private conversation between Trump and Bush, they were joined by Arienne Zucker, an actress and model, who then became the target of their lewd behaviour.
I chose this story because of the sexually explicit nature of the recorded conversation, and also because of the offensive language. How would the Indonesian media cover the recording, and would they translate quotes verbatim, in holding up a mirror to the tone and style of the original?
BBC Indonesia Article
The first article that I examined was a BBC Indonesia article, (transl.) ‘Republican leaders slam Trump’s obscene comments caught on tape.’ This article explains that many Republicans were outraged (or at least pretended to be outraged) by what Trump had said, and presents readers with translated quotes and descriptions to explain why.
It introduces the tone of the recording by translating one of Trump’s controversial statements. My back translation is below in italics:
(1) “Anda dapat melakukan apa saja” terhadap perempuan “ketika Anda merupakan seorang bintang.”
“You (formal) can do whatever you like” towards women “if you (formal) are a star.”
It discusses Trump’s reactions (Bill Clinton said worse!) and explains that Republicans had un-invited him from their Autumn Festival in Wisconsin.
The article uses quotes from the recording, but softens the tone and rhetoric that Trump used. Nothing is left out, but the translations are formal in tone, and the word choice is cleaner, which means that Indonesian readers might not have grasped quite how degrading his comments were.
(2) “Saya merayunya dan saya gagal. Saya mengakui itu,” kata Trump… “Dia sudah menikah. Dan saya sangat sulit merayunya.”
“I moved on her but I failed. I admit that,” said Trump… “She was married. And it was really hard to seduce her.”
(3) “Saya merayunya seperti seorang pelacur, tetapi saya tidak mendapatkannya. Dan dia sudah menikah. Kemudian secara tiba-tiba saya melihatnya, dia sekarang memiliki payudara palsu yang besar dan segalanya. Dia mengubah penampilannya secara total.”
“I moved on her like a prostitute, but I didn’t get her. And she was married. Then suddenly I see her, and she has fake breasts which are big and everything. She has completely changed her appearance.”
(4) “Saya langsung mencium mereka,” kata dia. “Saya bahkan tidak menunggu. Dan ketika Anda merupakan seorang bintang mereka membiarkan Anda melakukannya. Anda dapat melakukan apa saja.”
“I kiss them [women] straight away,” he said. “And I don’t even wait. And because I’m a star they just let me do it. You can do whatever you want.”
(5) “Pegang alat kelamin mereka,” kata Trump. “Anda dapat melakukan apa saja.
“Grab their vaginas,” said Trump. “You can just do whatever.”
In number 3, the word ‘pelacur’ is used, which is less offensive term for prostitute than ‘bitch.’ The same thing happens in number 5, where ‘alat kelamin’ is used: this is a very polite way to translate ‘pussy.’
ANTARA Article
An ANTARA News article (trans. title ‘Trump’s vulgar comments in video stir up a storm‘) gives a damning assessment of Trump’s choice of words in the recording, and describes the tape leaked by the Washington Post on 7 October 2016 as ‘obscene’ (cabul), ‘sleazy’ (jorok), and ‘demeaning towards women’ (merendahkan wanita). Where the BBC article accurately translates the meaning of what Trump said, but cleans up some of the language, the ANTARA article gives more of an overview of the conversation.
This is evident from the fact that it translates only a part of one of Trump’s statements:
“Dan ketika Anda seorang bintang, mereka (wanita) akan membiarkan Anda (berbuat sesuka Anda)… Anda bisa melakukan apa saja.
“And if you (formal) are a star, they (women) will let you (formal) (do whatever you want)… You can do anything.”
Missing is the infamous phrase “grab them by the pussy” quote and, although this news article describes the nature of what was said, and some of the topics discussed, it shields readers from any of the graphic content of the original.
Kompas Article
This article in Kompas (transl. ‘Trump apologises following very vulgar comments about women’) is an interesting mix of explicit and coy in its coverage of the recording: it gives readers a comprehensive overview of the conversation, while avoiding all of the bad language.
The juiciest, and strangest bit of the Kompas article is:
(1) “Saya bahkan tidak menunggu,” kata Trump dengan bangga mengenai bagaimana dia ingin menyentuh organ vital perempuan.
“I don’t even wait,” said Trump with pride in regards to how he would touch a woman’s vital organs.
‘Vital organs’… This strays very far from the original wording (‘pussy’), and is a euphemism that might confuse certain readers. Was he referring to women’s hearts? Or maybe their brains and lungs?
It translates a chunk of the exchange, and actually goes further than Trump did in the original:
(2) “”Ketika Anda seorang bintang yang terkenal (seperti saya), mereka akan membiarkan Anda dengan mudah melakukannya (memegang, mencium, dan berhubungan seksual dengan wanita).”
“If you (formal) are a star who is famous (like me), they will just let you they will easily let you (formal) do it (grope, kiss, and have sex with women).”
(3) Trump yang ketika itu masih berstatus lajang menceritakan, bagaimana dia mencoba untuk mendapatkan perempuan yang statusnya sudah menikah itu. “Saya mencoba, tetapi saya gagal. Saya juga mencoba untuk berhubungan seksual dengannya. Saya bahkan membawanya berbelanja ini itu. Namun, saya gagal dan dia sudah menikah,” katanya.
‘Trump tells a story about how, when he had been single, he tried to win over a woman who was married. “I tried, but I failed. I also tried to have sex with her. I bought her things, bought her this and that. But, I failed and she was married,” he said.’
The last translation, especially, is misleading, because it looks like a direct quote, but it is actually more of a summary of things that Trump said during the conversation. See here for the full transcript.
The translation in the Kompas version of events takes a lot of creative licence and, although it gives readers an idea of what Trump said, and what he sounded like, it stumbles a bit in its efforts to be salacious and reserved at the same time.
Analysis
Why might BBC Indonesia, Antara, and Kompas have made Trump’s statements more palatable and grammatically correct? I think that it reflects a general practice of self-censorship on the part of the Indonesian media, especially in regards to sexually explicit content. There is allusion to sex, and discussion of it generally, in the media, but it would be highly taboo for a respected news source to subject its readers to graphic content.
There is an argument to be made that these articles went far enough, without being culturally insensitive: that Indonesians would find even these palatable translations highly shocking, and would have been appalled that a presidential candidate had said such things. At the same time, they were spared the worst of Trump’s crass language and tone, which was just as sensational as his overall message. How could a man who referred to women in such degrading terms be running for US President? Could he be trusted to represent millions of US women if he thought nothing of sexually assaulting them?
Chinese media
In examining coverage of Trump in China, I selected an instance where he sounded particularly ignorant and out-of-touch, and where it would be almost impossible to avoid his vulgar language. Do you remember the time that he referred to Haiti, El Salvador, and part of Africa as ‘shitholes’? I know I do ☺
When discussing immigrants from the countries mentioned above, Trump said “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” This was not a remark that he made in public, but it was leaked after a January 2018 White House meeting. I was interested to see how Chinese media outlets would translate these statements, bearing in mind that they are generally less critical of people in power, and also that they might not want to offend such an important player on the world stage.
Faithfulness, expressiveness, and elegance
Dr Opper explains that one of China’s first foreign-educated scholars and translators, Yan Fu, described translation as consisting of faithfulness, expressiveness, and elegance: xin 信, da 達, and ya 雅. Although the words sound lovely, Chinese translators have been puzzling over them ever since, as Yan Fu never set out explicit criteria by which each could be measured. There are a host of questions that can (and have) been asked about these criteria. For example, should “faithfulness” be to the tone of the original work, the meaning of the original work, or both?
More to the point, is there a way to be “faithful” to the word ‘shithole’, while maintaining optimal levels of elegance and expressiveness?
The first mentions of this event in the Mainland China press occurred on January 13, two days after Trump made the remarks. Initial translations played it safe and, instead of shocking everyone, preserved some of the meaning, without profanity (yay for elegance, but boo for faithfulness and expressiveness).
The People’s Daily, the official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, as well as Sina News, the news arm of one of China’s largest internet companies, did not quite step into the gutter, translating “shithole” as ‘lan guo’ 烂国, the word ‘lan’ 烂 meaning ‘rotten’ or ‘putrid,’ which captures the insulting tone of Trump’s original statement, but not its profanity. At other times, the People’s Daily simply referred to Trump’s “vulgar, rude remarks” with the Chinese proverb ‘chuyan buxun’ 出言不逊. Others attempted a slightly more faithful rendering, more-or-less translating the meaning of Trump’s words, but not their tone. Observer (Guanchazhe 观察者), an online news and opinion website translated the phrase as ‘maokeng guojia’ 茅坑国家, literally “latrine countries.”
Phrases like ‘luohou guojia’ 落后国家, – ‘backwards country’ – and ‘laji guojia’ 垃圾国家 – ‘garbage country’ – toned down the tone and impact that Trump’s words had in English. There was even a very elegant translation, which was neither faithful nor expressive. It drew on a Chinese proverb, and replaced ‘shithole countries’ with ‘qiongshan e’shui’ 窮山惡水, meaning a country of ‘barren mountains and turbulent rivers.’ This is an example of where the translator took too much licence as he/she was either a) adding a subjective opinion about what constitutes a shithole country, or b) enjoying using a pretty proverb. The translation does not give readers a realistic sense of what was said originally, and Trump is dubbed to sound much better.
There were instances where Chinese publications did try to capture the offensive nature of the original, such as the New China News Agency (sometimes known in English by its Chinese name, Xinhua News Agency), the news organ of the Chinese government, which used the translation ‘fen guo’ 糞国, literally ‘dung/shit country’ while others used ‘shikeng guo’ 屎坑国, literally ‘shit pit country’. These are both somewhat profane in Chinese, and do a better job of capturing the tone of the original English.
For anyone who can read Chinese, there is a great BBC article entitled ‘Trump’s “Profane Outburst” About Immigrants Stumps the World’s Translators’, which discusses the matter further.
Analysis
It’s worth noting that Trump’s vulgarity presented a kind of “translation” problem for English-language media. In the wake of the “shithole countries” incident, there was some initial trepidation in the US media about publishing the offensive phrase verbatim. Practically all major US news outlets eventually decided to do so. Phil Corbett, the associate managing editor for standards at the New York Times said in a statement that
The specific, vulgar language the president was reported to have used was really central to the news here. So it seemed pretty clear to all of us that we should quote the language directly. We wanted to be sure readers would fully understand what the story was about.
(Source: Washington Post)
Translating this comment of Trump’s into Chinese in presents an interesting set of challenges. Trump, more than other recent English-speaking world leaders, makes extensive use of vulgar colloquialisms for which there are no exact Chinese equivalents (Chinese profanity tends to be less scatological than its English counterpart). Much Chinese translation seeks to convey meaning rather than tone and outside of a select few tabloids in Hong Kong and Taiwan, vulgarity does not often appear in print. When confronted with this particular offensive and vulgar turn of phrase, many translators simply went for the relatively safe options of “backward” or “garbage” countries. Both suitably convey Trump’s distaste for the state of the countries in question, but lack the vulgarity that allowed the original English phrase convey Trump’s active and clearly considerable disdain for them.
All of that said, in the view of this author, the translation on which the Taiwanese media settled almost got it right, referring to ‘niao bu shengdan de guojia’ 鳥不生蛋的國家, literally “countries in which birds do not lay eggs.” An odd choice at first glance for the non-Chinese speaker, but this is the first part of a two-part idiom: ‘niao bu shengdan, gou bu lashi’ 鳥不生蛋，狗不拉屎, which means a place that is so terrible that “neither birds lay eggs nor dogs shit.” Perhaps in an effort to tone down the vulgarity of the original, the Taiwanese media went with the first half of the idiom. A translation that fulfills all three of Yan Fu’s criteria would use the second half, rendering Trump’s phrase as ‘gou bu lashi de guojia’ 狗不拉屎的國家, or “countries [so poor and backward that] not even a dog would take a shit in them.”
What do you think?
After reading through all of this, and seeing how translators struggled in Indonesia and in China, do you believe that we should allow language professionals a bit of creative licence during Trump’s presidency? Although they are not able to control the original message, they are able to control how it spreads, and might need to make small adjustments in preserving their sanity and reputation.
I believe that it is my ethical duty to stay faithful to the message and the tone of what I am translating, and so I would not dub over the President at all. I would aim to show readers just how offensive and degrading his rhetoric has been, and give them a similar experience to that of original audiences.
Whatever they decide to do, it is clear that language professionals are having a difficult time under Trump, so next time you encounter something that he has said, on Twitter or on the news, spare a thought for the people who have become his reluctant messengers abroad. In the words of the 45th President of the United States:
“I’m a negotiator, like you folks.”
(Speech to the Republican Jewish Coalition, 3/12/15)
About the Authors
Jennifer Plaistowe is a NAATI-Certified, Level 3 Indonesian > English translator. Although she specialises in identity document translation, she translated for the Australian Government in 2017. This sparked her interest in translation for public consumption, and made her wonder what Indonesian translators are doing with Trump’s rhetoric.
Marc Opper is an independent researcher based in Mechanicsville, Virginia, USA. He received his PhD in political science from the University of Virginia, where he served as lecturer in the Department of Politics, and was a postdoctoral associate at the Council on East Asian Studies at Yale University.
References
54 ge Feizhou guojia shengming, yaoqiu Telangpu chehui “languo” pinglun 54个非洲国家声明 要求特朗普撤回“烂国”评论 [54 African Countries Call on Trump to Recant his “Shithole” Remark]. Sina News. 13 January 2018. https://news.sina.cn/global/szzx/doc-ifyqptqv8694687.d.html?vt=4
54 ge Feizhou guojia yaoqiu Telangpu shouhui “budang yanlun” bing daoqian 54个非洲国家要求特朗普收回“不当言论”并道歉 [54 African Countries Demand that Trump Recant His “Inappropriate Language” and Apologize]. Xinhua 新华 [New China News Agency]. http://www.xinhuanet.com/world/2018-01/14/c_129790240.htm
Telangpu yanlun chongji Mei-Fei guanxi 特朗普言论冲击美非关系 [Trump’s Remarks Roil US-Africa Relations]. Renmin ribao 人民日报 [People’s Daily]. 16 January 2018. http://paper.people.com.cn/rmrb/html/2018-01/16/nw.D110000renmrb_20180116_2-21.htm
Telangpu cheng bujieshou Haidideng “maokeng” guojia yimin, baigong moren 特朗普称不接受海地等“茅坑”国家移民，白宫默认 [Trump Says US Does Not Want Immigrants From “Shithole” Countries, White House Acknowledges]. Guanchazhe 观察者 [Observer]. 12 January 2018. https://www.guancha.cn/america/2018_01_12_442929.shtml
Tokoh Partai Republik kecam komentar cabul Donald Trump dalam rekaman video [Republican leaders slam Trump’s obscene comments caught on tape]. BBC Indonesia. 8 October 2016. https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/dunia/2016/10/161008_dunia_trump_video
Transcript: Donald Trump’s taped comments about women. The New York Times. 8 October 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html
Trump minta maaf menyusul ucapan sangat vulgar tentang kaum [Trump apologises following very vulgar comments about women]. Kompas. 8 October 2016. https://internasional.kompas.com/read/2016/10/08/10070481/trump.minta.maaf.menyusul.ucapan.sangat.vulgar.tentang.kaum.wanita
Trumpslation: why Donald Trump’s words give translators so much trouble. The Conversation. 8 August 2017. https://theconversation.com/trumpslation-why-donald-trumps-words-give-translators-so-much-trouble-81968
US President Donald Trump: Lost in translation. BBC News. 3 February 2017. https://www.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio/headlines/38812093/us-president-donald-trump-lost-in-translation
Video omongan vulgar membuat Trump kali ini benar-benar ditimpa badai [Trump’s vulgar comments in video stir up a storm]. ANTARA News. 9 October 2018. https://www.antaranews.com/berita/589178/video-omongan-vulgar-membuat-trump-kali-ini-benar-benar-ditimpa-badai
© Jennifer Plaistowe and jenniferplaistowe.com, 2018. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Jennifer Plaistowe and jenniferplaistowe.com with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.