Professional Documents
Culture Documents
+he direct translation o( the /rish third line is &to sa0e your (amily) Im$ translationJ, while the
,nglish 0ersion chooses &to cut your children (ree). 9i0en the line#by#line accuracy o( *artnett)s
translations, this is an imaginati0e and linguistic choice, as opposed to any .ind o( in(elicity. +he
other three lines o( this stan;a translate word (or word, so *artnett, (ar (rom creating an illuminating
# " #
(ootnote, is in actuality, creating a di((erent meaning across the page, and across linguistic systems.
Chere the &original) meaning lies is 0ery much a moot point, and here, *artnett comes 0ery close to
Derrida)s ideas on the polysemic power o( translation.
/s this not a locus classicus o( the idea o( translation as a power(ul (orce (or deconstructing
possessi0e imperati0es o( ideologyP /ndeed, Derrida has made deconstruction and translation
synonymous, deconstruction, he says, consists:
only o( trans(erence, and o( a thin.ing through o( trans(erence, in all the senses that this
word acAuires in more than one language, and (irst o( all that o( the trans(erence between
languages. /( / had to ris. a single de(inition o( deconstruction, one as brie(, elliptical and
economical as a password, / would say simply and without o0erstatement: plus d%une
langue 2 both more than a language and no more o( a language.
@
Strictu sensu, this new le0el o( meaning is only a0ailable to a reader who has some .nowledge o( the
/rish language to begin with, as only then will the change in the line become clear. +hus, instead o(
>ust going (rom original to translation in a le(t to right motion across the page, the reader is now
liberated /t is possible to (lic. bac. and (orth across the page (rom the /rish language original to the
,nglish translation, with meaning residing in the process o( trans(erence. Paul de Man spea.s o( this
process in the (ollowing terms, seeing translation as putting:
the original in motion, to de#canoni;e the original, gi0ing it a mo0ement which is a
mo0ement o( disintegration, o( (ragmentation. +his mo0ement o( the original is a
wandering, an errance, a .ind o( permanent eBile i( you wish, but it is not really an eBile,
(or there is no homeland, nothing (rom which one has been eBiled.
G
# L #
/n other words, meaning eBists in the act o( reading and writing, it is an intersub>ecti0e construct
made by the spea.ing sel( and the listening other, who in turn interprets the meaning in polysemic
ways.
+his process o( altered meanings can also be (ound in &Strained Mind), where increasingly (ractured
images (rom a mind under strain are held together by the almost mantra#li.e repetition, in each
alternate line o( &cogar sa ch<inne, cogar sa ch<inne),
!
which is directly translated across the page as
&tal. in the corner, tal. in the corner).
$
+his process is repeated across se0enteen lines, but in the
eighteenth repetition, in the (inal line o( the poem, there is a signi(icant change:
cogar sa ch<inne, cogar sa ch<inne. +al. in the corner tal. tal..
"
+he /rish 0ersion o( the poem ends as it begun, with this linguistic mantra repeated ad infinitum: &tal.
in the corner, tal. in the corner) Im$ translationJ? howe0er in the ,nglish translation, the punctuating
comma is remo0ed, and thereby the symmetry o( signi(ier and signi(ied in the /rish 0ersion is altered.
/n this 0ersion, the mantra was inescapable? there is no way out o( what has become a closed poetic
system. /n the ,nglish 0ersion, howe0er, the (inal line appears to o((er a way out, either to some
(orm o( (urther dialogue which allows (or mo0ement out o( that corner o( the paranoid consciousness,
or else in terms o( a (urther dialogue which can brea. out o( the binary patterning which structures
the poem. /n other words, in the ,nglish 0ersion, there is a possibility o( mo0ement, either positi0e
or negati0e, (rom this closed system, and as such, it ma.es the translation almost a di((erent poem,
and (ar (rom merely a (ootnote. +he translation o( the (inal &corner) into &tal.) alters noun to 0erb,
with resultant possibilities. Meaning eBists in the mo0ement between 0ersions, languages and poems?
(or *artnett, the meaning is clearly liminal and hybrid.
# M #
+he same structure is to be (ound in &Poem (or Niall, L) where once again, the mo0ement o( the
translation allows (or di((erent le0els o( meaning. /n this poem, *artnett is o((ering ad0ice to his son,
loo.ing at di((erent aspects o( the boy)s (uture li(e, and eBhorting him to &be happy but be tough).
L
*owe0er, again, in the (inal line, we see the translation and hybridity o( meaning.
'eidh m5 ann is t< i d)(hear Ng 2 / will be there as you grow older 2
3l(ad pNrtar leatsa (Ns 6nd some day /)ll buy you porter.
M
+he literal translation o( the /rish lines is as (ollows: &/ will be there when you are a young man H /
will drin. porter with you yet) Im$ translationJ? the actual translation stresses the unconscious
imperati0e towards the retention o( some (orm o( parental power in terms o( the (ather actually
paying (or the drin.. *ere there is a deconstruction o( what on the sur(ace is ritual o( adult male#
bonding? at another intra#linguistic le0el, the (ather is still in the power position, at least in his own
mind. 6t some le0el, Niall will be (iBed in his mind at the age o( se0en.
*artnett)s use o( translation, as we ha0e seen, stresses the importance o( the genre, especially in an
/rish conteBt. *ere, translation is de(ined 0ery broadly, and one is reminded o( the de(inition o(
translation o((ered by +erry ,agleton, which also espouses diffrance, and which sees all teBts as
being in the process o( an ongoing process o( translation:
,0ery teBt is a set o( determinate trans(ormations o( other, preceding and surrounding
teBts o( which it may not e0en be consciously aware? it is within, against and across these
other teBts that the poem emerges into being. 6nd these other teBts are, in their turn,
&tissues) o( such pre#eBistent teBtual elements, which can ne0er be unra0elled bac. to
some primordial moment o( &origin).
%
# % #
/ thin. that *artnett)s speci(ic use o( translations in the poems discussed underlines the importance o(
translation as a poetic de0ice. ,thically, he espouses a pluralist and open dialogue with the other, and
linguistically, he is clearly o( the 0iew that language is open, organic and operates most (ully when in
dialogue with itsel(, and with other languages.
6t a structural le0el, as well as a thematic one, this is true o( his well#.nown teBt &nchicore Haiku.
*ere the classic Japanese 0erse (orm o( *ai.u, a minimalist structure in which the poet has se0enteen
syllables or (ewer in which to eBpress an eBperience, is transposed to the Dublin area o( /nchicore,
where *artnett li0ed (or a number o( years. +his (orm is Auite speci(ic, usually each poem has three
lines, with a template o( $#L#$ syllable structure. /deally, each poem should be read aloud in one
breath, there is an a0oidance o( rhyme, there is some (orm o( >uBtaposition, with two elements or
lines indirectly related to the third line, a techniAue which pro0ides a metaphorical adeAuation in the
poem. Chat is achie0ed in this translation#dri0en eBperiment are ML poems, each depicting 0arious
snatches o( eBperience (rom *artnett)s interaction with /nchicore. Displaced (rom his nati0e Cest
:imeric., he is able to achie0e that aesthetic distance that is one o( the bene(its o( translation, on his
own li(e and eBperience, and one o( the most Auoted o( these *ai.u (oregrounds, yet again, the
inter(usion o( /rish and ,nglish:
My ,nglish dam bursts
6nd out stroll all my bastards
/rish sha.es its head.
@O
+he notion o( hybridity n language is signi(ied in the possessi0e use o( &my bastards) and the almost
con(lictual role o( /rish and ,nglish in his mentalite is clear in this stan;a. +his is a gap that can
only be bridged by translation. /t is this ongoing notion o( translation that has mar.ed the themes
# O #
(ound in his wor., and it is with a ringing poetic assertion about the 0ery nature o( this interaction
that this chapter will close.
6s a (inal eBample, / would li.e to loo. at what is (or many *artnett)s eBemplary teBt, &6 Farewell to
,nglish). +his poem has become something o( a cultural touchstone. Published in %L$, it is an
elegy (or the death o( the /rish language and culture in a world (ull o( &0acuumcleaner minds).
@
*artnett sets out his stall and tells us that he will no longer write in ,nglish, but will hence(orth write
in /rish. :i.e his already cited comment on translation, the end o( this poem would seem to broo. no
interpretation:
/ ha0e made my choice and lea0e with little weeping
/ ha0e come with meagre 0oice
+o court the language o( my people.
@@
*owe0er, a hermeneutic eBamination o( the conteBt o( this resonant phrase will unco0er a le0el o(
nuance and compleBity that parallels our earlier eBamination o( those 0iews on translation. +he
,nglish that he eBamines in the poem is, we might eBpect, the narrow discourse o( colonial mastery
&the gra0el o( 6nglo#SaBon).
@G
+he poem encompasses both the anger o( the colonised sub>ect: &what
was / doing with these (oreign wordsP), and the elegiac sense o( loss o( his nati0e language, a loss
that is enunciated in the anaphoric &m'nla, simh, dubhfholtach, 'lainn, caoin).
@!
*owe0er, there is
also a sharp sense o( irony, as, through the eBtended metaphor o( coo.ing, he comments on the (usion
and intersection o( the two languages. Section G is composed o( two sentences, both creati0e o( this
metaphor o( coo.ing. /n the (irst, &Che( Qeats) is praised (or his ability to &raise mere stew to a
glorious height), because he was able to blend the ingredients into a coherent miBture which was
&care(ully stirred in to get the (la0our right).
@$
+his is in star. contrast to &IoJur commis#che(s) who
# #
merely &add to a simple 6nglo#SaBon stoc.), and *artnett goes on to list the stilted ingredients o(
&Cuchulainn)s marrow bones)? a &dash o( 3 7athaille) and a &glass o( uni0ersity hic#haec#hoc) which
culminate in &the celebrated 6nglo#/rish stew).
@"
+he essential di((erence here is that (luidity o( linguistic interaction which *artnett saw as possible
though translation is not operati0e here. /nstead, we see a stilted &stew) where there is no interaction
or trans(ormation across any o( the three languages: /rish, ,nglish or :atin. +he necessary space o(
writing, that gap with which we ha0e (ound *artnett to be so interested, is not to be (ound in the type
o( writing he satiri;es here. For *artnett, as (or *omi 'habha, translation is a &place o( hybridity)
where the (inal source o( meaning is &neither the one nor the other) Iitalics originalJ.
@L
+he ongoing
play o( multilinguistic signi(iers in the poem is paradigmatic o( this play o( diffrance, which
ensures, as de Man obser0es that &meaning is always displaced with regard to the meaning it ideally
intended 2 that meaning is ne0er reached).
@M
+he use o( &displaced) is pertinent here. /n translation, the
&meaning) passes (rom language to language, there is little or no re(erential dimension brought into
play, and so, the posited linguistic repossession o( the place seemingly attempted by the Auasi#
translations at the beginning o( each poem, is in (act dismembered and disarticulated by the processes
o( language itsel(. /ndeed, translation, as set out in A "ecklace of #rens, would seem to be endemic
to *artnett)s 0iew o( poetry, as he puts it &their talons le(t on me H scars not healed yet).
@%
*ence &6 Farewell to ,nglish) can be read simplistically as a saying goodbye to writing or publishing
in the ,nglish language. *owe0er, in the light o( the politics o( translation that we ha0e been
eBploring in this article, this poem can also be read as a seminal part o( this pro>ect, as he in0o.es a
blessing on a new linguistic >ourney which will usher in a new 0ersion o( ,nglish, a 0ersion
underwritten by the types o( translation which ha0e been the sub>ect o( this chapter. +his reading o(
the title is 0alidated by the O(ford )nglish *ictionar$, which de(ines the term as &an eBpression o(
# @ #
good wishes at the parting o( (riends, originally addressed to the one setting (orth). *ere the good
wishes are plain in the &,nglish) that *artnett wrote in the wa.e o( this poem 2 an ,nglish that has
been shot through at all le0els, with the discourses o( its linguistic others. /ndeed, the metaphor o(
&setting (orth) is continued in the root meaning o( &translate) itsel(. +his is a combination o( &trans)
and &(erre) meaning &to carry across), and this sense o( mo0ement and trans(er is strong in section $,
where he cites the authors whom he (ound &in ,nglish nets), and to whom he must now say (arewell:
My :orca holding out his arms
+o lo0e the beauty o( his bullets
Pasternac. who outli0ed Stalin
6nd died because o( lesser beasts.
GO
+his pan#,uropean tradition o( literature is a tradition in which *artnett (eels at home. Criting in the
introduction to his boo. o( translations o( the wor. o( D4ibhi -)'ruadair, *artnett tells o( how he
in0ented his own picture o( -)'ruadair
G
and this is a resonant image o( his attitude to the ,nglish
language, /rish culture and language and his own 0iew o( his role as a poet. /n a way, *artnett)s
,nglish is itsel( a translation, a series o( mo0ements between di0erse in(luences, which enact
Derrida)s idea o( the mo0ement o( the trans 2 translation, trans(erence, transport, trans(ormation 2 as
the 0ery mo0ement o( thought between points o( origin and arri0al that are always being de(erred,
di((ered one by the other. /n essence, this is *artnett)s politics o( translation? the ,nglish to which he
wishes well is &both more than a language and no more o( a language).
Endnotes:
@
G
!
$
"
L
M
%
O
@
G
!
$
"
L
M
%
@O
@
@@
@G
@!
@$
@"
@L
@M
@%
GO
G