Introduction
Appiah argues that people ought to understand the speech act of a proverb as functioning differently than other types of speech. This argument is because a proverb is not just information or an idea but a way to convey something. What is a proverb? It is a type of speech act dependent on context and require listeners to understand the proverb’s meaning to comprehend its intended message (Appiah 808). People must consider the context around them when interpreting what these sayings mean and whether or not they agree with their meaning. Moreover, the message being sent can vary greatly depending on the context. How does it function? A proverb functions as a message in society, and there are many different ways it can be interpreted by different listeners.
The Distinction Between a Literal and a Literary Translation
A literal translation does not change the meaning of the text, while a literary translation changes the meaning of the text. A literal translation is an example of a very simple, straightforward translation. It is easy to understand because it gives people exactly what the original author intended them to get from their writing (Appiah 812). On the other hand, a literary translation is more complex and has multiple or hidden meanings.
The Logical Impossibility of a “Perfect” Translation
In the article by Appiah, the author argue that a perfect translation is impossible (811). He states that the inherent ambiguity of the original text makes any attempt to translate it into a language that has no words for those things that are important in the source language inevitable. In other words, the fact that the meaning of a word may be different in two languages means that there is no way for one translator to match another’s efforts (Schaffer 28). For instance, when people translate a text or any written work, such as an essay, many factors make it difficult to do a perfect translation. Thus, Appiah argues that to translate something properly, one needs to know what was lost in translation and then try to find a way to get around that loss.
The Meaning of a “Correlative Notion of Productive Modes of Translation”
What is Appiah’s “correlative notion of productive modes of translation”? It is a way to understand that different kinds of translation require extra attention and skill. Appiah says there are several different ways to translate a phrase, but each is not necessarily better. He further says that each translator will translate differently because they have different strengths and weaknesses as translators. For example, suppose one is asked to translate a novel from English into Italian. In that case, they will need to look at the plot structure and characters’ motivations to ensure that everything makes sense in both languages.
Appiah’s Conception of “Thick Translation”
Appiah’s conception of “thick translation” is a response to relativism. He believes thick translation is necessary to move from one culture to another, where different perceptions are in play, and there are multiple ways to interpret the same text or situation. In his view, this approach is necessary because language is a social phenomenon and, therefore, cannot be fully understood from one perspective; rather, it must be understood from multiple perspectives. The critic also points out that Appiah’s “thick translation” conception relies on several assumptions. For instance, he assumes that no “true meaning” can be found in one culture or language compared to another. This assumption leads him to believe that thick translations will always fail to capture the true meaning of the source text.
The Changing Interpretations of Issara and Issaraphap
Loos’ article is an excellent resource for understanding the changing interpretations of issara and issaraphap over time. Issara is a concept that refers to a person’s right to be free from harm. On the other hand, issaraphap is the idea that this right can only be limited if the person who has committed the harm is also harmed (Loos 37). How did Loos demonstrate how the definition of these terms has changed over time? and how were they related to notions of hierarchy or authority? Loos highlights an example where one Thai judge interpreted issara as meaning that an individual could not be punished for being drunk but not for being drunk driving. However, another judge interpreted issaraphap as meaning that an individual could not be punished for being drunk but not for drunk driving if he was injured. In this case, it seems that there was a disagreement about whether or not an individual should be able to take responsibility for their actions when intoxicated.
Reasons for the Transformation of Issaraphap in 1908
In 1908, the Thai government passed a new law that changed the nature of issaraphap. The law was passed to protect individual rights and freedoms in Thailand, but it also caused problems for Thai citizens. Loos argues that there was increased political influence over private life at this time, which resulted in a shift away from the traditional concept of issaraphap. She argues that this change violated the rights of individual citizens who could not make decisions about their own lives without fear of reprisal from authorities or other groups within society (Loos 40). Loos also notes that there were external pressures facing Thailand at this time that contributed to these changes in issaraphap: namely, Western influence on Thailand’s culture and economy (Loos 41). These influences led to a growing desire among Thais for greater political liberty.
Effects of Traditional Conceptions of Gender Relationships and Hierarchy
The case of Mom Cao On is a prime example of how traditional conceptions of gender relationships and hierarchy affected who could make claims related to issaraphap pre-1908. Under the premodern Thai legal system, a woman had no right to bring a claim against her husband or other males (Loos 51). The case of Mom Cao On illustrates this dynamic: she could not claim her husband because she could not bring one against him. After all, their relationship did not meet the legal requirement for such claims. Tamara Loos argues that this dynamic resulted from the Thai government’s efforts to re-order gender relations within its borders after World War II (Haberkorn 55). They reinforced gender as a binary system that placed men on top and women at their feet.
Conclusion
There are some indications that certain aspects of pre-1908 issaraphap persisted even after new legislation was enacted. These aspects include a lack of clarity regarding what exactly constituted an issaraphap violation. Second, the presence of ambiguous laws could be interpreted differently depending upon who was interpreting them. Third, the presence of conflicting interpretations between different parties. How did Loos support his claim? Loos cites a case where an individual was found guilty of violating issaraphap even though he had not been convicted of any other crime. By this logic, even if one is acquitted of all charges after being found guilty of violating issaraphap, they still could be considered guilty because they have violated this law before even though they have not been convicted.
Works Cited
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. “Thick Translation.”Callaloo, vol. 16, no. 4, 1993, pp. 808–19. JSTOR. Web.
Haberkorn, Tyrell. In plain sight: Impunity and human rights in Thailand. University of Wisconsin Press, 2018.
Loos, Tamara. “ISSARAPHAP: Limits of Individual Liberty in Thai Jurisprudence.”Crossroads: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, 1998, pp. 35–75. JSTOR. Web.
Schaffer, Frederic Charles. Democracy in Translation: Understanding Politics in an Unfamiliar Culture. Cornell University Press, 2000.