Reflection or Reflexion?

The problem that minority languages that translate from a major language faces is that of imitation. It imitates the major language at all levels, from words to sentence construction, so much so that very soon it becomes a reflection of the major language. This practically renders the language dead. Cronin is of the view that the best way to counter this is by using translation as reflexion, by which he means “second-degree reflection or meta-reflection which should properly be the business of translation scholars and practitioners, namely, the critical consideration of what a language absorbs and what allows it to expand and what causes it to retract, to lose the synchronic and diachronic range of its expressive resources” (141). In other words, the ideal translation strategy for a minority language would be domestication or altering the source text to suit the linguistic and cultural peculiarities of the receptor culture.  This would make the minority language more cautious about what it takes in and what it loses out in the process of translation.

The other very real danger that minority languages face is that of extinction. Aboriginal languages were the major casualties of the 20th century. A language dies out, not because the speakers of the language are extinct, but it simply cannot stand up to the onslaught of a major language. This dying out is because the speaker of the minority language feels that the major language is more convenient to deal with the matters of daily life. Cronin underlines the ambiguous nature of translations here. According to him, in such circumstances, “Translation is both predator and deliverer, enemy and friend” (142). Ireland is cited as an example. In the 16th century, 90% of the Irish spoke only Irish language. Today only less than 10% are fluent Irish speakers and there is practically nobody who knows only Irish. The Irish have been practically ‘translated into another language' namely English. One distinction to be made here is between translation as assimilation and translation as diversification. The speakers of a language can be assimilated into another language through self-translation, as is the case with Irish speakers. The other option is to “retain and develop their language through the good offices of translation and thus resist incorporation” (142).