What do you think?
Rate this book
Speaking in Tongues
This is a book about languages, what languages can and what they cannot do.
Speaking in Tongues is a brilliant treatise from Nobel-Laureate novelist J. M. Coetzee in collaboration with leading international translator Mariana Dimópulous. Presented as a dialogue, Coetzee and Dimópulous’s provocative work digs into questions that have plagued writers for centuries. They invite readers to grapple with the idea that language is actually culture’s unique reflection into words. The difference between cultures, and in turn langauges, leads to the almost impossible task of the to liberate the language imprisoned in a text and instill it into her recreation of that work.
Along the journey, the authors also delve into topics such as which languages are gendered, the threat of monolingualism, and the possibility that mathematics could tell the truth about everything in the universe. In the tradition of Walter Benjamin’s seminal The Task of the Translator, Speaking in Tongues, with its wide range of observations and propositions, emerges as a work of philosophy on its own, shining a light on some of the most important linguistic and philological issues of our time.
Speaking in Tongues is a brilliant treatise from Nobel-Laureate novelist J. M. Coetzee in collaboration with leading international translator Mariana Dimópulous. Presented as a dialogue, Coetzee and Dimópulous’s provocative work digs into questions that have plagued writers for centuries. They invite readers to grapple with the idea that language is actually culture’s unique reflection into words. The difference between cultures, and in turn langauges, leads to the almost impossible task of the to liberate the language imprisoned in a text and instill it into her recreation of that work.
Along the journey, the authors also delve into topics such as which languages are gendered, the threat of monolingualism, and the possibility that mathematics could tell the truth about everything in the universe. In the tradition of Walter Benjamin’s seminal The Task of the Translator, Speaking in Tongues, with its wide range of observations and propositions, emerges as a work of philosophy on its own, shining a light on some of the most important linguistic and philological issues of our time.
144 pages, Hardcover
First published May 6, 2025
62 people are currently reading
3072 people want to read
About the author
J.M. Coetzee
184 books5,268 followersJ. M. Coetzee is a South African writer, essayist, and translator, widely regarded as one of the most influential authors of contemporary literature. His works, often characterized by their austere prose and profound moral and philosophical depth, explore themes of colonialism, identity, power, and human suffering. Born and raised in South Africa, he later became an Australian citizen and has lived in Adelaide since 2002.
Coetzee’s breakthrough novel, Waiting for the Barbarians (1980), established him as a major literary voice, while Life & Times of Michael K (1983) won him the first of his two Booker Prizes. His best-known work, Disgrace (1999), a stark and unsettling examination of post-apartheid South Africa, secured his second Booker Prize, making him the first author to win the award twice. His other notable novels include Foe, Age of Iron, The Master of Petersburg, Elizabeth Costello, and The Childhood of Jesus, many of which incorporate allegorical and metafictional elements.
Beyond fiction, Coetzee has written numerous essays and literary critiques, contributing significantly to discussions on literature, ethics, and history. His autobiographical trilogy—Boyhood, Youth, and Summertime—blends memoir with fiction, offering a fragmented yet insightful reflection on his own life. His literary achievements were recognized with the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2003.
A deeply private individual, Coetzee avoids public life and rarely gives interviews, preferring to let his work speak for itself.
Coetzee’s breakthrough novel, Waiting for the Barbarians (1980), established him as a major literary voice, while Life & Times of Michael K (1983) won him the first of his two Booker Prizes. His best-known work, Disgrace (1999), a stark and unsettling examination of post-apartheid South Africa, secured his second Booker Prize, making him the first author to win the award twice. His other notable novels include Foe, Age of Iron, The Master of Petersburg, Elizabeth Costello, and The Childhood of Jesus, many of which incorporate allegorical and metafictional elements.
Beyond fiction, Coetzee has written numerous essays and literary critiques, contributing significantly to discussions on literature, ethics, and history. His autobiographical trilogy—Boyhood, Youth, and Summertime—blends memoir with fiction, offering a fragmented yet insightful reflection on his own life. His literary achievements were recognized with the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2003.
A deeply private individual, Coetzee avoids public life and rarely gives interviews, preferring to let his work speak for itself.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
October 18, 2025
This is a strange book, presented as a dialogue between the South African writer JM Coetzee and his Spanish translator Mariana Dimópulos as they discuss issues of language, meaning and translation. Short sections alternate between the two authors as they respond to each other's points, but the tone is not at all conversational – it reads like a strange hybrid, a curated or edited version of a back-and-forth by email.
The effect is strangely bland, and indeed often resembles a dispiriting kind of ‘translationese’. After Coetzee lists a lot of open questions he has about grammatical gender, Dimópulos's reply begins:
This doesn't sound like a real conversation, it sounds like talking to ChatGPT.
If you've read any books about translation theory or linguistics in general, most of what is discussed here is frustratingly shallow. There is rather little of the practicalities that one wants from two working writers, and instead they seem to spend most of the time explaining very basic concepts to each other in turn. And sometimes in a way that makes me a bit cautious: during the above discussion of gender, for example, Coetzee describes it as a system of ‘two or sometimes three’ different noun classes, but this is weirdly Eurocentric – surely there are Bantu languages which arguably have a dozen ‘genders’ or more?
After a few such moments, you do find yourself wondering why you're not just reading a book by or about actual linguists who know what they're talking about instead. David Bellos's Is That a Fish in Your Ear? comes to mind. Similarly, much more interesting reflections from a working translator are to be found in Lydia Davis's Essays Two, and for a novelist considering these questions you're better off with Jhumpa Lahiri's In Other Words.
On the whole, Dimópulos is the voice of pragmatic sense here, while Coetzee is more questioning and speculative. He is a cautious proponent of the concept of untranslatability, and also dislikes ‘smooth’ translations, believing that translations from a foreign language should ‘sound’ foreign. I do not really agree with either of these things, and fortunately for Coetzee none of his foreign-language translators do either. So there is certainly some interest here in seeing these issues laid out and discussed, but you do need to suspend your sense that it's all a little dilettantish.
The effect is strangely bland, and indeed often resembles a dispiriting kind of ‘translationese’. After Coetzee lists a lot of open questions he has about grammatical gender, Dimópulos's reply begins:
In linguistic comparison gender is one of the most prominent issues today. Your three questions give us a practical device for a measured account of the problem.
This doesn't sound like a real conversation, it sounds like talking to ChatGPT.
If you've read any books about translation theory or linguistics in general, most of what is discussed here is frustratingly shallow. There is rather little of the practicalities that one wants from two working writers, and instead they seem to spend most of the time explaining very basic concepts to each other in turn. And sometimes in a way that makes me a bit cautious: during the above discussion of gender, for example, Coetzee describes it as a system of ‘two or sometimes three’ different noun classes, but this is weirdly Eurocentric – surely there are Bantu languages which arguably have a dozen ‘genders’ or more?
After a few such moments, you do find yourself wondering why you're not just reading a book by or about actual linguists who know what they're talking about instead. David Bellos's Is That a Fish in Your Ear? comes to mind. Similarly, much more interesting reflections from a working translator are to be found in Lydia Davis's Essays Two, and for a novelist considering these questions you're better off with Jhumpa Lahiri's In Other Words.
On the whole, Dimópulos is the voice of pragmatic sense here, while Coetzee is more questioning and speculative. He is a cautious proponent of the concept of untranslatability, and also dislikes ‘smooth’ translations, believing that translations from a foreign language should ‘sound’ foreign. I do not really agree with either of these things, and fortunately for Coetzee none of his foreign-language translators do either. So there is certainly some interest here in seeing these issues laid out and discussed, but you do need to suspend your sense that it's all a little dilettantish.
June 11, 2025
This book takes the form of a wide-ranging conversation about linguistics and translation. Unfortunately, it didn’t really hold my interest. This is definitely a case of me being the wrong reader for the book rather than an issue with the book itself. Those who have a greater interest in its subject will likely enjoy it a lot more than I did!
Read
July 11, 2025I shall leave this oddity unrated. Not really sure why this has been published in print rather than as a long-form article or a podcast. Interesting minds but not particularly insightful if you know anything about Coetzee's recent work and have done a survey of linguistics.
August 6, 2025
A very short book but one always benefits from hearing what Coetzee has to say about language and his Spanish translator (also a novelist) has lots of interesting things to say as well. Coetzee’s book reviews are also revealing when it comes to German translations in particular.
July 11, 2025
I have a lot of thoughts on this! Overall not my favourite non-fiction novel but there were parts I loved and ideas that really got me thinking.
First off, I like the format of the book, which is essentially a long conversation between a Nobel Prize winning author and a translator. I’ve always been fascinated with the incredible amount of skill it would take to translate a novel from one language into another, and this exchange dives deep into aspects I’d never previously considered, such as the moral implications of altering phrases in older texts that might have once been commonplace but are now viewed as derogatory or offensive.
I was also pleasantly surprised when the conversation touched on gendered languages and how they’ve factored into the global discourse on gender identity that has taken place the last few years. As someone who studies two Romance languages (both notoriously gendered, especially coming from an English-speaking perspective) I’ve often wondered how this subject is broached, if at all. Similarly, the discussion of the unprecedented rise of English as the world’s lingua franca was also very interesting.
It’s a short but dense book and I found the ending a little too abrupt. However, I think it’s worth a read if you’re interested in linguistics!
First off, I like the format of the book, which is essentially a long conversation between a Nobel Prize winning author and a translator. I’ve always been fascinated with the incredible amount of skill it would take to translate a novel from one language into another, and this exchange dives deep into aspects I’d never previously considered, such as the moral implications of altering phrases in older texts that might have once been commonplace but are now viewed as derogatory or offensive.
I was also pleasantly surprised when the conversation touched on gendered languages and how they’ve factored into the global discourse on gender identity that has taken place the last few years. As someone who studies two Romance languages (both notoriously gendered, especially coming from an English-speaking perspective) I’ve often wondered how this subject is broached, if at all. Similarly, the discussion of the unprecedented rise of English as the world’s lingua franca was also very interesting.
It’s a short but dense book and I found the ending a little too abrupt. However, I think it’s worth a read if you’re interested in linguistics!
October 7, 2025
2.5 rounded up
While I enjoyed some parts of this book-- specifically Mariana Dimopulos' sections-- I think this book failed to meet some of its initial premises:
1) This is not a dialogue. So much of this book is Coetzee positing an idea or putting forward a question, Dimopulos responding, and the Coetzee moving on to a new subject rather than responding to her push-back.
2) The intro says this is not meant for academics, and to some extent, sure. However, this deals pretty directly with both literary and translation theory. It can be easy to get a little lost.
Beyond that and specifically in the second half of the book, I found Coetzee's phrasing of things to be either demanding or dismissive of Dimopulos' ideas, which was just off-putting. While I am leaving this book impressed with Dimopulos and wanting to read more from her or about her, this isn't a book I would recommend to many people. It ultimately left me a little frustrated, specifically with the lack of dialogue between these two very smart people on the aspects of translation they disagreed on.
While I enjoyed some parts of this book-- specifically Mariana Dimopulos' sections-- I think this book failed to meet some of its initial premises:
1) This is not a dialogue. So much of this book is Coetzee positing an idea or putting forward a question, Dimopulos responding, and the Coetzee moving on to a new subject rather than responding to her push-back.
2) The intro says this is not meant for academics, and to some extent, sure. However, this deals pretty directly with both literary and translation theory. It can be easy to get a little lost.
Beyond that and specifically in the second half of the book, I found Coetzee's phrasing of things to be either demanding or dismissive of Dimopulos' ideas, which was just off-putting. While I am leaving this book impressed with Dimopulos and wanting to read more from her or about her, this isn't a book I would recommend to many people. It ultimately left me a little frustrated, specifically with the lack of dialogue between these two very smart people on the aspects of translation they disagreed on.
November 30, 2025
Thank you MIT Press Bookstore for the ARC giveaway!
I was genuinely surprised when I first picked up this book that this is everything I have ever wanted to learn and discuss when it comes to languages (to the extent that at one point I pitched it to my advisor as my philosophy capstone project): how the languages (and the switching between mother tongue and "father tongue" as described by the authors) shape our identity, our view of the world, and how there is always an incompleteness to translation (thus, one can say a fragmentation of our identities?). Although the book is not supposed to be a deep dive into any of these topics but rather a conversation between two writers (as admitted by both authors), I still thoroughly enjoyed their discussion on something I have been so intrigued about and will be looking for more books of similar topics.
I was genuinely surprised when I first picked up this book that this is everything I have ever wanted to learn and discuss when it comes to languages (to the extent that at one point I pitched it to my advisor as my philosophy capstone project): how the languages (and the switching between mother tongue and "father tongue" as described by the authors) shape our identity, our view of the world, and how there is always an incompleteness to translation (thus, one can say a fragmentation of our identities?). Although the book is not supposed to be a deep dive into any of these topics but rather a conversation between two writers (as admitted by both authors), I still thoroughly enjoyed their discussion on something I have been so intrigued about and will be looking for more books of similar topics.
December 1, 2025
I appreciate the conversational format of the book but it felt like it wasn’t being used that much they were just separately making statements and some points were interesting e.g do we translate offensive writing but my gosh mostly too high brow linguistics chatter for me.
July 31, 2025
As a reader- not a linguist, I only occasionally considered the little knowledge or recognition I had of translation. This short discussion offered some insights, though it’s not an uncomplicated read.
The credibility of discussant is a given: a Nobel- recognized author(Coetzee); an experienced translator in his circle (Dimopulos).
As the discussants note, English language dominates publishing- both fiction and non/ fiction; translations from English to other languages significantly outnumber the reverse; publishers favor translations that “smooth” language; AI may significantly accelerate this trend, possibly with questionable outcomes. While the discussants avoid over- emphasizing AI, they clearly prompt reader concern.
How these factors influence the act and product of translation is discussed within the context of the relevant mother tongue (impact of domination); gender ( and social distance)( the authors’ efforts at a unique translation experience (Coetzee’s The Pole); and words themselves (colors not universally distinguished).
Entertaining, doubtful. Thought- provoking, definitely,
The credibility of discussant is a given: a Nobel- recognized author(Coetzee); an experienced translator in his circle (Dimopulos).
As the discussants note, English language dominates publishing- both fiction and non/ fiction; translations from English to other languages significantly outnumber the reverse; publishers favor translations that “smooth” language; AI may significantly accelerate this trend, possibly with questionable outcomes. While the discussants avoid over- emphasizing AI, they clearly prompt reader concern.
How these factors influence the act and product of translation is discussed within the context of the relevant mother tongue (impact of domination); gender ( and social distance)( the authors’ efforts at a unique translation experience (Coetzee’s The Pole); and words themselves (colors not universally distinguished).
Entertaining, doubtful. Thought- provoking, definitely,
April 19, 2025
Incredibly insightful and informative.
This dives into the world of language and translations and how those two are not always mutually compatible. It’s very informative regarding the moral ethics a translator takes in order to translate a piece of work they are given; do they translate it word for word (even racists and misogynistic remarks) or choose to omit such statements.
It also demonstrates how in many languages, translating word for word is difficult due to the way in which the language is structured, specifically in regard to gender and informal/formal language. Not only that, it also discusses the problems within the publishing industry regarding how more English works are being translated rather than works being translated into English, namely due to preference for the almighty and dominant English language.
Overall, very great read and highly informative.
This dives into the world of language and translations and how those two are not always mutually compatible. It’s very informative regarding the moral ethics a translator takes in order to translate a piece of work they are given; do they translate it word for word (even racists and misogynistic remarks) or choose to omit such statements.
It also demonstrates how in many languages, translating word for word is difficult due to the way in which the language is structured, specifically in regard to gender and informal/formal language. Not only that, it also discusses the problems within the publishing industry regarding how more English works are being translated rather than works being translated into English, namely due to preference for the almighty and dominant English language.
Overall, very great read and highly informative.
May 24, 2025
Stumbled upon this among available audiobooks in Libby and it turned out to be gorgeous and full of insightful and interesting analyses and info. I also really liked the dialogical format for this topic. A perfect road trip listen, and also serendipitously a great companion for Ted Chiang’s Story of Your Life which is fresh in my mind.
November 6, 2025
An informative and thought-provoking dialogue between writer and translator. Many interesting questions posed and sometimes answered. Gender in language, fidelity in translation, and the consequences of the current dominance of the English language all required careful reading.
December 26, 2025
3.5 - interesting content, but like reading a podcast
August 15, 2025
Ik ben een fan van de romans en essays van John Coetzee (1940, Nobelprijs 2003). En ik vermaakte mij jaren geleden prima met "Het goede verhaal"(de dialoog tussen Coetzee en Arabella Kurtz over raakvlakken tussen literatuur en psychoanalyse) en met "Een manier van vriendschap" (de onderhoudende briefwisseling tussen Coetzee en Paul Auster). Bovendien lees ik graag beschouwingen over literaire taal. Dus was ik benieuwd naar "Spreken in tongen", waarin Coetzee samen met zijn vertaler Mariana Dimópulos in diepgaande dialoog gaat over taal en vertaling.
Ook "Spreken in tongen" vond ik boeiend. Vooral door de diepgang van de dialoog, en de scherpzinnige vragen en inzichten van Coetzee en Dimópulos. Maar ook omdat ik nou eenmaal alles interessant vind wat Coetzee zegt. Bovendien schrik ik niet van verwijzingen naar Derrida, Benjamin, Heidegger, Hölderlin en allerlei vertaaltheoretici. Voorts nemen beide auteurs alle tijd en ruimte om goed te reflecteren op hun eigen gedachten en gedachte- experimenten, en die van de ander.
Coetzee en Dimópulos mijmeren uitgebreid en eloquent over hoe mooi het is om te kunnen wonen in je moedertaal. Maar ze zien ook veel voordelen van meertaligheid. Want: “Een tweede taal kunnen bewonen, zo betoogde Friedrich Hölderlin, stelt ons in staat een zekere afstand tot de wereld te bewaren, te ontsnappen aan een eentaligheid waarin de identiteit van signans en signatum onbetwist en ‘natuurlijk’ lijkt”. Want als je één taal bewoont denk je al gauw dat er maar één vanzelfsprekende en natuurlijke relatie bestaat tussen woorden en dingen. Maar als je ook nog een tweede taal bewoont merk je dat die relatie tussen woord en ding helemaal niet zo eenduidig en vanzelfsprekend is. En alleen dat verruimt je blik op de wereld. Met dat in het achterhoofd zegt Dimópulos: “Schrijvers kennen dit gevoel goed, want schrijven, zo wordt wel gezegd, is de ervaring dat je je eigen taal gebruikt alsof het een vreemde taal is. Het is maar een metafoor, en een wat platgetreden pad, maar misschien zit er wat in”.
Een mooi gedachte- experiment, dat het denken van Coetzee en Dimópulos op intrigerende wijze in beweging zet. Al denkend staan ze stil bij Kafka, wiens Duits volgens conventionele maatstaven niet goed genoeg was. Maar juist dat maakte Kafka’s Duits ook zo authentiek en zo buiten-conventioneel groots. Ook staan ze stil bij Proust, die vond dat een werkelijk originele auteur zijn of haar taal zodanig moest transformeren dat er een geheel nieuwe taal ontstond. Of op zijn minst een nog niet eerder geziene stijl, die perspectieven oproept die binnen het gekende taalgebruik nog onderbelicht waren. Bovendien zijn er nog de grote schrijvers Cervantes en Dostojevski, die volgens velen matig en grammaticaal gebrekkig schreven. In soms anorganisch ogende zinnen, die bijna vervormd lijken. Maar juist daarmee wierpen ze een nog ongezien licht op de wereld.
Kortom: Kafka, Proust, Cervantes en Dostojevski bewoonden niet alleen hun taal, maar ook een vreemde versie van die taal. En precies dat maakte hun oeuvres zo origineel, zo authentiek, zo uniek en zo waardevol.
Coetzee en Dimópulos kennen elkaar al langer, want Dimópulos vertaalde Coetzees allerlaatste roman – "De Pool"- in het Spaans. Het doel van die vertaling was echter heel ongebruikelijk: Coetzee wilde dat "El polaco" – en niet "The Pole"- de ‘oorspronkelijke’ tekst zou worden, en dat alle verdere vertalingen wereldwijd dus op het Spaans zouden worden gebaseerd, niet op het Engels. Dat mislukte, want de uitgevers gingen niet in deze gedachte mee. Maar voor Coetzee en Dimópulos blijft het een intrigerend gedachte- experiment.
Waarom? Beide auteurs vonden het kennelijk intrigerend om de scheidslijn tussen de rollen van auteur en vertaler opzettelijk te vervagen. En om een Spaanse tekst te creëren met Engelse echo’s, vooral in de grammatica. Bovendien wilden beide auteurs protesteren tegen de huns inziens al te grote dominantie van het Engels op de internationale boekenmarkt. En vooral tegen de al te instrumentele vertalingen van niet- Engelstalige boeken in het Engels. Want vooral dat leidt tot “een verbazingwekkende eenvormigheid van stijl”. Temeer omdat niet- Engelstalige boeken die qua stijl en inhoud ‘te buitenlands’ aanvoelen vaak niet in het Engels worden vertaald. Of toch, maar dan in een gladgestreken Engelse prozastijl waarbij Amerikaanse en Britse lezers zich helemaal op hun gemak voelen. Zodat je vertalingen krijgt waaruit alle vreemdheid en originaliteit is verdwenen. Omdat zo’n vertaling “alles temt wat wild is in het origineel”.
Met "El polaco" wilden Coetzee en Dimópulos dus weer enige ongetemde wildheid aanbrengen in de al te getemde literaire markt. Temeer ook omdat die wildheid, en het worstelen met de vreemdheid van de taal, ook een wezenlijk thema is in zowel "The Pole" als "El polaco". Want geen van de personages heeft Engels als moedertaal. Zodat “het de sprekers aan woorden ontbreekt om zich uit te drukken, en misschien zelfs dat hun vanwege hun moedertaal bepaalde dingen ontgaan”. Bovendien, “het Engels waarin "The Pole" is geschreven [is] uitzonderlijk ongrijpbaar en ongesitueerd […]: het mist de soliditeit, zowel semantisch als qua klank, waardoor literair Engels van hoge kwaliteit meestal wordt gekenmerkt”. Sterker nog: “[H]et proza van de roman is bedacht als transparant, bijna losgezongen van alle kenmerken die het zouden kunnen identificeren als Engels”.
Coetzee schreef "The Pole" dus in een Engels dat aanvoelt als een vreemde taal. Niet alleen voor de personages, maar ook voor de lezers. "El polaco" vertaalt dat vreemde Engels dan weer in heel vreemd Spaans. Zodat het boek, net als de personages en de lezers van zowel "The Pole" als "El polaco", zich in een “taalkundig niemandsland” bevindt. Dat is toch een intrigerende verzetsdaad: tegen de dominantie van het Engels, maar in mijn ogen vooral ook tegen de te makkelijk assimileerbare taal die men in veel boeken aantreft.
Als Coetzee- fan vond ik dit alles heel interessant. Vooral ook omdat het voor mij nieuw licht wierp op "De Pool", de Nederlandse vertaling uit het Engels van Peter Bergsma. Coetzee noemt Bergsma “mijn Nederlandse tweelingbroer”. Dus neem ik aan dat Bergsma het “taalkundig niemandsland” goed overgebracht heeft in het Nederlands. Temeer omdat ik mij de kaalheid en de ongrijpbare vreemdheid van die roman nog goed herinner. Maar toch, jaren geleden las ik "De Pool" niet als boek van een schrijver die zijn eigen taal als een vreemde taal gebruikt. Zou ik, als ik dat wel had gedaan, misschien nog andere betekenislagen gezien hebben die mij nu ontgaan zijn? En zou ik, als ik dit boek nu alsnog zo zou gaan (her)lezen, dergelijke betekenislagen alsnog gaan zien?
Ook vraag ik mij af of ik mij niet gelukkig moet prijzen als Nederlandstalige veellezer. Want vertalingen in het Nederlands zijn, naar mijn smaak, vaak allesbehalve instrumenteel. Het heel vreemde Russisch van Andrej Platonov is door Aai Prins in adembenemend ongewoon Nederlands vertaald. De vertalingen uit het Chinees van Mark Leenhouts leveren een Nederlands op dat je nergens anders leest. Harrie Lemmens vertalingen van Lobo Antunes leiden tot een barok bruisend Nederlands dat nergens ter wereld ooit eerder is gevonden. Enzovoort. Zou het kunnen dat de Nederlandse vertaalpraktijk minder homogeniserend is dan de Engelstalige? Zou vreemde buitenlandse literatuur in Nederland soms beter gedijen dan in het Engelse taalgebied? Of is er ook in het Engelse taalgebied meer ruimte voor avontuurlijke vertalers en vertalingen dan Coetzee en Dimópulos suggereren?
Hoe dit ook zij: wat Coetzee en Dimópulos zeggen over de vreemde taal van "El polaco" en "The Pole" is intrigerend genoeg. Ook intrigerend is hoe zij aannemelijk maken dat taal geen neutraal medium is dat de wereld zonder vertekening weerspiegelt, maar juist vorm geeft aan een wereldbeeld dat altijd zijn eigen lacunes en breuken bevat. Daardoor is geen enkele uitspraak in geen enkele taal absoluut waar of absoluut onwaar. Zodat je eindeloos kunt zoeken naar ‘het juiste woord’, zonder dat je dit ooit zult vinden. Niet in je eigen taal, en ook niet in een andere taal.
Coetzee en Dimópulos maken aannemelijk dat taal vreemder is dan wij denken. En dat dagelijkse activiteiten als schrijven, spreken en communiceren ingewikkelder zijn dan we aannemen. Ook maken ze aannemelijk dat het voor schrijvers en lezers leerzaam en waardevol kan zijn om juist die vreemdheid van onze taal tot ons te laten doordringen. En om meer ruimte te bieden aan de ervaring dat de woorden je ontbreken. Of aan de ervaring dat die woorden ambigu zijn en niet naadloos samenvallen met de dingen. Dat zijn allemaal geen wereldschokkend nieuwe inzichten. Maar ze zijn wel waardevol, en ze worden elegant geformuleerd en onderbouwd.
Daarnaast omcirkelen Coetzee en Dimópulos meerdere interessante vragen, die nog steeds nazingen in mijn hoofd. Bijvoorbeeld: waarom hebben sommige talen ingebouwde geslachtsverschillen, en is dat discriminerend of niet? Waarom gaat de ene taal anders om met sociale afstand dan de andere, en wat doe je daar in vertalingen mee? Is het legitiem om al te racistisch of antisemitisch taalgebruik in de vertaling als het ware te corrigeren? Waar kies je voor als vertaler: letterlijke getrouwheid, of juist voor een meer creatieve rol? Wat doe je als vertaler met het besef dat een vertaling “zonder restanten” (en dus zonder leemtes en breuken) niet meer dan een droom is?
Coetzee is inmiddels ruim tachtig. Toch hoop ik dat hij, in dialoog met anderen, nog meer boeken zal maken als deze. En ben ik heel erg naïef als ik hoop op nog één roman, verhalenbundel of essaybundel?
Ook "Spreken in tongen" vond ik boeiend. Vooral door de diepgang van de dialoog, en de scherpzinnige vragen en inzichten van Coetzee en Dimópulos. Maar ook omdat ik nou eenmaal alles interessant vind wat Coetzee zegt. Bovendien schrik ik niet van verwijzingen naar Derrida, Benjamin, Heidegger, Hölderlin en allerlei vertaaltheoretici. Voorts nemen beide auteurs alle tijd en ruimte om goed te reflecteren op hun eigen gedachten en gedachte- experimenten, en die van de ander.
Coetzee en Dimópulos mijmeren uitgebreid en eloquent over hoe mooi het is om te kunnen wonen in je moedertaal. Maar ze zien ook veel voordelen van meertaligheid. Want: “Een tweede taal kunnen bewonen, zo betoogde Friedrich Hölderlin, stelt ons in staat een zekere afstand tot de wereld te bewaren, te ontsnappen aan een eentaligheid waarin de identiteit van signans en signatum onbetwist en ‘natuurlijk’ lijkt”. Want als je één taal bewoont denk je al gauw dat er maar één vanzelfsprekende en natuurlijke relatie bestaat tussen woorden en dingen. Maar als je ook nog een tweede taal bewoont merk je dat die relatie tussen woord en ding helemaal niet zo eenduidig en vanzelfsprekend is. En alleen dat verruimt je blik op de wereld. Met dat in het achterhoofd zegt Dimópulos: “Schrijvers kennen dit gevoel goed, want schrijven, zo wordt wel gezegd, is de ervaring dat je je eigen taal gebruikt alsof het een vreemde taal is. Het is maar een metafoor, en een wat platgetreden pad, maar misschien zit er wat in”.
Een mooi gedachte- experiment, dat het denken van Coetzee en Dimópulos op intrigerende wijze in beweging zet. Al denkend staan ze stil bij Kafka, wiens Duits volgens conventionele maatstaven niet goed genoeg was. Maar juist dat maakte Kafka’s Duits ook zo authentiek en zo buiten-conventioneel groots. Ook staan ze stil bij Proust, die vond dat een werkelijk originele auteur zijn of haar taal zodanig moest transformeren dat er een geheel nieuwe taal ontstond. Of op zijn minst een nog niet eerder geziene stijl, die perspectieven oproept die binnen het gekende taalgebruik nog onderbelicht waren. Bovendien zijn er nog de grote schrijvers Cervantes en Dostojevski, die volgens velen matig en grammaticaal gebrekkig schreven. In soms anorganisch ogende zinnen, die bijna vervormd lijken. Maar juist daarmee wierpen ze een nog ongezien licht op de wereld.
Kortom: Kafka, Proust, Cervantes en Dostojevski bewoonden niet alleen hun taal, maar ook een vreemde versie van die taal. En precies dat maakte hun oeuvres zo origineel, zo authentiek, zo uniek en zo waardevol.
Coetzee en Dimópulos kennen elkaar al langer, want Dimópulos vertaalde Coetzees allerlaatste roman – "De Pool"- in het Spaans. Het doel van die vertaling was echter heel ongebruikelijk: Coetzee wilde dat "El polaco" – en niet "The Pole"- de ‘oorspronkelijke’ tekst zou worden, en dat alle verdere vertalingen wereldwijd dus op het Spaans zouden worden gebaseerd, niet op het Engels. Dat mislukte, want de uitgevers gingen niet in deze gedachte mee. Maar voor Coetzee en Dimópulos blijft het een intrigerend gedachte- experiment.
Waarom? Beide auteurs vonden het kennelijk intrigerend om de scheidslijn tussen de rollen van auteur en vertaler opzettelijk te vervagen. En om een Spaanse tekst te creëren met Engelse echo’s, vooral in de grammatica. Bovendien wilden beide auteurs protesteren tegen de huns inziens al te grote dominantie van het Engels op de internationale boekenmarkt. En vooral tegen de al te instrumentele vertalingen van niet- Engelstalige boeken in het Engels. Want vooral dat leidt tot “een verbazingwekkende eenvormigheid van stijl”. Temeer omdat niet- Engelstalige boeken die qua stijl en inhoud ‘te buitenlands’ aanvoelen vaak niet in het Engels worden vertaald. Of toch, maar dan in een gladgestreken Engelse prozastijl waarbij Amerikaanse en Britse lezers zich helemaal op hun gemak voelen. Zodat je vertalingen krijgt waaruit alle vreemdheid en originaliteit is verdwenen. Omdat zo’n vertaling “alles temt wat wild is in het origineel”.
Met "El polaco" wilden Coetzee en Dimópulos dus weer enige ongetemde wildheid aanbrengen in de al te getemde literaire markt. Temeer ook omdat die wildheid, en het worstelen met de vreemdheid van de taal, ook een wezenlijk thema is in zowel "The Pole" als "El polaco". Want geen van de personages heeft Engels als moedertaal. Zodat “het de sprekers aan woorden ontbreekt om zich uit te drukken, en misschien zelfs dat hun vanwege hun moedertaal bepaalde dingen ontgaan”. Bovendien, “het Engels waarin "The Pole" is geschreven [is] uitzonderlijk ongrijpbaar en ongesitueerd […]: het mist de soliditeit, zowel semantisch als qua klank, waardoor literair Engels van hoge kwaliteit meestal wordt gekenmerkt”. Sterker nog: “[H]et proza van de roman is bedacht als transparant, bijna losgezongen van alle kenmerken die het zouden kunnen identificeren als Engels”.
Coetzee schreef "The Pole" dus in een Engels dat aanvoelt als een vreemde taal. Niet alleen voor de personages, maar ook voor de lezers. "El polaco" vertaalt dat vreemde Engels dan weer in heel vreemd Spaans. Zodat het boek, net als de personages en de lezers van zowel "The Pole" als "El polaco", zich in een “taalkundig niemandsland” bevindt. Dat is toch een intrigerende verzetsdaad: tegen de dominantie van het Engels, maar in mijn ogen vooral ook tegen de te makkelijk assimileerbare taal die men in veel boeken aantreft.
Als Coetzee- fan vond ik dit alles heel interessant. Vooral ook omdat het voor mij nieuw licht wierp op "De Pool", de Nederlandse vertaling uit het Engels van Peter Bergsma. Coetzee noemt Bergsma “mijn Nederlandse tweelingbroer”. Dus neem ik aan dat Bergsma het “taalkundig niemandsland” goed overgebracht heeft in het Nederlands. Temeer omdat ik mij de kaalheid en de ongrijpbare vreemdheid van die roman nog goed herinner. Maar toch, jaren geleden las ik "De Pool" niet als boek van een schrijver die zijn eigen taal als een vreemde taal gebruikt. Zou ik, als ik dat wel had gedaan, misschien nog andere betekenislagen gezien hebben die mij nu ontgaan zijn? En zou ik, als ik dit boek nu alsnog zo zou gaan (her)lezen, dergelijke betekenislagen alsnog gaan zien?
Ook vraag ik mij af of ik mij niet gelukkig moet prijzen als Nederlandstalige veellezer. Want vertalingen in het Nederlands zijn, naar mijn smaak, vaak allesbehalve instrumenteel. Het heel vreemde Russisch van Andrej Platonov is door Aai Prins in adembenemend ongewoon Nederlands vertaald. De vertalingen uit het Chinees van Mark Leenhouts leveren een Nederlands op dat je nergens anders leest. Harrie Lemmens vertalingen van Lobo Antunes leiden tot een barok bruisend Nederlands dat nergens ter wereld ooit eerder is gevonden. Enzovoort. Zou het kunnen dat de Nederlandse vertaalpraktijk minder homogeniserend is dan de Engelstalige? Zou vreemde buitenlandse literatuur in Nederland soms beter gedijen dan in het Engelse taalgebied? Of is er ook in het Engelse taalgebied meer ruimte voor avontuurlijke vertalers en vertalingen dan Coetzee en Dimópulos suggereren?
Hoe dit ook zij: wat Coetzee en Dimópulos zeggen over de vreemde taal van "El polaco" en "The Pole" is intrigerend genoeg. Ook intrigerend is hoe zij aannemelijk maken dat taal geen neutraal medium is dat de wereld zonder vertekening weerspiegelt, maar juist vorm geeft aan een wereldbeeld dat altijd zijn eigen lacunes en breuken bevat. Daardoor is geen enkele uitspraak in geen enkele taal absoluut waar of absoluut onwaar. Zodat je eindeloos kunt zoeken naar ‘het juiste woord’, zonder dat je dit ooit zult vinden. Niet in je eigen taal, en ook niet in een andere taal.
Coetzee en Dimópulos maken aannemelijk dat taal vreemder is dan wij denken. En dat dagelijkse activiteiten als schrijven, spreken en communiceren ingewikkelder zijn dan we aannemen. Ook maken ze aannemelijk dat het voor schrijvers en lezers leerzaam en waardevol kan zijn om juist die vreemdheid van onze taal tot ons te laten doordringen. En om meer ruimte te bieden aan de ervaring dat de woorden je ontbreken. Of aan de ervaring dat die woorden ambigu zijn en niet naadloos samenvallen met de dingen. Dat zijn allemaal geen wereldschokkend nieuwe inzichten. Maar ze zijn wel waardevol, en ze worden elegant geformuleerd en onderbouwd.
Daarnaast omcirkelen Coetzee en Dimópulos meerdere interessante vragen, die nog steeds nazingen in mijn hoofd. Bijvoorbeeld: waarom hebben sommige talen ingebouwde geslachtsverschillen, en is dat discriminerend of niet? Waarom gaat de ene taal anders om met sociale afstand dan de andere, en wat doe je daar in vertalingen mee? Is het legitiem om al te racistisch of antisemitisch taalgebruik in de vertaling als het ware te corrigeren? Waar kies je voor als vertaler: letterlijke getrouwheid, of juist voor een meer creatieve rol? Wat doe je als vertaler met het besef dat een vertaling “zonder restanten” (en dus zonder leemtes en breuken) niet meer dan een droom is?
Coetzee is inmiddels ruim tachtig. Toch hoop ik dat hij, in dialoog met anderen, nog meer boeken zal maken als deze. En ben ik heel erg naïef als ik hoop op nog één roman, verhalenbundel of essaybundel?
May 16, 2025
2003 Literature Nobel Prize winning author J.M. Coetzee and Argentine novelist, translator, philosopher Mariana Dimópulos engage in a dialogue on the intricacies of translation in the short four-chapter tract, Speaking in Tongues. As far as my limited ken, the discussion is the most informative and accessible since David Bellos’ 2011 offering Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything. In other words, it is an essential read for those who care deeply about translation or have given literary translation a try.
At the crux of the argument is South-African born J.M. Coetzee’s fixation on not bowing to English as the dominant language. His last book, the novella El Polaco (The Pole), was written in English, but originally appeared in Spanish in a translation by Mariana Dimópulos, much to the chagrin of Coetzee’s English publisher. Coetzee had initially requested that the novella only appear in English after being back translated (retranslated) into English. This is the type of cheeky request only a major writer can even dream of making. A request that fell on deaf ears. However, Coetzee’s reasoning is the main fodder for the dialogue that appears in the present volume, ironically in English; for two writers (and translators) whose main points expose the problems with a dominant language (or gender) dictating how ideas appear, there is—to date—no Spanish language edition of Speaking in Tongues.
Although neither author mentions it during any of the dialogues, J.M. Coetzee also has translation credits, mainly for early 20th century Dutch writer Marcellus Emants’ A Posthumous Confession. Thus, the questions he poses to Ms. Dimópulos can strike a knowing reader as willfully naïve. Coetzee certainly has very specific views on the questions he asks his translator, but he largely just riffs off Ms. Dimópulos’ opinions. Then there is the question as to how much a translator should insert him or herself into the source text. That is, how ethical or reasonable is it to rewrite certain sentences or ideas in the target language, i.e. the language of the final translation? Again, Coetzee comes across as deliberately naïve because he is also a Samuel Beckett scholar. Beckett wrote almost all his mature works—excepting Happy Days—in his adopted tongue, French. He then back-translated his own works*, into English. His translations back into his own native tongue are considered works of art in themselves and a major reason that he won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1969. Thus, having two writer translators gabbing about translation without once mentioning Beckett seems almost deliberate and—in my opinion—presents a huge gap in the dialogue. Nevertheless, these are just quibbles of mine along with the meandering style of the dialogues which has a knack for changing focus just as I was getting interested in a very specific point.
*With the exception of a few short stories and Molloy translated by Richard Seaver in conjunction with the author.
At the crux of the argument is South-African born J.M. Coetzee’s fixation on not bowing to English as the dominant language. His last book, the novella El Polaco (The Pole), was written in English, but originally appeared in Spanish in a translation by Mariana Dimópulos, much to the chagrin of Coetzee’s English publisher. Coetzee had initially requested that the novella only appear in English after being back translated (retranslated) into English. This is the type of cheeky request only a major writer can even dream of making. A request that fell on deaf ears. However, Coetzee’s reasoning is the main fodder for the dialogue that appears in the present volume, ironically in English; for two writers (and translators) whose main points expose the problems with a dominant language (or gender) dictating how ideas appear, there is—to date—no Spanish language edition of Speaking in Tongues.
Although neither author mentions it during any of the dialogues, J.M. Coetzee also has translation credits, mainly for early 20th century Dutch writer Marcellus Emants’ A Posthumous Confession. Thus, the questions he poses to Ms. Dimópulos can strike a knowing reader as willfully naïve. Coetzee certainly has very specific views on the questions he asks his translator, but he largely just riffs off Ms. Dimópulos’ opinions. Then there is the question as to how much a translator should insert him or herself into the source text. That is, how ethical or reasonable is it to rewrite certain sentences or ideas in the target language, i.e. the language of the final translation? Again, Coetzee comes across as deliberately naïve because he is also a Samuel Beckett scholar. Beckett wrote almost all his mature works—excepting Happy Days—in his adopted tongue, French. He then back-translated his own works*, into English. His translations back into his own native tongue are considered works of art in themselves and a major reason that he won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1969. Thus, having two writer translators gabbing about translation without once mentioning Beckett seems almost deliberate and—in my opinion—presents a huge gap in the dialogue. Nevertheless, these are just quibbles of mine along with the meandering style of the dialogues which has a knack for changing focus just as I was getting interested in a very specific point.
*With the exception of a few short stories and Molloy translated by Richard Seaver in conjunction with the author.
November 22, 2025
Randomly stumbled across this gem in the new books display at a local branch library and so glad I checked it out! It’s a short read (just 99 page body of text), but packs a lot in, and is best digested between a few sittings. It caught my attention as it is labeled a book on linguistics and I am someone who grew up bilingual and is fascinated by languages. It also caught my attention due to the unique nature of a the book — it is co-authored by a highly-published author and an experienced translator, but the chapters of the book are presented as a dialogue between the two so it is clear who is saying what and has what ideas. It’s almost like reading a highly edited, very organized podcast transcript. (In fact, it would be fun to listen to as an audio book with each author reading their own parts.)
Not only was I fascinated by the premise, but I also enjoyed reading the book and found it to be even more fascinating than I’d expected. Although it is labeled as Linguistics, it also totally could share the labels of Philosophy and Anthropology and even bits of history, geography and poli-sci. Although it does not have an extensive bibliography, it does refer to quite a few linguists/philosophers/social scientists and the brief notes do serve as a good jumping board for following some lines of thought deeper. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who likes languages and/or philosophy, and especially people who are bilingual and work or live between languages on a regular basis (whether as career translators or not).
As a small complaint, I’m not sure I love the title of the book. I could just be missing something, but it doesn’t seem to me to be a good indicator of what the book is about — probably because it brings to mind Pentecostal images, which are not at all touched on in this book. I think it’s supposed to call to mind the Tower of Babel, which is discussed at the end of the book, and which would make sense. Perhaps I just personally have too strong of connotations with the words “speaking in tongues”. All that to say, don’t be deterred by the title (if you’re anything like me) and give it a try!
Not only was I fascinated by the premise, but I also enjoyed reading the book and found it to be even more fascinating than I’d expected. Although it is labeled as Linguistics, it also totally could share the labels of Philosophy and Anthropology and even bits of history, geography and poli-sci. Although it does not have an extensive bibliography, it does refer to quite a few linguists/philosophers/social scientists and the brief notes do serve as a good jumping board for following some lines of thought deeper. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone who likes languages and/or philosophy, and especially people who are bilingual and work or live between languages on a regular basis (whether as career translators or not).
As a small complaint, I’m not sure I love the title of the book. I could just be missing something, but it doesn’t seem to me to be a good indicator of what the book is about — probably because it brings to mind Pentecostal images, which are not at all touched on in this book. I think it’s supposed to call to mind the Tower of Babel, which is discussed at the end of the book, and which would make sense. Perhaps I just personally have too strong of connotations with the words “speaking in tongues”. All that to say, don’t be deterred by the title (if you’re anything like me) and give it a try!
September 17, 2025
A short conversation between nobel laureate J. M. Coatzee and novelist and translator Mariana Dimopulos. The discussion explores subjects ranging from how we obtain language, how we use it to speak and to write, and what gender means in a linguistic context. Language is also political and cultural and there are interesting observations of how colonialism and nationalistic efforts by countries to mandate a single language often kill minor languages when indigenous peoples are repressed. I am bi-lingual in Spanish and English and many of the authors' observations about the language we speak at home versus the one we speak in public resonated with me. Although I have lived the greater part of my life in the US (63 years), I sometimes dream in Spanish, my mother tongue. I am fascinated by how translators do their job and especially enjoyed the chapters which focused on this subject. I only wish that they had spent some time discussing the impact of AI on translation.
Favorite quotes:
--"far more books are translated each year out of English than are translated into English...the future belonged to English."
--"Did a translation necessarily have to have a secondary status, the status of an imitation (an imperfect imitation) of a unique original?"
--"this is how it should be: trying to figure out what an author does to his or her own language so that not only the content of an expression is rendered in the new linguistic context but also that resonance."
--"contexts are so relevant that they can even shape uttered truths, for they may condition both their authority and their reception."
--"Go search for words." "What is the dictionary of a language, but a map of the universe as the universe appears to the speakers of that language?"
Favorite quotes:
--"far more books are translated each year out of English than are translated into English...the future belonged to English."
--"Did a translation necessarily have to have a secondary status, the status of an imitation (an imperfect imitation) of a unique original?"
--"this is how it should be: trying to figure out what an author does to his or her own language so that not only the content of an expression is rendered in the new linguistic context but also that resonance."
--"contexts are so relevant that they can even shape uttered truths, for they may condition both their authority and their reception."
--"Go search for words." "What is the dictionary of a language, but a map of the universe as the universe appears to the speakers of that language?"
November 30, 2025
A short, thought-provoking text that would probably function better as a limited-run podcast series than as a book of less than 100 pages which can be read in an hour or two. Very much of interest to anyone multilingual, or anyone interested in the literature of other countries. The two intellects discuss the roles, responsibilities, and priorities of the translator (Should he give preference to sound syntax over emotional impact? Should unacceptable language or ideas from past generations be softened/omitted altogether when making a translation for the modern age? Are some things simply "untranslatable"? How do you manage terminology and concepts extant in one language and not in the other? and so on) in a contemporary world.
Interesting that theses discussions seem to have been held just before the release of ChatGPT and the general availability of vastly improved translation software. I wonder how long it is before conversations such as the ones in this book will seem positively quaint.
Interesting that theses discussions seem to have been held just before the release of ChatGPT and the general availability of vastly improved translation software. I wonder how long it is before conversations such as the ones in this book will seem positively quaint.
May 25, 2025
"What is the dictionary of a language, after all, but a map of the universe as the universe appears to the speakers of that language?"
In this dialogue about the nature of language and translation, Coetzee and translator Mariana Dimópulous examine issues such as gender in languages, the relationship of translations to their originals, and our emotional relationship with mother tongues. SPEAKING IN TONGUES is most interesting when its authors grapple with specific case studies, such as Coetzee discussing the thought process behind writing THE POLE, using them to offer insightful comments on the evolution of language in a world dominated by English. However, at times this book gives relatively brief space to interesting debates (such as how or whether to modernise dated and prejudiced terms in older literature) that I would've liked its authors to devote more time to.
In this dialogue about the nature of language and translation, Coetzee and translator Mariana Dimópulous examine issues such as gender in languages, the relationship of translations to their originals, and our emotional relationship with mother tongues. SPEAKING IN TONGUES is most interesting when its authors grapple with specific case studies, such as Coetzee discussing the thought process behind writing THE POLE, using them to offer insightful comments on the evolution of language in a world dominated by English. However, at times this book gives relatively brief space to interesting debates (such as how or whether to modernise dated and prejudiced terms in older literature) that I would've liked its authors to devote more time to.
December 30, 2025
3.5 stars rounded down! an interesting book in an interesting format. perhaps it might have been better suited to a podcast but i’m not much of a podcast listener at the moment so i enjoyed it as a book! getting a writer AND translators perspective is really fascinating, and i especially enjoyed the discussion of writing = using your native language as a foreign one and the ethics/social implications of translation (especially interested in anthropophagy movement!). i wish they had gone more into depth on a lot, including their discussion of linguistic gender (-guy who wrote his thesis on gendered language in english),but i get that the book is short and mainly abt their perspectives on certain topics rather than a review of the Facts and prior research
May 29, 2025
This was a fun and enlightening book. While I enjoy linguistics, I've never delved much into the art (science?) of translation. This dialogue between author and translator served as a great introduction to some of the details and finer points that most of us simply have never thought about. It was interesting to see how politics, history, culture, and personal bias affect the translation process (and thus, the finished work). Most notably, because this book is formatted as a dialogue between the contributors, it avoids the dryness that a textbook-style exposition would offer.
May 23, 2025
There are a lot of very good, very smart insights here from two people who clearly care very deeply about language and how language is represented. However, I found much of what they had to say tough to parse through to get to the meat of the conversation. I've been wondering more and more what goes into translation, as I've encountered unique phrasings in as well as different interpretations of translated works. This book gave me not answers exactly, but a lot to think about.
June 5, 2025
I don't really love the style of talking back and forth, but this book was really interesting. It's basically just a random conversation between two people who are really interested in languages. And it is random and anecdotal. But even with that its just full of interesting little tidbits. It's also quite short - I was surprised when it suddenly ended without really much of a conclusion.
July 4, 2025
So much food for thought packed into a conversational walk through philosophical perspectives of language, profession, and identity. I found so many elements discussed of the work of a translator seem similar to those I consider as an illustrator. As a bookseller, this is a title I would recommend to anyone who likes to think!
August 5, 2025
I picked this up because I’m interested in the complexity of translation. I am without any real experience with linguistics and I found back and forth conversation fascinating and thought provoking. However I can imagine that readers with greater knowledge on the subject might not find much new here.
August 15, 2025
Een gesprek onder intellectuelen in boekvorm, waarom niet? Alleen al om Coetzee’s ‘onthulling’ dat de Jezus-trilogie gesitueerd is in een soort hiernamaals, vond ik dit verrassend aangenaam om te lezen. Maar natuurlijk vooral om de heldere en actuele inzichten. Ik hoop dat de 85-jarige Coetzee nog veel van zich laat horen en lezen.
October 11, 2025
So disappointing. I learned a little but I was expecting to learn so much more as I love reading books that have been translated into English from Japanese, Romanian, Russian, and Scandinavian languages as well as others. The book was very short, some of it unspeakably obtuse. It should have been longer and more accessible to non-linguists.
December 20, 2025
Compact boekje dat fundamentele vragen oproept over taal en vertaling in relatie tot geschiedenis, opvoeding, identiteit en gender.
In alle eerlijkheid lijkt Dimopulos meer te melden te hebben dan Coetzee. Ze is goed op de hoogte van lopende academische discussies en weet deze bondig en helder samen te vatten.
In alle eerlijkheid lijkt Dimopulos meer te melden te hebben dan Coetzee. Ze is goed op de hoogte van lopende academische discussies en weet deze bondig en helder samen te vatten.
August 15, 2025
I was tempted to give it 3 stars because I honestly got a little bored. But for what it is, a treatise on language, it’s actually quite compelling and interesting.
What I found different from other non-fiction is that there really is no thesis, it reads more as a series of interesting thoughts.
What I found different from other non-fiction is that there really is no thesis, it reads more as a series of interesting thoughts.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews