Text 1A2-I
Languages are more to us than systems of thought
transference. They are invisible garments that drape themselves
about our spirit and give a predetermined form to all its symbolic
expression. When the expression is of unusual significance, we
call it literature. Art is so personal an expression that we do not
like to feel that it is bound to predetermined form of any sort.
The possibilities of individual expression are infinite, language in
particular is the most fluid of mediums. Yet some limitation there
must be to this freedom, some resistance of the medium.
In great art there is the illusion of absolute freedom. The
formal restraints imposed by the material are not perceived; it is
as though there were a limitless margin of elbow room between
the artist’s fullest utilization of form and the most that the
material is innately capable of. The artist has intuitively
surrendered to the inescapable tyranny of the material, made its
brute nature fuse easily with his conception. The material
“disappears” precisely because there is nothing in the artist’s
conception to indicate that any other material exists. For the time
being, he, and we with him, move in the artistic medium as a fish
moves in the water, oblivious of the existence of an alien
atmosphere. No sooner, however, does the artist transgress the
law of his medium than we realize with a start that there is a
medium to obey.
Language is the medium of literature as marble or bronze
or clay are the materials of the sculptor. Since every language has
its distinctive peculiarities, the innate formal limitations—and
possibilities—of one literature are never quite the same as those
of another. The literature fashioned out of the form and substance
of a language has the color and the texture of its matrix. The
literary artist may never be conscious of just how he is hindered
or helped or otherwise guided by the matrix, but when it is a
question of translating his work into another language, the nature
of the original matrix manifests itself at once. All his effects have
been calculated, or intuitively felt, with reference to the formal
“genius” of his own language; they cannot be carried over
without loss or modification. Croce is therefore perfectly right in
saying that a work of literary art can never be translated.
Nevertheless, literature does get itself translated, sometimes with
astonishing adequacy.
Edward Sapir. Language: an introduction to the study of speech. 1921 (adapted).
According to the ideas of text 1A2-I, choose the correct option.
