Ask John: Should Honorifics Appear in Subtitled Anime? (Version Two)

Question:
It occurs to me that, regardless of what the forum is, English speakers and writers attach the suffix, “-san” when referring to Japanese people, even when the content itself is entirely in English. I suppose, when you get deeper into the issue, even suffixes like “-chan” or “-kun” used frequently in English language translations/dubs of manga/anime are equally as anachronistic. If a Japanese product is completely translated into English, why is it okay to put in the anachronistic suffix? If the person creating the material is making such an effort to localize it for English speaking audiences, how is it respectful to the Japanese language to throw in bits and pieces every now and then? From my perspective, this use sounds terribly contrived and rather unnatural.

Answer:
(A response to this question published in 2003 is available here.)

Before answering, I feel compelled to correct a simple rhetorical mistake in your question. The word “anachronistic” refers to something “chronologically misplaced.” For example, an anachronism is gasoline powered automobile in the stone age. Something modern should not exist in the distant past. Terms like “incongruous” and “irreconcilable” more accurately reflect your intention.

Under particular circumstances I do condone the Romanization of Japanese honorifics in English translations. I’ve heard it argued that literally transcribing Japanese honorifics in an English translation is unnecessary because there are English language equivalents for all of them. I’ll admit that I’m not a studied expert on Japanese language, but according to my novice knowledge, that corollary is not really true. I do not believe that all Japanese honorifics can be adequately translated into English and still express their Japanese meaning. Anime fans that are familiar with the subtitle tracks of AN Entertainment DVD releases will know that AN Entertainment subtitle translations retain Japanese honorifics. I’m directly involved in the composition of AN Entertainment subtitle scripts, so allow me to provide some examples from the upcoming American DVD release of Haré+Guu.

In the show, Guu is referred to with several different honorifics by different characters. Each honorific implies the speaker’s relationship to Guu. Hare refers to Guu as either “Guu” or “Guu-san” because he considers her to have equal social status with him. Since Guu is seemingly a child, it would be strange for Haré to refer to one of his peers as “Ms. Guu.” Furthermore, removing the “-san” honorific eliminates the subtle difference implied in Haré’s tone when he chooses to use a casual “Guu,” or a slightly more formal “Guu-san” form of address, or the distinction between when he’s directly addressing Guu and when he’s talking about Guu to other characters. Weda, Guu’s adopted mother, refers to Guu as “Guu-chan,” but never “Guu-san.” In other words, Weda does not address Guu as an equal the way Haré does. Eliminating the honorifics entirely eliminates this subtle difference. Furthermore, accurately translating “Guu-chan” into English is virtually impossible because it’s difficult to compose a short form of address that conveys the implications of “small” and “adorable” and “treasured,” which is, I think, what Weda implies when she says “Guu-chan.” Finally, the village elder first refers to Guu as “Guu,” then as “Guu-san” then as “Guu-sama.” His form of address basically elevates from casual to respectful to subservient. Especially the honorific “-sama,” in this case, is extremely difficult to translate into English. An address like “Master Guu” or “Lord Guu” don’t seem entirely accurate because Guu is not a master over anyone and she’s not a formal, titled lord. (The elder isn’t Guu’s slave or servant. He’s simply afraid of her.) The title “Mistress Guu” comes close, but seems a little bit odd when considering Guu’s unlady-like demeanor. In this case, I don’t think there are any English language titles that convey respect without also implying other characteristics. I’ll concede that the translation of the village elder’s “Guu-sama” is debatable, but I’ve stated my perspective.

In terms of presenting a cosiderate translation, I’ve heard it argued that a respectable translation fully translates a foreign language. The belief behind this position is that mixing occasional Japanese language into an English translation is inconsistent, confusing and irresponsibly inadequate. My belief is that there’s no harm in having an English translation of Japanese language that actually reflects and acknowledges Japanese language. In fact, I think that retaining elements of Japanese language, in appropriate situations, provides a more comprehensive translation that conveys the meaning of the dialogue and encourages a greater understanding and respect for Japanese language in the viewer. In other words, retaining Japanese honorifics and terms in an English subtitle translation because of carelessness is irresponsible. But intentionally retaining select Japanese honorifics and terms in an English subtitle translation, for specific reasons, suggests, to me, a concern with expressing the exact meaning of the Japanese dialogue instead of conveying an approximation of the Japanese dialogue. I’m not implying that translations that exclude Japanese references are inferior. I simply believe that such translations are constructed with a slightly different goal than translations that do retain select Japanese characteristics. I think that translations which include no Japanese terms or references are targeted at average English speaking viewers, and are intended primarily to be accessible and easy to comprehend. I think that translations which do retain select Japanese terms and references are intended for viewers who are specifically interested in Japanese art and culture- viewers that are interested in the distinctive subtleties and nuances contained in the art that they watch.