In her “Reconceptualizing Translation Theory” Maria Tymoczko takes a self-reflexive look at the current position of translation theory, mainly regarding such concerns as the established subject/object positions, definitions and categorizations. Taking a brief look at the article, one could easily say that it summarizes the criticisms of post-colonial and post-structuralist works on translation; in that, the alternatives offered have mostly been mentioned by other scholars criticising the anachronistic and Eurocentric position of current translation theory.
As also stated by Theo Hermans, translation doesn’t provide people with a meta-language through which two stable lingual systems are bridged. Post-colonial works introducing the scene such concepts as border-cultures and hybridity proposes translation a position ‘within’ those systems, as a component rather than as an outsider/mediator. Inevitably, a new area of research arises, stipulating the translation theory redefine, reposit and represent itself, as a result of which, translation history will be rewritten. Embracing cultural relativity, historicity, pluralingualism in real terms, this new history would definitely be ‘thicker’ than the present one. This affluence primarily comes from appreciating each culture’s own manners of conceptualization. Cemal Demircioğlu’s research aiming to construct a geneology of translation in Turkish history is an exemplary effort, for instance. As also exemplified by Hermans and Tymoczko in their articles, not necessarily titled as ‘translation’, all practices concerning crosscultural representation and interference are the concerns of translational research, expanding the borderlines of the field’s current area. Surely, the extended borders would also require redefining the subject and object positions acknowledged within the field. As mentioned above, translational research has passed beyond taking two texts of some sort of equivalence relationship as its subject. Similarly, as Tymoczko also questions, the profile of the translator is subjected to a shift, in that, these new ‘thick’ studies are expected to adopt translation not as a meta-practice or a profession but as a daily practice highly involved in cultural development. Henceforth, it’s not only the translators as educated experts, but also the men on street or a child at home that are to be subjected to translational research.
Appreciating the particular, paying an effort to search for its own means of comprehending, practicing and producing phenomena surely is for the benefit of translational research. In this way, not only its position (among other research) and the accuracy of its products are enhanced, but also its contributions to reserch in other fields increase. However, ‘representing’ the particular is a problem of its own. As stated by Şebnem Susam Sarajeva, the focus on the particular- she calls it ‘peripheral’ in her article- has so far been proposed to the corpus via using the terms of the general- here,she uses the term ‘central’. This implies the existence of an hegemony within the field, in which the general (or universal one could call it) assimilates the particular. Through most research, the particular is translated into general, through the process of which its particularity becomes a mere ‘object’ of a ‘test out’. This is how the research is accepted; this is how it is realized among other research. Surely, such critical perspective towards the interdependencies between central-peripheral or general-particular is the far end of the line; still, it’s being too pessimistic doesn’t disprove the rightful point it touches on, that is avoiding ethnocentrism. It’s obvious that, there’s a necessity of representing the particular from its own standpoint. Thick translation, none-translation, meta-translation are all exemplary proposals for a solution to the most accurate representation. And hopefully, as evolved, translation theory will find more of them.
4 Ocak 2010 Pazartesi
26 Aralık 2009 Cumartesi
Translation as an Insider
It’s known that postmodern era brought with itself new perspectives towards the milestones of Enlightenment thought such as ‘self’, ‘unity’ and on top of all ‘reality’; and perhaps it’s the cultural theory that has been affected by this new conception of world/life the most. The ‘post-’s and ‘de-’s of this new world have obviously converted all representations, constructions, unitarisms and linearisms into misrepresentations, deconstructions, fragmentations and diversions which has lead cultural theory to radical redefinitions. As a socio-linguistic phenomenon, translation has found its position within this new scheme as a central one, quite ready to absorb the new conceptualizations interfering in its sphere.
Presumably, it’s the field of post-colonial studies that has embraced the shifts in cultural theory the most. Adopting the post-modern fragmentation and anti-absolutism as a weapon of decolonization, as also pointed by both Douglas Robinson and Kate Sturge, recent studies in the field impose the same type of oppression ‘the other’ has been exposed to, through making the ‘self’ question itself. In her “The other in Display”, Kate Sturge exemplifies these questionings motivated by decolonization through such offered strategies as ‘metamuseums’, ‘highlighted translatedness’, and ‘displays about displays’. And as all other postmodern binaries, these types of self-retrospections would result in encountering the other in the self. Apparently, borders aren’t as clear-cut as they used to be. Today both the colonized and the colonizer have realized that, throughout the colonization period, they’ve become a part of one another.
The interference of these concerns of post-colonial studies in translation has bestowed the field (actually both fields) with a gigantic object of study. The studies searching for the position of translation among such concepts introduced by post-colonial studies as ‘multiculturalism’, ‘border cultures’ and ‘hybridization’ find the position they’ve searched for right at the centre of the debates; and it is realized that just as ‘culture’, ‘translation’ itself is at the edge of a radical redefinition. As in the case of Sherry Simon’s ‘interlingual creation’, for instance, translation is proposed not as a ‘meta-text’ written over an original one, but a component of the original text, a motive behind the creativity it displays.
In his Translation and Empire, Robinson refers to the pessimistic discussions of post-colonialists about ‘cultural untranslatibility’ (i.e. Homi Bhabha). The article of Sherry Simon is quite enlightening right at this point. Thinking translation as a practice over the ‘hybrid’ (one may call this practice as ‘retranslation’ or ‘backtranslation’ of the ‘native/pure’), in other words, leaving it outside the boundaries of the subject (that is the original text) through regarding it as a meta/post-practice, might lead to unfruitful problematizations where the role of translation is seen as insufficient, therefore unnecessary. Whereas, providing a look from the inside, Simon, Mehrez and Rafael present translation as an active agent within the composition process of the hybrid. From these all, it could be concluded that the post-modern scheme offers translation two options: 1) staying within the boundaries of being a meta-text and ending up with an ‘insufficiency’ (actually this is not a defeat also since for post-moderns no existence is sufficient), 2) embracing the hybrid, finding a position within its composition.
Surely, adopting being the ‘insider’ would require translational research a new methodology, since this brings forth new questions, conceptual backgrounds and agencies with itself. In Sherry Simon’s exemplifications, for instance, translation doesn’t merely present a point of interaction between two cultural and lingual systems; instead, within the texts of Brault, Brossard and Gagnon, it’s firstly the clash of literature and translation that is problematized. Surely this would also concern the interaction between two cultures and languages since, as both Simon and Mehrez imply, such interlingual creation (and the clash of literature and translation) stands for the in-between positionings brought by the border-cultures. Apparently, from the post-colonial perspective, the effaced borders between translation/original and translator/author have gradually become the metonymies of the post-colonial representation of the hybrid who is in between the culture of the colonizer and the colonized. And as mentioned above, converting this perspective into a translational one would require new research concerning new questions and embracing new objects of analysis, as a consequence of which the ceaseless redefinitions of translation would proceed.
References
Robinson, Douglas
1997 Translation and Empire
Simon, Sherry
1999 "Translating and Interlingual Creation in the Contact Zone"
Sturge, Kate
2006 "The Other in Display"
Presumably, it’s the field of post-colonial studies that has embraced the shifts in cultural theory the most. Adopting the post-modern fragmentation and anti-absolutism as a weapon of decolonization, as also pointed by both Douglas Robinson and Kate Sturge, recent studies in the field impose the same type of oppression ‘the other’ has been exposed to, through making the ‘self’ question itself. In her “The other in Display”, Kate Sturge exemplifies these questionings motivated by decolonization through such offered strategies as ‘metamuseums’, ‘highlighted translatedness’, and ‘displays about displays’. And as all other postmodern binaries, these types of self-retrospections would result in encountering the other in the self. Apparently, borders aren’t as clear-cut as they used to be. Today both the colonized and the colonizer have realized that, throughout the colonization period, they’ve become a part of one another.
The interference of these concerns of post-colonial studies in translation has bestowed the field (actually both fields) with a gigantic object of study. The studies searching for the position of translation among such concepts introduced by post-colonial studies as ‘multiculturalism’, ‘border cultures’ and ‘hybridization’ find the position they’ve searched for right at the centre of the debates; and it is realized that just as ‘culture’, ‘translation’ itself is at the edge of a radical redefinition. As in the case of Sherry Simon’s ‘interlingual creation’, for instance, translation is proposed not as a ‘meta-text’ written over an original one, but a component of the original text, a motive behind the creativity it displays.
In his Translation and Empire, Robinson refers to the pessimistic discussions of post-colonialists about ‘cultural untranslatibility’ (i.e. Homi Bhabha). The article of Sherry Simon is quite enlightening right at this point. Thinking translation as a practice over the ‘hybrid’ (one may call this practice as ‘retranslation’ or ‘backtranslation’ of the ‘native/pure’), in other words, leaving it outside the boundaries of the subject (that is the original text) through regarding it as a meta/post-practice, might lead to unfruitful problematizations where the role of translation is seen as insufficient, therefore unnecessary. Whereas, providing a look from the inside, Simon, Mehrez and Rafael present translation as an active agent within the composition process of the hybrid. From these all, it could be concluded that the post-modern scheme offers translation two options: 1) staying within the boundaries of being a meta-text and ending up with an ‘insufficiency’ (actually this is not a defeat also since for post-moderns no existence is sufficient), 2) embracing the hybrid, finding a position within its composition.
Surely, adopting being the ‘insider’ would require translational research a new methodology, since this brings forth new questions, conceptual backgrounds and agencies with itself. In Sherry Simon’s exemplifications, for instance, translation doesn’t merely present a point of interaction between two cultural and lingual systems; instead, within the texts of Brault, Brossard and Gagnon, it’s firstly the clash of literature and translation that is problematized. Surely this would also concern the interaction between two cultures and languages since, as both Simon and Mehrez imply, such interlingual creation (and the clash of literature and translation) stands for the in-between positionings brought by the border-cultures. Apparently, from the post-colonial perspective, the effaced borders between translation/original and translator/author have gradually become the metonymies of the post-colonial representation of the hybrid who is in between the culture of the colonizer and the colonized. And as mentioned above, converting this perspective into a translational one would require new research concerning new questions and embracing new objects of analysis, as a consequence of which the ceaseless redefinitions of translation would proceed.
References
Robinson, Douglas
1997 Translation and Empire
Simon, Sherry
1999 "Translating and Interlingual Creation in the Contact Zone"
Sturge, Kate
2006 "The Other in Display"
17 Aralık 2009 Perşembe
Conscious Choices vs Internalized Actions
Representing translation as a social phenomenon arouses the necessity of developing certain theoretical and methodological tools. Since the establishment of the systemic perspective and norms as main means of analysis in translational research, theoreticians have proposed various of such tools that would serve for both the justification of the social position of translation and the extension of the borders of research in the field. The ‘from retrospective to prospective’ methodology of Toury, ‘unearthing internalized discursive relations’ of Lefevere, ‘ideology-oriented focus on omitted particularities’ of Venuti and other postcolonial scholars provide us with clear exemplifications of such tools. Not disregarding the fact that these all represent the voices from different positions which belong to their particular space and time, it could be said that they all are embraced by the same perspective that dominates the discipline: the social perspective. And perhaps, it wouldn’t be wrong to include the ‘field’, ‘capital’, ‘habitus’ and ‘illusio’ of Boudieu into this ‘system of theoretical tools of translation research’.
At first sight, the importation of Bourdieu’s theory of action in translation theory doesn’t seem to bring a very innovative perspective in that such theorists as Even-Zohar, Toury and Lefevere have prepared the grounds for analysing the complex network in which the product, the producer and other external dynamics interact. Perhaps it’s Bourdieu’s strong emphasis on not the ‘action’ and ‘agent’, but the internalized rationals behind them that has attracted this much attention. As mentioned by both Jean-Marc Gouanvic and Moira Inghilleri, this strong call for action in analysing the background overcomes the abstractism of polysystem theory. Compared to Lefevere’s theory that is acknowledged to serve for the same purpose, the lack of the terms ‘ideology’ and ‘patronage’ - despite the implications of their existence- seems to carry Bourdieu’s theory to more empiric grounds. Otherwise, benefitting from constructivism, both theories provide the research with a framework in which internalized relations could be unearthed.
How sound is carrying the action theory that opposes the rationalist vision to translation theory? It’s hard to find an answer to this question. The journey of the researcher from `deriving out the conscious choices of the translator` to `seeing texts as the points of interaction in which the internal and external coincide` definitely entails redefinining the position of the translated text and the translator, which are still the main components of the discipline. Adopting the translator as a representor of the society to whose functioning he serves for might threaten the visibility (in terms of Vermeer, `expertise`) he has hardly acquired within centuries, his authority over the product, and the position of the product as an autonomous being itself. In other words, seeing all these main components as a part of the bigger construction, evaluating their functioning in terms of their contribution to that bigger construction might depart the researcher’s focus from translational perspective to that of sociological perspective.
Perhaps, it would be right to define the focus of study first. As mentioned above, these all are theoretical tools that provide the researcher with a framework upon which he’d attempt to build a sound argument. Compared to Latour’s argument, Bourdieusian approach might seem too homogenizing. Similarly, right next to Toury’s DTS, Venuti’s study might remain too ideology-oriented. Afterall, as mentioned by Luise Von Flotow, there’s no harm in being optimistic and embracing the disunity.
At first sight, the importation of Bourdieu’s theory of action in translation theory doesn’t seem to bring a very innovative perspective in that such theorists as Even-Zohar, Toury and Lefevere have prepared the grounds for analysing the complex network in which the product, the producer and other external dynamics interact. Perhaps it’s Bourdieu’s strong emphasis on not the ‘action’ and ‘agent’, but the internalized rationals behind them that has attracted this much attention. As mentioned by both Jean-Marc Gouanvic and Moira Inghilleri, this strong call for action in analysing the background overcomes the abstractism of polysystem theory. Compared to Lefevere’s theory that is acknowledged to serve for the same purpose, the lack of the terms ‘ideology’ and ‘patronage’ - despite the implications of their existence- seems to carry Bourdieu’s theory to more empiric grounds. Otherwise, benefitting from constructivism, both theories provide the research with a framework in which internalized relations could be unearthed.
How sound is carrying the action theory that opposes the rationalist vision to translation theory? It’s hard to find an answer to this question. The journey of the researcher from `deriving out the conscious choices of the translator` to `seeing texts as the points of interaction in which the internal and external coincide` definitely entails redefinining the position of the translated text and the translator, which are still the main components of the discipline. Adopting the translator as a representor of the society to whose functioning he serves for might threaten the visibility (in terms of Vermeer, `expertise`) he has hardly acquired within centuries, his authority over the product, and the position of the product as an autonomous being itself. In other words, seeing all these main components as a part of the bigger construction, evaluating their functioning in terms of their contribution to that bigger construction might depart the researcher’s focus from translational perspective to that of sociological perspective.
Perhaps, it would be right to define the focus of study first. As mentioned above, these all are theoretical tools that provide the researcher with a framework upon which he’d attempt to build a sound argument. Compared to Latour’s argument, Bourdieusian approach might seem too homogenizing. Similarly, right next to Toury’s DTS, Venuti’s study might remain too ideology-oriented. Afterall, as mentioned by Luise Von Flotow, there’s no harm in being optimistic and embracing the disunity.
11 Aralık 2009 Cuma
Problematizing Post-colonial's 'Hybridization' in terms of Translation
Today, it has largely been acknowledged that translation has been used as a means of establishing, sustaining and subverting hegemonic relations, which is a case the discipline seems to be so proud of. The gradual decline of grand disciplines and the rise of interdisciplines have surely contributed a lot to this type of a wide perspective. Now that, with an attempt to unearth the implicit channels through which translation passes (or at times built by translation), research on translation benefits from other disciplines- with pure legitimacy- to achieve the most accurate positionings.[1] As exemplified by Douglas Robinson, one of the main of such ‘other disciplines’ is post-colonial studies.
Robinson’s Translation and Empire mainly gives an insight upon the relatively new field of postcolonial translation studies, pointing its recent position within the discipline and the link established between the postcolonial studies and translation studies. Right at the beginning of the book, Robinson puts forward the question of ‘who benefits from whom’, an argument to be continued throughout the book. There’s an apparent peripheral position these postcolonial scholars occupy, and as displayed through the examples- the works of Niranjana, Rafael and Cheyfitz- one could easily come to the conclusion that the ‘positionings’ of translation studies (in terms of the end-point of Toury’s methodology) get to become ‘justifications’. In other words, these postcolonial works seem to adopt translation as a means of justifying their ideological perspectives. They too define translation- its role, method and position within that particular context- but the questions regarding the field are mostly unanswered, whereas the ones regarding the postcolonial context find clear answers. The questions posed by ‘hybridization’, which is quite praised and perfectly answered by postcolonial scholars, are the most visible ones that remain unanswered in terms of translation studies.
Within the book, Robinson makes a remarkable introduction to the new approach towards the ‘hybrid’ brought by the recent postcolonial studies. As opposed to the nostalgic nationalist myths brought by the essentialist postcolonial studies- which believe in the possibility of a purification after the end of colonization period, the recent studies adopt ‘decolonization’ in a different aspect, through embracing the product of colonization, that is the ‘hybrid’. Presumably, here one could associate the ‘hybrid native’ with a ‘translated text’ (the translated version of the native after being translated by the colonizer); both represent the clash of two cultural and lingual systems, both carry a ‘dual nature’ in Popovic’s terms. However, when it comes to ‘translating the hybrid’, the scheme gets blurred. The post-structuralist traces carried by these studies replace the ‘evil position’ of translation (proposed by past-oriented postcolonial studies) with a ‘utopic’ one. ‘The evil colonizer/anthropologist/ethnographer has defined/translated the colonized/savage/native in a way that would serve for his own benefits’ type of comprehension of the former has apparently lead to a call for ‘fighting the colonizer back with his own tool’ of the latter, which reposits ‘translation’ and make it stand at the side of the ‘native’ this time.
Here comes the major translational issue brought by this new means of ‘fighting back’- that is embracing hybridity and making the native the translator this time. In the second chapter of Translation and Empire, Robinson indicates the main point the proponents of ‘culture turn’ and ‘power turn’ diverge at: the former ‘is known for its explorations of the control of translation by the target-cultural system’, whereas the latter focuses on ‘the political control and influence exerted by dominant of hegemonic source cultures’ (Robinson 1997: 36). However, there’s a focal point at which they clash: ‘the more a given society imports texts, the more it tends to be unstable’ (ibid: 37). The influx of new discourses and practices through translation is constant; therefore, the position of the receiving culture is never stable since it is exposed to a constant change.
To such post-colonial scholars as Homi Bhabha, these hybrid and unstable cultures are untranslatable (Actually, since all cultures are hybrid in one way or another, no culture is translatable).[2] This assumption could prove accuracy if translation is seen as the practice of fixing cultures, finding fixed differences in the first step, and establishing fixed bridges in between afterwards. However, on the other side, isn’t translation also the practice of ‘mixing’ cultures? How else have those cultures become hybrid? (Here, I suppose, one needs to bear the association of the hybrid native with translated text in mind) Moreover, if we assume the accuracy of both sides, has translation become the agent of its own impossibility through mixing the very first two cultures on earth?
Unfortunately neither Niranjana’s ‘retranslation’ and Raphael’s ‘mistranslation’, nor Mehrez’s ‘in between languages’ provide these questions with sufficient answers. As Robinson indicates in the last chapter of his book, ‘foreignizing’ a text displays a mere interpretation among the thousands of others and claiming it to be the only accurate one challenges the post-structuralist nature of these scholars. Besides, asserting one dominant ‘right way’ doesn’t seem to be an act of ‘decolonization’ but that of ‘recolonization’. Nonetheless, it’s obvious that these scholars have provided the discipline with prolific grounds upon which other ‘right ways’ will be found in the near future.
[1] Here, I relate the positioning with the methodology Toury proposes for translation studies, one of the main aims of which is to understand the ‘position of translation’ within that specific culture (that is, target culture).
[2] And the ones who support translatability and see translation as a tool of decolonization, as in the works of Niranjana and Raphael, are insufficient in carrying their theories in the practical level.
References
Robinson, Douglas
1997 Translation and Empire
Robinson’s Translation and Empire mainly gives an insight upon the relatively new field of postcolonial translation studies, pointing its recent position within the discipline and the link established between the postcolonial studies and translation studies. Right at the beginning of the book, Robinson puts forward the question of ‘who benefits from whom’, an argument to be continued throughout the book. There’s an apparent peripheral position these postcolonial scholars occupy, and as displayed through the examples- the works of Niranjana, Rafael and Cheyfitz- one could easily come to the conclusion that the ‘positionings’ of translation studies (in terms of the end-point of Toury’s methodology) get to become ‘justifications’. In other words, these postcolonial works seem to adopt translation as a means of justifying their ideological perspectives. They too define translation- its role, method and position within that particular context- but the questions regarding the field are mostly unanswered, whereas the ones regarding the postcolonial context find clear answers. The questions posed by ‘hybridization’, which is quite praised and perfectly answered by postcolonial scholars, are the most visible ones that remain unanswered in terms of translation studies.
Within the book, Robinson makes a remarkable introduction to the new approach towards the ‘hybrid’ brought by the recent postcolonial studies. As opposed to the nostalgic nationalist myths brought by the essentialist postcolonial studies- which believe in the possibility of a purification after the end of colonization period, the recent studies adopt ‘decolonization’ in a different aspect, through embracing the product of colonization, that is the ‘hybrid’. Presumably, here one could associate the ‘hybrid native’ with a ‘translated text’ (the translated version of the native after being translated by the colonizer); both represent the clash of two cultural and lingual systems, both carry a ‘dual nature’ in Popovic’s terms. However, when it comes to ‘translating the hybrid’, the scheme gets blurred. The post-structuralist traces carried by these studies replace the ‘evil position’ of translation (proposed by past-oriented postcolonial studies) with a ‘utopic’ one. ‘The evil colonizer/anthropologist/ethnographer has defined/translated the colonized/savage/native in a way that would serve for his own benefits’ type of comprehension of the former has apparently lead to a call for ‘fighting the colonizer back with his own tool’ of the latter, which reposits ‘translation’ and make it stand at the side of the ‘native’ this time.
Here comes the major translational issue brought by this new means of ‘fighting back’- that is embracing hybridity and making the native the translator this time. In the second chapter of Translation and Empire, Robinson indicates the main point the proponents of ‘culture turn’ and ‘power turn’ diverge at: the former ‘is known for its explorations of the control of translation by the target-cultural system’, whereas the latter focuses on ‘the political control and influence exerted by dominant of hegemonic source cultures’ (Robinson 1997: 36). However, there’s a focal point at which they clash: ‘the more a given society imports texts, the more it tends to be unstable’ (ibid: 37). The influx of new discourses and practices through translation is constant; therefore, the position of the receiving culture is never stable since it is exposed to a constant change.
To such post-colonial scholars as Homi Bhabha, these hybrid and unstable cultures are untranslatable (Actually, since all cultures are hybrid in one way or another, no culture is translatable).[2] This assumption could prove accuracy if translation is seen as the practice of fixing cultures, finding fixed differences in the first step, and establishing fixed bridges in between afterwards. However, on the other side, isn’t translation also the practice of ‘mixing’ cultures? How else have those cultures become hybrid? (Here, I suppose, one needs to bear the association of the hybrid native with translated text in mind) Moreover, if we assume the accuracy of both sides, has translation become the agent of its own impossibility through mixing the very first two cultures on earth?
Unfortunately neither Niranjana’s ‘retranslation’ and Raphael’s ‘mistranslation’, nor Mehrez’s ‘in between languages’ provide these questions with sufficient answers. As Robinson indicates in the last chapter of his book, ‘foreignizing’ a text displays a mere interpretation among the thousands of others and claiming it to be the only accurate one challenges the post-structuralist nature of these scholars. Besides, asserting one dominant ‘right way’ doesn’t seem to be an act of ‘decolonization’ but that of ‘recolonization’. Nonetheless, it’s obvious that these scholars have provided the discipline with prolific grounds upon which other ‘right ways’ will be found in the near future.
[1] Here, I relate the positioning with the methodology Toury proposes for translation studies, one of the main aims of which is to understand the ‘position of translation’ within that specific culture (that is, target culture).
[2] And the ones who support translatability and see translation as a tool of decolonization, as in the works of Niranjana and Raphael, are insufficient in carrying their theories in the practical level.
References
Robinson, Douglas
1997 Translation and Empire
2 Aralık 2009 Çarşamba
Relativity as a Solution
Late studies within the field of translation seem to adopt ‘representation of reality’ as a point of departure in order to present translation as an active agent of culture/history construction. Here, the representation in question has nothing to do with Saussure’s structuralist view adhering each signifier to a specific signified. Together with the development of anti-essentialist views in phenomenology, rather than a Saussurrean systematic and stable nature, language has started to be qualified with such concepts as dynamicity, relativity and heterogenity. The denial of a universally absolute real (and even if there’s one language is incapable of represent that!) has been a great impact on author-oriented approaches in literary studies. As for translation, this seems to be both a challenge and a way out of the hegemonia of the source text, since now, both sides of the line (ST and TT) can be classified as a ‘tendency’.[1]
As Rosemary Arrojo also problematizes in her article, the approach of the poststructuralist era has shifted the roles of the literary agents (here I mean the reader, the author and the translator). Neither Jane Austen nor Emily Bronte would wish to provide their readers with a labyrinth in which a battle of power is about to start. Rather, there exists this ‘fill in these blanks and achieve the truth’ type of authorial encouragement promising the reader a purification- or eudaimonia one may call it- in the end. The involvement of the struggle of power within fiction is rather modern and seems to be appraised by contemporary critiques. Regarding the authorial reality as solely one among millions of others, today, heterogeneity is promoted as a productive object of study for the academy.
With a translational concern, Arrojo indicates the necessity of embracing plurality and rejecting fixed meanings in saving the translator from being a ‘kleptomaniac’ who steals author’s reality, and therefore authority. As implied within the article, it’s the translator’s own legitimate reality and authority presented within the target text. This is a different perspective towards the concept of translator’s in/visibility: Closed-texts (the texts whose meaning is considered as fixed and absolute) are the ‘textual properties’ of the author. Any intervention into this ‘private property’ constitutes a ‘crime’. Thus, translators are ‘urged to be as invisible and as humble as possible’ (Arrojo 2002: 74).
Luise Von Flotow’s study on the disunity of feminist approaches adopts a similar attitude in terms of embracing relativity. Here, the diversification of feminist discourse in translation studies, as exemplified with varying approaches of Spivak, Gilliam and Arrojo, is proposed far from leading the discipline to disintegration. Instead, the existence of different perspectives, and different ‘realities’ as Arrojo would call them, leads to highly productive work. Besides, it’s clearly seen that what Arrojo refers to in explaining the production of fiction is rather applicable here: the will to power triggers creativity, since each discourse is ‘constructed’ to become the ‘only one’.
Apparently, in terms of the evolution of translation studies, these contemporary theorists’ adopting the relativity aspect of post-structuralism is as much a beneficial method as Even-Zohar’s adopting the systemic approach of Russian Formalists. Such attempts bestow the field with legitimacies of various types: the legitimacy of the target text constructed, the legitimacy of translator’s task and interference, and the legitimacy of the scholars’ studies in the academy. However, it would be highly paradoxical if this attitude of embracing the relativity/dynamicity becomes the discipline’s ‘static position’ in the near future.
References
Arrojo, Rosemary
2002 “Writing, Interpreting, and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning: Scenes from Kafka, Borges, and Kosztolanyi”
Luise Von Flotow
1998 “Dis-Unity and Diversity: Feminist Approaches to Translation Studies”
[1] This is a reference to Popovic’s statement regarding source text as a constant and the target text as a tendency.
As Rosemary Arrojo also problematizes in her article, the approach of the poststructuralist era has shifted the roles of the literary agents (here I mean the reader, the author and the translator). Neither Jane Austen nor Emily Bronte would wish to provide their readers with a labyrinth in which a battle of power is about to start. Rather, there exists this ‘fill in these blanks and achieve the truth’ type of authorial encouragement promising the reader a purification- or eudaimonia one may call it- in the end. The involvement of the struggle of power within fiction is rather modern and seems to be appraised by contemporary critiques. Regarding the authorial reality as solely one among millions of others, today, heterogeneity is promoted as a productive object of study for the academy.
With a translational concern, Arrojo indicates the necessity of embracing plurality and rejecting fixed meanings in saving the translator from being a ‘kleptomaniac’ who steals author’s reality, and therefore authority. As implied within the article, it’s the translator’s own legitimate reality and authority presented within the target text. This is a different perspective towards the concept of translator’s in/visibility: Closed-texts (the texts whose meaning is considered as fixed and absolute) are the ‘textual properties’ of the author. Any intervention into this ‘private property’ constitutes a ‘crime’. Thus, translators are ‘urged to be as invisible and as humble as possible’ (Arrojo 2002: 74).
Luise Von Flotow’s study on the disunity of feminist approaches adopts a similar attitude in terms of embracing relativity. Here, the diversification of feminist discourse in translation studies, as exemplified with varying approaches of Spivak, Gilliam and Arrojo, is proposed far from leading the discipline to disintegration. Instead, the existence of different perspectives, and different ‘realities’ as Arrojo would call them, leads to highly productive work. Besides, it’s clearly seen that what Arrojo refers to in explaining the production of fiction is rather applicable here: the will to power triggers creativity, since each discourse is ‘constructed’ to become the ‘only one’.
Apparently, in terms of the evolution of translation studies, these contemporary theorists’ adopting the relativity aspect of post-structuralism is as much a beneficial method as Even-Zohar’s adopting the systemic approach of Russian Formalists. Such attempts bestow the field with legitimacies of various types: the legitimacy of the target text constructed, the legitimacy of translator’s task and interference, and the legitimacy of the scholars’ studies in the academy. However, it would be highly paradoxical if this attitude of embracing the relativity/dynamicity becomes the discipline’s ‘static position’ in the near future.
References
Arrojo, Rosemary
2002 “Writing, Interpreting, and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning: Scenes from Kafka, Borges, and Kosztolanyi”
Luise Von Flotow
1998 “Dis-Unity and Diversity: Feminist Approaches to Translation Studies”
[1] This is a reference to Popovic’s statement regarding source text as a constant and the target text as a tendency.
12 Kasım 2009 Perşembe
A Brief Look at the Three "Rewritings" of Bram Stoker's Dracula
Three consecutive publishings of Dracula in Turkish, that are in 1997, 1998 and 2003, display observable differences concerning the textual and extra-textual features they’ve adopted in representing the original work of Bram Stoker. Without a focused textual comparison, the only thing they have in common seems to be the existence of a Dracula figure in all. Otherwise, with a quick look, it’s realized that the setting for the first book is Istanbul, the second one seems to have leapt out of the movie, and the third one is a Victorian novel making the critic of the era’s moral values. Heading from the diversities between these three different versions, it wouldn’t be hard to achieve some of the norms adopted within both ‘rewriting’ and publishing process.
The first two rewritings are published by the same publishing house, Kamer Yayınları. Publishing the Istanbul version of the novel first, then introducing the more ‘adequate’ one later seems to be a conscious strategy. The forewords within these two that direct one to such a conclusion. Within the foreword of the 1997 edition, it’s revealed that the book has already been published in 20’s under the title ‘Kazıklı Voyvoda’, but it wasn’t until 50’s that it was adapted to a movie and both the novel and the movie acquired fame. Actually the edition of the 20’s is worth a study by itself, in that it is a great example of rewriting a source text through adopting target culture norms. Besides replacing the original names with Turkish ones, the usage of Kur’an instead of Bible and the elimination of the crosses from the settings reveal either the cultural constraints the target text author is exposed to or the ideology internalized by him. (surely both is possible also)
Re-editing this book under the title ‘Drakula İstanbul’da’ in1997 is another matter of debate; in that, there’s an obvious marketing concern here that aims to benefit from the movie’s success. The fact that Kamer Yayınları published the more ‘adequate’ (here the word is used in Toury's terms) translation of Dracula one year after publishing this Istanbul version (through lots of references to the first attempt) may be taken as another marketing concern. Here, it’s obvious that the publishing house attempts to compose a ‘Serie of Dracula’ which regards all types of metadiscourse developed around the original text within both source and target cultures. The movie, the re-edition, the new edition (the first translation as they call this), the biography of Bram Stoker, the journey of the novel within history, and surely the forewords that introduce the texts all serve for this type of a compilation.
Here, there’s another question to be asked: Why would re-publish this 1920 version today? It’s for sure that there are hundreds of historical works waiting for such a second birth. Here the social dynamics intervene into the scene. In 90’s there might be some shift in readership that has directed Kamer Yayınları to Dracula; an interest towards the works of horror and fantasy might have arisen. For the researcher this may be a point of departure. S/he could search for other works of the same genre that has been re-introduced to the system in the same time period. If there’s none, this would also be used as a data that indicates the pioneering role this specific publishing house has adopted. In this case, the researcher could look at what other texts of this genre have been publised by this publishing house. Has it continued such a pioneering role? If so, has it been influential on the development of the system or have these reintroductions remained as peripheral activities?
Lastly, in the 2003 version published by Ithaki Yayınları, there seems to be an attempt of introducing the work as a 'novel' in the conventional sense. This could be taken as a mode of differentiation regarding the industry, in that a different type of readership might have been determined for this specific edition. It is introduced as a ‘critique of the Victorian ethics and scientific perspective’ as revealed in the short passage on the back cover. Apparently, this latest 'rewriting' attempts to raise associations other than ‘horror’.
All these remind the fact that the translations are the products of certain decisions; obviously there were hundreds of them before both the translator and the publisher (and other agents involved within the process). Whether these decisions are conscious or unconscious could be unearthed through a focused look, which is the scholar's task as Lefevere reveals. Displaying these would reveal what kind of constraints the 'recreator' was exposed to. It's through such a path one would achieve the norms applied within (and around) the translated texts.
The first two rewritings are published by the same publishing house, Kamer Yayınları. Publishing the Istanbul version of the novel first, then introducing the more ‘adequate’ one later seems to be a conscious strategy. The forewords within these two that direct one to such a conclusion. Within the foreword of the 1997 edition, it’s revealed that the book has already been published in 20’s under the title ‘Kazıklı Voyvoda’, but it wasn’t until 50’s that it was adapted to a movie and both the novel and the movie acquired fame. Actually the edition of the 20’s is worth a study by itself, in that it is a great example of rewriting a source text through adopting target culture norms. Besides replacing the original names with Turkish ones, the usage of Kur’an instead of Bible and the elimination of the crosses from the settings reveal either the cultural constraints the target text author is exposed to or the ideology internalized by him. (surely both is possible also)
Re-editing this book under the title ‘Drakula İstanbul’da’ in1997 is another matter of debate; in that, there’s an obvious marketing concern here that aims to benefit from the movie’s success. The fact that Kamer Yayınları published the more ‘adequate’ (here the word is used in Toury's terms) translation of Dracula one year after publishing this Istanbul version (through lots of references to the first attempt) may be taken as another marketing concern. Here, it’s obvious that the publishing house attempts to compose a ‘Serie of Dracula’ which regards all types of metadiscourse developed around the original text within both source and target cultures. The movie, the re-edition, the new edition (the first translation as they call this), the biography of Bram Stoker, the journey of the novel within history, and surely the forewords that introduce the texts all serve for this type of a compilation.
Here, there’s another question to be asked: Why would re-publish this 1920 version today? It’s for sure that there are hundreds of historical works waiting for such a second birth. Here the social dynamics intervene into the scene. In 90’s there might be some shift in readership that has directed Kamer Yayınları to Dracula; an interest towards the works of horror and fantasy might have arisen. For the researcher this may be a point of departure. S/he could search for other works of the same genre that has been re-introduced to the system in the same time period. If there’s none, this would also be used as a data that indicates the pioneering role this specific publishing house has adopted. In this case, the researcher could look at what other texts of this genre have been publised by this publishing house. Has it continued such a pioneering role? If so, has it been influential on the development of the system or have these reintroductions remained as peripheral activities?
Lastly, in the 2003 version published by Ithaki Yayınları, there seems to be an attempt of introducing the work as a 'novel' in the conventional sense. This could be taken as a mode of differentiation regarding the industry, in that a different type of readership might have been determined for this specific edition. It is introduced as a ‘critique of the Victorian ethics and scientific perspective’ as revealed in the short passage on the back cover. Apparently, this latest 'rewriting' attempts to raise associations other than ‘horror’.
All these remind the fact that the translations are the products of certain decisions; obviously there were hundreds of them before both the translator and the publisher (and other agents involved within the process). Whether these decisions are conscious or unconscious could be unearthed through a focused look, which is the scholar's task as Lefevere reveals. Displaying these would reveal what kind of constraints the 'recreator' was exposed to. It's through such a path one would achieve the norms applied within (and around) the translated texts.
5 Kasım 2009 Perşembe
On Lefevere's Systemic Thinking
Today, systemic thinking has been adopted as a fundamental perspective within the field of translation studies. This not only elevates the discipline’s main object of analysis, but also the position of the agents involved (the researcher and translator) into a higher level. Studying translations within a broader context is a rather complicated task at times; yet, at the same time, the researcher is freed from the elitist type of textual comparisons and acquires a position that is socially recognizable. Especially such studies adopting the systemic thinking as that of Lefevere’s, the task of the scholar is concretely legitimized. In his Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame,the researcher is defined as a social expert that is expected to unearth the internalized discursive relations surrounding what Kant calls ‘thing in itself’.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of Lefevere’s theory is the link he establishes between constructivism and polysystem theory. By doing so, Lefevere overcomes what’s mostly criticised within systemic thinking, that is its abstractism and lacking agency. The addition of such components as ‘ideology’ and ‘patronage’ within the grand scheme enables his theory to be classified as more realist and down to earth than prior systemic theorists.
In his book, Lefevere heads from indicating the existence of a grand system of culture and its sub-systems of literature, science, politics etc that are in constant interaction. All these sub-systems display an internal functioning and possess a inner control mechanism, and simultaneously, they are controlled by the greater mechanism of the grand culture. This internal and external controls are in close-contact, in that the former follows the rules devised by the latter. As seen, all dynamic within and around systems is a product of compiled conscious practices.
In the second and third chapters of the book, Lefevere engages in defining the position and function of translation- he classifies it among other types of rewritings- relating it with patronage and poetics consecutively. Firstly, as all other types of rewriting, translation is also dominated by both internal and external control mechanisms. Besides, as all othre rewritings it may choose to remain conservative and obey rules, or become innovative and violate rules. (Here, it should be pointed that Lefevere touches on the cases in which innovative function of translation also serves for sustaining the existing patronage, but these are the cases of exception.) The fact that translation has a manipulative character- in that it is able to create ‘images’, in other words, it 'naturalizes' things through making the artificial seem natural- increases the significance of its function within the whole picture and displays its contribution to the ‘cultural construction’. When it comes to poetics- that is in close contact with patronage and ideology as all other sub-systems since they all are dominated by them- Lefevere displays the multiple role adopted by translation. Certainly, it plays a significant role in all stages: it is a means of establishing, sustaining the dominance of the existing models, introduces new models to prevent stagnation, and too innovative at times, causes a shift in the hierarchical roles. Briefly, it has the capacity of both establishing and destroying. And as exemplified by Lefevere himself within the book, studying them reveal a lot of this whole ‘complex’, ‘interrelatedly functioning’ and ‘historical’ discursive relations.
Concludingly, as Douglas Robinson says, systemic approach provides Lefevere a fruitful framework. It enables him to embrace and explicate both the internal and surrounding dynamics. Though there are things he mentions that does not exist in polysystem theory, we could say that none of his statements contradict systemic thinking. As a further outcome of adopting the theory of polysystem, Lefevere stays out of the boundries of political activism and doesn’t take a side. According to his theory, the researcher is to stay within the value-free empiric boundaries and analyse with a purely descriptive manner. What’s interesting is the fact that the main components of Lefevere’s theory, that is ideology and patronage, are subjected to such descriptivism. As Douglas Robinson says, the power described by Lefevere is value-free, unlike the one described by post-colonial theorists. This also sets him apart from his Foucauldian point of departure in that the discursive relations aren’t implied to be destroyed, but are to be unearthed with a ‘purely empirical’ focus. [1]
[1] In Foucauldian way of thinking, people are not expected to destroy the implicit discursive relations too, but the reason to this is such a practice’s impossibility. Actually, here, we could correspond both theories in that there’s always a hegemonia in both. Lefevere also mentions the ongoing hegemonic process within systems. Once the existing patronage ceases functioning, it is replaced by another. One could take this as an implication of the impossibility of eliminating power from the scene which would adhere Lefevere a social activism. Lefevere, unlike Foucault, indicates a change, but the touchstones of ‘ideology’, ‘power’ and ‘patronage’ are always there. It’s only their agents and ways of dominating that change. The examples provided by Lefevere is a clear justification of this.
References
Lefevere, Andre
Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame
Robinson, Douglas
What is Translation?
Perhaps the greatest achievement of Lefevere’s theory is the link he establishes between constructivism and polysystem theory. By doing so, Lefevere overcomes what’s mostly criticised within systemic thinking, that is its abstractism and lacking agency. The addition of such components as ‘ideology’ and ‘patronage’ within the grand scheme enables his theory to be classified as more realist and down to earth than prior systemic theorists.
In his book, Lefevere heads from indicating the existence of a grand system of culture and its sub-systems of literature, science, politics etc that are in constant interaction. All these sub-systems display an internal functioning and possess a inner control mechanism, and simultaneously, they are controlled by the greater mechanism of the grand culture. This internal and external controls are in close-contact, in that the former follows the rules devised by the latter. As seen, all dynamic within and around systems is a product of compiled conscious practices.
In the second and third chapters of the book, Lefevere engages in defining the position and function of translation- he classifies it among other types of rewritings- relating it with patronage and poetics consecutively. Firstly, as all other types of rewriting, translation is also dominated by both internal and external control mechanisms. Besides, as all othre rewritings it may choose to remain conservative and obey rules, or become innovative and violate rules. (Here, it should be pointed that Lefevere touches on the cases in which innovative function of translation also serves for sustaining the existing patronage, but these are the cases of exception.) The fact that translation has a manipulative character- in that it is able to create ‘images’, in other words, it 'naturalizes' things through making the artificial seem natural- increases the significance of its function within the whole picture and displays its contribution to the ‘cultural construction’. When it comes to poetics- that is in close contact with patronage and ideology as all other sub-systems since they all are dominated by them- Lefevere displays the multiple role adopted by translation. Certainly, it plays a significant role in all stages: it is a means of establishing, sustaining the dominance of the existing models, introduces new models to prevent stagnation, and too innovative at times, causes a shift in the hierarchical roles. Briefly, it has the capacity of both establishing and destroying. And as exemplified by Lefevere himself within the book, studying them reveal a lot of this whole ‘complex’, ‘interrelatedly functioning’ and ‘historical’ discursive relations.
Concludingly, as Douglas Robinson says, systemic approach provides Lefevere a fruitful framework. It enables him to embrace and explicate both the internal and surrounding dynamics. Though there are things he mentions that does not exist in polysystem theory, we could say that none of his statements contradict systemic thinking. As a further outcome of adopting the theory of polysystem, Lefevere stays out of the boundries of political activism and doesn’t take a side. According to his theory, the researcher is to stay within the value-free empiric boundaries and analyse with a purely descriptive manner. What’s interesting is the fact that the main components of Lefevere’s theory, that is ideology and patronage, are subjected to such descriptivism. As Douglas Robinson says, the power described by Lefevere is value-free, unlike the one described by post-colonial theorists. This also sets him apart from his Foucauldian point of departure in that the discursive relations aren’t implied to be destroyed, but are to be unearthed with a ‘purely empirical’ focus. [1]
[1] In Foucauldian way of thinking, people are not expected to destroy the implicit discursive relations too, but the reason to this is such a practice’s impossibility. Actually, here, we could correspond both theories in that there’s always a hegemonia in both. Lefevere also mentions the ongoing hegemonic process within systems. Once the existing patronage ceases functioning, it is replaced by another. One could take this as an implication of the impossibility of eliminating power from the scene which would adhere Lefevere a social activism. Lefevere, unlike Foucault, indicates a change, but the touchstones of ‘ideology’, ‘power’ and ‘patronage’ are always there. It’s only their agents and ways of dominating that change. The examples provided by Lefevere is a clear justification of this.
References
Lefevere, Andre
Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame
Robinson, Douglas
What is Translation?
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)