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"
26 Aralık 2009 Cumartesi
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?
31 Ekim 2009 Cumartesi
Translation Studies as an Empirical Discipline
It’s well known that, today, Gideon Toury’s redefinition of translation as an empirical phenomenon is considered among the most popular of such attempts aiming to free the discipline from its ‘speculative’ impression. As seen in the Bibliographies of the current research in the field, both the exemplary methodology and the conceptual tools offered keep providing a fruitful framework and a sound approach. Just like Even-Zohar’s ‘repertoire’, ‘central-peripheral’, ‘primary-secondary’ etc, today, Toury’s ‘norms’ and ‘laws’ are the mostly referred concepts within studies that take translation as a cultural phenomena.
In Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Toury follows a rather systematic path in siting translation on empirical grounds. Heading from establishing interrelations between the sub-branches of Holmes’s map, Toury bestows the descriptive branch with a pivotal position and embarks upon problematizing the internal organization of this branch. As also frequently emphasized in the next chapters, one can’t conduct a function, product or process oriented study in isolation since these all the determinants of one another and work for the construction of the bigger picture- that is the conception of translation within the particular culture- which is the main concern of Toury. He establishes these types of interdependencies between various concepts concerning the field in order to reveal translation’s being a complex cultural phenomenon necessitating a deeper focus on the empirical level.
‘It’s only through DTS that hypothesis could be tested’ says Toury; by doing so, he puts a rational behind the importance he adheres to the descriptive branch of the discipline. Afterwards, comes his exemplary methodology for such empirical research: heading from the product, the interrelations, specific conditions, norms, and ultimately laws will be driven out. As seen, the researcher is expected to show a progress from empirical to the hypothetical level. It should be stated that, in Toury’s theory, all descriptive study (that involves defining interrelations, deriving regularities of behavior, searchig for motivations and constraints) works for a hypothesis of a higher and more general level. However much the importance of particular is stressed, those particulars are aimed to form a general unity. One shouldn’t forget that, there are still implications of a general theory of translation in Toury’s theory, which departs him from contemporary scholars of ‘power turn’ that embrace ‘heterogenity’ in a different manner.
Since an analysis ofan empirical research starts from the product, it’s the target text- or ‘assumed translation’ in Toury’s terms- that the research begins with. Together with this fact, it’s the ultimate aim’s being ‘deriving out what is concerned as translational in target culture’ that makes Toury’s approach target-oriented. There are initial assumptions that the researcher take for granted in approaching the product:
'...an assumed translation would be regarded as any target-culture text for which there are reasons to tentatively posit the existence of another text, in another culture and language, from which it was presumedly derived by transfer operations and to which it is now tied by certain relationships, some of which may be regarded- within that culture- as necessary and/or sufficient.' (Toury 1995: 35)
With these assumptions in mind, the process of analysis starts. First the individual text is studied (here the question of what makes the text a translation in that particular culture/context is asked), then comes the comparative analysis and the establishment of possible relations between the source and target texts, and finally, generalizations concerning the whole process are formulated. (As seen, there’s a transition from a retrospective perspective to the prospective one here: first form the existing product, the regularities of behavior are deriven out, then comes the generalizations and possible guidelines for future behavior) In this three-phased process, the main (and perhaps only) stage of the traditional approach- that is the comparison- seems to be subordinated to contextualization. However, later problematizations of the concept of ‘equivalence’ within the book reveal that Toury has actually put great effort in overcoming the circularities brought by the traditional binaries and especially the notion of equivalence. Although ‘equivalence’ is shown simply as ‘the norm of pair of texts’- one of the million norms- the peculiar focus on it reveals that it isn’t as insignificant of a deal.
Firstly, as all other norms, equivalence is historical and can’t be focused in isolation (without being located into the context). And it is also, as other norms, a medium between the product and the general hypothesis driven out of its analysis: Through observing the similarities between the equivalence relations within a large corpus of translated texts, the researcher ends up with some answers(‘why certain decisions are made in other similar texts?’, ‘why certain target-source relations are prioritized over others?’ etc), and therefore, arrives at general hypothetical formulations. From this perspective, equivalence is solely one of the norms defined by Toury as a ‘stepping stone that is of little importance itself’. On the other hand, since it is described as the main tool of of ‘distinguishing appropriate from inappropriate modes of translation performance for the culture in question’ (1995: 86), and since the upmost aim of this empirical research proposed by Toury is defined as ‘deriving out appropriate translational behavior in a certain context’, it doesn’t seem to be such an insignificant concern of the translation phenomena, even for Toury.
Overall, the framework provided by DTS of Toury is of great importance, especially in terms of its applicability in scholarly work. Heading from the translation product to derive constraints and motives behind translation, regularities of behavior, and relational priorities bestows it with a pivotal position within the grand translational scheme. The absence of such popular terms of today’s traslation theory as power/agent/ideology opens the theory to criticisms; still, as in Even-Zohar’s systemic approach, this theory doesn’t reject the existence of them, therefore doesn’t postulate an inconsistency with Toury’s later works that involves such components. Perhaps, instead of that, it’d be misleading to take this theory as the one that totally transcends the source-target binary and the notion of equivalence. Although there’s a great emphasis on the target text (and justifications of such cases in which no source text exists), one of the three assumptions within an assumed translation is ‘the existence of a source’. It’s still through a comparative analysis of the textual segments that the researcher acquires empirical information which would take her/him to a general formulation. And equivalence is still a highly problematized notion regarding the phenomena of translation. What’s new in Toury is that establishing the equivalence relationship or finding shifts isn’t the last phase of a research (though they can be taken as the last ‘empirical phase’).
References
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond
In Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Toury follows a rather systematic path in siting translation on empirical grounds. Heading from establishing interrelations between the sub-branches of Holmes’s map, Toury bestows the descriptive branch with a pivotal position and embarks upon problematizing the internal organization of this branch. As also frequently emphasized in the next chapters, one can’t conduct a function, product or process oriented study in isolation since these all the determinants of one another and work for the construction of the bigger picture- that is the conception of translation within the particular culture- which is the main concern of Toury. He establishes these types of interdependencies between various concepts concerning the field in order to reveal translation’s being a complex cultural phenomenon necessitating a deeper focus on the empirical level.
‘It’s only through DTS that hypothesis could be tested’ says Toury; by doing so, he puts a rational behind the importance he adheres to the descriptive branch of the discipline. Afterwards, comes his exemplary methodology for such empirical research: heading from the product, the interrelations, specific conditions, norms, and ultimately laws will be driven out. As seen, the researcher is expected to show a progress from empirical to the hypothetical level. It should be stated that, in Toury’s theory, all descriptive study (that involves defining interrelations, deriving regularities of behavior, searchig for motivations and constraints) works for a hypothesis of a higher and more general level. However much the importance of particular is stressed, those particulars are aimed to form a general unity. One shouldn’t forget that, there are still implications of a general theory of translation in Toury’s theory, which departs him from contemporary scholars of ‘power turn’ that embrace ‘heterogenity’ in a different manner.
Since an analysis ofan empirical research starts from the product, it’s the target text- or ‘assumed translation’ in Toury’s terms- that the research begins with. Together with this fact, it’s the ultimate aim’s being ‘deriving out what is concerned as translational in target culture’ that makes Toury’s approach target-oriented. There are initial assumptions that the researcher take for granted in approaching the product:
'...an assumed translation would be regarded as any target-culture text for which there are reasons to tentatively posit the existence of another text, in another culture and language, from which it was presumedly derived by transfer operations and to which it is now tied by certain relationships, some of which may be regarded- within that culture- as necessary and/or sufficient.' (Toury 1995: 35)
With these assumptions in mind, the process of analysis starts. First the individual text is studied (here the question of what makes the text a translation in that particular culture/context is asked), then comes the comparative analysis and the establishment of possible relations between the source and target texts, and finally, generalizations concerning the whole process are formulated. (As seen, there’s a transition from a retrospective perspective to the prospective one here: first form the existing product, the regularities of behavior are deriven out, then comes the generalizations and possible guidelines for future behavior) In this three-phased process, the main (and perhaps only) stage of the traditional approach- that is the comparison- seems to be subordinated to contextualization. However, later problematizations of the concept of ‘equivalence’ within the book reveal that Toury has actually put great effort in overcoming the circularities brought by the traditional binaries and especially the notion of equivalence. Although ‘equivalence’ is shown simply as ‘the norm of pair of texts’- one of the million norms- the peculiar focus on it reveals that it isn’t as insignificant of a deal.
Firstly, as all other norms, equivalence is historical and can’t be focused in isolation (without being located into the context). And it is also, as other norms, a medium between the product and the general hypothesis driven out of its analysis: Through observing the similarities between the equivalence relations within a large corpus of translated texts, the researcher ends up with some answers(‘why certain decisions are made in other similar texts?’, ‘why certain target-source relations are prioritized over others?’ etc), and therefore, arrives at general hypothetical formulations. From this perspective, equivalence is solely one of the norms defined by Toury as a ‘stepping stone that is of little importance itself’. On the other hand, since it is described as the main tool of of ‘distinguishing appropriate from inappropriate modes of translation performance for the culture in question’ (1995: 86), and since the upmost aim of this empirical research proposed by Toury is defined as ‘deriving out appropriate translational behavior in a certain context’, it doesn’t seem to be such an insignificant concern of the translation phenomena, even for Toury.
Overall, the framework provided by DTS of Toury is of great importance, especially in terms of its applicability in scholarly work. Heading from the translation product to derive constraints and motives behind translation, regularities of behavior, and relational priorities bestows it with a pivotal position within the grand translational scheme. The absence of such popular terms of today’s traslation theory as power/agent/ideology opens the theory to criticisms; still, as in Even-Zohar’s systemic approach, this theory doesn’t reject the existence of them, therefore doesn’t postulate an inconsistency with Toury’s later works that involves such components. Perhaps, instead of that, it’d be misleading to take this theory as the one that totally transcends the source-target binary and the notion of equivalence. Although there’s a great emphasis on the target text (and justifications of such cases in which no source text exists), one of the three assumptions within an assumed translation is ‘the existence of a source’. It’s still through a comparative analysis of the textual segments that the researcher acquires empirical information which would take her/him to a general formulation. And equivalence is still a highly problematized notion regarding the phenomena of translation. What’s new in Toury is that establishing the equivalence relationship or finding shifts isn’t the last phase of a research (though they can be taken as the last ‘empirical phase’).
References
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond
23 Ekim 2009 Cuma
Systemic Thinking
In his “Polysystem Theory”, Itamar Even-Zohar defines translation as a multi-referential activity that concerns ‘a complex bundle of relationships’ rather than a unidirectional transfer of a specific text into another language. By doing so, he takes not the isolated texts but the ‘systems’ they belong to as his main subject of study. It’s for sure that it’s a grand task to take source and target systems as a main concern rather than merely a translated text and its original and this may direct the focus towards other issues apart from translation at times. Still, only such a wide view seems to achieve such comprehensive and accurate results in the analysis of the phenomena of translation, especially when it comes to locating it into the larger historical contexts.
1. General terms
In his systemic approach towards translation, Even-Zohar resorts to explicating the phenomena through embracing both sides of the binaries. The clear-cut and stable distinctions in between are effaced, because the possibility of changing roles never ceases. That’s why the first thing that comes to my mind in Even-Zohar’s theory is the constant dynamic in his explication: the non-canonized becomes canonized, primary produces the secondary, the peripheral dethrones the central, the dynamic becomes stable, heterogeneous becomes homogenous, and according all these types of positional shifts, the norms, therefore translational behavior, change. All this change brings forth not only the historical characteristic of the phenomena but also the existence of its multi-referential nature.
2. Positing translated literature within the scheme
After drawing the portrayal of his general view that relates the phenomena of translation with its surrounding dynamics and explicates the general functioning (in terms of internal and external proceedings and interactions) of such an interactive situation, Even-Zohar embarks upon defining the ‘concrete’ position of translation within the literary polysystem.
Firstly he clarifies the fact that translated literature is both a system of its own that carries its own internal concerns (possessing a hierarchical order, dynamic stratification betwen layers etc) and an active agent within the functioning of the literary polysystem. Even-Zohar enumerates three cases in which this active participation of translation is given a central position: when the literature is young, when it’s peripheral (and is exposed to the hegemonia of the central literature), when such turning points as ‘literary vacuum’ occur. Obviously , in all three cases, translation introduces new literary models to the target culture.
Explaining his three cases, Even-Zohar makes a distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ literatures, the former of which is claimed to be dependent on the phenomena of translation more. Firstly, it should be noted that Even-Zohar’s dynamic-favoring theory sees stability as a threaten for the existence of any system. Both weak and strong literatures are in need of the ‘change’ eventually. The difference, as he points, is that the ‘strong’ is able to produce the new with its internal components, whereas, the ‘weak’ is in need of an external interaction, or transfer one may call it, to meet new models. ‘Strong’ has its peripheral components that would nourish it in the case of stagnation, whereas, ‘weak’ directly resorts to ‘import’ in such cases.
These all reminded me the period in which Turkish literary system bestowed translation with a central position. Which of the three cases could be a rational behind this historical positioning? The literature was in its establishment process, it occupied a peripheral position within the general literary polysystem, and there was a ‘literary vacuum’ (‘no item in the indigenious stock is taken to be acceptable’ Even-Zohar 1990: 194). All three carry their historical motives, and most importantly, here, ‘power’ occupies a great position. In the case of the development of Turkish literary system in particular, translation is ‘made’ to occupy a central position, whereas, Even-Zohar seems to refer to a ‘natural’ type of transition from peripheral to central (as a natural outcome of the dynamic stratification within the system). Still, I suppose, this case justifies his major thesis of the existence ‘complex bundle of relationships’ within the positioning of the phenomena. There’ll always be more to explore, since this is not a unidirectional transfer from a single source to a single target. As Even-Zohar also states, there are always such preliminary stages as selecting the text and arousing a necessity in the target culture and other stages as breaking the resistence and making it function properly.
3. Lastly: `Transfer` in more concrete terms
In his article “The Making of Culture Repertoire and the Role of Transfer”, Even-Zohar concretizes the terms he’s refered within “Polysystem Theory” through using the concepts of ‘power’, ‘market’ and ‘repertoire’ interrelatedly. Here, zooming out of the textual level, Even-Zohar focuses on the process of ‘cultural transfer’and systematizes the development and functioning of cultural ‘repertoire’.
In this article, new concepts such as ‘necessity’, ‘resistance’ and ‘consumption’ are introduced to the context of ‘transfer’. As seen, the process is enlargened, the agents involved (either active or passive) are increased, therefore the phenomena of ‘transfer’ is subjected to a more extensive problematization. In consistence with his previous statements, Even-Zohar defines the making of repertoire as a constant activity. ‘Goods’ are imported, either accepted or rejected, and if accepted, function either on the level of active repertoire (and construct a strategy of action) or the passive one (enable world ‘make-sense’). It’s important that here Even-Zohar touches on the role of ‘agents’ more than he does in his other articles. For instance, if the ‘good’ carries the potential of being rejected, the importer(s) develop strategies of creating a necessity or ‘willingness to consume new goods’ in his terms. (It’s interesting that here Even-Zohar gives examples from both ‘material’ goods such as black pepper or ‘semiotic’ goods such as hygienic habits) Briefly, to make ‘import’ a ‘transfer’, the importer is involved within a post-transition process. Moreover, there are even such cases in which the personality of these importers (which has never been mentioned in prior theories!) ‘shadow’ the products they propose.
As also seen clearly in this essay, in all his three articles Even-Zohar emphasizes one thing on top: translation is much more a complex activity than has been introduced by the prior approaches. His attempts of both generalizing and explicating this concern in more concete terms in a consistent manner is a great matter of appreciation. Such attempts both expand the borders of the discipline itself and arouse an awareness of the grand function of the phenomena within the cultural progress.
References
Even-Zohar Itamar
"Polysystem Theory"
"The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem"
"The Making of Repertoire and The Role of Transfer"
1. General terms
In his systemic approach towards translation, Even-Zohar resorts to explicating the phenomena through embracing both sides of the binaries. The clear-cut and stable distinctions in between are effaced, because the possibility of changing roles never ceases. That’s why the first thing that comes to my mind in Even-Zohar’s theory is the constant dynamic in his explication: the non-canonized becomes canonized, primary produces the secondary, the peripheral dethrones the central, the dynamic becomes stable, heterogeneous becomes homogenous, and according all these types of positional shifts, the norms, therefore translational behavior, change. All this change brings forth not only the historical characteristic of the phenomena but also the existence of its multi-referential nature.
2. Positing translated literature within the scheme
After drawing the portrayal of his general view that relates the phenomena of translation with its surrounding dynamics and explicates the general functioning (in terms of internal and external proceedings and interactions) of such an interactive situation, Even-Zohar embarks upon defining the ‘concrete’ position of translation within the literary polysystem.
Firstly he clarifies the fact that translated literature is both a system of its own that carries its own internal concerns (possessing a hierarchical order, dynamic stratification betwen layers etc) and an active agent within the functioning of the literary polysystem. Even-Zohar enumerates three cases in which this active participation of translation is given a central position: when the literature is young, when it’s peripheral (and is exposed to the hegemonia of the central literature), when such turning points as ‘literary vacuum’ occur. Obviously , in all three cases, translation introduces new literary models to the target culture.
Explaining his three cases, Even-Zohar makes a distinction between ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ literatures, the former of which is claimed to be dependent on the phenomena of translation more. Firstly, it should be noted that Even-Zohar’s dynamic-favoring theory sees stability as a threaten for the existence of any system. Both weak and strong literatures are in need of the ‘change’ eventually. The difference, as he points, is that the ‘strong’ is able to produce the new with its internal components, whereas, the ‘weak’ is in need of an external interaction, or transfer one may call it, to meet new models. ‘Strong’ has its peripheral components that would nourish it in the case of stagnation, whereas, ‘weak’ directly resorts to ‘import’ in such cases.
These all reminded me the period in which Turkish literary system bestowed translation with a central position. Which of the three cases could be a rational behind this historical positioning? The literature was in its establishment process, it occupied a peripheral position within the general literary polysystem, and there was a ‘literary vacuum’ (‘no item in the indigenious stock is taken to be acceptable’ Even-Zohar 1990: 194). All three carry their historical motives, and most importantly, here, ‘power’ occupies a great position. In the case of the development of Turkish literary system in particular, translation is ‘made’ to occupy a central position, whereas, Even-Zohar seems to refer to a ‘natural’ type of transition from peripheral to central (as a natural outcome of the dynamic stratification within the system). Still, I suppose, this case justifies his major thesis of the existence ‘complex bundle of relationships’ within the positioning of the phenomena. There’ll always be more to explore, since this is not a unidirectional transfer from a single source to a single target. As Even-Zohar also states, there are always such preliminary stages as selecting the text and arousing a necessity in the target culture and other stages as breaking the resistence and making it function properly.
3. Lastly: `Transfer` in more concrete terms
In his article “The Making of Culture Repertoire and the Role of Transfer”, Even-Zohar concretizes the terms he’s refered within “Polysystem Theory” through using the concepts of ‘power’, ‘market’ and ‘repertoire’ interrelatedly. Here, zooming out of the textual level, Even-Zohar focuses on the process of ‘cultural transfer’and systematizes the development and functioning of cultural ‘repertoire’.
In this article, new concepts such as ‘necessity’, ‘resistance’ and ‘consumption’ are introduced to the context of ‘transfer’. As seen, the process is enlargened, the agents involved (either active or passive) are increased, therefore the phenomena of ‘transfer’ is subjected to a more extensive problematization. In consistence with his previous statements, Even-Zohar defines the making of repertoire as a constant activity. ‘Goods’ are imported, either accepted or rejected, and if accepted, function either on the level of active repertoire (and construct a strategy of action) or the passive one (enable world ‘make-sense’). It’s important that here Even-Zohar touches on the role of ‘agents’ more than he does in his other articles. For instance, if the ‘good’ carries the potential of being rejected, the importer(s) develop strategies of creating a necessity or ‘willingness to consume new goods’ in his terms. (It’s interesting that here Even-Zohar gives examples from both ‘material’ goods such as black pepper or ‘semiotic’ goods such as hygienic habits) Briefly, to make ‘import’ a ‘transfer’, the importer is involved within a post-transition process. Moreover, there are even such cases in which the personality of these importers (which has never been mentioned in prior theories!) ‘shadow’ the products they propose.
As also seen clearly in this essay, in all his three articles Even-Zohar emphasizes one thing on top: translation is much more a complex activity than has been introduced by the prior approaches. His attempts of both generalizing and explicating this concern in more concete terms in a consistent manner is a great matter of appreciation. Such attempts both expand the borders of the discipline itself and arouse an awareness of the grand function of the phenomena within the cultural progress.
References
Even-Zohar Itamar
"Polysystem Theory"
"The Position of Translated Literature Within the Literary Polysystem"
"The Making of Repertoire and The Role of Transfer"
17 Ekim 2009 Cumartesi
Functional Equivalence vs Skopos
As approached towards the descriptive era, it’s obvious that the theories get to become more systematized (almost scientific at times) and such concerns of translational practice as translatorship initial aim and process become the theoreticians’ subjects of problematization besides the traditional subjects of initial point (ST) and end product (TT). Thus, one can easily observe the fact that the scope of translation studies is pushing beyond its traditional boundaries.
Although mostly categorized under the same title- ‘functional theories’,the theories of Reiss and Vermeer could be taken as an end of an era and beginning of an era respectively. It’s not hard to define the theory of Reiss as source oriented, since she’s still in search of an equivalence of some sort, whereas, the theory of Vermeer proposes a complete independency from the source. How come they both are classified as ‘functional theorists’ then? It’s obvious that their approaches towards ‘equivalence’ differ. Reiss still discusses the transmission of a part of the source text (as a partial equivalence proponent), whereas, Vermeer puts forward his approach of ‘acquiring adequacy through obeying the skopos’ and proposes the possibility of ‘full transmission’ in these terms. To him, one-to-one type of correspondence, or such techniques as translating according to text-type, constitute solely a few of the many possible ways.
Interrelated with their differing approaches towards ‘functional equivalence’, the theories of Reiss and Vermeer are target-oriented to different extents. Reiss legitimates the usage of a different text type while ‘reverbalizing’ the source text only if the target culture’s ‘habits of textualization’ differ form that of the source (Reiss 1971: 165). It’s true that her proposing the translator various options- translation according to sense and meaning, translating by identification, adoptive translating- is a sign of her acknowledging the legitimacy of more than one target-texts. However, multiplying the Reiss’s options, the skopos theory of Vermeer not only breaks the limits brought by source-orientedness (which still exists in Reiss), but also gains the target text an autonomous character, bestowing the target-text with its own textual potentials. It’s no longer a product of secondary communication as in Reiss’s theory, instead, it carries its own communicative purposes other than those of the source text. In this way, Vermeer’s theory carries the ‘function’ of Reiss one step further in both positioning the translator as an expert of decisions and defining the target text as a text of its own.
Taking the very end of Reiss’s article as his point of departure- in the part titled as ‘special cases’ in which she admits the possibility of the lack of functional equivalence- Vermeer builds a whole theory on ‘relativizing the traditional viewpoint’ (Vermeer 1989: 185). It’s a grand scheme that he draws. First he passes beyond the previous conceptions of translation through the defining the act neither as a linguistic phenomena nor as a form of communication. As implied in how he refers translation to-that is ‘translational action’, translation is taken as a form of human behavior that has a specific purpose and brings about an end-product. In this `purpose` point, Reiss and Vermeer’s theory intersect. It’s true that Reiss proposes only a limited number of purposes all of which are relatively source oriented, whereas,to Vermeer all purposes are legitimite (as long as they support the translational action and the endproduct), which increases the possible number of target texts coming out of a single source text. But the point they end up with in referring to the concep to of ‘purpose’ are rather similar: to introduce translation as a conscious activity. Vermeer’s determining a skopos and Reiss’s translational stages of ‘analysis&reverbalization’ both serve for this. On the one hand there are the classifications of Reiss (intentional vs unintentional changes, 4 different text-types, 3 modes of translating etc) , and on the other, there’s the well-developed terminology of Vermeer (skopos,commission,translatum,adequacy,expert). Don’t they both serve for a scientific (or professional one may call it) conception of translation? Through referring such schematisms, aren’t they legitimizing the concept of translation, the act of the translator and their studies as translation scholars with one shot?
Supposedly, in both theories there’s a search for a general theory of translation, which could be inferred from the meticulous methodologies they resort to . In one, it’s the text type of the source that directs the act of translation, in the other, it’s the skopos that takes this responsibility. In both, the endproduct of the action is valued (though it’s more so in Vermeer’s theory), which reveals that the absolute hegemonia of the source is gradually becoming a myth. And how to achieve a general theory of translation through the insistently interfering concept of ‘cultural context’ is gradually becoming an inextricable mystery.
REFERENCES
Reiss, Katharina
1971"Type, Kind and Individuality of Text"
Vermeer, Hans J.
1989"Skopos and Commission in Translational Action"
Although mostly categorized under the same title- ‘functional theories’,the theories of Reiss and Vermeer could be taken as an end of an era and beginning of an era respectively. It’s not hard to define the theory of Reiss as source oriented, since she’s still in search of an equivalence of some sort, whereas, the theory of Vermeer proposes a complete independency from the source. How come they both are classified as ‘functional theorists’ then? It’s obvious that their approaches towards ‘equivalence’ differ. Reiss still discusses the transmission of a part of the source text (as a partial equivalence proponent), whereas, Vermeer puts forward his approach of ‘acquiring adequacy through obeying the skopos’ and proposes the possibility of ‘full transmission’ in these terms. To him, one-to-one type of correspondence, or such techniques as translating according to text-type, constitute solely a few of the many possible ways.
Interrelated with their differing approaches towards ‘functional equivalence’, the theories of Reiss and Vermeer are target-oriented to different extents. Reiss legitimates the usage of a different text type while ‘reverbalizing’ the source text only if the target culture’s ‘habits of textualization’ differ form that of the source (Reiss 1971: 165). It’s true that her proposing the translator various options- translation according to sense and meaning, translating by identification, adoptive translating- is a sign of her acknowledging the legitimacy of more than one target-texts. However, multiplying the Reiss’s options, the skopos theory of Vermeer not only breaks the limits brought by source-orientedness (which still exists in Reiss), but also gains the target text an autonomous character, bestowing the target-text with its own textual potentials. It’s no longer a product of secondary communication as in Reiss’s theory, instead, it carries its own communicative purposes other than those of the source text. In this way, Vermeer’s theory carries the ‘function’ of Reiss one step further in both positioning the translator as an expert of decisions and defining the target text as a text of its own.
Taking the very end of Reiss’s article as his point of departure- in the part titled as ‘special cases’ in which she admits the possibility of the lack of functional equivalence- Vermeer builds a whole theory on ‘relativizing the traditional viewpoint’ (Vermeer 1989: 185). It’s a grand scheme that he draws. First he passes beyond the previous conceptions of translation through the defining the act neither as a linguistic phenomena nor as a form of communication. As implied in how he refers translation to-that is ‘translational action’, translation is taken as a form of human behavior that has a specific purpose and brings about an end-product. In this `purpose` point, Reiss and Vermeer’s theory intersect. It’s true that Reiss proposes only a limited number of purposes all of which are relatively source oriented, whereas,to Vermeer all purposes are legitimite (as long as they support the translational action and the endproduct), which increases the possible number of target texts coming out of a single source text. But the point they end up with in referring to the concep to of ‘purpose’ are rather similar: to introduce translation as a conscious activity. Vermeer’s determining a skopos and Reiss’s translational stages of ‘analysis&reverbalization’ both serve for this. On the one hand there are the classifications of Reiss (intentional vs unintentional changes, 4 different text-types, 3 modes of translating etc) , and on the other, there’s the well-developed terminology of Vermeer (skopos,commission,translatum,adequacy,expert). Don’t they both serve for a scientific (or professional one may call it) conception of translation? Through referring such schematisms, aren’t they legitimizing the concept of translation, the act of the translator and their studies as translation scholars with one shot?
Supposedly, in both theories there’s a search for a general theory of translation, which could be inferred from the meticulous methodologies they resort to . In one, it’s the text type of the source that directs the act of translation, in the other, it’s the skopos that takes this responsibility. In both, the endproduct of the action is valued (though it’s more so in Vermeer’s theory), which reveals that the absolute hegemonia of the source is gradually becoming a myth. And how to achieve a general theory of translation through the insistently interfering concept of ‘cultural context’ is gradually becoming an inextricable mystery.
REFERENCES
Reiss, Katharina
1971"Type, Kind and Individuality of Text"
Vermeer, Hans J.
1989"Skopos and Commission in Translational Action"
9 Ekim 2009 Cuma
Nida`s Principles of Correspondence
As we’ve also discussed in class last Monday, no viewpoint or way of thinking has directly come down to earth. Especially when it comes to the analysis of some certain theoretical development, sequential thinking is necessary. This is how one can easily derive the fundaments of functional theories out of Nida’s principles of corresponding two distinct cultural and lingual systems.
Nida initiates determining his principles of correspondance with a reference to the three basic constituents of communication theory: sender, message and receiver. Though he focuses on, and prescribes, only one type of translation in an extensive manner, from the beginning of his essay, Nida acknowledges the existence of various types of translations varying in between the source and target. And these three variables, as he states, are the main rationals behind the existence of these different types.
Throughout his essay, Nida uses these three terms of sender, message and receiver interrelatedly. Explicating what message is, he touches on how a single message may arise different conceptions according to the social and cultural dynamics surrounding the receiver. As for the third constituent, the sender, his particular purpose is also indicated as a strong determiner. Although Nida assigns the particular purpose of the sender as ‘recreating and transmitting the same effect’- in other words hestipulates an identification with the authorial position adopting all authorial intentions- he at least acknowledges the possibility of adopting a different purpose.[1] It’s true that according to his proposal, departing from authorial intentions could threaten the transmission of the ‘same effect’. But, I suppose, stating the possibility of such a departure from the authorial intention, Nida drags the debates on translational concerns one step further.
The main duality on which Nida builds his theory is that of form and effect. Classifying two main types of correspondence as formal and dynamic, Nida explicitly states the impossibility of achieving a translation that would embrace both. Presumably, as a Bible translator, making a choice among the two hasn’t constructed a huge challenge for him. Even in such cases in which the translator carries great structural worries- here Nida gives the example of translating poetry in which form and content proceed hand in hand- effect needs to be taken as the most fundamental factor. It’s rather legitimate for Nida to translate Homeric epic in the form of prose, for instance. Henceforth, this strong emphasis on ‘effect’ is another significance of Nida’s theory bringing forth both its defects and contributions.
Firstly, within the article, there are references to Nida’s concern of a ‘good’ translation. It’s for sure that, here, this good eventually meets with the achievement of the closest effect. In other words, Nida defines the transmission of the effect, or ‘impact’ he calls it in some places, as the primal criteria of evaluating ‘good’ translation. On the one hand, this seems to be a revolution also, since there’s the indication of a search for something concrete for evaluating the translation product. On the other, the concreteness of this criteria is rather debatable. Although throughout the article Nida mentions about this ‘effect’ whose transmission is crucial, and quotes other scholars that agree with this argument of his, he can’t somehow define this existence in concrete terms. He enumerates such tecnhiques of rendering it (such as naturalizing the language/expressions, domesticatd arrangement in style, adopting the stylistic deviations of the source author to the target language etc), he resorts to textual exemplifications that he finds appropriate and inappropriate, he even classifies the lingual and cultural systems according to the probability of the transmitting the effect, but the term ‘effect’ still lacks a definition. It still remains too ambiguous a term to be adopted as a criteria of evaluating the translation product.
As for the contributions of these discussions on effect in translation theory, Nida’s definition of translation as an encoding-decoding process (in order to achieve the closest effect) passes beyond the linguistic concerns. As Nida proposes, translation practice is actualized on both lingual and cultural bases. And it is the existence of the cultural base, that poses the main challenge for the translator. Words and expressions are culturally contextualized in the source text ( Here, one of Nida’s effective examples is that onomatopoeic expressions are totally inappropriate in the African system whereas they are the main means of communication in Waiwai). The path to achieve the effect passes through decontextualizing the message and locating it in target language through recontextualizing it. At this point, Nida’s statement for translating poetry gains relevance for all sorts of translation I guess, translation has never been a mechanical activity, it is ‘re-creation’, not a ‘reproduction’ (Nida 1964: 134).
Although this article of Nida doesn’t reveal a sharp departure from the ‘sacred’ and textual concerns of the prior scholars, the inclusion of cultural and contextual concerns within translation scene is a significant attempt. His domesticating approach that favors naturalizing translations doesn’t seem to be a fresh idea, however, such points he touches on as translator’s purpose and the nature of the message make his approach the precursor of functional theories to some extent. His intention of finding an evaluative criteria for translation product is also a reminder of contemporary translation theory. In this way, reading Nida after locating him in the bigger picture of the development of translation theory increases the significance of both the ‘principles’ that construct his theory in particular, and his theory in general.
[1] Ref. : ‘It is assumed that the translator has purposes generally similar to, or at least compatible with, those of the original author, but this is not necessarily so’. (Nida 1964: 127)
Nida initiates determining his principles of correspondance with a reference to the three basic constituents of communication theory: sender, message and receiver. Though he focuses on, and prescribes, only one type of translation in an extensive manner, from the beginning of his essay, Nida acknowledges the existence of various types of translations varying in between the source and target. And these three variables, as he states, are the main rationals behind the existence of these different types.
Throughout his essay, Nida uses these three terms of sender, message and receiver interrelatedly. Explicating what message is, he touches on how a single message may arise different conceptions according to the social and cultural dynamics surrounding the receiver. As for the third constituent, the sender, his particular purpose is also indicated as a strong determiner. Although Nida assigns the particular purpose of the sender as ‘recreating and transmitting the same effect’- in other words hestipulates an identification with the authorial position adopting all authorial intentions- he at least acknowledges the possibility of adopting a different purpose.[1] It’s true that according to his proposal, departing from authorial intentions could threaten the transmission of the ‘same effect’. But, I suppose, stating the possibility of such a departure from the authorial intention, Nida drags the debates on translational concerns one step further.
The main duality on which Nida builds his theory is that of form and effect. Classifying two main types of correspondence as formal and dynamic, Nida explicitly states the impossibility of achieving a translation that would embrace both. Presumably, as a Bible translator, making a choice among the two hasn’t constructed a huge challenge for him. Even in such cases in which the translator carries great structural worries- here Nida gives the example of translating poetry in which form and content proceed hand in hand- effect needs to be taken as the most fundamental factor. It’s rather legitimate for Nida to translate Homeric epic in the form of prose, for instance. Henceforth, this strong emphasis on ‘effect’ is another significance of Nida’s theory bringing forth both its defects and contributions.
Firstly, within the article, there are references to Nida’s concern of a ‘good’ translation. It’s for sure that, here, this good eventually meets with the achievement of the closest effect. In other words, Nida defines the transmission of the effect, or ‘impact’ he calls it in some places, as the primal criteria of evaluating ‘good’ translation. On the one hand, this seems to be a revolution also, since there’s the indication of a search for something concrete for evaluating the translation product. On the other, the concreteness of this criteria is rather debatable. Although throughout the article Nida mentions about this ‘effect’ whose transmission is crucial, and quotes other scholars that agree with this argument of his, he can’t somehow define this existence in concrete terms. He enumerates such tecnhiques of rendering it (such as naturalizing the language/expressions, domesticatd arrangement in style, adopting the stylistic deviations of the source author to the target language etc), he resorts to textual exemplifications that he finds appropriate and inappropriate, he even classifies the lingual and cultural systems according to the probability of the transmitting the effect, but the term ‘effect’ still lacks a definition. It still remains too ambiguous a term to be adopted as a criteria of evaluating the translation product.
As for the contributions of these discussions on effect in translation theory, Nida’s definition of translation as an encoding-decoding process (in order to achieve the closest effect) passes beyond the linguistic concerns. As Nida proposes, translation practice is actualized on both lingual and cultural bases. And it is the existence of the cultural base, that poses the main challenge for the translator. Words and expressions are culturally contextualized in the source text ( Here, one of Nida’s effective examples is that onomatopoeic expressions are totally inappropriate in the African system whereas they are the main means of communication in Waiwai). The path to achieve the effect passes through decontextualizing the message and locating it in target language through recontextualizing it. At this point, Nida’s statement for translating poetry gains relevance for all sorts of translation I guess, translation has never been a mechanical activity, it is ‘re-creation’, not a ‘reproduction’ (Nida 1964: 134).
Although this article of Nida doesn’t reveal a sharp departure from the ‘sacred’ and textual concerns of the prior scholars, the inclusion of cultural and contextual concerns within translation scene is a significant attempt. His domesticating approach that favors naturalizing translations doesn’t seem to be a fresh idea, however, such points he touches on as translator’s purpose and the nature of the message make his approach the precursor of functional theories to some extent. His intention of finding an evaluative criteria for translation product is also a reminder of contemporary translation theory. In this way, reading Nida after locating him in the bigger picture of the development of translation theory increases the significance of both the ‘principles’ that construct his theory in particular, and his theory in general.
[1] Ref. : ‘It is assumed that the translator has purposes generally similar to, or at least compatible with, those of the original author, but this is not necessarily so’. (Nida 1964: 127)
7 Ekim 2009 Çarşamba
WHERE TO BEGIN ?
Revealing its paradoxical nature from the first sight thanks to its name that brings the concepts of `art`(or `craft` one may call it) and `science` together, translation studies has set off its journey as a discipline hand in hand with its famous dualities. Although the tenacious existence of these binary oppositons was considered among the main challenges before the disciplinization of the field at first, today, the modern perspective bestows the translation scholar with an approach that embraces these dualities as the enriching elements of the concept of translation. Surely, such a wide perspective directs the scholar towards studies that locate certain concepts within their historical contexts and these studies often result in redefinitons of the `well-known` keywords. Eventually, new conceptions towards the history of translation studies have started to evolve.
Systematic vs unsystematic theories
Most of the translation studies readers locate the theories of Dolet, Tytler, Dryden and Schleiermacher right after some certain ancient names. It feels as if starting the word with the Tower of Babel, then putting a few mentionings about the ancient approaches and briefly touching on these more recent scholars has become the ritual of the editors before starting the real ceremony. Not surprisingly, the theories of these scholars of translation history have never been under as much focus as the theories of the 20th century, rather, they seem to be posited in those first pages just to display the fact that the discipline has laid its roots somewhere back in those days. It wasn`t until recently that the contemporary scholar has felt the necessity of going back there both to strenghten the foundations of the discipline and to bridge its past and the present.
From today’s perspective, the main reason of the huge gap between the early and late theorists seems to be the prescriptive vs descriptive debates on translation theory. Even though there was not such a criteria that the early theorists could evaluate their studies with and the academic preference of ‘explicating instead of guiding’ is a relatively modern one, mostly these early theorists` way of creating translational rules in the idealistic level has been subjected to criticism. Fortunately, after the realization of the fact that translation history needs to embrace both prescriptivity and descriptivity since the latter owes its birth and rise to the former, these historical writings on translation are opened to reevaluation.
When we have a closer look at the writings of Dolet, Dryden, Tytler and Schleiermacher with today`s criteria of ‘positing within the historical context’, we actually see that the roots of many modern concerns of translation studies reside within these documents. Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that these men belong to different geographies and eras. When we are able to see Dolet as a 16th century humanist, Dryden as a 17th century poet, Tytler as an 18th century Enlightenment philosopher and Schleiermacher as a 19th century German Romantic, these questions inevitably arises in our minds: How could these men fall into the same dispute of free vs faithfull translation? What if these concepts differ in their definitions? Dolet concerns translating Rabelais whereas most of Dryden’s concerns are inclined towards translating poetry; Tytler reflects his perfectionist Enlightenment ideal of ‘meeting both ends’ instead of referring to a choice, whereas Schleiermacher lays the foundations of what Venuti would later call ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’ for the construction of a German canon as mentioned in the class. It’s true that in all, the duality of faithfullness and freedom exists, but reading between the lines leads one to different definitions of these concepts. A closer look also works for diminishing the gap between the premodern and modern texts on translational method. One could derive the concept of ‘effect’ from Dryden’t text, or Tytler’s meeting both ends could be taken as an attempt of abolishing the duality. Whereas, Schleiermacher’s text, as the most systematic and well-problematizing of all, produces the roots for not only the functional approaches of ‘translating according to a text-type’, but also such modern issues of ‘contextualization’ and ‘source author-target reader’ relationship.
When read sequentially, these texts also reveal the development of systematic theoritisation of translation phenomena from Dryden’s three parted scheme to Schleiermacher’s extensively defined terms. Still, it’s apparent that these systematizations aim to provide a guide for the translator, in other words, there’s not an empirical textual level regarding the ‘existing’ product of translation practice in these texts. Besides, the explications of their classifications can’t pass beyond the ‘intention’ level at times. Tytler offers the translator to ‘adopt the very soul of the author’ and ‘speak through his own organs’ in order to achieve the type of transcendental perfection he proposes, yet he doesn’t clarify how exactly to do that. Similarly, Dryden mentions about an ‘original Muse’ that hinders the full rendering of the source poem. Obviously, the youngest of all, Schleiermacher is the one that attempts to cover such defects of his elders. Following a relatively systematic methodology which begins with classifying translating for commerce and for scholarly aims (&art). Focusing on the latter, Schleiermacher first problematizes language’s power on cognition, then extensively discusses how to correspond the two distinct types of language that possibly lead to two distinct types of cognition. As he states, there’s no mid-way that would meet both ends, therefore the translator would either bring the source author to the target reader, or vice versa. Explicating both ways in detail, Schleiermacher favors the latter approach we would later name as ‘foreignization`. At this point, he lays the roots of still debated issues such as translation’s role in enhancing the langugage, transmitting the historical particularities within language and the respect for the particular as opposed to general . Bearing all these facts in mind, we could say that these writings also reveal the development of theoretical systematization within translation history, though none are at the level of recent theories and are still regarded as ‘primitive’ compared to their proceeders.
Lefevere’s study as an alternative research on the redefiniton of translation history
In her article titled “The History ofTranslation: Recurring Patterns & Research Issues”, Mona Baker explicates an exemplary approach for a modern retrospection of the translation phenomena: “...we still know very little about the history of our profession, that what we know of it indicates that its profile has varied tremendously from one era to another, and- equally important- that the activities of translation and interpreting have taken such a wide variety of forms and have occured in such a multitude of contexts over the years that we are obliged to look at the historical facts before we can even begin to develop theoretical accounts for this complex phenomenon.” (Baker 2002: 14)
These words of Baker perfectly correlate with Lefevere’s introduction to his article “Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation” which basicly tells that ‘Shifts and changes in the technique of translating did not occur at random’ and historicizing translation necessitates the explication of the dynamics around these shifts. The exemplifications from the texts of Dolet,Dryden, Tytler and Schleiermacher have also revealed that it’s important to search for the traces of the bridge between the past and the present. Reading the disputes that are under the same classification- as the threatisies of those theoreticians have always been classified under the same title ‘primitive and prescriptive’- we’ve seen both how each has contextualized those `same` concepts differently and the gradual evolution of ‘systematical translation theory’.
Taking a more extensive era and two totally different geographies as his subject of comparison, Lefevere’s study serves for the acquisition a same type of approach towards translation history. Setting off from the most eminent dualities of the era, ‘Self – the Other’ and ‘West- East’, he displays the simultaneous development of translation in the Western and Chinese culture towards different directions. As his findings reveal, East has adopted a more stable, consistent attitude towards translation. There hasn’t been a transition from oral tradition to the textual tradition for long time, therefore it has continued it’s ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’ - an approach favoring the reader and sees source as insignificant. Since each translation becomes a source, Chinese tradition is beyond the dualism of faithfullness and freedom. In contrast, though set off from the same functional oral tradition of ‘interpreting’, West has displayed a more dynamic historical development in terms of translational practice. First with the bilingual development of the culture, then with Christianity, ‘word’ has been adopted as the translation unit and in contrast with Eastern tradition’s ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’, West has insistently stayed within the boundaries of the source and approached translation as ‘linguistic transcoding’. In this way, Lefevere explains the development of a ‘retranslation’ ritual and the source vs target disputes Western tradition has fallen into.
By all means, the scheme Lefevere draws for an alternative historicism of translation phenomena is a gigantic one. Squeezing the millennial development of two distinct cultures’ into 12 pages is truely a matter of appreciation. However, this exposes his text to criticisms on misrepresentations in terms of both cultures. Firstly, he doesn’t define the West to which he subjects his comparison. Secondly, backing up the stability of the translational tradition in Chinese culture with its homogenious structure is rather confusing. From such an article, the reader acquires a general view of the development in both cultures, which is great. Yet, apparently, the rationals behind the ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’ of the East and the ‘linguistic transcoding’ of the West need some deeper explications.
For sure, one conclusion arrived by Lefevere`s article is crucial in defining the current position of the field. Afterall, ‘translation spans a field immeasurably wider than that which involves the mere technical activity’ (Lefevere 1998: 24), therefore translation history is in need of conceptual definitions and redefinitions considering the cultural dynamics surrounding the field’s development.
Concluding Remarks
As seen in this two parted essay, the development of translation studies- in both methodological and conceptual matters- is expected to be located within the larger picture. The perspectival shifts from the ancient orators to Bible translators, from linguistic theories to cultural turn and the power turn have never occured randomly. The discipline’s internal dynamics have always been in interaction with the historical and cultural surroundings. Therefore it’s necessary to look back there wider (Am I being too prescriptive here??) since the past never gives up tagging along the present.
References
Baker, Mona
“The History of Translation: Recurring Patterns & Research Issues,” translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture (ed.) Saliha Paker. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, pp. 5-14.
Lefevere, Andre
“Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation”, Constructing Cultures (ed.) Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere, pp. 12-24.
Robinson, Douglas
“Etienne Dolet “, Western Translation Theory, pp. 95-96.
“John Dryden”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 171-175.
“Alexander Fraser Tytler”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 208-212.
“Friedrich Schleiermacher”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 225-238.
Systematic vs unsystematic theories
Most of the translation studies readers locate the theories of Dolet, Tytler, Dryden and Schleiermacher right after some certain ancient names. It feels as if starting the word with the Tower of Babel, then putting a few mentionings about the ancient approaches and briefly touching on these more recent scholars has become the ritual of the editors before starting the real ceremony. Not surprisingly, the theories of these scholars of translation history have never been under as much focus as the theories of the 20th century, rather, they seem to be posited in those first pages just to display the fact that the discipline has laid its roots somewhere back in those days. It wasn`t until recently that the contemporary scholar has felt the necessity of going back there both to strenghten the foundations of the discipline and to bridge its past and the present.
From today’s perspective, the main reason of the huge gap between the early and late theorists seems to be the prescriptive vs descriptive debates on translation theory. Even though there was not such a criteria that the early theorists could evaluate their studies with and the academic preference of ‘explicating instead of guiding’ is a relatively modern one, mostly these early theorists` way of creating translational rules in the idealistic level has been subjected to criticism. Fortunately, after the realization of the fact that translation history needs to embrace both prescriptivity and descriptivity since the latter owes its birth and rise to the former, these historical writings on translation are opened to reevaluation.
When we have a closer look at the writings of Dolet, Dryden, Tytler and Schleiermacher with today`s criteria of ‘positing within the historical context’, we actually see that the roots of many modern concerns of translation studies reside within these documents. Firstly, it needs to be acknowledged that these men belong to different geographies and eras. When we are able to see Dolet as a 16th century humanist, Dryden as a 17th century poet, Tytler as an 18th century Enlightenment philosopher and Schleiermacher as a 19th century German Romantic, these questions inevitably arises in our minds: How could these men fall into the same dispute of free vs faithfull translation? What if these concepts differ in their definitions? Dolet concerns translating Rabelais whereas most of Dryden’s concerns are inclined towards translating poetry; Tytler reflects his perfectionist Enlightenment ideal of ‘meeting both ends’ instead of referring to a choice, whereas Schleiermacher lays the foundations of what Venuti would later call ‘foreignization’ and ‘domestication’ for the construction of a German canon as mentioned in the class. It’s true that in all, the duality of faithfullness and freedom exists, but reading between the lines leads one to different definitions of these concepts. A closer look also works for diminishing the gap between the premodern and modern texts on translational method. One could derive the concept of ‘effect’ from Dryden’t text, or Tytler’s meeting both ends could be taken as an attempt of abolishing the duality. Whereas, Schleiermacher’s text, as the most systematic and well-problematizing of all, produces the roots for not only the functional approaches of ‘translating according to a text-type’, but also such modern issues of ‘contextualization’ and ‘source author-target reader’ relationship.
When read sequentially, these texts also reveal the development of systematic theoritisation of translation phenomena from Dryden’s three parted scheme to Schleiermacher’s extensively defined terms. Still, it’s apparent that these systematizations aim to provide a guide for the translator, in other words, there’s not an empirical textual level regarding the ‘existing’ product of translation practice in these texts. Besides, the explications of their classifications can’t pass beyond the ‘intention’ level at times. Tytler offers the translator to ‘adopt the very soul of the author’ and ‘speak through his own organs’ in order to achieve the type of transcendental perfection he proposes, yet he doesn’t clarify how exactly to do that. Similarly, Dryden mentions about an ‘original Muse’ that hinders the full rendering of the source poem. Obviously, the youngest of all, Schleiermacher is the one that attempts to cover such defects of his elders. Following a relatively systematic methodology which begins with classifying translating for commerce and for scholarly aims (&art). Focusing on the latter, Schleiermacher first problematizes language’s power on cognition, then extensively discusses how to correspond the two distinct types of language that possibly lead to two distinct types of cognition. As he states, there’s no mid-way that would meet both ends, therefore the translator would either bring the source author to the target reader, or vice versa. Explicating both ways in detail, Schleiermacher favors the latter approach we would later name as ‘foreignization`. At this point, he lays the roots of still debated issues such as translation’s role in enhancing the langugage, transmitting the historical particularities within language and the respect for the particular as opposed to general . Bearing all these facts in mind, we could say that these writings also reveal the development of theoretical systematization within translation history, though none are at the level of recent theories and are still regarded as ‘primitive’ compared to their proceeders.
Lefevere’s study as an alternative research on the redefiniton of translation history
In her article titled “The History ofTranslation: Recurring Patterns & Research Issues”, Mona Baker explicates an exemplary approach for a modern retrospection of the translation phenomena: “...we still know very little about the history of our profession, that what we know of it indicates that its profile has varied tremendously from one era to another, and- equally important- that the activities of translation and interpreting have taken such a wide variety of forms and have occured in such a multitude of contexts over the years that we are obliged to look at the historical facts before we can even begin to develop theoretical accounts for this complex phenomenon.” (Baker 2002: 14)
These words of Baker perfectly correlate with Lefevere’s introduction to his article “Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation” which basicly tells that ‘Shifts and changes in the technique of translating did not occur at random’ and historicizing translation necessitates the explication of the dynamics around these shifts. The exemplifications from the texts of Dolet,Dryden, Tytler and Schleiermacher have also revealed that it’s important to search for the traces of the bridge between the past and the present. Reading the disputes that are under the same classification- as the threatisies of those theoreticians have always been classified under the same title ‘primitive and prescriptive’- we’ve seen both how each has contextualized those `same` concepts differently and the gradual evolution of ‘systematical translation theory’.
Taking a more extensive era and two totally different geographies as his subject of comparison, Lefevere’s study serves for the acquisition a same type of approach towards translation history. Setting off from the most eminent dualities of the era, ‘Self – the Other’ and ‘West- East’, he displays the simultaneous development of translation in the Western and Chinese culture towards different directions. As his findings reveal, East has adopted a more stable, consistent attitude towards translation. There hasn’t been a transition from oral tradition to the textual tradition for long time, therefore it has continued it’s ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’ - an approach favoring the reader and sees source as insignificant. Since each translation becomes a source, Chinese tradition is beyond the dualism of faithfullness and freedom. In contrast, though set off from the same functional oral tradition of ‘interpreting’, West has displayed a more dynamic historical development in terms of translational practice. First with the bilingual development of the culture, then with Christianity, ‘word’ has been adopted as the translation unit and in contrast with Eastern tradition’s ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’, West has insistently stayed within the boundaries of the source and approached translation as ‘linguistic transcoding’. In this way, Lefevere explains the development of a ‘retranslation’ ritual and the source vs target disputes Western tradition has fallen into.
By all means, the scheme Lefevere draws for an alternative historicism of translation phenomena is a gigantic one. Squeezing the millennial development of two distinct cultures’ into 12 pages is truely a matter of appreciation. However, this exposes his text to criticisms on misrepresentations in terms of both cultures. Firstly, he doesn’t define the West to which he subjects his comparison. Secondly, backing up the stability of the translational tradition in Chinese culture with its homogenious structure is rather confusing. From such an article, the reader acquires a general view of the development in both cultures, which is great. Yet, apparently, the rationals behind the ‘functionally thinking rhetoric’ of the East and the ‘linguistic transcoding’ of the West need some deeper explications.
For sure, one conclusion arrived by Lefevere`s article is crucial in defining the current position of the field. Afterall, ‘translation spans a field immeasurably wider than that which involves the mere technical activity’ (Lefevere 1998: 24), therefore translation history is in need of conceptual definitions and redefinitions considering the cultural dynamics surrounding the field’s development.
Concluding Remarks
As seen in this two parted essay, the development of translation studies- in both methodological and conceptual matters- is expected to be located within the larger picture. The perspectival shifts from the ancient orators to Bible translators, from linguistic theories to cultural turn and the power turn have never occured randomly. The discipline’s internal dynamics have always been in interaction with the historical and cultural surroundings. Therefore it’s necessary to look back there wider (Am I being too prescriptive here??) since the past never gives up tagging along the present.
References
Baker, Mona
“The History of Translation: Recurring Patterns & Research Issues,” translations: (re)shaping of literature and culture (ed.) Saliha Paker. Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press, pp. 5-14.
Lefevere, Andre
“Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation”, Constructing Cultures (ed.) Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere, pp. 12-24.
Robinson, Douglas
“Etienne Dolet “, Western Translation Theory, pp. 95-96.
“John Dryden”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 171-175.
“Alexander Fraser Tytler”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 208-212.
“Friedrich Schleiermacher”, Western Translation Theory, pp. 225-238.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)