Chapter 10: Philosophical Approaches to Translation
➢ Philosophers have been discussing translation for centuries, but it was not until the 20th century that translation became a central concern for some philosophers.
➢ Some of the key figures in philosophical approaches to translation include Ludwig Wittgenstein, Walter Benjamin, Martin Heidegger, Willard Quine, Donald Davidson, Hans Gadamer, Paul Ricœur, Jacques Derrida, Judith Butler, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, and Barbara Cassin.
➢ Despite the work of these philosophers, the impact of philosophical approaches to translation on the development of translation studies has been limited. This is because the history of translation studies has been shaped more by a linguistic perspective than a philosophical one.
➢ Anthony Pym has categorized the three ways in which philosophy and translation are linked:
1. Philosophers have used translation as a case study or metaphor for issues of more general application.
2. Translation theorists and practitioners have referred to philosophical discourses for support and authority for their ideas.
3. Philosophers, scholars, and translators have commented on the translation of philosophical discourses.
➢ This chapter will focus on the second way, examining the work of George Steiner, Ezra Pound, Walter Benjamin, and Jacques Derrida.
1. Steiner’s Hermeneutic Motion
➢ Hermeneutics is an interpretive method, named after the Greek word hermeneuin meaning 'to understand'. Hermeneutics, briefly, can be defined as the science and methodology of interpreting texts.
➢ In the context of translation studies, George Steiner's concept of hermeneutic motion highlights that the act of translating involves a dynamic interplay between the individual words or phrases (the micro level) and the broader cultural, historical, and linguistic contexts (the macro level). This movement between the micro and macro levels is essential for grasping the full meaning and nuances (refinement) of the original text and conveying them accurately in the translated version.
➢ Hermeneutic motion acknowledges that language is not a fixed set of isolated units, but rather a complex network of interrelated elements. Translators engage in hermeneutic motion as they navigate the complexity of language, culture, and meaning in order to create translations that capture the essence of the original work while making it accessible to a different audience.
➢ George Steiner's idea of "hermeneutic motion" is about how we understand and translate texts. It means that when we read or translate something, we have to keep going back and forth between the little details and the bigger picture. This helps us get the full meaning because words and sentences aren't just about themselves; they're also influenced by the culture, history, and language they come from.
➢ In translation, hermeneutic motion is important because it's not just about changing words from one language to another. Translators need to think about the deeper meanings, like idioms and feelings, and also consider the differences between cultures. They have to keep moving between the small details and the bigger context to make sure they capture the true essence of the original text while making it make sense in the new language.
➢ Steiner's idea shows that translating is more than just swapping words – it's like an art where translators need to find the right balance between staying true to the original and making sure the translation connects with the new audience. This process involves a lot of thinking and choices to make sure the translation feels right and makes sense to everyone who reads it.
➢ George Steiner's concept of "hermeneutic motion" involves four distinct moves or stages that characterize the process of interpreting and translating texts. These moves are essential for understanding the deeper layers of meaning and context within a text.
1. Trust: The first move, trust, is essential for any translator who wants to produce a faithful and accurate translation. The translator must trust that the original text has meaning, even if it is not immediately apparent. This is a difficult task, as it requires the translator to suspend their own disbelief and to enter into the world of the original text.
2. Aggression: The second move, aggression, is about engaging with the text in a critical and analytical way. The translator must break down the text into its constituent parts, such as words, phrases, and sentences. They must also compare the text to other texts, both in the original language and in the target language. This process of analysis and comparison helps the translator to uncover the meaning of the original text.
3. Incorporation: The third move, incorporation, is about finding ways to express the meaning of the original text in the target language. The translator must find ways to make the meaning of the original text comprehensible to the target audience, while still remaining faithful to the original text. This is a difficult task, as it requires the translator to be aware of the differences between the two languages and cultures.
4. Restitution: The fourth and final move, restitution, is about producing a translated text that is both faithful to the original text and also makes sense in the target language and culture. This is a difficult task, as it requires the translator to balance the needs of the original text with the needs of the target audience.
➢ The hermeneutic motion is a cyclical process, and the translator may need to go back and forth between the stages multiple times in order to produce a satisfactory translation.
➢ Elective Affinity and Resistant Difference
● Elective affinity and resistant difference are two concepts used in translation studies to describe the relationship between the original text and the translated text.
● Elective affinity refers to the sense of connection or resonance (rapport - a relationship of mutual understanding) that the translator feels with the original text. This is often based on shared cultural or linguistic background, but it can also be based on more personal factors, such as the translator's own interests or experiences. When there is elective affinity between the translator and the original text, the translation process is often easier and more successful.
● Resistant difference refers to the challenges that the translator faces in trying to capture the meaning of the original text in the target language. This can be due to differences in grammar, vocabulary, or cultural conventions. Resistant difference can make translation a difficult and frustrating process, but it can also be a source of creativity and innovation.
● The concepts of elective affinity and resistant difference are often used together to describe the complex and dynamic relationship between the original text and the translated text. The translator must find a way to balance these two forces in order to produce a translation that is both faithful to the original text and also accessible to the target audience.
● Here are some examples of elective affinity and resistant difference in translation:
● A translator who is translating a text from their own language may feel a sense of elective affinity with the original text, as they are familiar with the cultural and linguistic background of the text.
● A translator who is translating a text from a language that they do not speak fluently may experience more resistant differences, as they will have to work harder to understand the meaning of the text.
● A translator who is translating a text that is very different from their own culture may also experience more resistant differences, as they will have to find ways to explain cultural concepts and references that are unfamiliar to the target audience.
● The concepts of elective affinity and resistant difference are important for understanding the challenges and rewards of translation. By understanding these concepts, translators can better appreciate the complexity of the translation process and the creativity that is required to produce a successful translation.
2. Ezra Pound and the Energy of Language
➢ Steiner refers to both Pound and Benjamin as belonging to the age of ‘philosophic–poetic theory and definition’ and to having made an important contribution to developing theories of relations between languages. In the case of the twentieth-century American modernist poet Ezra Pound, this was done through both the practice and criticism of translation.
➢ Ezra Pound was an experimental poet who focused on the expressive qualities of language. He sought to energize language through clarity, rhythm, sound, and form, rather than solely relying on sense. One example of his experimental approach was his "reading" of Chinese ideograms, based on the notes of Ernest Fenollosa. This approach privileged the creative form of the sign, capturing the energy of the thing or event pictured.
➢ Ezra Pound was a poet who was influenced by the literature of the past.
➢ In his translations, he tried to escape from the traditional English style by using an archaic (very old or old fashioned/obsolete) and sometimes unclear style.
➢ He did this in his translation of the Anglo-Saxon poem The Seafarer, where he imitated the original meter and used words from Old English.
➢ Pound's own writing about translation was also informal, which contrasted with the archaic style of his translations.
➢ In his essay "Guido's relations", he argued that it was impossible to translate into a Victorian or even a thirteenth-century English idiom.
➢ Venuti argues that Pound's foreignizing strategy is an attempt to make the reader aware of the difference between the original text and the translation.
➢ Pound's informal writing style is a reflection of his belief that translation should be a creative act, rather than a literal one.
➢ Pound's translations have been criticized for being too difficult to read, but they have also been praised for their innovative approach to translation.
➢ In his translation of the Italian poet Guido Cavalcanti, Pound used what he called "pre-Elizabethan English" in order to bring out the difference between the Italian text and the English translation.
➢ This approach has been criticized by some for making the translation sound "quaint" or "archaic."
➢ However, Pound's experimentalism and challenging of the poetic doctrine of his time continue to provide inspiration for many later translators and theorists.
➢ His view of translation as criticism and his own form of "creative" translation also heavily influenced Brazilian poets, including Haroldo de Campos.
➢ For Campos, translation should be a process of "transcreation," in which the translator takes the "life energies" of the source text and revitalizes them in the target text.
3. The Task of the Translator: Walter Benjamin
➢ In his essay "The Task of the Translator" (his 1923 essay ‘Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers’ translated into English by Harry Zohn in 1969), Walter Benjamin argues that the translator's task is not to reproduce the meaning of the original text, but to create a new work that bears the "echo" of the original. He writes:
The task of the translator is to release in his own language that pure language which is under the spell of another, to liberate the language imprisoned in a work in his re-creation of that work.
➢ Benjamin compares translation to a game of chess, in which the translator must move the pieces of the original text into a new configuration in the target language. However, the translator is not free to make any move they want. They are constrained by the rules of the game, which are the laws of language.
➢ Benjamin argues that the translator must find the "intention" of the original text, and then find a way to express that intention in the target language. This is not always easy, as the intention of the original text may be obscure or ambiguous. In these cases, the translator must use their own creativity and imagination to find a way to express the intention of the original text.
➢ According to Benjamin, the task of the translator is to find the intention towards the language into which the work is to be translated, on the basis of which an echo of the original can be created. The translator's work should ultimately serve the purpose of expressing the innermost relationship of languages to one another. Benjamin argues that the translation does not exist for the sake of the reader who does not read the original language. Rather, the translator should labor to produce an echo or a "reverberation" of the original work in the target language. Benjamin believes that the successful translator must search carefully for the core of an original work. Therefore, no translator needs to concern himself very much with what the original means. The translator's task is to produce in the target language the intended effect upon the reader that the original work produced in its own language.
➢ Benjamin's essay has been highly influential in the field of translation studies. It has been praised for its insights into the nature of translation and for its challenge to the traditional view of translation as a mere reproduction of meaning. Benjamin's essay is a complex and challenging work, but it is also a rewarding one. It offers a new way of thinking about translation, and it has had a profound impact on the field of translation studies.
4. Deconstruction
➢ Deconstruction is a theoretical approach that challenges the traditional view of language and meaning. It involves an interrogation (questioning) of language and the very terms, systems, and concepts which are constructed by that language.
➢ Deconstruction rejects the primacy of meaning fixed in the word and instead foregrounds or 'deconstructs' the ways in which a text undermines its own assumptions and reveals its internal contradictions. The movement has its origins in France in the 1960s, and its leading figure was the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. The term différance is perhaps the most significant; it plays on the two meanings of the French verb différer ('defer' and 'differ'), neither of which totally encompasses its meaning, and its spelling shift (from the standard différence to différance) is a silent, visual indication of a blurring of the signifier and the dislocation or deferral of meaning.
➢ To conclude, deconstruction is a way of reading texts that focuses on the ways in which they construct meaning. It does this by looking for the contradictions and ambiguities in the text, and by tracing the ways in which the text undermines its own assumptions. Deconstruction is often used to challenge the dominant or "privileged" meanings in a text, and to open up new possibilities for interpretation.
i. Readings of Benjamin: Deconstructionists have approached translation by reading and commenting on Benjamin's "The Task of the Translator".
➢ Derrida's essay "Des tours de Babel" is a play on words, the French "tours" potentially having the sense of "turns", "turns of phrase" and "towers" (of Babel).
➢ Derrida interrogates Jakobson's division of interlingual, intralingual and intersemiotic translation, pointing out the illogicality of Jakobson's definition of "interlingual translation or translation proper".
➢ Deconstructionists believe that meaning is not fixed, but is always open to interpretation.
➢ They argue that translation is not a neutral or transparent process of transferring meaning from one language to another.
➢ Instead, they believe that translation is a creative act that produces new meanings.
➢ They also argue that the distinction between source and target texts is unstable and can be deconstructed.
➢ In other words, they believe that the original text and the translation are not two separate entities, but are instead interdependent and mutually dependent.
➢ Derrida's deconstruction of translation theory has been influential in challenging the traditional view of translation as a neutral or transparent process. His work has opened up new possibilities for thinking about the relationship between language, meaning, and translation.
➢ Here is a simpler example of deconstruction in translation:
● The English word "tree" can be translated into French as "arbre". However, the French word "arbre" also has the meaning of "rod" or "staff". This means that the translation of "tree" into French does not fully capture the meaning of the original word. In this way, the deconstruction of translation theory can help us to understand that no translation is ever perfect, and that all translations are open to interpretation.
ii. Abusive Fidelity: Abusive fidelity is a term coined by the translator and theorist Philip Lewis to describe a type of translation that is faithful to the source text to the point of being unfaithful to the target language.
➢ In other words, an abusively faithful translation is one that does not take into account the cultural and linguistic differences between the two languages, and as a result, produces a translation that is unnatural or even nonsensical in the target language.
➢ Abusive fidelity is a type of translation that is too faithful to the source text, to the point where it becomes unnatural or even nonsensical in the target language. This can happen when the translator does not take into account the cultural and linguistic differences between the two languages.
➢ For example, if a translator is translating a text that uses a lot of figurative language, such as metaphors and similes, they may end up translating these figures of speech literally, which can result in a translation that is difficult to understand or even nonsensical in the target language.
➢ Another example of abusive fidelity might be a translation of a text that contains cultural references that are specific to the source language. If the translator does not take into account these cultural differences, they may end up producing a translation that is incomprehensible or even offensive to the target audience.
➢ Abusive fidelity is a controversial issue in translation studies. Some people argue that it is a necessary evil, in order to preserve the meaning of the source text. Others argue that it is a form of linguistic imperialism and censorship, and that it should be avoided whenever possible.
➢ Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to use abusive fidelity is a matter of individual judgment. However, it is important to be aware of the potential risks and benefits of this approach before making a decision.
➢ The the risks and benefits of abusive fidelity is summarized below:
Risks | Benefits |
The translation may be unnatural or even nonsensical in the target language. | The translation may be more accurate and faithful to the meaning of the source text. |
The translation may be incomprehensible or even offensive to the target audience. | The translation may preserve the cultural context of the source text. |
The translation may privilege the source language over the target language, which can be seen as a form of linguistic imperialism. | The translation may be more aesthetically pleasing or poetic. |
Comments
Post a Comment