week 9

An Author Clariced to Know: the case of Hélène Cixous and Clarice Lispector

Hélène Cixous, chiefly regarded as a “pioneer of the reflection on sexual difference, author of powerful critical essays, and prolific writer of poetic fiction” (Fort 1997: 425), is one of the most significant names of the academic world. Cixous’s dramatic, literary and scholarly works –particularly the ones between 1990 and 2000– have either taken the colonized countries, such as Cambodia and India (e.g. The Terrible But Unfinished Story of Norodom Sihanouk, King of Cambodia and Manna, for the Mandelstams for the Mandelas), or the Japanese and Chinese theatre traditions (i.e. Drums on the Dike) as a focal point. Seen from this perspective, Hélène Cixous can be considered as one of the most prominent scholars of the West who has brought the issues, traditions, and socio-cultural elements of the “unknown” to the notice of the (Western) world. Yet, Cixous was concerned with the “foreign” long before the 1990s. For instance, in the 1970s, the Brazilian writer Clarice Lispector had been a source of inspiration for Cixous in terms of developing her own way of writing and thinking (Arrojo 1999: 144). Various scholarly projects undertaken by Hélène Cixous have been quite influential during the “canonization” of Clarice Lispector in the Western world.

When this brief glance at Hélène Cixous and her “relationship” with Clarice Lispector is taken into consideration within postcolonial context, the abovementioned broad introduction becomes merely the tip of an iceberg: Hélène Cixous, being the agent of the dominant culture and Clarice Lispector, being the “treasure” of the distant lands become the personas of a dramatic performance in which the notions of fidelity, love and emotions are seriously questioned. Taking this argument as a point of commencement, Rosemary Arrojo, discusses Hélène Cixous’s “textual affair” with Clarice Lispector from the perspective of postcolonial theories in her article entitled, “Interpretation as Possessive Love: Hélène Cixous, Clarice Lispector and the Ambivalence of Fidelity”.

By taking Jacques Lacan’s notion of “the subject presumed to know” –the person in whom one deems knowledge to exist, acquires the love of that individual– as a basis for her discussion, Arrojo offers a comprehensive analysis of Cixous’s approach to Lispector. According to Arrojo, in the (post)colonial situation, “the subaltern culture desires the knowledge which supposedly belongs to the dominant, the latter never doubts the legitimacy of its status as the owner and guardian of such knowledge. [C]onsequently, from such a perspective, the tragedy of the subaltern is precisely the blindness with which it devotes itself to this transferential love that only serves the interests of the dominant and feeds the illusion of ‘the subject presumed to know’, as it also legitimates the latter’s power to decide what is proper and what is not, what is desirable and what is not” (ibid.: 143).

As far as postcolonial translation theories are concerned, Hélène Cixous’s interpretation of Clarice Lispector –in a sense– suggests itself as a unique example. In the (post)colonial situation, “while choosing texts for rewriting, the dominant power appropriates only those texts that conform to the preexisting [sic] discursive parameters of its linguistic networks” (Sengupta 1995: 159). In the case of Cixous and Lispector, instead of a direct linguistic transfer, translation takes an obvious form of re-writing in the hands of authority and used in order to impose a certain attitude to a literary figure pertaining to a “foreign” culture (Arrojo 1999: 155, 159). Still, the case of Cixous and Lispector differs in one way from the general understanding of (post)colonial situation with respect to translation: whereas Lispector was “compatible” with Cixous’s way of thinking, therefore was conformed and even used as an aesthetic value by the French scholar’s in terms of developing her productivity, translation –precisely speaking, the translations of Lispector’s works– were strictly rejected by Hélène Cixous with the purpose of having the knowledge that she finds in Lispector merely for herself: The French scholar establishes a so-called “dialectical” relationship with the Brazilian writer in which Lispector’s value as a renowned literary figure becomes dependent to the point that her works conform to Cixous’s way of thinking (cf. ibid.:150).

The emphasis on the very adjective dialectical becomes quite interesting when one thinks of Cixous’s and Lispector’s situations. The dialectical relationship which Cixous assumes to have established with Lispector, actually lacks the essence –a logical dialogue between two individuals– of such a rational connection. As Rosemary Arrojo puts it, “in this truly asymmetrical dialogue, while Cixous practically does all the ‘talking’, Lispector is inevitably forced not only to be saying ‘the same thing everywhere’, as Cixous explicitly declares in an essay on Água Viva, but also to agree unconditionally with her powerful reader” (ibid.:153). Furthermore, Cixous under the guise of adopting a feminist strategy in terms of transforming Clarice Lispector’s name into a noun, adjective and a verb, explicitly appropriates Lispector to her own texts (cf. ibid.: 155). In this sense, Cixous’s interpretation of Lispector takes the form of “colonization”; Cixous’s approach to Lispector regarding the transformation of her name stems from the situation of Lispector. Lispector, being the representative of a peripheral culture can become the subject of this appropriation but as far as the distinguished literary figures of the twentieth century writing, say, Franz Kafka, James Joyce, are concerned Cixous’s approach differs (ibid.: 156).

The case of Hélène Cixous and Clarice Lispector suggests itself as a representative example of the arguments proposed by André Lefevere in his Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame (1992). Within the framework proposes by Lefevere, Cixous achieves the position of a “professional” who is responsible for the aesthetics of a given society. However, Cixous, instead of writing for a given society, is writing texts for women, marginalized, and oppressed societies and in this sense differs from the position which one might bestow upon her within the theoretical framework of Lefevere. During the course of Hélène Cixous’s re-writing of Clarice Lispector, the French scholar herself becomes “‘the subject presumed to know’, particularly for those [her proponents] who are blindly devoted to her texts and who have transformed her into the author (and the authority) that she is today within the broad area of cultural studies” (Arrojo 1999: 155). Seen from this perspective, one can is see how the case of Hélène Cixous and Clarice Lispector can be discussed in detail within a broader (post)colonial systemic framework in the light of the arguments developed by Rosemary Arrojo.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arrojo, Rosemary, “Interpretation as Possessive Love: Hélène Cixous, Clarice Lispector and the Ambivalence of Fidelity”, in Bassnett, Susan and Trivedi, Harish (eds.), Post-Colonial Translation, London-New York: Routledge, 1999, pp. 141-161

Fort, Bernadette, “Theater, History, Ethics: An Interview with Hélène Cixous on The Perjured City, or the Awakening of the Furies”, in New Literary History vol. 28.3, The University of Virginia Press, USA, 1997, pp. 425-456

Lefevere, André, Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame, London and New York: Routledge, 1992

Sengupta, Mahasweta, “Translation as Manipulation: The Power of Images and Images of Power”, in Dingwaney, Anuradha and Maier, Carol, (eds.) Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and Cross-Cultural Texts. Pittsburgh and London: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995, pp. 159-173

week 8

The Notion of Translatio Imperi et Studii in Postcolonial Approaches to the Study and Practice of Translation

Language –as far as the relationship between a colonized country and its colonizer is taken into consideration– can be one of the most effective tools of the dominant community during the course of imposing power and authority upon the former inhabitants, later subservient people of the remote lands. Such a process inevitably brings the translation act undertaken by various ascendant forces of the world history during their colonization of the “distant”, “exotic” and “foreign” territories to the notice of a researcher who is concerned with the socio-cultural and linguistic dynamics of (post)colonialism. Even though main focus of the most of the postcolonial approaches developed within the academic world is the situation of the “East” against the “West”, the origins of dominating the “Other” date back to the times of Cicero and Horace. The process of re-shaping the “Other” through the eyes of the dominant power, in fact, is a process which was carried out within the Western civilization by the Western people.

In his remarkable book entitled Translation and Empire (1997) in which he traces the roots of the postcolonial translation theories and offers the analyses of some of the most weighty writings (i.e. Tejaswini Niranjana’s Siting Translation, Eric Cheyfitz’s The Poetics of Imperialism, and Vicente L. Rafael’s Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Cınversion in Tagalog Society Under Early Spanish Rule) related to translation within the postcolonial context, Douglas Robinson emphasizes the significance of the notion of translatio studii et imperii in postcolonial (translation) theories. Prior to his discussion of translatio studii et imperii, or in Robinson’s words, “the ancient theory that both knowledge and imperial control of the world tend to move in a westerly direction” (1997: 124), the scholar argues for the significance of dragomans in the Ancient Egyptian civilization and Herodotus of the Ancient Greek culture in the history of translation history and moreover, considers them as the people involved seriously with translation before the times of Cicero and Horace. Such an argument, indeed verifies the description which Robinson gives for translatio studii et imperii (cf. ibid: 46-49).

According to Robinson, the times of Cicero and Horace, were actually the periods of the world history in which the first postcolonial project was undertaken (ibid: 52). After the conquest of the Attic Islands, Roman writers, scholars, and philosophers, were in the position of building up a literary tradition of their own and the heritage laid ahead of them was the literary and scholarly works of the Ancient Greek Culture; the theoretical works of Aristotle, the tragedies of Æschylus, Sophocles and Euripides along with the comedies of Aristophanes have all served one way or another for the Roman scholars during the course of developing a literary and an aesthetic tradition of their own. The ultimate goal of this very first postcolonial project undertaken by the Romans, in the words of Robinson was “to appropriate Greek culture, literature, philosophy, law and so on for Rome, and to do so in such a way as to establish the originality of the Romans – to sever the ties of indebtedness to the ‘greats’ of once-imperial Greece” (ibid.). As a consequence of this postcolonial project, Romans have developed their tradition but the success of this project was debatable. The tragedies, for instance, which were one of the most powerful literary achievements of the Ancient Greek Culture have fallen from grace and were replaced by the comedies in the Roman tradition.

The tradition of acculturation, appropriation or even naturalization the “foreign” stemming from the notion of translatio studii et imperii continued throughout the ages and became one of the most effective ways of “empire” during the course of re-constituting the “Other”. In a manner evoking the Roman tradition, Christian church had to “deal” with the pre-Christian beliefs of the Greeks and Romans, therefore the literary works of the authors, such as Homer, Plato, Ovid or Virgil were re-written in a fourfold process, that is to say, on the literal level, on the moral level, on the allegorical level and on the analogical level through the usage of the figurative hermeneutics (cf. ibid: 53), and as a matter of fact, became one of the ultimate ways of spreading Christianity in history.

In addition to the notion of translatio studii et imperii, another important point worth mentioning is “taking the original captive” metaphor. The idea behind this metaphor is “that the translator, rather than letting himself be ‘bound’ or chained by the original author through literal or ‘slavish’ or ‘servile’ translation, seizes the control of the text and its meaning, and thus of the original author and source culture, and enslaves them” (ibid: 55-56). “Taking the original captive” metaphor, which was coined by St. Jerome, became an image of translator-as-conqueror through the history, and in the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries turned into an underpinning leitmotiv of the German Romantics understanding of translation which has a certain impact on the evolution of the contemporary translation theories.

As this brief glance at the notion of translatio studii et imperii and the metaphor of “taking the original captive” indicates, translation has close ties with the empire, hence the ascendant forces of the history. As far as the postcolonial approaches developed within the academic world are concerned, one can see how these two facts inherent in the translation act connotes the fact of violence in a given translation project. When the issue of violence is taken into consideration within a more contemporary context, one may infer how the situation briefly explained above is more or less the same. In a given translation, for example, from the language of the “Third World” –the cultures and languages regarded as the “Other” by the West– to the hegemonic languages of the Western world (i.e. English, French or German), the original texts become the subject of manipulation to a certain extent. Agents of the ascendant cultures, with their intended receptors in mind either by the employment of metaphors or metonymies can violate the aesthetic values of the source text/s and might re-shape the “Other” cultures according to their opinions (cf. Dingwaney 1995: 4-5 with Tymoczko 1999: 50). Under such circumstances, in which the dialectics of power constitute the bulk of a given translation process, the significance of cultural translation becomes crucial than ever.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dingwaney, Anuradha, “Introduction: Translating ‘Third World’ Cultures”, in Dingwaney, Anuradha and Maier, Carol, (eds.) Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and Cross-Cultural Texts. Pittsburgh and London: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1995, pp. 3-14

Robinson, Douglas, Translation and Empire, Manchester: St. Jerome, UK, 1997

Tymoczko, Maria, Translation in a Postcolonial Context, Manchester: St. Jerome, UK, 1999

a late response

Eugene A. Nida and Meaning-full Translations


The prevailing tendency among the theories of translation developed in the 1960s was linguistic-based and the socio-cultural aspect of translation was dismissed to a certain extent. Yet, amongst these scholars who were in favour of a linguistic-based approach to the study and practice of translation, Eugene A. Nida, mostly celebrated with his Holy Bible translations, was actually one of the forerunners of the cultural turn-to-come to study the translation practices. Nida, by melting the cultural elements and the linguistic aspects inherent in his approach in the same pot, acquires a specific place in the midst of the other translation scholars who maintained a linguistic-based approach to translation.

This dual notion of Nida’s approach, in fact, surfaces in the terms that the scholar coins. Nida’s remarkable article entitled, “Principles of Correspondence”, written in 1964, offers the gist of the scholar’s approach to a certain degree. While “formal equivalence” seeks to render the message of the ST by means of word for word, concept to concept translation, “dynamic equivalence” aspires to reflect the entire naturalness of the ST in the TT (cf. Nida: 2000 134). A detailed reading of this article, moreover, would offer the chance to understand how the scholar’s approach to translation in the 2000s is more or less relies on the theories he developed in the 1960s. An interview made by Eugene A. Nida himself in 2002, and published online in the website of “Christianity Today”, for example, suggests itself as a representative example of such an argument. In addition to re-reading Nida’s arguments with respect to translation from a contemporary perspective, the interview also comprises the stages that the scholar employs in a given translation process.

Throughout the interview, Nida puts momentous emphasis on the meaning of the TT rather than the words of the text. According to Nida, the “word-worship” helps people to have self-confidence, but on the other hand, impedes them from understanding the text. In some obscure cases, Nida advocates the usage of footnotes to get rid of the vagueness and carry the meaning for the TT reader. In the translation process –by giving tangible examples from the practical field– Nida indicates how he favours the group work and shapes the translation product in accordance with the receptions of the TT readers.

When Nida’s ideas of translation –both in this particular interview and in his theoretical writings– are taken into consideration in line with the “Vatican Norms for Translation of Biblical Texts” set out in the spring of 1997, one can see how Nida’s opinions differ from these rules to a certain degree. Whereas the Vatican Norms stress out the significance of fidelity to the words of the (sacred) text, for Nida it is the context and the meaning needs to be rendered. Seen from this perspective, Nida’s ideas of translation acquire a different position in terms of translating the sacred texts.

On the whole, Nida’s arguments regarding translation and the translation process are quite remarkable. Still, the fact that the scholar derives his ideas from the perspective of religion, that is to say, from the perspective of how to spread Christianity throughout the world, limits Nida’s ideas to some extent. When one thinks of literary translation, for instance, the search for a dynamic equivalence might distort the socio-cultural components of the TT to some degree. Literary translation process, in which there is a ST composed of socio-cultural elements of a given culture can as well as be regarded as a bridge between cultures. However, when the translator seeks to find a dynamic equivalence, s/he is in the position of taking the TT norms as the ultimate criteria and makes the socio-cultural elements of the ST compatible with the ones of the TT. Yet Nida, by adding the cultural elements of his linguistic-based approach, and by connoting some of basic ideas (i.e. the action) of the Skopostheorie of Hans J. Vermeer, acquires a specific place within the other scholars who developed a linguistic-based approach to the study and practice of translation.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eugene Nida, “The Principles of Correspondence” in Lawrence Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London-New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 126-140

Meaning-full Translations, Christianity Today
<http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/october7/2.46.html>.
(accessed 25 November 2007).

The 1997 Vatican Norms for Translation of Biblical Texts
<http://www.bible-researcher.com/vatican-norms.html>. (accessed 25 November 2007).

week 7

To which extent is Lawrence Venuti’s Foreignizing Approach to Translation is Estranging?

To a certain degree, the so-called fluency in any kind of translated work is the criteria which makes it acceptable to the eyes of the readers, critics, reviewers, professionals, publishing house owners, and so forth in a given target society. Still, it is surprising to see how a fluent translation, in other words, a translucent translation appropriated –or even naturalized– according to the taste of domestic values, is perceived as a repercussion of the foreign author’s own poetics and intentions, and moreover, allows the reader of a target culture to enjoy the taste of the original work. However, fluency in a translated text not only impedes the translator from reflecting his/her style, aesthetics and world view on the translated work, but also peels away the peculiarities of the source text hence the socio-cultural elements which can enrich the target culture to some degree. The prevailing opinion regarding the fluency in a translated work has been one of the most fundamental aspects of the American translation scholar Lawrence Venuti’s approach to translation: “The more fluent the translation, the more invisible the translator, and, presumably, the more visible the writer or meaning of the foreign text” (1994: 16). Venuti’s statement also reflects how the scholar himself puts emphasis on the significance of the foreign text; thereby he, in the words of Susan Bassnett, “calls for translator-centred translation, insisting that the translator should inscribe him/herself visibly into the text.” (1998: 25).

Venuti’s call for a translator-centred translation is indicative of scholar’s advocacy of the choices of the translator in a given translation project. In this sense, one may think of Venuti’s approach similar to the translation scholars (i.e. Katharina Reiss) who regard translation as a decision making process. What distinguishes Venuti’s approach from the ones of the other translation theorists is Venuti’s (re)evaluation of the notions of domestication and foreignization which have their very roots in the theories of the German scholar Friedrich Schleirmacher in the sense of “reader-to-author” and “author-to-reader” approaches (cf. Robinson: 2002 228). Venuti advocates foregnizing, resisting, and estranging translation against domestication in order to raise “an opposition to the global hegemony of English”, and regards good translation as minoritizing one which “releases the remainder by cultivating a heterogeneous discourse, opening up the standard dialect and literary canons to what is foreign themselves, to the substandard and marginal” (1998: 10-11). From this point of view, one can see the dual features inherent in Venuti’s approach to the study and practice of translation: favouring the source text for the sake of the target text, or to put it more clearly; Venuti, while being source-oriented in theory, in practice, actually develops a target-oriented approach.

In order to support his arguments regarding the notion of minorizing translation along with resisting translation, Venuti gives a coherent example, namely, his own translation of the nineteenth-century Italian writer Tarchetti’s novel Fosca. Venuti’s foreignizing strategy includes using archaic words and mixing Britishisms with the contemporary American language. In addition to that, by employing paratextual materials (i.e. an introduction), Venuti aimed at showing right from the start what his intention was to the reader/s. In this respect, Venuti’s approach –precisely speaking, the way he develops his arguments with respect to the study and practice of translation– evokes the early translation theoreticians, such as Etienne Dolet and John Dryden who used their own experiences during the course of building their ideas (cf. Robinson:2002 95-97, 171-175).

Even though Venuti’s main points of arguments stem from the notions of fluency and foreignization versus domestication, the extension and the impacts of his ideas on the research done on the study and practice of translation was enormous. Yet, how Venuti regards “fluency” merits further attention. Venuti, as Douglas Robinson argues, “doesn’t seem to be interested in exploring where the ethos of fluency come from, what social needs might have motivated its formation and given it ideological pride of place” (1997: 99). Within this context, one may think how Venuti takes fluency for granted, and in a way, merely uses this fact –indeed it is a fact– as a point of commencement in order to develop his arguments. Similarly Venuti, while putting forward his criteria regarding the (marginal) literary works to be translated, looks as if he is neglecting the works pertaining to contemporary literature which to a certain degree might comprise peripheral features when compared to the ones that Venuti regards as marginal.

When Venuti’s theoretical writing is read with his foreignizing approach in mind, one can infer how the notion of fluency which the scholar draws heavily upon becomes one of the most problematic aspects of his approach. Venuti’s theoretical writings are written in a fluent manner; so fluent that one might even become suspicious how the scholar himself advocates a foreignizing translation strategy. When looked from the vantage point of view of how the thoughts in human brain are reflected (by means of being subject to many changes) to the act of writing, one can regard how the act of writing itself becomes a sort of translation. And in this sense, Venuti’s theoretical writings become the translations within the academic system. Indeed, when Venuti’s writing style is taken into account, one can see how it reads fluently and lacks of the estranging, alienating, foreignizing, and resisting style which the scholar himself puts momentous emphasis on. From this perspective, one can infer how Venuti adheres to the academic discourse and refrains from developing a peculiar style (one thinks of Toury here) which can go hand in hand with his theoretical assumptions.

On the whole, Lawrence Venuti’s illuminative approach to the study and practice of translation is indeed a fruitful one –and if can be put into practice– can enhance the target culture to a certain degree. Furthermore, when one thinks of the idea/s of Venuti regarding the importance of marginal literary works –although his definition of marginal and peripheral should either be extended or clarified– can be a useful tool in terms of introducing literary components in a target culture. Moreover, the empirical data which will these translation products will provide, might be the subject of descriptive studies that can be undertaken within the realm of Translation Studies.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bassnett, Susan, “When is a Translation not a Translation?” in, Bassnett Susan and Lefevere, André (eds.), Constructing Cultures, Multilungual Matters, Clevedon, 1998, 25-40

Robinson, Douglas (ed.) Western Translation Theory: from Herodotus to Nietzsche, St. Jerome, UK, 2002

Robinson, Douglas, What is Translation? Centrifugal Theories, Critical Interventions, The Kent State University Press, USA, 1997

Venuti, Lawrence, “The Translator’s Invisibility: The Evidence of Reviews”, In Other Words: Journal of the Translator’s Association, No: 4, 1994, pp. 16-22

Venuti, Lawrence, The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference, London-New York: Routledge, 1998

week 6

THE (C/OVERT) ROLE OF TRANSLATOR IN TOURY’S DESCRIPTIVE APPROACH TO THE STUDY AND PRACTICE OF TRANSLATION

In 1980, Israeli translation scholar Gideon Toury wrote a book entitled In Search of a Theory of Translation, which apparently launched new debates within the realm of the newly emerging discipline of Translation Studies. The beginning of the eighties, the publication year of Toury’s book, coincides with a period when Translation Studies started to be regarded as an autonomous discipline as well. The beginning of the 1980s was also a time when not only the necessities of founding a particular discipline, but also the presence/s of disciplines were seriously being questioned thanks to the rise of the so-called theories and arguments of post-modernism. The ultimate need for a scientific ground and a scientific approach to build a given discipline was tantamount to found a relevant theory of the study and practice of translation. Toury’s main concern was to establish a theory of translation which could fulfil this need of a newly emerging discipline. In this respect, the title of Toury’s book makes sense and justifies most of the controversies (i.e. tertium comparationis) of his study to a certain degree. Furthermore, Toury was indeed in search of a theory of translation and regarded his study as an initial step taken towards the establishment of this goal. Nevertheless, as far as the circumstances of his time regarding the existence of a particular discipline are taken into consideration, Toury’s endeavour becomes questionable to some extent. Yet, by his approach Toury manages to ignite the debates which would strip the act of translation from the everlasting questions of “equivalence”, “fidelity”, “good vs. bad translation”, “faithfulness”, hence paved the way for interdisciplinary studies of translation and by this prominent quality, in a way Toury overcomes the questionable aspect of his attempt. In this sense, Toury’s initial step can also be regarded as a significant move which indicates the scholar’s awareness of the circumstances of the period in which he has undertaken his study.

In due time, Toury –with the purpose of making his arguments clear, and respond to the criticisms raised against his theory– published his articles which he has written after the publication of In Search of a Theory of Translation in a book entitled Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond in 1995. The notion of norms (Toury 1995: 53-64), special focus on the idea of pseudo translations (ibid: 40-52), the criteria of “adequacy” and “acceptability” (ibid: 56-57) not to mention the postulate of assumed translations (ibid: 31-39), are some of the basic concepts of the scholar’s approach which can become the most efficient tools in the hands of a researcher interested in studying translations in a descriptive way. Among these concepts, particularly the notion of norms merits further attention due to the way it differs from the previous approaches (i.e. source-oriented, linguistic based, and the like) to the study and practice of translation. Unlike the prior translation scholars, Toury regards translations “as facts of the culture which hosts them” (ibid: 24) and indicates that a given translation is a socio-cultural fact which has to be studied by taking into consideration the constraints of the target culture. Toury regards these (social) constraints as norms, or in other words objects to be studied in his descriptive approach.

It is at this point, where the role of translator comes into play in Toury’s descriptive approach. Toury distinguishes three types of norms during the translation process: Preliminary norms, initial norms, operational norms being further subdivided into matricial norms and textual-linguistic norms (ibid: 58-60). Even though all these characteristics of the concept of norms may support the idea of Toury’s giving priority to the translator in terms of the choices s/he can make during the course of a given translation, there are some fundamental aspects which Toury does not take into account, or may seem to not take into account.

Naturally, one of the important phases of a given translation process with respect to the choices made by the translator to be observed is the black box, the mind of the translator in which the hermeneutical circle, that is to say, the act of interpreting, the act of approaching, and the act of establishing a dialectial relationship with a text suggests itself as the core of a given translation process. A brief glance at Toury’s norms, on the other hand, indicates that this crucial aspect is neglected to a certain extent and warded off by merely mentioning it with phrases like “the basic choices to be selected” and so forth (cf. ibid). However, these basic choices also bring into focus the role of translator’s style in the translation process (cf. Boase-Beier: 2006 5-6). By simply pointing out these choices in his theoretical framework and not dwelling upon them in detail, Toury dismisses the style of translator that can mould –either in a positive or a negative way– a translation to some degree. One may argue though, for Toury the hermeneutical process along with the translator’s style within a given translation process is a fact to be studied in the light of the detailed analysis of (translation) norms; nonetheless, the way Toury develops his claims leaves no room for an analysis of the actual process that takes place in the mind of the translator.

Moreover, a quick look at the picture proposed by Toury from a broader perspective in terms of socio-cultural dynamics of a given “(target!)” society, signifies the lack of the ideological concerns to be taken into consideration during the course of building a theoretical framework deriving from the ideas pertaining to sociology. Just like any member of a society, the translator is also an individual of a social community. S/he can adhere himself to the norms of a particular ideology which in the long run might affect his or her translation and to a certain extent and as well as might make the target text produced to function as an ideological tool in terms of imposing particular set of thoughts to the other members of the society. By being negligent of the ideological concerns of a society, Toury reduces the constraints on the shoulders of translators, thus in a sense disregards the varying strata of the societies.

To sum up, Gideon Toury, being one of the harbingers of the “cultural turn” in Translation Studies, has made a significant contribution to the evolution of the discipline in many respects. Be that as it may, Toury’s approach to the study and practice of translation neglects the human factor during the translation process to some degree as stated above. Yet, by the theoretical framework the scholar proposes, can become an effective tool in the hands of a researcher which might undertake a descriptive study of translation practices. Still, as far as the theoretical aspect of Toury’s approach is concerned, the problematic parts in terms of the notion of hermeneutics along with the ideological concerns can be improved by the interdisciplinary studies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boase-Beier, Jean, Stylistic Approaches to Translation, St. Jerome, UK, 2006

Hermans, Theo, Translations in Systems, St. Jerome, UK, 1999

Toury, Gideon, Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1995

week 5

ECHOES OF THE HASKALAH MOVEMENT ON GERMAN DRAMA

It is an indisputable fact that contributions from other disciplines play the major role during the course of an evolution of any given discipline. As far as Translation Studies is concerned, this major role achieves a certain amount of consideration due to the nature of translation which demands for various approaches from other fields of studies, such as sociology, philosophy, theatre studies, cultural studies, and so forth. Even though this aspect of translation was obvious to observe, studies concerned with the said aspect could not be undertaken to a certain extent until the “cultural turn” has taken a heavy toll within the realm of the discipline.

Thanks to the works of some of the leading figures of Translation Studies, say, Itamar Even-Zohar, Gideon Toury, Theo Hermans, and André Lefevere the very word translation acquired the chance to be studied in a broader context. The polysystem theory of Even-Zohar, Toury’s norms, Lefevere’s notion of “rewriting” along with Theo Hermans’ critical approach to the theories of the just mentioned scholars, has contributed to the evolution of Translation Studies under the umbrella of “Descriptive and Systems-Oriented Approaches.” As a consequence of the studies carried out under this branch, translation had the chance to function as a bridgehead between various disciplines to a certain degree.

Gideon Toury’s article entitled, “Translation as a Means of Planning and the Planning of Translation: A Theoretical Framework and an Exemplary Case”, for example, can be shown as a representative example of this kind of study among many other works of Translation Studies concerned with the socio-cultural aspect of translation. Naturally, in Toury’s article, the main focus is on the notion of (culture) planning and the aim of building a bridge between Translation Studies and Planning Studies (cf. 2002: 150), yet, the scholar’s study leaves a room for tracing the trails of his exemplary case within the realm of theatre history, therefore can function as a link that can connect more than one discipline, such as theatre studies and history, sociology, philosophy, and Translation Studies.

Toury’s statement which reads as, “Cultures resort to translating as one possible way of filling in gaps in them – on a variety of levels. A void in a cultural sector may of course be more or less noticeable to the people-in-the-culture. Translation is not the only way of filling a void which has been noticed, however: a gap can also be filled with an alien, untranslated entity, especially in a multilingual group” (ibid: 153, italics original) can be taken as a point of commencement in order to develop an argument which can track down the signs of the scholar’s exemplary case, namely, the Haskalah movement in theatre history. As Toury argues, during the course of building a communal awareness in a society where more than one language are spoken, other methods like planning come into play. Although Toury’s train of thought is chiefly focused on the crucial role that translation played in the Haskalah movement as an instrument solving the issues of language (cf. ibid: 156-159), glancing at the Haskalah movement –precisely speaking, the reflections of the Haskalah movement– from a broader perspective can offer the chance of approaching Toury’s arguments from a different viewpoint.

The Haskalah movement, or in other words, the Jewish Enlightenment, dates back to the Prussia of the eighteenth century and coincides with the German Enlightenment. One thing that Toury does not include in his study in terms of the main reason/s for the need of the Haskalah movement to arouse is the special condition of the Jews of Prussia. Contrary to the fact that the other Jews around Europe –particularly the ones in France– had already gained their social statuses at the beginning of the eighteenth century, it took some time for the Jews of Prussia to reach to that status in the German society (cf. Arendt 1973: 57). Due to the attempts –either in terms of scholarly works or in terms of aesthetic works like drama– coming from a flux of German intellectuals, however, a certain move towards a better understanding of the Jewish society in Prussia started to take place more or less towards the first half of the eighteenth century. One of the prominent figures of the German Enlightenment, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781), for instance, can be considered as a key literary agent who depicted Jews in his dramatic works, hence played a major role during the course of bringing the Jews of Prussia to the focus of attention. Prior to his groundbreaking play Nathan der Wise (Nathan the Wise), written in 1779, Lessing himself had already discussed the problems of the Jewish community in one of his earlier plays, entitled Die Jüden (The Jews) dating back to 1749, and argued that a Jew could have nobility as a quality inherent in his or her soul. In Nathan der Wise, which, according to Hannah Arendt, is a play of friendship in the fullest sense of the word (cf. 1983: 25), Lessing strives for bringing into focus a world-view in which a Jew, a Muslim, and a Christian can live in a peaceful and a tolerant manner by means of employing the forces of free will, independent thinking which can emancipate a given individual from the limitations deriving from social, ethnic, religious and political differentiations in a given society (cf. Dinçel: 2006 61-64).

The essential figure on which Lessing has built the protagonist of his dramatic piece was actually one of the most significant names of the Haskalah movement: Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786). As a consequence of his endeavours regarding the development of the Jewish consciousness, Moses Mendelssohn also acquired the status which allowed him to become accepted as an individual in a non-Jewish society during the despotic regime of Frederick the Great. During the course of Mendelssohn’s expansion of his ideas through society, Lessing became his one of the biggest supporters in terms of publishing their joint works. There was one main conflict though. Whereas Mendelssohn’s point of departure for his arguments chiefly rested on the grounds of spreading the Jewish world view with the purpose of gaining the social statuses of the Jewish communities in the other countries of Europe, Lessing’s starting point for his ideas was based on the crucial role that the notions of independent thinking and free will would/should/could play during the course of building a national German consciousness. In this respect, the langue issue, that is to say, the use of the Hebrew language and how to melt it in the same pot with the German language suggested itself as one of the biggest problems that the Jewish intelligentsia had to overcome in the eighteenth century.

At this point, as argued by Toury, the proponents (i.e. the rabbis) of the Haskalah movement saw translation as the ultimate way of solving this dilemma. The use of Yiddish language, which was/is originally a language of German dialect, consists of words from Hebrew and several modern languages, became the medium of language to be used in the translations. Furthermore, the text type/s to be selected was one of the other problems of the advocates of the movement which were solved by using the source text/s pertaining to the Hebrew language. As mentioned by Toury, among the text types to be selected, priority was given to the children’s fables rather than the dramatic works and epic poetry as an outcome of the socio-cultural circumstances of the time (cf. Hermans: 1999 88 with Toury 2002: 158). Even though, in his article Toury regards these circumstances together with various (contradictory) decisions of the Jewish intellectuals involved with the Haskalah movement as one of the main reasons for drama so slowly to appear (2002: 158), non-Jewish society has already taken a serious step towards the Jews of Prussia as an outcome of the efforts of Lessing and Mendelssohn. Seen from this perspective, one can see how Toury’s article calls for a detailed study of the translation practices of the Jewish community in terms of dramatic works akin to the ones of Lessing. Since in due time, the reflections of the Haskalah movement started to become observed outside the Jewish community (the most notable example being Lessing’s Nathan der Wise) the role of translations regarding the scarce amount of dramatic pieces like the ones of Lessing would surely hasten the revelation of the Yiddish theatre to a certain degree. However, Toury’s article does not dwell upon the reason/s which might lie behind these above mentioned historical facts in detail and moreover, the scholar mentions the notion of the translation/s of dramatic works in a rather superficial manner.

On the whole, with the exemplary case it offers, Toury’s study proposes the chance for one to approach to the case in question from a different perspective; a perspective that can unite various disciplines with the intention of filling the problematic aspect of Toury’s article. Still, when the questions it poses upon the notion of culture planning within a given society, in a given time period are taken into consideration, Toury’s study can be regarded as an illuminating one which can function as a starting point for an interdisciplinary case study on the translation practices of the dramatic works in the Haskalah movement.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arendt, Hannah, The Origins of Totalitarianism, A Harvest/HBJ Book, New York, 1973

Arendt, Hannah, Men in Dark Times, A Harvest/HBJ Book, New York, 1983

Dinçel, Burç İdem, “Birey, Özgür İrade ve Özgür Düşünce Kavramlarının Lessing’in Oyunlarındaki Yansımaları”, in The Journal of Theatre Criticism and Dramaturgy Department of Istanbul University, 8th issue, Istanbul University Press, Istanbul, 2006, pp. 57-66

Hermans, Theo, Translations in Systems, St. Jerome, UK, 1999

Toury, Gideon, “Translation as a Means of Planning and the Planning of Translation: A Theoretical Framework and an Exemplary Case”, in Paker Saliha (ed.) Translations: (Re)shaping of Literature and Culture, Boğaziçi University Press, Istanbul, 2002, pp. 148-163

week 4a

FUNCTIONAL APPROACHES IN TRANSLATION STUDIES: KATHARINA REISS AND HANS J. VERMEER


The question most frequently raised during the 1960s and 1970s in the history of Translation Studies was the issue of equivalence: How could it be achieved, and how could a translator accomplish a well-devised, guarded against every possible mistake and straightforward translation were some of the common queries of the discussion among the scholars. The concept of equivalence was observed by Roman Jakobson, Eugene A. Nida, John C. Catford, Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet in their writings. During these decades, different notions of equivalence (i.e. formal and dynamic equivalence, introduction of the idea of shifts, etc) developed within the realm of translation theories. In addition to the preceding contributions to the newly emerging discipline, German scholar Katharina Reiss has taken the very term “functional equivalence” as a starting point for her work, and has carried the concept of equivalence one step further in her studies.

In her seminal article entitled “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text, Decision Making in Translation”, written in 1971, Reiss proposes a methodical text typology, a practical approach to text examination, and a “functional” viewpoint regarding translation. Additionally, Reiss discerns the stipulations affecting the decisions of the translator in her study.

In a manner evoking the studies of the previous scholars, say Roman Jakobson (cf. 2000: 113-118), with respect to the notion of equivalence, Katharina Reiss also takes the work of German linguist Karl Bühler’s book titled Die Sprachtheorie (Language Theory) as a point of commencement, and examines the text types which determine translation. Prior to her proposal of text types, Reiss distinguishes two kinds of “changes” during the communication process: unintentional and intentional changes. She defines the former kind as rising from different language structures whereas the latter kind inevitably involves a change of function in the act of communication and as a matter of fact, –according to Reiss–, contorts the functional equivalence between the source language and the target language. Moreover, during the course of her article, Reiss uses an abundance of examples in order to support her opinions regarding the togetherness of linguistic and non-linguistic action/s (i.e. gestures, facial expressions, etc) within the communication.

Translation, or in Katharina Reiss’ terms a written form of communication, requires the classification of certain text types which the scholar distinguishes as the informative text, the expressive text, the operative text, and the multi-medial text (cf. 2000: 163-165). By distinguishing specific types of texts, Reiss has also paved the way for a better understanding of the translation quality assessment or in other words, translation criticism. In her study entitled Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik (Translation Criticism – The Potentials & Limitations) Reiss expounds on the notion of text typologies along with appropriate translation methods for each text category (cf. 2000: 16-46) and regards the text type “as a literary category of translation criticism” (ibid: 47). In this respect, Katharina Reiss can be considered as one of the pioneers within the history of Translation Studies who took the notion of translation criticism as one of her focal points.

The second stage of Reiss’ phase of analysis “aims at the establishment of the text variety, i.e. the classification of a given text according to specifically structured socio [-] cultural patterns of communication belonging to specific language communities” (2000: 165 italics original). In the third stage, being the crucial one, Reiss treats the translator as an individual due to the fact that a “translator’s ‘decisive battle’ is fought on the level of the text individual, where strategy and tactics are directed by type and variety” (ibid: 166). In this sense, Reiss can be regarded as one of the first scholars who dwelled upon the importance of “decision making” during the course of a translation process.

In light of the thesis pursued in “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text, Decision Making in Translation” together with Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik, a “crucial shift of focus from the isolated lexical item in a language system to the differentiated handling of texts in the act of translation” (Snell-Hornby 1995: 81) has emerged within the realm of Translation Studies. Even though the extent of the text typology proposed by Katharina Reiss was criticized because of its “limited scope” (ibid) and its “lack of exactness in the practical field of the translation” (Göktürk 2002: 85), she has been very influential in focusing attention on the function of text both in the context of the original and in the context of the situation that demands a translation. Yet, the applicability of Katharina Reiss’ text classification to the practical field of translation –especially the domain of literary translation– remains problematic enough. Indeed, as André Lefevere argues, text typologies “draw an unwarrantedly sharp line between ‘literary’ and ‘nonliterary’ texts. They seem to postulate the existence of an ethereal verbal construction that uses only literary elements (what those might be is seldom specified) and that is then excluded from further analysis because it is ‘too complicated’ at the present [at that current] stage of research” (1994: 9).

As Katharina Reiss’ work has elucidated, translation can either be considered as a form of (written) communication, or as a type of human behaviour comprising characteristics pertaining to human actions. In this context, one can infer that the translation process is one of the most important parts for Reiss in her approach in regards to the translation. This approach has been elaborated on by Katharina Reiss’ colleague Hans J. Vermeer in the late 1970s and 1980s. As a consequence of his studies both with Reiss and individually, Vermeer has founded one of the most influential theories within the realm of Translation Studies: the skopos theory.

In his worthwhile article entitled “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, written in 1989, and intended by the scholar as a “short sketch” (Vermeer: 1989 173) of his skopos theory, Vermeer provides firstly a brief outline regarding the skopos theory, which is the part of a theory of translational action. It can easily be judged from the name of the umbrella which comprises skopos theory, that is to say, theory of translational action, that, Vermeer sees translation primarily as a type of action. Taking into account the fact that translation is a cultural interaction, Vermeer’s approach can be defined in a broader sense: Translation is a multicultural event. The most striking part of this outline is probably his approach to the translator, or in Vermeer’s words, to the “expert” in his/her field. Taking the translator as an expert for granted, Vermeer takes Reiss’ approach in regards to the translator one step further in his study. Additionally, Vermeer opposes the mainstream notion of regarding translation as a mere matter of language in his second part of the article. The target text, Vermeer writes, “The translatum, is oriented towards the target culture, and it is this which ultimately defines it adequacy” (1989: 175). It is exactly at this point where skopos (derived from the Greek word “ο σκοπός”) reveals itself during translational action. The aim, the goal, the purpose of the translator come into being at this crucial point of the translation process and determines the path which the translation, –and as a consequence the product–, will follow.

Vermeer continues his study by discussing two basic arguments which have been raised against the skopos theory. The first objection “maintains that not all actions have an aim: some have ‘no aim’” (1989: 177). Taking the literary texts as a focal point with respect to this objection, Vermeer goes back to the definition of the very word action and proposes his counter opinion: “if a given act of behaviour has neither goal nor function, nor intention, as regards its realization, result or manner, then it is not an action in the technical sense of the word” (ibid). The second objection “maintains that not every translation can be assigned a purpose, an intention” (ibid: 179) rests upon certain sub-arguments which Vermeer identifies as follows:
“a) The claim that the translator does not have any specific goal, function or intension in mind: he just translates ‘what is in the source text’,
b) The claim that a specific goal, function or intention would restrict the translation possibilities, and hence limit the range of interpretation of the target text in comparison to that of the source text,
c) The claim that the translator has no specific addressee or set of addresses in mind” (ibid).
By providing a set of examples ranging from advertising texts to the news texts from radio and television, Vermeer clarifies the objections which seem to be neglecting the fact that translation is always dependent on the circumstances under which the translation act is being taken. Moreover, this attitude of the objectors of the skopos theory can be taken as a token of their tendencies towards a static approach to the translation. Vermeer’s approach, on the contrary, provides a dynamic approach to the translation act.

Underlying the last part of his article, where Vermeer introduces the concept of translation commission is the fact that a translation should be undertaken in agreement with the translational commission: “One translates as a result of either one’s own initiative or someone else’s: in both cases, that is, one acts in accordance with a ‘commission’” (ibid: 182) and offers a brief analysis to the reader regarding the concept he has introduced. This aspect, intrinsic in the translation process, can also be considered as an initial step which allows for a discussion of the concept of “ethics” in translation.

The ethical aspect of translation was further discussed by Hans J. Vermeer in his studies. Even though almost thirty years have passed since Vermeer first introduced his skopos theory within the region of Translation Studies (published for the first time in 1978), it is still being talked and discussed about. This situation can be taken as a proof of how productive the theory has become due to the debates it has launched in the discipline. In a rather recent conference (held at 30th of May 2003 in the Department of Western Languages and Literatures of Boğaziçi University), for instance, Vermeer has taken the teaching(s) of Ferdinand de Saussure as a starting point, and has discussed the responsibilities and ethics of the translation act from different aspects in his declaration entitled “The Nature of Translating – A Summary”. This study contains an even-handed critique of Saussure’s theory in regards to the linguistic sign. The approach to the translator as an individual which has its roots in the writings of Katharina Reiss in the 1970s was announced/observed more explicitly in Vermeer’s declaration: “A translation depends on the translator’s decision to re-act to a source texteme according to his freedom and responsibility to choose a ‘skopos’ in order to achieve an adequate understanding of the target text (the skopos determined translation) by the intended recipients as expected by the translator” (Vermeer: 2004 265, emphasis added). Without a doubt, one can easily infer that Vermeer is giving priority to the responsibility of the translator, hence the ethics of translation.

Skopos theory as stated in “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, and in general terms skopos theory, has allowed the opportunity for scholars to focus on the target text essentially. Translation, formerly determined by a source text, began to be determined by its own purpose. According to Christina Schäffner, “the shift of focus away from source text reproduction to the more independent challenges of target-text production has brought innovation to translation theory. As attention has turned towards the functional aspects of translation towards the explanation of translation decisions, the expertise and ethical responsibility of the translator have come to the fore” (1998: 238-239).

All aspects considered, it can be observed that functional approaches in translation theories have launched new debates –along with certain criticisms of the functional approaches– within the realm of the discipline (cf. Nord: 1997 109-122). Furthermore, fruitful studies have been carried out from different perspectives (for instance, under the umbrella of systemic and descriptive approaches) as a consequence of the innovatory approach of the scholars analyzed here.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

GÖKTÜRK, Akşit, Çeviri: Dillerin Dili, Yapı Kredi Yayınları, İstanbul, 2002

LEFEVERE, André, Translating Literature, Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context, Second Edition, the Modern Language Association of America, 1994

NORD, Christiane, Translating as a Purposeful Activity, St. Jerome, UK, 1997

SCHÄFFNER, Christina, “Skopos Theory”, in Baker, Mona (ed.), Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, London and New York: Routledge, 1998, pp. 235-238

SNELL-HORNBY, Mary, “Linguistic Transcoding or Cultural Transfer? A Critique of Translation Theory in Germany”, in, Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André (eds.), Translation, History and Culture, Cassell, London, 1995, pp. 79-86

REISS, Katharina, “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text, Decision Making in Translation”, in, Venuti, Lawrence (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London-New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 160-171

REISS, Katharina, Translation Criticism – The Potentials & Limitations, trans. Errol F. Rhodes, St. Jerome, UK, 2000

VERMEER, Hans J., “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, in, Readings in Translation Theory, (ed.) Andrew Chestermann, Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989, pp. 173-200

VERMEER, Hans J., “Çevirinin Doğası – Bir Özet” Çeviri: Şebnem Bahadır-Dilek Dizdar, Çeviri(bilim) nedir? Başkasının Bakışı, Rıfat Mehmet (der.), içinde, İstanbul: Dünya Kitapları, 2004, pp. 257-267

week 3b

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JAMES S. HOLMES IN TRANSLATION STUDIES

The translation act –and attempts to establish a theoretical background for the translation act– date back to the times of Cicero and Horace. Since those times, translation has been regarded as a profession more than a discipline on its own. Up to the twentieth century, translation has been treated as a sub-discipline of (applied) linguistics, literary studies, and so forth. However, in the second half of the twentieth century, fruitful efforts concerning the theoretical aspect of translation have been made among scholars (i.e. J. C. Catford, Eugene A. Nida, Roman Jakobson), and as a consequence, these endeavors have changed the traditional point of view regarding the very word translation. Furthermore, these productive works –by igniting discussions regarding the nature of translation– have played a vital role in creating an independent discipline of translation. It was at this point of time that translation merged with the word studies.

The development and birth of “Translation Studies” as an autonomous discipline can be traced in the 1970s. In his remarkable article entitled “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”, written in 1972, translation scholar James S. Holmes pursues and discusses the distinctive term for the emerging discipline in modern languages, such as English, German, French, and even in Greek. Consequently, he proposes the word “studies” since the word mentioned can comprise all fields of learning, and supports his argument by showing solid examples of disciplines, that is to say, Russian studies, American studies, Commonwealth studies, and population studies. (cf. Holmes 1988: 70) In this respect, Holmes’ article can be described as a yardstick in the transition period from “translation” to “Translation Studies.”

In addition to founding the appropriate name for the new discipline, Holmes divides the field which he introduced into two significant areas: pure translation studies and applied translation studies. Within the realm of pure translation studies two subdivisions can be observed: descriptive translation studies (DTS) [comprising product-oriented DTS, process-oriented DTS, and function-oriented DTS] and translation theory (also subdivided as general translation theory and partial translation theory.) Within the scope of applied translation studies, Holmes is concerned with the issues of translation policy, translator training, and translation criticism. What is more, during the course of the article, Holmes not only describes divisions and subdivisions of Translation Studies, but also concludes each topic by pointing out possible new research areas. Finally, in the last part of the article, Holmes sets forth that the relationship between theoretical, descriptive, and applied translation studies is dialectical and unites all the branches mentioned above. Furthermore, in his study Holmes stresses out the socio-cultural dimension of translation (which has often been neglected by the most of the scholars before.) Holmes’ concluding sentence: “Let the meta-discussion begin” (Holmes 1988: 79) signifies an initial attempt to establish the necessary theoretical background for Translation Studies.

With Holmes’ distinctive approach towards translation and Translation Studies, the translator, who has often been shrouded by the source text author/culture, has found the opportunity to gain the identity as an expert s/he deserved long ago. Additionally, translation act, and logically translators have broken free (as much as they can) from the eternal bonds between themselves and the source language/culture/author. Also, it has been realized and accepted that a “good” and a “true” translation cannot only depend on the source language, culture, or author. Moreover, by taking Holmes’ study as a starting point, other scholars have focused on the target language/culture and developed beneficial theories regarding Translation Studies. German scholar Hans J. Vermeer, for instance, takes the translator as an “expert” in his/her field for granted and establishes part of his prolific Skopos Theory mainly on that assumption (cf. Vermeer 1989: 174).

All aspects considered, Holmes and his studies concerning Translation Studies have played a major role in the discipline’s emergence and prosperity. In the light of said author, translator and translation have been awarded more attention in the academic field and the discipline started to be regarded as an autonomous one.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Holmes, James S.: “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”, Translated!: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies (1972), Amsterdam/Rodopi, 1988, pp. 66-80.

Vermeer, Hans J.: “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, Readings in Translation Theory, (ed.) Andrew Chestermann, Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989, pp.173-200.

week 3a

EUGENE A. NIDA AND HIS “PRINCIPLES OF CORRESPONDENCE”

According to Ezra Pound, “in the long run the translator is in all probability impotent to do all of the work for the linguistically lazy reader” (1954: 200). Even though more than fifty years (and if taken into account of the fact that Pound’s essay entitled Cavalcanti was first published in 1934, it can also be said more than seventy years) have passed since Pound’s comment, the situation still maintains its original state. Indeed, a reader demands –logically and naturally– to have in his/her hands a translation that is equivalent of the original work, and seems to neglect all the process which the translator has been through in order to reach that equivalence in the work s/he created. It is merely the outcome that counts for the reader.

In terms of Translation Studies, however, the very word “equivalence” is more than a term to be observed and studied as an outcome, and as a matter of fact, many fruitful attempts have been made in order to found a theory of equivalence within the realm of the discipline. Of these studies, Eugene A. Nida’s work has taken particularly linguistics as a focal point for the arguments raised in the study.

The theory of equivalence in Translation Studies was analyzed in detail by the American scholar Eugene A. Nida (mostly celebrated with his Holy Bible translation apart from his theoretical contributions to translation studies) in his article entitled “Principles of Correspondence” in 1964. Prior to explaining his assumptions regarding the concept of equivalence, Nida first suggests three different types of translations: “(1) the nature of the message, (2) the purpose or purposes of the author and, by proxy, of the translator, and (3) the type of the audience” (2000: 127). Nida’s distinction among the types of translations in the beginning of his work can be regarded as an evident sign of the author’s main concern with the content and with the form of the message. Nida goes on examining the nature of the message in terms of content and form by showing discriminations of poetry translation. Actually, the author connects these two components of translations and analyzes them in the sense of content and style: “The primary purpose of the translator may be information as to both content and form” (ibid: 128). Furthermore, Nida sets forth the type of the audience (the capacity of children, literates, the average literate adult and the decoding ability of the specialists’ of the target society) which the translation is intended to reach has to be taken into consideration as well.

After giving a brief account of three types of different translations, Nida asserts two sorts of equivalence: The former, namely the formal equivalence (which takes the message of the source text in both form and content as a focal point, and tries to render it word to word, concept to concept, etc), and the latter, being the dynamic equivalence (which aims at revealing the whole naturalness of the source language in the target language). Additionally, the author discusses the basic requirements of a translation from various angles, and draws a conclusion related to translation: “What one must attempt, however, is an affective blend of ‘matter and manner’, for these two aspects of any message are inseparably united” (ibid: 134).

Despite the fact that in Nida’s article, the reader might grasp that the author is in favor of the implementation of the dynamic equivalence as a more productive translation process, he maintains that the formal equivalence in translation can still be appropriate for specific type of audience: “It might be supposed that such translations are categorically ruled out. To the contrary, they are often perfectly valid translations of certain types of messages for certain types of audiences” (ibid: 135). Although Nida holds a supportive opinion towards formal equivalence in some respects, he is mainly concerned with the notion of dynamic equivalence in translation. “In such a translation”, writes Nida, “the focus attention is directed not so much toward the source message, as toward the receptor response” (ibid: 136). In other words, in agreement with the author, dynamic equivalence can be explained as a translation principle according to which a translator pursues to translate the meaning of the original text in a way which would have the same effect on the target culture reader. Nida goes on his article by drawing attention to the governing terms of dynamic equivalence translation and justifies his argument by providing various examples of the Holy Bible translation.

In the general scheme of Eugene A. Nida’s linguistic based approach on translation, one can observe that his study seem to neglect the socio-cultural aspect of translation to some extent. Moreover, translation in its very nature is not a solely matter of linguistics but also includes contributions from other fields as well. Although this notion of translation seems to be disregarded by Nida to some degree, his fruitful analysis rife with corresponding examples regarding the notion of equivalence can be regarded as an important study within the realm of Translation Studies.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Eugene Nida, “The Principles of Correspondence” in Lawrence Venuti (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London-New York: Routledge, 2000, pp. 126-140

Pound, Ezra, Literary Essays of Ezra Pound, New York and Directions, and London: Faber and Faber, 1954

week 2

SOME REMARKS ON THE EVOLUTION OF CONTEMPORARY TRANSLATION THEORIES

Bertolt Brecht, who is regarded as one of the most influential theatre theorists of the twentieth century, was commonly reluctant to have his theoretical writings translated into foreign languages. This attitude of Brecht may seem like a contradiction with the German dramatist’s stance which was based on a dialectical relationship between the reader and the writer. On the other hand, one can easily grasp that Brecht was aware of the fact that the translation act was a self-referential form and would therefore, certainly include various viewpoints of different translators who undertake such a painstaking task under several socio-cultural circumstances. Since Brecht’s theoretical writings were his self-defence against the critics, who were hesitant towards his form of theatre, Brecht wanted his writings to stay untouched just because of the fact that any loss of meaning in those works could also distort the main points of his arguments on which he has built his theories upon. During the course of time, however, it would be the translations of the German playwright that would allow him to gain the recognition within the realm of theatre history. Even Brecht, who can be considered as a totally irrelevant figure with the study and practice of translation, was conscious of the perils that lurk beneath the translation process.

The concerns of Brecht on the notion of translation have long been occupied the minds of the scholars in the history of the study and practice of translation who are mainly regarded as the chief figures of contemporary translation theories nowadays. Most of the works of these scholars, on the other hand, were primarily focused on the notions of fidelity, faithfulness, equivalence, all of which were/are closely related with the very word translation, and as a consequence, they failed to examine the socio-cultural aspect of translation to a certain extent in the long run. As a matter of fact, translation theories were bound to be source-oriented until the last decade of the twentieth century. Yet, their contribution to the evolution of contemporary translation theories is undeniable. Hence, a brief analysis of the writings of four major literary figures, say, Etienne Dolet (1509-1546), John Dryden (1631-1700), Alexander Fraser Tytler (1747-1813) and Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), and all of whom were chiefly associated with the study and practice of translation would yield a better understanding of the roots of contemporary translation theories. Still, in order to conceive an entire understanding of contemporary translation theories, a comparison between the Western thinking and the Eastern thinking on translation suggests itself as another point to be discussed.

In his essay entitled How to Translate Well From One Language to Another (1540), Etienne Dolet sets forth five main requirements for one who is eager to fulfil the translation task. According to Donet, the translator ought to be competent enough to understand the complete meaning of the source text and when necessary should take the liberty of polishing the obscurities of the source text author, ought to have a perfect knowledge of both source language and target language, ought to prevent him or herself from word-for-word translation, ought to choose the daily expressions, and ought to produce a translation which can sound, say, in terms of phonetics, rhyme, and tone as the same as the source text (cf. Robinson 2002: 95-97 with Bassnett: 2004 58-59). Despite the fact that Dolet proposes to avoid word-for-word translation, and advises the translator to take the liberty of clarifying the obscurities of the source text, he does not explain how to do so. Furthermore, by proposing principles and advising the translator to follow these, Dolet seems to restrict the quality of translation to his rules, hence develops a reductionist approach.

More than a century later, John Dryden, who was one of the most influential figures of the history of critical theory, introduced the concepts of metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation to the study and practice of translation. In Dryden’s understanding, metaphrase represented word-for-word translation, paraphrase, sense-for-sense translation, and imitation, free translation. By adding a third dimension, that is to say, imitation, to the study and practice of translation, Dryden has (re)evaluated the theories established by the scholars dating from the times of Cicero and Horace. Nevertheless, Dryden’s idea of imitation was nothing new when his dramatic works are taken into account; he was only implementing t/his idea on the translation act.

Dryden’s engagement with drama coincides with the Restoration Era in which a new wave of drama tradition (heavily influenced by the tragedies of Racine and Corneille) was competing for the throne of Shakespearean tragedy. Dryden saw himself as the one to resist this tradition and attempted to restore the dominant tragic sense of the Elizabethan Era by adding a neo-classic approach to the already established dramatic understanding. In order to do so, he wrote various plays most of which became unsuccessful. After that failure, Dryden drew heavily on his theoretical writings, though, he continued to write plays; plays which imitated Shakespeare. In his preface to All for Love (1678), Dryden defends his style by stating, “[the confines of neo-classical drama] are too little for English tragedy; which requires to be built in a larger compass… In my style, I have professed to imitate the divine Shakespeare” (quoted in Steiner 1996: 40). In the light of this clear statement, one can acquire a better understanding of Dryden’s notion of imitation which he imposed upon to the study and practice of translation. What is more, one can even be tempted to interpret Dryden’s remark on imitation, “I take imitation of an author…to be an endeavour of a later poet to write like one who has written before him [or her], on the same subject; that is, not to translate his [or her] words, or to be confined to his [or her] sense, but only to set him [or her] as a pattern, and to write, as [s/]he supposes that author would have done...” (Robinson 2002: 172) as a comment he has granted upon himself. Even though Dryden’s arguments rest on a solid ground when the aesthetic reasons are considered, his approach is source-oriented, prescriptive, and confines the translation act to the principles he states.

Although it may sound prescriptive enough –and indeed it is– Alexander Fraser Tytler’s essay entitled The Proper Task of a Translator (1791) gives a hint or two about the contemporary translation theories. Of course, the Dolet-echoing-laws that Tytler deduces from translation are not the clues related with contemporary translation theory; rather the explanations given for his laws. Take, for instance, these two excerpts:

Where the sense of an author is doubtful, and where more than one meaning can be given to the same passage or expression (which, by the bye, is always a defect in composition), the translator is called upon to exercise his [or her] judgment, and to select that meaning which is most consonant to the train of thought in the whole passage, or to the author’s usual mode of thinking, and of expressing him [or her] self.

A good translator must be able to discover at once the true character of his [or her] author’s style. [S/]he must ascertain with precision to what class it belong; whether to that of the grave, the elevated, the easy, the lively, the florid and ornamented, or the simple and unaffected; and these characteristic qualities [s/]he must have the capacity of rendering equally conspicuous in the translation as in the original.

(Robinson 2002: 172)

In these passages, one can see how Tytler regards translation –though much more explicitly than Dolet– as a decision making process to some extent in a manner evoking the ideas put forth by Katharina Reiss and Hans J. Vermeer, the two distinguished translation scholars whom are mostly celebrated with their functional approaches to the study and practice of translation. Vermeer, by regarding translator as an expert in his or her field, founds some parts of his “skopos” theory on this premise. Moreover, particularly the second excerpt brings to mind the text types proposed by Katharina Reiss. Reiss, by distinguishing text types under categories, have developed an influential theory which eventually paved the way for new approaches in translation criticism (cf. Reiss 2000: 160-171, Vermeer 1989: 173-200). In this sense, one can see the importance of (re)evaluating Tytler’s study from the standpoint of contemporary translation theories.

Following Tytler, Friedrich Schleiermacher suggests himself as one of the other important theorists of post-romanticism period to take a brief glance at. Schleirmacher, who is widely recognized by his studies in the field of hermeneutics and theology, has also contributed to the domain of translation. In his study entitled On Different Methods of Translating, Schleirmacher –as the title signifies– seriously questions the established translation methods, such as paraphrase and imitation. The scholar draws a conclusion: Whereas paraphrase is more commonly used in scholarly translation products, imitation is generally implemented in literary translations, and neither of them can fulfil the ultimate needs of the translation act. Instead of these two translation methods, Schleirmacher sets forth his own translation methods, namely “reader-to-author” approach and “author-to reader” approach; the translator being the mediator. In the first approach the translator disturbs the writer as little as possible and moves the reader in his or her direction, whereas, in the second approach, the translator disturbs the reader as little as possible and moves the writer in his or her direction (cf. Robinson: 2002 228). And among those two he favours first method: bringing the reader to the author. By regarding translator as a mediator, thereby giving priority to the translator during the course of translation, Schleirmacher’s approach once again evokes Hans J. Vermeer’s ideas. What makes Schleirmacher’s study quite prescriptive is the fact that he strongly rejects another approach.

In the light of this general overview of the works of the four major theorists of Western translation tradition, one can infer how most of the points raised in their studies sound prescriptive to a certain extent as opposed to the descriptive approach prevailing in contemporary translation theories. Even so, these scholars have planted the seeds of contemporary understanding of translation by discussing points which would eventually become the most important points (i.e. text types, considering translator as an expert, domestication versus foreignization, and so forth) during the course of building a totally different approach to the study and practice of translation.

So, what could be the possible reason/s which impeded the Western thinking on translation from liberating itself from the boundaries of faithfulness and freedom? In his influential essay “Chinese and Western Thinking on Translation”, André Lefevere sees religion as an answer to that question. According to Lefevere, “translators of the Buddhist scriptures learned to live with the fact that their translations were done by mortals and would therefore of necessity be imperfect” (1998: 19), while on the contrary the translators of Holy Scriptures in the West strictly clung on to their source texts just because of the fact that it was the Word of God. Such an understanding emerging from the translations of the Holy Scripture became dispersed in almost all of the translation practices. Moreover, during the course of time, this understanding affected to a certain extent the understanding of translation in history.

Another important difference between the two traditions is the way that how the translations were being done. Whereas the translations in the East were being done in three stages (the first being the oral interpretation of the text, the second being the oral instruction, transmission and recitation, and the third being the inscribing process) Western translations were being done by only single person; the rest of the people being the assistant. Perhaps that was the most striking difference between the two traditions and one might find it enticing to link these three stages with the Eastern drama tradition which is mainly based on the notion of alienation, that is to say, being aware of acting the play as being merely a play. To return once again to Bertolt Brecht’s understanding of theatre which is heavily influenced by the Eastern drama tradition, one can associate German dramatist’s exploring this tradition and deriving his theories from that, might achieve a solid ground. In a manner evoking the early Chinese translators who were undertaking teamwork, Bertolt Brecht himself established this group-work in his own theatre Berliner Ensemble.

All in all, as this brief overlook to the works of the four major theorists of the Western tradition along with a brief comparison of them with the Eastern thinking on translation hopefully signified, the roots of contemporary translation theory have already been there and were merely waiting to be discovered. Unfortunately, thanks to the reductionist and the prescriptive approach prevailed in the Western tradition, the socio-cultural aspect of the study and practice of translation has been ignored for a long time.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bassnett, Susan, Translation Studies, Third Edition, London-New York: Routledge, 2004

Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André (eds.), Constructing Cultures, Multilungual Matters, Clevedon, 1998

Reiss, Katharina, “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text, Decision Making in Translation”, in, Venuti, Lawrence (ed.), The Translation Studies Reader, London-New York: Routledge, 2000, 160-171

Robinson, Douglas (ed.) Western Translation Theory: from Herodotus to Nietzsche, St. Jerome, UK, 2002

Steiner, George, The Death of Tragedy, Yale University Press, USA, 1996

Vermeer, Hans J., “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, in, Readings in Translation Theory, (ed.) Andrew Chestermann, Oy Finn Lectura Ab, 1989, 173-200