Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page76

fieldoflinguisticsigns’(Derrida1967a/1974:44).This‘writingin

general’(écriture)thuscorrespondstotherevisedsenseoftextuality,orthe

‘generaltext’,discussedabove.Signifiers(asSaussurehadshown)arenot

‘natural’butarbitraryandconventional:theyarealwaysandcanonlybe

instituted,andthusthephonicsignifier,likethegraphic,reliesuponthedurable

institutionofasignanditsiterability,whichguaranteestranslatability.

Iterability

Theverbiterateisdefinedas‘tosayorperformagain;repeat’(American

HeritageDictionary).ItderivesfromtheLatiniterum,‘again’,andisalso

relatedtoiter,‘journey’or‘route’.Thisconjunctionisusefulforthinkingabout

theimplicationsfortranslationofdeconstruction’sworkonthestructural

interrelationofthesingularityandthegeneralityofeverytext.If,asdiscussed

above,eachelementofdiscourseis‘constitutedonthebasisofthetracewithin

itoftheotherelementsofthechainorsystem’,thentheseelementsrelyfortheir

meaningupontheirownrepetitionofpastusages,whichaccrueafairlystable

history.Withoutthisstability,interpretationandtranslationwouldnotbe

possibleatall.Nonetheless,eachrepetitionmustalsobedifferentfromallthe

others,sinceeachoccursinanewcontextandthereforeproducesitseffect

withinadifferentsetofsystemicrelations.Thesamerepetitionthatbuilds

stability,then,alsobuildsupahistoryofdifferences,sothatthisstabilityalways

offersmultipleroutesformeaning,andisthusalwayscapableofbeing

destabilized.Everymeaningeffectisdisseminatedthroughouttheentiresystem,

whichwecanthinkofasinnumerableroutes,orpathwaysofdifferential

meanings.

Thisdisseminationguaranteesthateverysignandeverytextisiterable,or

repeatable,differently.AsDerridaputsit,‘Thishastodowiththestructureofa

text,withwhatIwillcall,tocutcorners,itsiterability,whichbothputsdown

rootsinaunityofacontextandimmediatelyopensthisnonsaturablecontext

ontoarecontextualization’(1992:63).Itmayseemastatementoftheobvious

tosaythatsignifiersortextscanalwaysberepeated:ofcoursewords,phrases

andactionscanberepeatedorcited,playscanberestagedinnew

circumstances,etc.Thestructureofiterability,however,showsthatideas

about‘correct’and‘incorrect’translation,liketranslatabilityand

untranslatability,arestructurallyinterdependent.Deconstructiondoesnot

suggestthat‘anythinggoes’,butitdoespointoutthattheconditionsthatmake

‘mistakes’possiblearethesameconditionsthatmakemeaningpossibleinthe

firstplace.

Itmayhelptoreturntotheconnectionsofitertobothrepetitionandtravel,and

tothinkaboutthedisseminationofmeaningassimilartoapostalsystem.The

conditionsthatmakeitpossibletoaddressandtodeliveraletter–forexample,

numbersandlettersofthealphabetcanberearrangedandtransposed;streets

intersect;multipleroutesanddetoursfacilitatetravel–arethesameconditions

thatmake‘mistakes’possible.Inorderforalettertobewrittenandaddressed,

itmustalreadybeimplicatedinadifferentialsystemfullofdetours,sothatit

alwaysmaynotarrive.Again,thismayseemobvious:weallknowthatour

lettersmaynotarrive,justasour‘intendedmeanings’maybemisunderstood.

Conventionalwisdomlabelssucheventsaserrorsorexceptionsthatsomehow

escapeorbreaktherulesofthesystem.Deconstructionreversesthis

assumption,positingthatdetoursandmultiplepathwaysconstituteanysystem

thatenablesmeaning;theyarenot‘accidents’belongingtoitsoutside,butare

theconditionsofpossibilityforsignification,andfortranslation.

Deconstructionthereforepointsoutthatthedecisionsinvolvedintranslationare

notmerechoicesbetweenpredeterminedoptions,inwhichcasetheywouldnot

reallybedecisionsatall.Theyaredecisionsinthe‘strong’sense:thatis,they

aremadeinthefaceofundecidability.Decisionmaking‘positivelydepends

uponundecidability,whichgivesussomethingtodecide’(Caputo1997:137).

Becausemeaningcannotbepre determined,translationmust‘respond’toits

sourcebydecidinginthisstrongsense,andthusentailsresponsibilityand

ETHICS.Thetranslator’sdecisionsarenotdissociablefromotherkindsof

politicalandethicaldelimitationsaboutwhatispossibleorpermissibleina

languageorculture.Indeed,inrespondingtoatextasforeign,translation

simultaneouslydefinesthe‘same’andthe‘other’,andputsitselfinanethical

relationwiththis‘other’.

Page77

Translation,then,enactstheproblemnotonlyofphilosophy,butofethics.This

iswhydeconstructionisateverypointfullyinvolvedwiththeconcernsandthe

processesoftranslation.

Seealso:

EQUIVALENCE;ETHICS;HERMENEUTICS;SEMIOTICS;

TRANSLATABILITY.

Furtherreading

Derrida1967a/1974,1972a/1981,1979;Culler1982;Aracetal1983;

Derrida1985;deMan1986;Derrida1987/1988,1988;A.Benjamin1989;

Derrida1992;Niranjana1992;Pasanen1992;Spivak1992b;Venuti1992;

Bhabha1994a;Derrida1996/1998,1999/2001;Spivak1999;Chesterman

andArrojo2000;Davis2001.

KATHLEENDAVIS

Descriptivevs.committedapproaches

Historically,muchofthediscourseabouttranslationhasrevolvedaround

prescribingcertainmodesoftranslation,rightfromtheearlieststatementsofthe

famedCiceroandStJerome,andhascentredontheperennialdebateover

literalversusfreetranslation.Reflectionsontranslationhavebeenmademainly

bytranslatorswhowerealsoscholarsorpoetsthemselves,andwhodefended

theirchosenmodeoftranslationinprefacesorotherwritings(see

STRATEGIES).Forexample,inhisprefacetothetranslationofOvid’s

Epistles(1680/1992),Dryden,thefamouspoetanddramatistwhoalso

translatedvariousGreekandLatinpoetsintoEnglish,madeathreeway

distinctionbetweenmetaphrase(wordbywordtranslation),paraphrase

(senseforsensetranslation),andimitation(veryfreetranslation),and

expoundedhispreferenceforparaphrase.Prescriptiveapproachesremained

influentialthroughoutthetwentiethcenturyandcontinuetobesotodaybecause

oftheimportanceoftranslatortraining(seeTRAININGANDEDUCATION).

Withinthiscontext,thestudyoftranslationhasbeenseenasanancillary

discipline,apartoflinguistics,whichservesthepracticalpurposeofproducing

bettertranslationsandbettertranslators.Newmark,forexample,arguesthat

‘translationtheory’smainconcernistodetermineappropriatetranslation

methodsforthewidestpossiblerangeoftextsortextcategories’(1981:19).

DescriptiveTranslationStudies

TheemergenceofDescriptiveTranslationStudies(DTS)inthe1970s,

embodyingtheaimofestablishingtranslationresearchasanempiricaland

historicallyorientedscholarlydiscipline,canbeconsideredareactionto

centurieslongspeculativeandprescriptivewritingontranslation.Holmes

(1972)conceivedoftranslationstudiesasadisciplinewhichespousesthe

structure,goalsandmethodsofthenaturalsciences.Thereweretobepureand

appliedbranches,withthepurebranchfurthersubdividedintotheoreticaland

descriptivebranches.Thecoreactivityofthedisciplinewastobetheoretical

anddescriptive,withanyprescriptiveorientationrelegatedstrictlytotheapplied

branch.Themainobjectivesweretodescribe,explainandpredicttranslational

phenomena.

Toury(1980,1995),whodevelopedHolmes’svisionandmadeimportant

theoreticalandmethodologicaladditionstoHolmes’smodel,washeavily

influencedbyEvenZohar’s(1979)POLYSYSTEMtheory.Hearguedthat

translationalphenomenacouldultimatelybeexplainedbytheirsystemicposition

androleinthetargetculture.AnothersourceofexplanationproposedbyToury

istheconceptofNORMS:translatorsareinfluencedbythenormsthatgovern

translationpracticeinthetargetcultureatacertainplaceandtime.Normsare

arguablyToury’slastingconceptualcontributiontothefield.

Toury’sapproachisfirmlytargetoriented,sinceheconsidersthattranslations

arefactsofthetargetculture,theircharacteristicsbeingconditionedbytarget

cultureforces.AnotherspecificityofToury’sapproachisthathechoosesnotto

offeranabstractdefinitionoftranslation(sincewhattranslationiswillbe

revealedbythestudiesundertaken),andhetakesasobjectsofstudy‘assumed

translations’,textsthatareconsideredtobetranslationsinthesociety

concerned.Therearedifferenttypesofdescriptive