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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page138

madeduringthetranslationprocess(notonlybythetranslatorbutbyallthose

involved,includingthosewhodecidethechoiceoftextstotranslate)are

potentiallydeterminedbyideologicallybasedSTRATEGIESgovernedbythose

whowieldpower.Thesecanbeuncoveredbyanalysingthevarioustargettext

selectionsthatimpactonthetargetreaderwho,nevertheless,generallyand

cruciallyreadsthetextasthoughitwereatransparent,unmediatedrenderingof

theoriginal,moreorlessunaware(oratleastwillinglysuspendingthe

knowledge)thatitisatranslatedtext.Theperceivedtruthstatusofthewordsof

thetargettextcanonlybeuncoveredifthesourceandtargettextsandtheir

paratextualframingsarecomparedsidebyside,eventhoughthemotivationfor

anySHIFTSmayremainopentoconjecture.

Translationstudies’interestinideologyisthusfirmlylinkedtotheconceptof

languageandpowerrelationsandthedistortion,manipulation(Hermans1985a)

or‘REWRITING’(Lefevere1992a)ofthesourcetextandcultureinthe

processoftranslation.ThisinterestisexplainedbywhatGentzlerand

Tymoczko(2002:xviii)calltheinherent‘partiality’oftranslation,itsstatusasan

inevitablypartialrepresentationofthesourcetext.Thetextualandotherchoices

madebythetranslator(s),editor(s),commissionersandotheractorsmustbe

selectiveandthereforealso‘partisan’,sincetheyconditiontheimage,function

andimpactofthetextinthetargetcultureandmayberepressiveorsubversive

(ibid.).

Theideologyoftranslationstrategy

The‘partisan’roleoftranslationishighlightedintheassertionbyPenrod

(1993:39)that‘sincewearealwaysrequiredwhentranslatingto“takea

position”relativetootherculturesandlanguages,wemustaswellremainever

vigilantastothenatureofthepositionassumed’(seeETHICS).Penrod

interpretsintermsofpowerrelationsSchleiermacher’s(1813/1963)

philosophicaldistinctionbetweenwhatarenowknownasdomesticatingand

foreignizingstrategiesoftranslation(seeGERMANTRADITION;

STRATEGIES).However,thedistinctionhasbeenredefinedmanytimesby

manypeople,amongthemBerman(1984)who,writingexplicitlyabout

translationandideology,talksofethnocentricandhypertextualtranslation,and

Venuti(1995a,1998b),whocritiquesthedominant,transparenttranslation

strategiesoftheAngloAmericantradition.Thisdemonstratestheextentto

whichthedebateabouttranslationstrategies(essentiallyliteralversusfree)has

tendedtobeideologicallymotivated,eveninitsmoremodernmanifestations.

Thepracticeoftranslationwasforalongtime,andinsomecasesremains,

deeplyimplicatedinreligiousideology,ascanbeseeninthegrimfateof

translatorssuchasTyndaleinBritain(seeBRITISHTRADITION)andDolet

inFrance(seeFRENCHTRADITION),bothburntatthestake,afate

mirroredinthetwentiethcenturybytheassassinationoftheJapanesetranslator

ofSalmanRushdie’sSatanicVersesandthesubsequentrefusalbyother

publisherstoproduceatranslation.Inmanyinstances,literaltranslation,ornon

translation(seeQUR’ĀN),ofreligiousandothersensitivetextsintraditions

suchastheArabicormedievalEuropeanwasanattempttopreventwhatwas

seenasapotentialsacrilegiousdistortionofthesacredwordofGod.

Whiletheextremesofliteraltranslationattempttofixandcontrolmeaning,the

deconstructionistswouldclaimthatalldeviationsarepermissible,needingonly

themotivationofanideologytojustifythem,becausethereisnooriginaltobe

copiedandbecausethe‘violenthierarchy’whichgivesprimacytothesource

textcanbeoverturnedinfavourofthetargetscheme(see

DECONSTRUCTION).Iforiginalmeaningdoesnotexistandiftheworklives

onintheendlesslydeferredmeaningoftheplayofthesignifier,thenvarious

formsofADAPTATIONbecomejustifiedasthemaintranslationtechniques

(seebelow).

Aswellas(andperhapsevenmoresothan)thetextualpracticesoftranslation,

ideologyrevealsitselfinrecontextualization,theuseofparatextualdevicessuch

asprefacesandothermaterialwhichframethetext(Baker2006a,2007),and

inthepolicychoicesofthosewhocontrolthepublicationprocess.Thelatter

includethedecisionofwhethertocommissionandpublishatranslationornot.

Inthemostobviouscasesofideologicalmanipulation,thereisaconcerted

policy:thus,inGermanyfrom1933to1945therewasaclearideologybehind

Page139

theselectionoftexts,withahighnumberofScandinavianandFlemish/Dutch

textstranslatedbecauseofthefeelingofkinshiptheNazisconsideredthey

sharedwiththeGermanVolk(seeCENSORSHIP).Ideologicalorientationcan

alsobegleanedfrombibliographicaldataofbookstheNazispublishedevery

year,andbyexaminingreviewsinthePartyandbooktradepressthat

supportedtheracistofficialpolicyofeliminating‘allelementsalientothe

Germancharacter’andthosefelttobecharacteristicofforeignliterature(Sturge

2004).

Theideologicalstrugglewithintranslationstudies

Aswellasexaminingtheexpressionofideologyintranslation,itisinterestingto

considertheideologicalstrugglethathasbeentakingplacetomaketranslation

studiesacceptedwithintheacademyinmanycountries.Thisstruggleis

motivatedinpartbythelowerstatusthathaslongbeenaccordedtotranslation

comparedto‘original’writing,andinpartbythestrengthandinterestsofmore

establisheddisciplines:firsttheClassics,LatinandGreek,whichwere

prestigiousanddominantinmanyWesterneducationsystemsuntilthesecond

halfofthetwentiethcentury,andthenModernLanguages.Astranslationstudies

hasestablisheditselfoveranumberofdecades(fromthe1970sonwards),so

researchfocihaveshiftedfroma‘scientific’linguisticcategorizationof

translationphenomenatostudiesthatcentreprincipallyonthemacro

socioculturalcontextinwhichthetranslationactisperformed(see

LINGUISTICAPPROACHES).Bothtypesofstudyareunderpinnedbyan

ideologicalagenda.WhilethescientificstudyofEQUIVALENCEdrew

strengthfromtheabsolutist,logocentricphilosophyofPlatothatwascentralto

Westernrationality,andinwhichthereferentialfunctionoflanguage

predominated,sothemore‘cultural’approachestotranslationarealsofounded

onanunderlyingandpartialideologicalbase.

Inthescientificandtechnologicalatmosphereoftheearlyandmidtwentieth

century,therewasforatimeafeelingthatlinguistictheoryhadprovideda

‘scientific’basisforgroundingtranslationinawaythatshouldeliminate

subjectiveevaluationsof‘accuracy’andtransferofmeaning.Oneofthemain

proponentsofthistrendwasEugeneNida,whobelievedthathehadfounda

neutralpointofobservationonwhichtobasehisconceptofdynamic

equivalence.Nidaisthereforeunderstandablytheprimetargetof

deconstructionistcritiquesof‘closure’,whichaimtolaybaretheideological

basesnotonlyofindividualactsoftranslationbutalsooftranslationtheoriesin

general.Meschonnic(1986:77),forexample,accusesNidaof‘pseudo

pragmatism’andmanipulativebehaviourism,andGentzlerpointstothe‘nondit’

of‘theProtestantsubtext’inNida’slinguisticapproach(1993/2001:59).

Tosomeextent,criticismsofNidaarethemselvesideologicallymotivated.One

ofthemostfrequentcriticismsofNida’smethodologyisthatitsjustificationfor

translatingthebiblicalphrase‘togreetwithaholykiss’by‘togiveahearty

handshakeallround’amountstocomplicityonthetheory’spartwiththe

dominantwhite,heterosexual,male,WesternAngloAmericanunderstandingof

whatisanacceptablemodeofgreetingbetweenmen.YetGentzler,asevere

criticofNida,hasnocomparabledenunciationtoofferofBarbaraGodard’s

declarationthatthefeministtranslator‘flauntsthesignsofhermanipulationof

thetext’(Godard1990:94;seeGENDERANDSEXUALITY).

Theideologicalperspectiveoftheanalystthusalwaysplaysaroleinshapingthe

courseofhisorherargument;thisinherentsubjectivityandbiasoftheviewer

andcommentator,alongwiththeconcomitantrelativismoftruth,canbetraced

backtotheGreekSophists(Hawkes2003:22–3)andfindsitsmostoutspoken

voiceinNietzsche.Eventhoseworkingfirmlywithinthebranchofdescriptive

translationstudies(Toury1980a,1995)whichhasplaceddescriptivismatthe

heartofinquiryintotranslationandhasproposedasolidbasisforthestudyof

translationasanempiricalscience(seeDESCRIPTIVEVS.COMMITTED

APPROACHES),mustrespondtothecriticismthatsuchobservationcannever

betotallydispassionateandvaluefree(Hermans1999:36).Othertranslators

andtranslationstudiestheoristshaveanopenlyideologicalandpoliticalagenda,

andespousewhatBrownlie(2007a:136)calls‘committedapproaches’.For

instance,CanadianfeministtranslatorssuchasGodardanddeLotbinière

Harwooddeliberately