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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page153

conventionallyseenasnonliterarymayhaveliteraryfeatures:ADVERTISING

copy,forexample.Thus,whileunderstandingand(re)writingliterarytextsforms

partoftheliterarytranslator’sexpertise,literarytranslators’realtimeworking

STRATEGIESandtexttransformationtechniquesmayvarybetweenliterary

textandgenrebutoverlapwiththoseusedinothergenres.

Traditionally,translationtheoriesderivedlargelyfromliteraryandsacredtext

translation.ThustheinterminabledebatesoverEQUIVALENCE,whether

framedasawordforwordVS.senseforsenseoppositionorasa

literalcommunicativeeleganttriangle(YanFu,inSinn1995),arerelevantto

literarytranslationbutmuchlesssotoSCIENTIFICANDTECHNICAL

TRANSLATION,say.Tymoczko(1999a:30)arguesthatthefocusonliterary

translationprovidesthedisciplinewithhighqualityevidenceabout‘interfaces’

betweenculturesandaboutthelinguisticchallengesoftranslating.Henceitcan

informtheories,modelsofpracticeandresearchmethodologiesrelevantto

othergenres,andviceversa.

Thediscipline’sengagementwithliterarytranslationmaybesummarizedfrom

threeviewpoints:translationastext,translatingprocesses,andlinkswithsocial

context.

Translationastext

Literarytranslationstudieshavetraditionallyconcentratedonsource–targettext

relations.Theoreticaldiscussionsfocusontwocloselyrelatedissues:

equivalenceandcommunicativepurpose.Intermsofequivalence,thequestion

iswhethertranslatorscaneverreplicatethecomplexwebofstylisticfeatures

foundinmanyliterarytexts.Ifnot,whatshouldtranslatorsprioritize?Orshould

theyseethequestforequivalenceassenselessandfocusinsteadon

communicativeeffectiveness(Holmes1988:53–4;Jones1989)?Intermsof

communicativepurpose,thequestionishowfartranslatorsshouldprioritize

loyaltytothesourcewriterversusproducingatextthatworksinreceptorgenre

terms.Howfar,forexample,shouldtheyadaptorupdate?

Anotherconcernisthetranslationofstyle(Parks1998/2007;BoaseBeier

2006a).Styleisimportantinthecontextofliteraturefortworeasons.First,it

inadvertentlydefinesthewriter’s‘culturalspacetime’.ToamodernItalian

reader,forexample,thestyleofDante’sDivinacommediasignalsthatitwas

writtenbyamedievalTuscan.Secondly,writersmaydeliberatelyusenon

standardstyles–archaism,dialect,orastyleidiosyncratictothewriter,for

example–toencodetheirattitudetowardsthetext’scontent,tomarkout

differentvoices,and/ortostructurethetext(BoaseBeier2004:28;Jonesand

Turner2004;ArmstrongandFederici2006).Thus,inKamenispavač(Stone

Sleeper,1973),BosnianpoetMakDizdaralternatesbetweenmodernstandard

SerboCroatandmedieval/religiousdiction.Thismarksadialoguebetweena

modernnarratorfigureandamedievalheretic,respectively–adialoguethat

presentstoday’sBosniansastheheretic’sdescendants.

Translatorsmediatebothaspectsofstyleviatheirowninadvertentlysignalled

stylisticspacetime,viadeliberatestylisticchoices,orboth.Markedlynon

standardand/ornonmodernsourcetextstyleconfrontstranslatorswithvarious

choices.Thesemayinclude:(a)replicatingthe(modern)sourcereader’s

experiencebycalquing–forexampletranslatingDante’sDivinacommedia

intomedievalEnglishwithaNortherntinge;(b)usingdifferentstylisticmeansto

indicatethisexperience–forexampletranslatingDante’sDivinacommedia

intoformalliteraryJapanese(Venuti1996);and(c)prioritizingsemanticcontent

bynormalizingthestyle:translatingDante’sDivinacommediaintomodern

standardPolish,say(Allén1999).Inordertousecalquingandotherstylistic

devices,translatorsneedexpertiseinwritingmultiplestyles.Normalizing

arguablyriskslosingthestyle’stextualfunction.

Literarytextmayalsoreferintertextuallytoothertexts.Thus,inJosephHeller’s

Catch22(1961),whenYossarianasks‘WherearetheSnowdensof

yesteryear?’herefersnotonlytohisdeadcomradeSnowden,butalsoto

FrenchpoetFrançoisVillon’slamentatlife’stransience(inEnglish,‘whereare

thesnowsofyesteryear?’).ThissetsHeller’stranslatorsaconsiderable

challenge.

Partoftheliterarytranslator’s‘habitus’(seeSOCIOLOGIAL

APPROACHES;Inghilleri2005c:134–5)appearstobetheconventionthat

the

Page154

translator‘speaksfor’thesourcewriter,andhencehasnoindependentstylistic

voice.Somescholars,however,advocatethatthetranslator’svoiceshouldbe

madedistinctlypresentinthetranslatedtext,whileothershavearguedthat

individualtranslatorsinevitablyleavetheirownstylisticimprintonthetextsthey

produce(Baker2000).

Literarytranslatorsmayexpressaseparatevoiceinparatexts–thetextsthat

accompanyacoretext,suchasintroduction,translator’snotes,etc.Paratexts

andmetatexts(textsaboutthetranslatedwork,suchasreviews,publishers’

promotionalwebpages,etc.)canprovidedataaboutatranslation

‘project’(Berman1995)anditscontext.Astheymaybewrittenbyvarious

‘actors’(translators,editors,critics,etc.),theycanalsoprovideevidenceon

attitudestowardstranslationwithinwidercommunitiesofliterarytranslationand

production(Fawcett2000;JonesandTurner2004;seeREVIEWINGAND

CRITICISM).

Translationasprocess

Literarytranslatingmayalsobeseenasacommunicationprocess.Twobroad

translationstudiesapproachesaddressthisaspect:onelargelydatadriven,and

onelargelytheorydriven.

Thefirst,datadriven,approachtreatstranslationasbehaviour.Datahere

derivesmainlyfromtranslators’writtenreportsabouttheirownpractice,plus

someinterviewandTHINKALOUDstudies(e.g.Honig1985;Flynn2004;

Jones2006).Writtenreportstendtobetextorsourcewriterspecific,often

focusonspecialproblemsratherthanroutinepractices,andcanlackawareness

ofrecenttranslationtheory.Nevertheless,writtenreportsandinterviewstudies

canprovidedataonliterarytranslators’techniques(i.e.howsourcetext

structuresaremodifiedinthetargettext,andwhy),andonworking

relationshipswithinformantsorsourcewriters.Therelativelackofliterary

translationTHINKALOUDstudies,however,meansthatlessisknownabout

theprocessofarrivingatsuchdecisions–thoughitappears,forexample,that

poetrytranslatorscanspendconsiderabletimebrainstormingwaysof

reproducingasourcetextitem’smultivalency(e.g.itsstylemarking,

associativemeaning,etc.;seeJones1989,2006).

Thecomplexityofmanyliterarymessagesmeansthatliterarytranslatorsare

conventionallyallowedawiderangeoftexttransformationoptions.Research

basedoncreativityasproblemsolvingexploreswhatthismightmeaninprocess

andproductterms.Here,creativitymeansgeneratingtargettextsolutionsthat

arebothnovelandappropriate(BeylardOzeroffetal.1998:xi;Sternbergand

Lubart1999:3)–thatis,notdirectlypredictablebysourcetextfeatures,but

constrainedbyfactorssuchasthetranslator’spreferredbalancebetween

sourcetextloyaltyandtargettexteffectiveness,habitus(seeingoneselfasa

‘translator’orasa‘poet’,say),etc.

Thesecondapproachtoliterarytranslationasaprocessismoretheorydriven

andmaybetermedcognitivepragmatic.Theanalysisofliterarytranslation

processesheremaybeinformedbyliterarycognitivestylisticsandthe

pragmaticsoftranslation(e.g.KwanTerry1992;Hickey1998;Gutt

1991/2000;Pilkington2000;Stockwell2002a).Thesestudiesattemptto

modelcommunicationbetweensourcewriter,translatorasreader,translator

asrewriterandtargetreader.Sourcewritersareseenasproviding‘interpretive

potentials’intheirtext.Readers,includingtranslatorsasreaders,inferamost

likelycommunicativeintentfromthesepotentialsonthebasisofpreexisting

linguisticknowledge,genreknowledge(e.g.hownovelsconventionally

develop),worldknowledge,authorknowledge,theirdevelopingknowledgeof

the‘textworld’(events,characters,etc.,inthetext),theirownpersonal

background,andsoon.Thereisalsoacost–benefitaspect,whichraises

questionssuchaswhethertheaddedvalueforthereaderofacomplexword

play,forexample,isworththeaddedeffortexertedinunderstandingit.

Literarytranslatorsasrewriterscommunicatewithtargetreadersinasimilar

way,thoughinteractantsusuallyalsoknowthatthetranslatorisreportingonan

earlierwritertoreadercommunication(Holmes1988:10).Thus,whena

moderntranslatortranslatesDante’searlyfourteenthcenturyDivinacommedia

intoChineseversemodelledonseventhcenturyTangdynastypoetry,heorshe

assumesthatChinesereadersknowthatthesourceworkisamedievalclassic,

thattheyrealizethetargetstyleismeanttosignalthework’smedieval