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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page178

beingandrepresentation’(1995:325).Asad’scritiqueofthenotionand

practiceofculturaltranslationunderlinesboththepervasiveroleoflanguage

phenomenainthenegotiationofculturaldifferenceandtherelationbetween

suchprocessesandtherelativepositionsofpoweroccupiedbythoseinvolved

inthem.Asaresult,‘culturaltranslation’emergesasasetofpracticesinwhich

‘translation’initsnarrowerlinguisticsenseplaysacrucialandpervasiverole,

ultimatelystressingtheneedfortheexplicitacknowledgementoftheroleplayed

bylanguagedifferenceinencountersbetweencultures(firstandforemostthose

fosteredbyallformsofmobility),whilealsodenouncingthefallacyimplicitin

anyvisionofindividualculturesasselfcontained,monolingualandcoherent

systems(Papastergiadis2000;Sturge2007).

Theseobservationsremindusoftheneedtofocusontranslationandtravelas

setsoflocatedpractices,ratherthan(oratleastaswellas)ontheirtheoretical

interpretationsandinterpellations.Ifthetextualproductsofmobilityand

translationareconstitutedbyformsofrepresentation,itisalsothecasethatthey

havesubstantialmaterialconsequencesandaskustoadoptconsciouslyethical

positions(seeETHICS).Asad’sadmonitionsonthelimitsofculturaltranslation,

likePratt’scaveatsconcerningthelimitsoftranslationasametaphorfor

interculturalnegotiations,arewellplaced:theremayindeedbeariskofdilution

inrecentwiderangingtheorizationsofthenexusbetweentranslationand

mobility;yetsuchriskscanbecounteredbytheantidoteofethicallygrounded

translationaswellastravelpractices.Theincreasedroleofmobilityin

contemporarysocietyraisesanumberofqueriesrelatingtoestablished

associationsbetweennational,linguisticandethnicidentities(Cohen1997;

Simon2002).Whiletheenhancedpresenceofmultilingualrealitieswithinand

acrosscommunitiesdoesnotsolveinequalitiesandasymmetriesofpower,it

doesfosterneworrenewedformsofmultiandinterlingualcommunicationand

solidarity,asattestedbyrecentattemptstogroundcontemporarymodelsof

cosmopolitanidentity–seenasanalternativetothefragmentednatureof

interculturalsociety–onnotionsofmultiplelinguisticandculturalaffiliation

(Mudimbe1997;Breckenridgeetal.2002;VertovecandCohen2002).Such

phenomenaareaccompaniedbyagrowingpervasivenessoftranslation

practices.Thesecantakeexplicitforms,suchastheincreasedroleof

COMMUNITYINTERPRETINGinattemptingtoensureaccessonthepart

ofrefugees,economicmigrantsandotherminoritygroupstohumanrights,

citizenshipand,morespecifically,freedomofmovementandexpression(Baker

2006a;Cronin2006).Theycanalso,however,taketheformofatextual(and

especiallybutnotexclusivelyliterary)productionwhichisconstructedon

multilingualandinterculturalexperience,reliesonmultiplelayersofindividual

andcollectivememory,andaddressesarangeofconstituenciesand

readerships.Theresultsofsuchpracticeshavetheadditionaleffectofquerying

thebinarymodelonwhichtranslationstudieshastraditionallybeenbased,

explodingthelinearoppositionsbetweensourceandtargettext(culture,

language)andcallingforatheorizationoftranslationpracticeswhichisinitself

moresensitivetothecomplexityofgeographicaswellasculturalmobility.

Seealso:

ASYLUM;CULTURALTRANSLATION;ETHICS;GLOBALIZATION;

IDEOLOGY;MULTILINGUALISM;POSTCOLONIALAPPROACHES;

SELFTRANSLATION.

Furtherreading

Asad1986;Mehrez1992;Bassnett1993(pp.92–114);Asad1995;Clifford

1997(pp.17–46);Tymoczko1999a,2000;Cronin2000;Papastergiadis

2000;Polezzi2001;Agorni2002;Apter2004;Cronin2006;DiBiase2006;

Gentzler2006;Polezzi2006.

LOREDANAPOLEZZI

Models

Althoughmodeltheoryisafieldofstudyinitself,acomprehensivedefinitionof

theconceptof‘model’remainsproblematical.Thisispartlybecausemodels

canbeofverydifferentkinds,rangingfromiconicordiagrammatic

representations(knownas‘analoguemodels’)toconceptualandtheoretical

models,andpartlybecausethereislittleagreementamong

Page179

theoristsabouttheclassificationofmodelsintotypes.Nevertheless,some

commonpropertiesofmodelscanbedistinguished.

First,amodelisalwaysamodelofsomething,calledtheobject,ortheoriginal,

ortheprototype.Inthissenseamodel,whenperceivedintermsofits

modellingfunction,isavicariousobject,i.e.asubstitute.Itrepresents,

reproduces,referstosomethingelse,whichisnecessarilyanteriortoit.Model

andprototypethereforehaveadifferentontologicalstatuswhicharisesfromthe

factthatonerepresentswhiletheotherisrepresented.Neithermodelnor

prototypeneedtobephysicalrealities:theycanbeabstract,mentalor

hypotheticalentities.

Secondly,amodellingrelationisnotanobjectivelygivenfactorastateofaffairs

existingnaturallybetweentwoentities.Amodelrequiresahumansubjectto

recognizeitasamodelofsomething.Thatis,amodelcanonlybeamodelof

somethingifthereissomeonewhoperceivesitassuchandwhoapprehendsan

appropriaterelationbetweenmodelandprototype.Themodellingoperation

thereforeinvolvesthreecomponents:aprototype,amodelandahuman

subject.

Thirdly,themodelrepresentsitsprototypethroughapproximation.Itisnota

reproductionoftheprototypeinitsentiretyandinallitsaspects.Themodel

reducesthecomplexityoftheprototypebyretainingonlycertainfeaturesofit,

andinsodoingestablishesacertainsimilarityorcorrespondence,betweenitself

andtheobjecttowhichitrefers.Thesimilarityorcorrespondenceestablished

onthisbasisisofacertainkind(itmay,forexample,beisomorphic),deemed

bythehumansubjecttobefunctionallyrelevant.Themodelexhibitstherelevant

similarityorcorrespondenceinacertainmannerandtoacertaindegree.

Finally,whilefromthepointofviewofthemodellingrelationonlythe

representationalaspectsofamodelarenormallyregardedaspertinent,every

modelofnecessityalsocontainsother,nonfunctionalor‘contingent’features.

Itispossibletoconsidertherelevanceofmodelsinthecontextoftranslation

fromfourdifferentangles:(i)theuseoftheoreticalmodelsasheuristictoolsin

translationstudies;(ii)theuseofdiagrammaticoranaloguemodelstorepresent

certainaspectsoftranslation;(iii)theviewoftranslatingasamodellingactivity;

and(iv)therelationbetweenmodelsandNORMS.

Theoreticalmodels

Theoretical,orconceptual,modelsarehypotheticalconstructswhichoperateat

ahigherlevelofabstractionthantheconcretedetailofindividualphenomena

andmaybeusedasanexplanatoryframeworktoaccountfortheworldof

phenomena.Onecanalsotentativelyprojectatheoreticalmodelderivedfrom

anestablishedfieldofknowledgeontoanew,whollyorpartlyunknown

domain.Becausethemodelisfirstmappedononefieldandthenappliedto

another,itemployslanguageappropriatetothefirstfieldtospeakaboutthe

second.Thisenablesaconceptualmodeltofunctionheuristically:theresearcher

mayderivecognitivegainfromdeployingthemodelasaprobinginstrument,a

prismorsearchlightwhichallowsnewthingstocomeintoviewortoperceive

familiarthingsinanewlight.Atthesametime,theoreticalmodelsinevitably

constructtheobjectintheirownimage:theyapplytheirownterms,categories

anddistinctionstothenewdomain,illuminatingcertainaspectswhileobscuring

others.

Intranslationstudies,varioustheoreticalmodelsderivedfromotherdomains

anddisciplineshavebeenapplied.Theyrangefromlinguisticandsemioticto

literaryandsocioculturalmodels.Severaloftheseinturnmakeuseoftermsand

conceptsimportedfromotherdisciplinessuchasphilosophy,historyor

sociology.Ineachcase,particularcurrentsofthoughtwithinthefields

concernedhaveservedasmorerefinedresearchtools.Forexample,the

linguisticmodelhastendedtoseetranslationprimarilyasalinguisticoperation

(seeLINGUISTICAPPROACHES).Withinthisconceptualframe,

structuralistmodelsoftranslationhavefocusedonrelationsbetweenlinguistic

systems,pragmaticmodelsconcentrateonthehumaninteractioningiven

communicativesituations,psycholinguisticmodelslookatlinguisticaspectsof

thementaloperationsinvolvedinthetranslationprocess,andcognitivemodels

areinterestedinhowthemindmapsandprocessesinformation(see

PRAGMATICS;PSYCHOLINGUISTICANDCOGNITIVE

APPROACHES).