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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page234

onesprogressivelymoreforeignizing(KoskinenandPaloposki2003:22).

Asecondaspectoftheretranslationhypothesispertainstotheissueofageing.

Bermansuggeststhatwhileoriginalsremainforever‘young’,translationswillage

withthepassageoftime,thusgivingrisetoaneedfornewtranslations(1990:1–

2).However,notalltranslationsareequallyaffectedbythepassageoftime,

andnotalltranslationswillnecessarily‘age’.Thosethatstandthetestoftime

andmatchtheenduranceoftheoriginalmaybethoughtofas‘great

translations’(ibid.:2),aviewthatisextensivelyproblematizedbyBrisset,who

invitesacriticaldiscussionof‘greatness’which,shesuggests,willinevitably

involvethedifficultquestionofliteraryvalue(2004:52–7).Theageingof

translationsandtheensuingneedforretranslationhavealsotraditionallybeen

associatedwithlanguagechangeandtheneedtoupdatethewordingand

terminologyusedinearliertranslations(Hanna2006:194).However,no

straightforwardlinkcanbeassumedtoexistbetweenthepassageoftimeand

theneedforretranslationsincetherearemanycasesofretranslationsofthe

samesourcetextsundertakenwithinashortspanoftime(SusamSarajeva

2003;Pym1998,2005b;Hanna2006;Jenn2006).Thedecisiontoretranslate

ortopublisharetranslation,then,cannotbereducedtoasinglefactorsuchas

theageingoftheinitialtranslation.

Thequestionofwhycertaintextsarerepeatedlytranslatedwhileothersare

translatedonlyoncehasbeenposedbyvariousscholars(Rodriguez1990:64;

Gambier1994:414;SusamSarajeva2003:5;PaloposkiandKoskinen

2004:29).Theanswerprobablyhasmoretodowiththecontextofthe

retranslationsthananyinherentcharacteristicofthesourcetextthatmakesit

‘eitherworthyorinneedofretranslation’(PaloposkiandKoskinen2004:29).

Motivesforretranslation

ChangingsocialcontextsandtheevolutionoftranslationNORMSareoften

citedasmajorfactorsinfluencingthechoicetoretranslatespecifictexts

(Brownlie2006:150).InastudyofretranslationsofCHILDREN’S

LITERATUREintoHebrew,DuNourexaminedretranslationsinordertotrace

the‘linguisticandtranslationalnorms’prevailingatdifferentperiods(1995:327).

Herstudydemonstratesclosecorrespondencebetweentheevolutionof

linguisticandstylisticnormsandthepublicationofnewretranslations:

‘readability’isshowntobeamajorconcerninlaterretranslations,whileearlier

translationsweremarkedbyalessreadable,biblelikestylewhichreflectedthe

prevailingnormfortranslationinthe1920s(ibid.:331).Kujamäki’sstudyof

GermantranslationsoftheFinnishnovelSeitsemänveljestäbyAleksisKivi

similarlyusesretranslationasdatatoexaminethehistoricaldynamicsofliterary

translation,andconcludesthatretranslationsarelargelygovernedby‘the

contextoftimeboundnormativeconditions’(2001:65),inparticularbyshiftsin

theideologicalcontextofreceptionandFinland’schangingimageinGermany.

Suchideologicalandpoliticalfactorshaveoftenmotivatednewretranslationsof

canonicalliterarytextsinparticular.Examplesincludecompetingretranslations

ofTomSawyerandHuckleberryFinnbyCommunistandproAmerican

publishersinpostwarFrance(Jenn2006:247–52);retranslationsbythe

Brazilianauthor,translatorandpublisherMonteiroLobato,whoinsertedhis

ownpoliticalviewsinhisretranslationsofchildren’sclassics(Milton2003);and

retranslationsandreeditionsofmanyadultandchildren’sclassicsduringthe

firstdecadeofthetwentyfirstcenturybyIslamistpublishersinTurkey(Aktaş

Salman2006;Boztepe2006).Apartfromretranslationsofliteraryclassics,less

canonicaltextsaresometimesretranslatedwithinanewideologicalcontextand

arethusrepositionedinthetargetculture.Venuti(2003:27)mentionsthecase

ofsomefeministretranslations(seeGENDERANDSEXUALITY)andargues

thatretranslationsmayalsobepublishedinordertoreaffirmtheauthorityof

certainsocialinstitutions,includingacademicorreligiousestablishments

(ibid.:26).

Thereareother,sometimessimplerexplanationsforretranslation.Forexample,

someretranslatorsmaynotbeawareofthepresenceofanearliertranslation

(Venuti2003:25);similarly,lackofcoordinationandcommunicationamong

publishersmayresultinthesimultaneouspublicationoftwodifferent

translations,inwhichcaseeachtranslationcanbe

Page235

considered‘initial’and‘retranslation’atthesametime.Theneedtoupdateor

modernizethelanguageofatranslation,thepublicationofarevisedor

expandedsourcetext,andthediscoveryofmistakesormisinterpretationsinthe

firsttranslationallserveaslegitimatejustificationsforretranslation.A

retranslationmayalsobecarriedoutwiththeaimofintroducinganew

interpretationofthesourcetext,sometimesaddressingadifferentreadershipor

creatinganewreadershipaltogether.Typicalexamplesofsuchattemptsat

reinterpretation/reorientationofpreviouslytranslatedworksincludeissuing

children’sversionsofadultclassicsandviceversa(Gambier1994;Jenn2006).

Insuchcases,retranslationsstandinaspecialintertextualrelationshipwitheach

other,aswellaswiththeirsourcetexts(Brownlie2006:153),andare

characterizedbymutabilityandbordercrossing(Jenn2006:236).Koskinen

andPaloposkirefertothe‘supplementary’natureofretranslation,which

enablestranslatorstotargetdifferentaudiencesorrecategorizesourcetexts

(2003:22).Thenotionofsupplementaritysuggeststhat‘textsandtheir

interpretationsfunctionsimultaenouslyonseverallayers,denyingeasy

classificationintoassimilativefirstandsourcetextorientednew

translations’(ibid.:23).Retranslationsmaybesupplementarynotonlyinterms

ofcomplementingorreorientingtheirsourcetexts,butalsointermsof

introducingnovelmaterialandideastothetargetculture.Toury(1999)suggests

thatretranslationssetouttoovercomeadeficiencyorfillagapinthetarget

systemandtobringinsomethingthatwasnottherebefore.Hearguesthat

retranslation,liketranslation,shouldbeconsideredanactofplanningbecauseit

alwaysinvolvesanelementofchange,howeverslight,onbehalfofthereceiving

culture.

Retranslatingcanonicalliteratureand/or‘recycling’existingtranslationsby

reprintingtheminanewformatcontinuestobefamiliarpracticeforpublishing

housesattractedbytheprestige,costeffectivenessandguaranteedsales

associatedwiththepublicationofliteraryclassics(Milton2001:62;Koskinen

andPalaposki2003:26;Venuti2003:30).Theseandothermotivationsprovide

thebroaderbackgroundagainstwhichretranslationsarecarriedoutand

published,oftenwithacertaindegreeoftensionandcompetitionwitheach

other.

Tensionandcompetition

Bycontrastwiththelinearprogressionmodelthatinformstheretranslation

hypothesisputforwardbyBermanandothers,laterresearchonretranslation

portraysitasafieldmarkedbyaconstantstrugglebetweenindividualsand

institutionsforthecontrolandproductionofnewinterpretations.Venuti

maintainsthatretranslationsundertakenwiththeawarenessofapreexisting

translation‘justifythemselvesbyestablishingtheirdifferencefromoneormore

previousversions’(2003:25).Thisdifferencecanbetracedintheretranslation

STRATEGIESthatinscribecompetinginterpretationsformedonthe

assumptionthatpreviousversionsarenolongeracceptable(ibid.:26).This

assumptionisusuallybasedonsocialorideologicalpremises,ratherthanan

evidentlinguisticorliterarylackintheprevioustranslations.Venutioffersthe

exampleofEnglishtranslationsofThomasMann’sworks,whichbecameasite

ofopenrivalrybetweenacademiaandcommercialpublishersin1995,with

eachpartydefendingacompetinginterpretationofMann’ssourcetexts

(2003:27).

Pymdrawsadistinctionbetweentwotypesofretranslations.‘Passive

retranslations’areseparatedbygeographicaldistanceortimeanddonothavea

bearingononeanother(1998:82),whereas‘activeretranslations’sharethe

sameculturalandtemporallocationandareindicativeof‘disagreementsover

translationstrategies’,challengingthevalidityofprevioustranslations(ibid.:82–

3).Anumberofcasestudieshaverevealedtheresistanceandtensionthatmark

activeretranslations.InherstudyoftheTurkishtranslationsofworksbyRoland

Barthes,SusamSarajeva(2003)arguesthatretranslationscarriedoutduring

thefifteenyearsbetween1975and1990werenotpromptedbylinguistic

changeortheageingofprevioustranslations;rather,theywereinitiatedby

translatorswhoweretryingtocreateanindigenousTurkishdiscourseonliterary

criticism.Shemaintainsthat‘retranslationsmayalsoemergeasaresultofa

synchronousstruggleinthereceivingsystemtocreatethetargetdiscourseinto

whichthesetranslationswillbeincorporated’(ibid.:5).Inthesamestudy,

SusamSarajevadrawsattentiontoanareaofretranslationthathasbeenlargely

ignored,namelythe‘nonexistence’