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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page239

inwhichthecriticisurgedtoestablishcriteriaforevaluationthataddressthe

‘presuppositionsandexpectationsabouttexts’sharedbyreadersandwritersin

eachlanguage(1978:122).VandenBroeck(1985:56)positsasthestarting

pointofhisdescription‘acomparativeanalysisofthesourceandtargettexts’

thatincludesboth‘textstructures’and‘systemsoftexts’.Wilss(1982:220)

arguesforaprincipallyempirical,linguisticapproachthatrestsonacomparison

ofsourceandtargetlanguagetexts,andSimpson(1975:255)similarly

recommendsalinguisticapproachthatisprimarilycomparative;Kirkov

(1988:231)suggestsmorecomprehensive‘aestheticlinguisticcriteria’butstill

considersbothtranslationandoriginal.Thesevenfeaturesoftextuality

proposedbyNeubertandShreve(1992)alsoprovideaframeworkthatcould

beusedforcomparativeanalysisandevaluation,asdoSnellHornby’sanalyses

(1988).

Comparativemodels,however,donotrepresenttheonlyapproachto

translationcriticism,despiteaninsistenceonthepartofsomescholarsthat

translationcriticismmustnotbeperformedwithouttakingtheoriginalinto

account(Vilikovský1988:75;deBeaugrande1978:121).Norarethecritics

whostudyonlythetranslatedtextanditscontextnecessarilythereviewersand

editorswhooverlookthefactoftranslationentirely.Onthecontrary,Lefevere

(1981:55,59)hasexplainedthePOLYSYSTEMhypothesisanditsfocuson

theproductoftranslationinthecontextofthetargetcultureratherthanonthe

translationprocess.Toury’sworkwithtranslationalNORMSalsosuggests

evaluativecriteriacentredonthetargetsystemalone(1978,1980b).Although

Touryarguesthatcomparativestudymighthavesomeroleintranslation

criticism,henotesthatcomparisonsbetweentranslationsandoriginalsoften

leadtoanenumerationoferrorsandareverencefortheoriginal(1978:26).His

commentsareechoed,albeitindifferentframeworks,byJorgeLuisBorgesand

TomConley.Borgespointstothecripplingeffectthatbilingualeditionscan

haveonareader’sabilitytoread,andimplicitly,toevaluateatranslation

(Alifano1984:51),andConley(1986:48)statesthat‘criticsfabricate

“something[tobe]lostintranslation”attheveryinstanttheyplacetheireyes

betweentwoversionsofacanonicaltext’.Bermanelaboratedandarguedfora

‘productivecritique’inwhichthe‘confrontation’ofatranslationandtheoriginal

isadecisive,butnotthesolecomponentofanethicalandaestheticevaluation

thatconsidersatranslationinrelationtoitsownlanguageandliterarytradition

(1995:83–96)andtotheexperienceoftheforeignitmakespossibleinthem

(1999:74–5).

Recentworkinliterarycriticismandtheory,linguistics,anthropology,

philosophyandculturalstudieshasdirect,albeitattimescontradictory

implicationsfortheevaluationofliterarytranslations.Ontheonehand,notonly

the‘deconstructionists’entireproject’(Gentzler1993/2001:146;see

DECONSTRUCTION)butalsotheentirerangeofchallengespresentedby

poststructuralismtoprevailingdefinitionsoftextualauthorityandintegrityhave

renderedobsoleteconventionalevaluativeterms,puttinginquestioneventhe

notionof‘between’inthecontextoftranslation(Tymoczko2003).Onthe

otherhand,theworkofpostcolonialscholarshasdocumentedtheextentto

whichtranslationscango‘wrong’,even‘respectfully’(Spivak1992b:183)

wheninequalitiesandpowerrelationshipsbetweenculturesarenotunderstood

andacknowledgedappropriately(seePOSTCOLONIALAPPROACHES).

Inbothinstancesthepracticeoftranslationbecomesnewlyvisibleandtherole

ofthetranslatorisscrutinized;inbothinstancesvaluejudgementsaremade

accordingtonewandshiftingcriteria.

Despitetheunquestionablefreedomthattheradicaldecentringassociatedwith

postructuralismofferstranslators,theveryrequirementofdecentringitself

carriesasetofexpectationsandimplicitevaluativecriteria.Forifpost

structuralismgrantedanewagencytotranslators(Venuti1992:11),italso

imposedonthemanincreasedburdenofresponsibility.Intheabsenceof

universaldefinitions,translatorshavebeencalledontomakeexplicitthe

strategiesandgoalsthatgoverntheirpractice(see,forexample,Arrojo1998).

Theyarealsoencouragedtowriteprefaces,afterwords,andotherformsof

commentary.Especiallyinthecaseofinnovative,transgressivetexts,theyare

expectedtotranslatetransgressively,andtheirworkhasbeenmeasuredagainst

criteriasuchas‘abusive’(Lewis1985:56)or‘destructive’(Conley1986:49)

fidelity.Inthismeasurement,wordslikeaccurateandincorrectarenot

relevant.Instead,failureisassociatedwithan

Page240

inabilitytocontinuethelinguisticmomentumofatext,withan‘excessof

reverence’thatcanmakeitimpossibleforatranslatorto‘takethenecessary

distancefromtheoriginal’–whichmustfunctionnotasanabsolutebutasa

pointofdeparture(Sartiliot1988:28).Consequently,translationsareoften

measuredaswellinthelightofthetranslators’ownwordsabouttheirworkor

intermsofthecontextinwhichtheworkappears.Suchcriticism,inadditionto

concerningitselfwithnewtranslations,impliesthereevaluationoftranslations

performedinthepast(Conley1986;Porter1991).Italsoimpliesthe

acceptanceofmultipleversionsandtheevaluationofindividualversionswith

respecttothepurposesforwhicheachversionisintended–‘thedifferent

valuesbehindwhatmakesa“good”translation’(Cohen1988:111).

Thesimultaneousagencyandresponsibilityaccordedthetranslatorby

contemporarytheoriesofliteratureandtranslationalsocharacterizethe

translator’sworkasdefinedbytranslatorsandcriticswhopositionthemselves

withrespecttoaspecificlocationorideology.Forwhentranslationisdefinedin

termsofa‘siteforraisingquestionsofrepresentation,power,and

historicity’(Niranjana1992:1),theexpectationisthatthosequestionswillbe

raised.Thisisadefinitionthatchallengestranslatorstorethinktheconventional

useofequivalence,differenceandcommunication.Inthefaceofnotmerely

differencebutdecidedinequalitiesbetweenlanguagesandcultures,translators

havebeenaskedtoconstructa‘site’inwhichthereis‘overlapwithout

equivalence’(Bhabha1994a:186)andurgedtomaketheirworknotfluentand

readablebut‘thick’(Appiah1993)withthefactorsthatcanmakesmooth

interactionanillusiononthepartofthemorepowerfulparty.Thiscanoccurin

textsthemselvesorinthevariouscommentariesthataccompanythemas

‘combatweapons’againsttime(Mukherjeee1994:73),butalsoagainst

transparencyonthepartofthetranslation.Consequently,atranslationmaynot

beevaluatedonthebasisofitsreadibilityandthe‘communication’itmakes

possiblebutintermsofanewlydefinedliteralism(Robinson1993:124;Gaddis

Rose1995:84),theextenttowhichitpromptsacrisisincommunication,or

eventheextenttowhichtranslationiswithheld(Spivak1992a:192–5,1992b:

792).Translatorsthemselvesmaybeevaluatedintermsoftheirqualificationsto

represent‘another’identity–nationality,race,religion,GENDER(Voldeng

1984;deLotbinièreHarwood1991:139–91;Spivak1992a:178–92).Ina

similarway,translationscanbejudgedintermsofthe(mis)representationsand

the‘exoticandessentializingstereotypes’theyperpetuate(Payne1993:3).

Thecoexistenceofsuchnumerousanddiverseevaluativecriteriaand

approachesoffersachallengetocontemporarycritics,readersandtranslators.

Whethercriticsworktoevaluatecontemporarytranslationsorthoseperformed

inthepast,theyfindthemselvesobligedtoinformthemselvesaboutthecultural

contextofagiventranslationandalsotobecognizantoftheirownevaluative

criteriaandthecontextwithinwhichtheyapplythem.Likewise,readersand

translatorsmustformulateevaluativecriteriathatwillenablethemtoassess

divergent,evencontradictorycriticalevaluations.Forexample,Venutihas

discussedtheinnovative,subtly‘foreignizing’STRATEGIESinthetranslations

oftheworkbywriterssuchasArgentineJulioCortázarthatduringthe1960s

alteredboththe‘canonofforeignfictioninAngloAmericanculture’and‘British

andAmericanfiction’(Venuti1995:266).Payne,ontheotherhand,findsthat

translationsofthe‘“bigfour”oftheLatinAmericanboom’havereinforced,

ratherthanchallenged,NorthAmericanstereotypesaboutLatinAmerica

(1993:30–31,33).

AnadditionalexampleisprovidedbyrecentevaluationsoftheworkofSir

WilliamJones,whosetranslationsintoEnglishofIndianliteraturewerehighly

influentialinthelateeighteenthcentury(seeINDIANTRADITION).Cannon

praisesJones’sworkwithoutqualification,particularlyhistranslationof

Kalidasa’sSakuntala(1789),statingthathisworkpromptedEuropeansto

haveanewrespectforIndianliterature(1986:181).Figueira,however,finds

thatJones’stranslation,likethoseofothertranslatorsoftheSakuntala,was

often‘erroneous’,generatingmisrepresentationsoftheIndianwork(1991:198–

9).Niranjana(1992)andSengupta(1995)offerstillharsherevaluations.

SenguptaemphasizestheoversimplificationofKalidasa’sworkthatoccurredas

Jonesshapedan‘image’foritthatEuropeanswouldfindacceptable

(1995:161–2);Niranjanadetailshisparticipation,throughhistranslation,inthe

constructionoftheEnglishlanguageHindu