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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page261

relation.Thiscorrespondstothefamiliarfeelingthatmeaningmaking–including

translation–alwaysinvolvesprobabilisticinferencesthatarebasedon

‘interpretivebets’(Ecoetal.1992:63).

Semioticsandtranslation

Severalauthorshavecalledfordrawingonsemioticstoenrichtranslation

theory.MajorcontributionsinthestructuralisttraditionincludeToury(1986),

whomadeacompellingcaseforthesemioticnatureoftranslatingandattempted

adefinitionofitas‘anact(oraprocess)whichisperformed(oroccurs)over

andacrosssystemicborders’(ibid.:1112).Theissueoftheboundaries

betweensemioticsystemsisalsotakenupintheworkofTorop(e.g.2000).

WithreferencetoLotman’sconceptofthesemiosphere(2005),Torop

describedtheboundarynotasalimitingfactorbutasamechanismthat

‘translatesexternalmessagesintotheinternallanguageofthesemiosphere,

discriminatesone’sownfromthealien,[and]turnsexternalnonmessagesinto

messages’(ibid.:605).Chesterman(2002a),incontrast,usedinsightsfrom

anothersemiotictradition–Greimas’sgenerativesemiotics–toinvestigate

translationcausality.

Intheinterpretivesemioticscamp,anotableearlyvoicewasRomanJakobson,

whoidentifiedthenexusbetweenPeirce’stheoryofsignsandthetheoryof

translationinwhatisprobablythesinglemostquotedessayinthefield

(Jakobson1959).Jakobson,whoregardedPeirceas‘thedeepestinquirerinto

theessenceofsigns’(ibid.:233),basedhiscallforasemioticunderstandingof

translationonPeirce’sinsightthat‘themeaningofanylinguisticsignisits

translationintosomefurther,alternativesign’(ibid.:232).Inotherwords,

translationwasidentifiedasacrucialelementofallmeaningmakingandof

ordinarylanguageuse.ThisallowedJakobsontoextendthescopeoftranslation

beyondinterlinguistictranslationor‘translationproper’(‘cheese’

Russian

syr/tvorog),toincludeintralinguistictranslation(‘bachelor’

‘

unmarriedman’)

andintersemiotictranslation(‘sunrise’

thepictureofarotatingplanet).

Twoauthorsbegantoengagemoreextensivelywithinterpretivesemiotics

towardstheendofthe1980s:DeledalleRhodes(1988–9,1996)andGorlée

(1989,1994).MorerecentcontributionsincludeNergaardandFranci(1999),

Eco(2001),Cosculluela(2003),Petrilli(2003)andStecconi(2004a).These

authorshavetakenonthetaskofredefiningthetraditionalcategoriesof

translationstudiesinthebeliefthatinterpretivesemioticsrepresentsthefutureof

translationtheory.Forinstance,Gorléeproposedtochangethecoreimageof

translationintheWestfromtransfertogrowth:‘Indeed,theimageoftranslation

thatemergesfromaPeirceansemioticsisoneofchangeandgrowth,of

expansionthroughtransformation’(Gorlée1994:231).

Finally,theterm‘semiotics’isalsousedasshorthandforresearchthatgoes

beyondverballanguage(Poyatos1997),forinstance,instudiesthatexplorethe

translationofadvertising(AdabandValdés2004)andmultimedia/multimodal

material(Gottlieb2005),withoutnecessarilyengagingwitheitherstructuralor

interpretivesemioticsasdescribedabove.

Applications

Apartfromstrengtheningthetheoreticalunderpinningsoftranslation,sustained

engagementwithsemioticsmayopennewpathstoappliedresearch.One

applicationcouldinvolverevisitingthelongstandingdebateover

EQUIVALENCE.Peirceshowedthatallinterpretationisinferential,andthe

kindofinterpretationinvolvedintranslatingisnoexception.Codebased

theoriesimplythattranslatorssearchthetargetenvironmentforformswhichare

supposedlyalreadyequivalenttocertainelementsinthesourceenvironment–

whateverismeantby‘equivalence’.Theirtaskinthisperspectiveismerelyto

notetheequivalenceandmatchsourceandtargetforms.Bycontrast,

interpretivesemioticaccountswouldrecognizetheinferentialandcreativework

carriedoutbytranslators.Thetaskoftranslatorswouldthenevolve

accordingly:theywouldusesignsfrombothsourceandtargetenvironmentsto

constituteequivalencerelations(cf.Stecconi1994/1999).Drawingon

semioticstomakeacasefortheinferentialnatureoftranslationcanalsoprovide

soundargumentstosupportothertheoriesoftranslationwhicheitherimplicitly

Page262

presupposeorexplicitlydiscussinferentialprocesses,forexample

FUNCTIONALISTapproaches(e.g.ReissandVermeer1984),themodelof

translatorialaction(HolzMänttäri1984),andtheresearchstrandbasedon

RelevanceTheory(e.g.Setton1999;Gutt2000),inwhichtheinferential

characterofhumaninterpretationismadeexplicit.

Semioticexplanationscanalsohelpclarifytwocommonlyobserved

phenomena:thenonreversibilityoftranslationandinterference.Toury

statedthat‘translatinghastobeconceivedasanirreversibleprocess,andthe

equivalencerelationships–asunidirectional’(Toury1986:1116;emphasisin

original).Insemioticterms,theseclaimscanbeexplainedasfollows.Whena

translatorstartsprocessingasourcesign,heorshespendssemioticenergyto

powertheseriesoftransformationsthatendswhenothersignsarereleasedin

thetargetenvironment.Agoodimagefortheprocessisthatofawavethat

originatesinthesourceenvironmentandpropagatesallthewaytothetarget

environment.Whenacertainstrandoftranslationsemiosiscomestoanend,the

energycarriedbythewaveisspentandtheprocesscannotbereversed.At

most,additionalenergywouldhavetobeinvestedtotranslatethenewsigns

backintothesourceenvironment;butthatwouldbeadistinctstrandof

translationsemiosisaltogether.

Interference,onitspart,isaneffectproducedbyiconicity.Iconsarepartof

Peirce’smostfamousclassificationofsigns,togetherwithindexesandsymbols.

Thisclassificationfocusesontherelationofsignstotheirobjects.Symbols

representtheirobjectsthankstoanagreeduponruleandareconstitutedby

interpretation.Ordinarywordsandsentencesinanaturallanguageareexamples

ofsymbols.Incontrast,indexeshavearealandfactualconnectiontotheir

objects.Peirce’sownexampleisaweathervane,whichisanindexofthe

directionofthewind.Anindexwouldnotexistwithoutitsobject.Finally,icons

representtheirobjectsmerelybyvirtueoflikenessandtheirexistencedoesnot

dependonanythingelse.Diagramsareexamplesofstronglyiconicsigns.The

threeclassesarelikeRussiandolls:symbolsincludeindexesandicons,and

indexesincludeicons.Forexample,‘TheBalcony’isasymbolofLeBalcon

becauseitisanaturallanguageexpression;itisanindexbecauseitislinkedby

acause–effectrelationtothetitleofBaudelaire’spoem;anditisanicon

becauseitresemblesLeBalconinmanyrespects.

Theseclassescanhelpusanalyseinterference;acommonfeaturewhichToury

identifiedasalawoftranslation(Toury1995:275ff.;seeNORMS).Froma

semioticperspective,interferencemaybeseenasaphenomenonthatreinforces

theimageoftranslationasacontinuous,wavelikeprocess.Iftranslation

semiosiswerelikeawave,theninterferencewouldbeoneofitsnatural(ifoften

undesirable)properties.Inthishypotheticalreasoning,interferencewouldoccur

whenastrandofsemiosisproceedingfromasourcesignlikelibreriainItalian

meetsandamplifiesanotherwavethatoriginatedfromatargetsignlike‘library’.

Drawingontheicon–index–symbolclassification,interferenceoccurswhen

translatorsaremisledintobelievingthatbecausethetwoformsiconically

resembleoneanother,‘library’wouldbelikelibreriaunderindexicaland

symbolicrespectsaswell,includingmeaning.

Semioticsandtranslationtheory

Perhapsthemostinnovativecontributionofinterpretivesemioticsisthe

possibilityitprovidesofdistinguishingtranslationfromotherkindsofsign

action.Thescopeoftheterm‘translation’hasarguablybecometoowideinthe

pastfewyears,with‘translation’beingusedasasynecdocheformosttypesof

ordinarycommunication,suchaswriting,readingandconversing.Becauseofits

powerofabstraction,thetheoryofsignscantreattranslationasaspecialcase

ofsemiosisandhelpdelimititasanindependentandconsistentfieldofresearch

(cf.Stecconi2004b,2007forafullertreatmentofthisissue).Giventhe

variabilityoftheconceptoftranslationinspaceandtime,itisfutiletoattempt

substantiveoressentialistdescriptionsoftheformofsemiosisthatisspecificto

translation(translationsemiosisorTsemiosisforshort).However,itispossible

tostatethelogicosemioticconditionsoftranslation–theconditionsthatsetit

apartfromnontranslation.Thesearesimilarity,differenceandmediation.

Theargumentcanbebrieflyillustratedasfollows.Tsemiosispresupposes