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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page301

salistperspective,languageistypicallyseenascomprisingtwolayers,asurface

andadeepstructure.Ideasandmeaningaregeneratedatthedeeperlayerand

canberepresentedbyavarietyofsurfacelinguisticstructures.Thisviewwas

heldinthemedievalperiodbyRogerBaconanddominatedEarlyModernand

Enlightenmentthinking;itisechoedinNoamChomsky’stransformational

grammarofthe1960s.

Theideaoflanguageastwolayeredpromotesadissociationbetweenformand

meaning,or,inSaussureanterms,signifierandsignified(seeSEMIOTICS).

Formismaterialandperceptible,andvariesfromlanguagetolanguage,while

meaningisinvisibleandcanbeextrapolatedfromtheformthatcarriesit.Thisis

whatReddy(1979/1993)describedastheconduitmetaphoroflanguage.It

holdsthatmeaningistransmitted,andcanbepreservedintact,asittravelsalong

itsconduit.Theconduitmetaphoralsoguaranteestranslatability,astranslation

transfersmeaningsbysubstitutingonecarrierforanother.Translationthus

constantlypractisestheseparationofsignifierandsignified,asDerridahas

pointedout(seeDECONSTRUCTION).Itmakesusassumethatdifferent

signifierssomehowconveyasignifiedthatremainsidenticaltoitself.Thispoints

upanaporiainSaussure’sconceptoflanguage,inwhichsignifierandsignified

areliketwosidesofapieceofpaperandhenceinseparable.Translation,

however,ispredicatedontheseparabilityofsignifierandsignified(Derrida

1972a/1981).

IntheWest,translatabilitywastakenforgrantedfromRomanantiquity

onwards,theWest’sfirstcopyingculture,asKelly(1979)calledit.Afterthe

Romanempire,translatiostudiiaccompaniedthewestwardtranslatio

imperii,againprovidinglittlegroundtodoubttranslatability,whetherlinguistic

ormorebroadlyintellectual(Stahuljak2004).TheChristianBiblewas

overwhelminglyreadandsubsequentlyexportedintranslation,givingrisetothe

ideathatits‘truth’couldbeexpressedinanylanguageandthereforeexisted

independentlyoflanguage.

Untranslatability

Thedaytodaypracticeoftranslatorsappearstoshowoverwhelminglythat

translationispossible.Ifithappensallthetime,surelyitcanbedone?The

argumentagainsttranslatabilitydoesnotusuallypositabsoluteuntranslatability

butratherquestionswhetherfullyadequatetranslationcanbeachieved.The

monadistcasemaybesummedupasfollows.Intheirdifferentgrammaticaland

lexicalstructures,individuallanguagesembodyandthereforeimposedifferent

conceptualizationsoftheworld.Thestructuralasymmetriesbetweenlanguages

preventconceptualmappingfromonelanguagetoanotherduetothelackof

analoguesandtheabsenceofalanguageindependentmappingtool.Theway

differentlanguagesdivideupthecolourspectrumororganizekinshiptermsare

amongtheclassicexamplesofsuchasymmetries,buttheyaffectallaspectsof

language.TheFrenchlinguistEmileBenveniste(1958)evenarguedthatthe

supposedlyuniversallogicalcategoriesoftheancientGreekswerebasedon

featuresoftheirlanguage.Theconsequence,subsequentlyexploredby

ethnographersandphilosophers,isthatdifferentlanguagesmaygiveriseto

incommensurablelogics(Winch1964).Languages,thatis,areembeddedinthe

culturalenvironmentofwhichtheyareaconstitutivepart.Thisreciprocity

betweenlanguageandCULTUREandtheasymmetriesbetweendifferent

lifeworlds,whicharealsolanguageworlds,maketranslationimpossible(see

alsoCULTURALTRANSLATION).

ThemonadistviewwasarticulatedbytheGermanRomantics,notablyJohann

GottfriedHerder,WilhelmvonHumboldtandFriedrichSchleiermacher,and

takenupinthetwentiethcenturybyEdwardSapirandBenjaminLeeWhorf

(hencethe‘Sapir–Whorfhypothesis’).ForHerder,allcrosscultural

comparisonwasdeeplyproblematicbecauseeachculture,anditslanguage,had

tobeassessedonitsownterms.VonHumboldtparadoxicallyassertedthe

impossibilityoftranslationintheprefacetoatranslation(theAgamemnonof

Aeschylus,1816)andpresenteduntranslatabilityasachallengetobetakenup.

Inhisfamous1813lecture,Schleiermachertooaskedwhethertranslationwas

notafoolishundertaking,andwentontooutlineitasataskasunendingas

Page302

thatofhermeneuticunderstanding(Lefevere1977).

Indoubtingthepossibilityoftranslation,themonadistviewclearlyinvokesthe

‘quantitativemeasure’mentionedabove.Itdoesnotholdthatwecannotlearn

anotherlanguageorexplicateinonelanguageconceptspropertoanother.It

claimsthat,duetotheasymmetriesbetweenlanguagesandculturesandthe

organiclinkbetweenlanguageandculture,translationunderstoodasalinear

discoursereplicatinganotherdiscoursewithregardtobothlengthandmeaning

isnotpossible.Approximaterenditionscanbeachieved,orexplanatory

paraphrase;textsmayalsobetranslatableuptoapointorincertainlimited

respects.

Untranslatability,then,mostlyappearsinrelativeform,asamatterofaspect,

kindordegree.Therealwaysremainsanuntranslatablerest,forinstanceinthe

shapeofconnotation,nuanceorpoeticquality.Amongtheleasttranslatable

textswouldbethosethatconsciouslyexploittheidiomaticresourcesofagiven

tongue,orthosethatareencodedinmultipleways.InPOETRY,forexample,

wordsmaybewovenintosemantic,metrical,rhyming,intertextualandother

patterns.ThisledJakobson(1959)toclaimthatpoetryisuntranslatableand

only‘creativetransposition’ispossible–leavingwideopenthequestionof

exactlyhowcreativetranspositiondiffersfromtranslation.

Sincethecaseforuntranslatabilitybearsbothonlinguisticstructureandonthe

relationbetweenlanguageandculture,itisoftensubdividedintotwokinds,

linguisticandcultural.ForJ.C.Catford(1965),linguisticuntranslatability

occursincaseswhereambiguityorpolysemyisfunctionallyrelevantinatext,

culturaluntranslatabilitywhensituationalfeaturesthatarereferredtoinan

original(forexample,sauna,igloo)areabsentinthecultureofthetranslating

language.Catfordwonderedwhetherculturaluntranslatabilityshouldnotbe

treatedassimplyatypeoflinguisticuntranslatability:foranyitemunknownin

thereceptorlanguagealoanwordcouldbeimportedoranexplanatoryphrase

devised,evenifthatwouldresultinanunusual,linguisticallymarkedcollocation.

Ifaprohibitionagainsttranslatingcertaintextsorkindsoftextisregardedas

instancinguntranslatability,thenperhapsinstitutionaluntranslatabilityisaspecies

ofculturaluntranslatabilitythatisnotreducibletolinguistics.Inthissense,the

QUR’ĀNisinstitutionallyuntranslatabletotheextentthattheIslamicworldwill

notrecognizeaversioninanotherlanguageashavingreligiousauthority.Adolf

Hitler’sMeinKampfhasbecomeuntranslatablebecausethecurrentcopyright

holder,theGermanStateofBavaria,routinelyrefusespermission(Hermans

2007).Inthiscase,theprohibitioncanonlyaffectpublicationunderthetermsof

internationalcopyrightlaw.Conversely,alanguagemaybedeemedincapable

ofaccommodatingcertainconceptsorberegardedasaninappropriatehostfor

themduetoitstieswithanalienculture.Christianmissionariesinthecolonial

PhilippinesorSpanishAmericareckonedsomeoftheirkeydoctrinalterms

couldorshouldnotberenderedintonativelanguagesbutweretobeusedby

thenativesinLatinorSpanishtoavoidcontaminationbypaganbeliefs(Rafael

1993).

Thecolonialcontextalsoprovidesexamplesofhowculturalincommensurability,

howeverradicalintheory,maybeoverriddeninpracticetoenabletranslation

nonetheless.ColonialsettlementmeantthatEuropeanideasofpropertywere

imposedonnativepopulationssoastoallowthecolonizerstoclaimterritorial

sovereigntyandtransferownershipontheirterms,regardlessofthewaythe

nativesrelatedtothelandonwhichtheylived(Cheyfitz1991;Patton2000).

Usingthesomewhatunfortunateexampleofananglophonelinguistencountering

anativespeakinga‘junglelanguage’,Quine(1959)exploredthepossibilityof

translationinsituationsofradicallinguisticandculturaldifferencefroma

philosophicalangle,suggestingthattheconstructionofmeaningacrosssuch

dividesremainedhostagetoanineradicableindeterminacy.

Anotherkey

Inthetwentiethcentury,bothtranslatabilityanduntranslatabilityweretakenup

inunexpectedwaysbyinfluentialthinkers.WalterBenjamin’s1923essay‘The

TaskoftheTranslator’positstranslatabilityasthatwhichresidesintheoriginal

asmerepotentialandwhichtranslationwilladumbratemorefully.Justasthe

GermanRomanticsheldthataliteraryworkis‘criticizable’inthatcriticismcan

pointupthe