* Tytler approaches to the translation from a different point of view and he with Dolet, Dryden develop a meta-view. Though he does not question the concept of translation very much, he includes different elements into the translation. He deals with translation from the language perspective and states that different language structures necessitates different translations. However, his opinion on the style and meaning of a text that is to be conveyed via translation is problematic. He states that it may not be possible to maintain both of them in the translation. But how to decide to on one of them is not clearly determined. Also, it is an inherently wrong problematic, because a text exists as a whole and thus it is not possible to separate them. When you change or eliminate the style of a text, you at the same time change the meaning of the text. That is why, I think though his approach to translation from a lingual point of view is promising, it is not enough to explain complex act like translation.
Furthermore, he uses the term perfect translation, which is vague and it is not explained what is meant with it. If I am to question this term, I may come up with nothing and lots of things, because it may mean different things when dealt with different approaches available in the translation studies. Also he develops two different approaches to translation. The first one is more like a source-language oriented, the latter is target-language oriented. However, his statement on the first approach that the deficiencies and blemishes of the text should also be reflected in the translation and, his statement on the latter approach that the text may be improved and arrangements may be realized in the translation are quite problematic in my opinion. Because, it is not possible to determine the limits of these changes, the limits of the freedom that is given to the translator. Also, the translator is always to blame about the defects of the translation, though they exist in the original text.
* Dolet's first interesting point is the position of a translator as a printer. I have never thought of a translator who is at the same time the printer, maybe with today's terms the publisher. He deals with this situation as something usual but when examined carefully, it would be obvious that it would change all the translational conditions that lead the translational process. Among them, more freedom to translator, a different purpose in translation etc. can be counted.
Though Dolet does not deal with the responsibility of the translator, his fate on that matter is a real pity. This brings into question the limits of the responsibility of the translator and the right (?) of the people to judge them. This clearly reveals the necessity of organizational professional acts and established organizations. If there had been any organization on that profession, it might be possible to save him from execution. Even today similar events happen and despite some movements , the organizations are not enough. This situation also brings into question of the very root of the translational act, “what the translation is.”
Also his term “good translation” is a vague one and most of his five criteria to evaluate a translation and decide the goodness of it are not applicable. First of all, he states that the translator should have a good grasp of the meaning of the text. But meaning is a relative concept, not even two person get totally the same meaning from the same text. In this situation, how could it be possible to expect a translator to come up with a generally accepted meaning. He also deals with the relationship of the languages but I am not sure about the classification of languages as rich and poor ones. The fact that there are more words in a language does not necessarily mean that it is a richer language. That is why I do not agree with him on that point either.
* Dryden's most (?) important contribution to the translation studies is his simple and too general classification of the translation into three categories as metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation. His terms may be evaluated as substitutes to word-for-word, sense-for-sense and free translations consecutively. However, though metaphrase and paraphrase are easier to deal with an explain as their predecessors, the imitation is like a catch-all category and any translation that does not fit into the definition of metaphrase and paraphrase put into imitation. But his opinions on imitation are quite confusing. He states that imitation is a good arena for the translator to show his/her talent but it would be very disrespectful if it is applied to a dead person. He also finds it reasonable to make adjustments, omissions on the translation for the first one. But I do not think that translator would have any intention to show off via translation. It may be inspiring with the value that it gives to the translator but I am not sure whether the end product of this interlingual act can be called as a translation. Of course, every translation is a new text in the target culture but the rate of this “newness” is open to question. Also, translation is by nature a creative act; thus the translator does not have to act as an artist or require such kind of talents. I am against limits on a broad issue like translation, but I am for sure against such limitless freedom. In this situation it is almost impossible to study translation. Because it is even not clear whether to evaluate the end product as a translation or not; or whether to deal with the practitioner of this act as a translator or an author.
His metaphor about the position of the translator is a good one. But as he said the success is always attributed to the author of the original text in the target culture, and the failure is always attributed to the translator. In that perspective, it would be even clearer that to act as freely as an imitator would result in bad endings, even executions.
Moreover, he also touches upon the relationship between the languages and he uses the term “inferior” language and the superiority of some languages. I do not agree with his opinion on that matter. Because as I said before it is not appropriate to call a language superior or inferior. Any language is enough for the people communicating thorough it. Thus it would not be a problem for a translator to translate a word that with several equivalents in the source language but with a just one correspondence in the target language. Because, if a word does not exist in a language that would bring my mind that this nuance,concept etc. does not exist in that culture. On that point, the translator should not be blamed. If the aim is to enrich cultures via interlingual and thus intercultural communication, it is up to the translator to import that term into the target language by coining a new word etc. but this is not a must for the translator. It would be overresponsibility.
* Schleiermacher is seen as one of the first to produce systematic translation theories. In his time together with Dryden, German Romanticism has a serious effect on his views. With the culture as the most important dynamic of the societies, it also gains its place in the translation studies. The language and translation is also dealt with the perspective of the culture. First of all, though he does not state it with the Jacobson's term as “intralingual” translation, he gives examples which are similar to that phenomena. In this respect, he broadens the field of translation studies. His remark on the distinction between interpreter and translator is also important. Because until that time, it is generally the written translation that is dealt in the field, there is not much said on oral translation.
Unlike the previous scholars, he does not base the differences between the translation and the source text on linguistic differences. He touches upon them from the cultural point of view. This is important because of the fact that translation is broad concept and trying to define its process and also the end products on the basis of just linguistics is not enough and also even bad for a field which tries to prove its autonomy and even independence from these branches. Also, I think his spatial-meaning relation is worth dealing with. He states that the more the distance between the target and source language the bigger is the difference between the meanings. This is a different approach but again open to some question. Spatial bases in the evaluation of the translation can also be quite misleading. Such as Turkey and Iran are neighbors but the literary traditions are quite different from each other and thus the meaning is. Also Greek and Turkey may be good examples. For some Turkey may be a representative of the East while Greece as the representative of the West. At that time the words would mean different things in that cultures though they are very near to each other. Even this differences can be observed on local levels for example between the Anatolia and Istanbul.
Furthermore, his classifications that he present as alternatives to the empty&full concepts of faithful, free, literal etc. His classification is much more understandable to me on the point that it also somehow presents a method in the definition of his two approaches. But it is again not possible to say that they are clear cut and easy to define. First of all, I do not know whether it is possible to grasp the gust of the author to be able to bring the reader to th author. Secondly, he suggests to bring the author to the reader. But again it is not possible to determine whether s/he brought the author as a whole to the target culture or just could bring his/her legs, arms etc. These are all the problems of the translation by nature. But he does not give limitless freedom to the translator, he states that there should be some limits between the “should not” and “can not”, to which I totally agree with. However, the details of these limits are left unanswered.
Also, his point on the hierarchy of languages between the languages of the target reader and its relevance to the translation is also interesting. He states that the language from or into which the translation takes place is important. He gives us the Latin, German examples. I am curious whether it would be the case for us between the Ottoman Turkish and Turkish. Though they are by root the same language it is sometimes impossible for us to understand Ottoman Turkish. Would it be more appropriate to translate a Latin text into Ottoman Turkish (which is viewed as a very rich (?) language) rather than Turkish.
Finally I would like to touch upon the bilingual author situation. If I am to problematize this view. First, when it is the bilingual author who also writes the same text in another language, is he still the author or the translator for the second text? Does the notion of translator defined as interlingual practicer of someone else's text? If it is not the property of the text that determines the position of author and the translator, what is it? Can the author perform the same in the second language? Would he be able to mean the same thing? Is the limits or the freedom the same for the author in the second text as for the translator?
REFERENCE
Robinson, Douglas. ed. 1997. Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchaster: St Jerome Publishing.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder