WEEK 7- THEO HERMANS "THE END OF TRANSLATION"

In the very first chapter of his book “The Conference of the Tongues“ “The End” Theo Hermans deals with the issue of authentication of the translation. According to Berman, some translations are authenticated and they begin to enjoy the status of the original. After that stage a translation seizes to be a translation and becomes an original. There are different cases in which the act of authentication take place.

The first case is the official authorities authenticating a translation. This is true for official documents like treaties and multilingual contracts. The translations are seen as originals in target languages they are translated into. However, this statement brings into the very questions of what the translation is and what determines a text to be a translation. That is to say, in some explanations for a text to be a translation, the existence of a source text is the first essential requirement. However, in this case, this existence does not seem to be a validating element of a translation. Then this again proves the reliability of the idea that a translation is not something that exists as a natural truth but the perception or the attribution of the people. That is to say, when people call a text a translation and many people thinks the same, a texts starts to be a translation. The same is also true for the vice versa. If someone (in this case, it is the authority) states that a text is an original work and most of the people agree on it, then this very translation seizes to be a translation and becomes an original in the relevant target cultures. This process brings the end of the translation. Also, though Herman does not exclude the power inequalities between the parties of the relevant treaties and contracts, he does not deal with them in depth. However, as the world is the place of inequalities especially in the political arena. The reception and the application force of them would not be the same. I mean these equally forceful texts would have to act in the limits of their target cultures. As an example, think of a treaty on human rights signed both by Norway, Somalia and USA. The application of this treaty in Norway by no means would be the same as its application in Somalia. Then this brings into the question of context: equal text in which context: in the international levels, national levels or even the local levels. These all are to be problematized in respect to the individuality of each context. Furthermore, in the explanations that are presented here, the term “target” is used. But in the case of the lack of a source (as all of the texts are seen as original), the validity of the usage of a term like is also open to question.

In another case of the authentication, the example of Marmoon, the source text disappears according to the common belief and the translated text replaces the original and becomes the original. However, even if people do not have the chance to take a look at the original book, is it a reliable explanation for a translation to become an original. That is to say, for a translation to be a translation, is it the concrete existence of an original that really matters, is not the existence of the common belief that though seen there exist an original text enough? These are all problematic issues that blurs the definition of translation, concepts of target and the source.

In another case, a translation replaces the original as the people forget about the original and begin to perceive the translation as original. But is translation a forgetting and remembering issue? If someone in that culture makes effort and brings the original into discussion and the people remember it then will the translation begin to be translation again?

Furthermore, one of the most important subjects of the chapter is the issue of self translation. Is it again a case of authentication? But without having an established basis on the definition of source, I do not think that this discussion would lead us to anywhere safe. I mean, for example, in the case of Elif Şafak, she writes both in English and Turkish, she lives in the USA-in American culture but she uses the themes of Turkish elements in her works. Let's think of a case, in which she writes in English about the life of dervish living in Turkey. Here, one can ask what is the source culture in this situation: Turkish or American one? Or is it the language she writes in that determines the source culture? Then is it appropriate to say that as she writes in English, the source culture is the American culture?

Also,on that point the case of bilingual authors matter. They may have one mother tongue and may have learned the second one at native speaker level, or they may have parents speaking different languages. When they write in one of the languages they are competent at and translate(?) into the their other language they speak, is it really a translation? Because I somehow found myself thinking that original and translated text are also a matter of authorship. I mean in most of the cases what we call original is written by an author and translated into another language by someone else. That is to say it is a translation because each of the texts are produced by different people. It may sound weird but I can not internalize the idea of self translation as an act of translation. I do not mean to keep it out of the translation studies but I can not categorize it under the title of translation proper at least. To support my idea, I wonder whether it matters to have the original text in written form. That is to say, a bilingual author may write a novel in language X, and the same author may want to write the text again in language Y. In the translation (or in the process of writing in language Y) he does not look at the text written in X. He has the data in his mind. Here what determines the source text? Because he may think in both of the languages. Does the fact that he has written in language X first and after that in language Y really matters here? I mean is a translation a before vs. after thing? Is it chronological order that differentiates the source and the target texts? As one see clearly, these all problematic issues and questions lead to another questions.

Lastly, I would like to touch upon the concept of equivalence and Herman's understanding of the term. His approach to equivalence is similar to what Toury states about the issue. For Toury , "equivalence" becomes a cover term for the relationship between source and target, it not an a priori requirement but a result. He somehow deproblematizes the issue. Hermans takes this approach further and states that there is no possible full equivalence in translation, it is an ideal. If it is fully equivalent to the source text than it is not a translation but an original as it is authenticated. Then are all the discussions on this term made in the history of the translation studies are in vain for him? I am aware of the fact that there is not a single or clear definition of the term and every scholar attributes different meanings to it. But isn't it too risky to use it like a borderline between the translation and original? I am not also in favor getting stuck to these ambiguous terms and leaving the translation studies in the hands of its fate. But equivalence in my mind is one of the criteria of the translation and its analysis. Though I may not be able to come with an exact explanation of my understanding of the term, I internally have a notion of it and carrying to an ideal level is also not a solution. Actually by deproblematizing the term itself, he leads to another problems, debates. Such as the determination of the equivalence level. What does he mean with full equivalence? Is it something impossible? If yes how? If no why? If a text is % 99 percent equivalent to the ST, then is it an original or still a translation? These are some of the questions before which I have no answer to give and realize the fact that studying a social discipline with terms meanings of which may change dramatically from time to time and person to person is a tough job.

REFERENCE

Hermans, Theo. 2007. The Conference of the Tongues. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.

WEEK 6- DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUDIES AND BEYOND

Toury's article on the norms is a quite systematic one. It is divided into clear parts and presents a clear picture of the translation as a norm governed activity as apart of the Descriptive Translation Studies. With picture I mean a photo not a painting, the former of which includes just description of what is in hand, while the latter of which gives place to interpretation, explanation etc. I mean he has a very objective voice. He states the fact that he just describes the situation, his objectiveness is again weird on the point that he speaks as if he is talking about a neutral science. However, translation is a social science which is not empirical but based on explanation and that is why, his objective voice on such a subjective subject is quite interesting.

Toury's contribution to translation studies is quite charming. First of all, he broadens the field of translation studies in real sense with the term he suggests “assumed translation.” It means that any text that is assumed, received, perceived as a translation is a translation and is to be dealt in that perspective. It breaks the link between the source text and target text and reveals the fact that “transfer” and “relationship” are all posited as postulates “rather than factual”.  As I said before it provides the translation studies scholars with a wider and freer area to study and research in. In this way, different areas of translation are dealt and translation studies in not trapped in the limits of the texts which are called “translation proper.” However, despite this positive effect, it is also somehow problematic. Because it blurs the definition of translation and makes it difficult to understand what is meant and determine the limits of translation.

Also, Toury differs from most of the former translation scholars with his emphasis on the target side. Translation is said to be a fact of the target culture. It may be useful on the point that translation is dealt as a text on its own in the target side and independent of the source text. It grants the translation the value that it deserves. However, Toury's point on the matter that translation starts as a result of a need, deficiency on the target side is quite problematic. I take this point into consideration from different perspectives. First of all, I really have difficulty in understanding the statements about the needs of a culture. It sounds as if culture is an institution and publishes orders to meet these needs. But culture is not a concrete thing (though it is really difficult to come up with a certain definition of this term). So who determines this need? Also who feels this need? Who reveals or meet this need? Are we aware of this process? Do they all happen on their own? In addition to the confusion resulting from the expression “need”, I do not understand what is really meant with the terms” deficiency, gap”. How can a culture be deficient of something? May be the people of that culture do not feel this deficiency, then why are these texts translated? We know that the percentage of translated texts in every culture changes, but there is almost no culture which does not include any translated texts. That is why, I agree with the criticism directed to Toury on that point by the post-colonial writers. It is not always target side that initiates the translation process. As in the examples of Indian vs. English culture, we can not easily say that the translations from English into Indian languages are done as a result of the needs of the Indian culture. It may be a reason but the supposition that colonial English people (I do not think that this should be attributed to the whole nation. There are generally few people who plan the whole thing) realized these translation for the purpose of effecting, assimilating or changing the culture of the colony, Indian people.

Moreover, Toury's approach on the term “equivalence” is quite different. We generally use this term as a comparison tool while determining the success (?) of the translation according to the source text. That is to say, what is expected from a target text is to be equivalent to the source text. This equivalence requirement (?) may also be on sentence, word level as well as text level. This term is used for the description of the end product. However, Toury breaks this assumption and states that equivalence is inherently there whenever and wherever translation takes place. His approach has both pros and cons. He eliminates the limits of this term in his description and gets rid of a concept which is already very difficult may be impossible to describe to come up with the description of the translation process. He uses the terms as an inherent nature of the translation process more than the end products of this process, translations. It may sound to be as a good act to deproblematize the term and go ahead on  your way, but does this necessarily mean that it is not a problem anymore? Can we all assume now that equivalence is not a term to emphasize or depend on too much in translation studies? Or does this elimination bring the clarity to the translation?

Furthermore, on the point of the relation between the source text and target text/culture, Toury distinguishes between the terms “adequacy and acceptability”. The definition of these terms is again not very clear and they sometimes overlap with each other as well as with the term equivalence. According to Toury translation may be either adequate to ST or acceptable for the target culture recipient. In a way, they are the checkpoints of the norms which are to be found at the end of the process (though Toury calls them as initial norms) but how to define these adequacy and acceptability is not very clear. But so as to realize a translation adequate or acceptable, any translator may come up with different solutions no matter how weird they are. These binary oppositions may lead to extremes. I do not want to sound too conservative but these uncertainties disturbs me, but I am also aware of the fact that we have no option like observing these processes in a laboratory and come up with universal truths on the point of a social science like translation studies. Probably that is why; Toury’s attempt to come up with universal norms was in vain.

What is more, in my opinion the most important contribution of Toury is the concept of “pseudo-translations.” According to that, some texts are dealt in a culture as translations but they actually are original texts.  This situation reveals different sides of translation and its relation to the culture. First of all, the existence of pseudo-translations in a culture may refer to different points. Translation may be a way of getting rid of the limits of the censors in that publishing sector. It is also possible that translations may be highly appreciated in a culture and new original writers of that culture may find place to themselves in that culture’s literature more easily for their works. The very existence of pseudo-translations in a certain culture may have different connotations and give information us about the place of translation in that specific culture such as whether it is in the center or periphery. According to Toury, pseudo-translations help us better understand a society’s “conception of translation” within a certain period and how it changes through time.  Besides these, pseudo-translations also reveal the fact that what actually the determines the nature of a text as a translation is perception of the people. That is to say, it is the attribution of the people what makes a text a translation not its inherent nature.

Furthermore, Toury puts emphasis on contextualization. According to Toury, translated texts are to be dealt and studied within its context. It may be cultural context, historical context. It helps the translation studies scholar to come up with a historical positioning and in this way the translations may be described properly with regard to their position and function within the period they emerged. This term of conceptualization is quite important on the matter of pseudo-translations. Dealing with translations within a context rather tan in isolation also enables the scholars to make comparative analysis on different bases with different texts of different times and cultures thus conditions as well as the same of the same time period. That is to say, contextualization can be both diachronic and synchronic.

In conclusion, I would like to touch upon the information sources/materials that Toury use in his analysis, which are textual, extra textual and a new one paratextual. In general, I have the tendency just to take the text as a source of information for translation analysis or comparisons.  However, Toury broadens these options and he includes extratextual materials, like prefaces, commentaries of translators, reviews, critics etc. These all may provide useful information to us so as to understand the process in a more comprehensive and consistent way. Besides this, the concept of paratextual materials is quite interesting. But during the readings on Toury and different kind of translations in a context, I found out the fact that even a cover of the book may tell a lot to you and change the expectations from that translation and enable you to deal with it from a different point of view.  It is really interesting to come up with different explanations through the font size of the title and subtitles etc. These are all things that enhance our perspective and perception of translation thus leading our studies to different points of the translation.

REFERENCE

Toury, Gideon. .1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.