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.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder