* Once having read André Lefèvre's articles on translation, one can easily distinct him from Zohar, Toury etc. Because their approaches to translation are quite different from one another. First of all, the works of Toury and Zohar, with their descriptive and systemic theories consecutively, provide a methodology for the study of translations within a context. The defining nature of their works is neutrality. They do not judge or present alternatives but provide a picture of what is available. However, from the very beginning Lefèvre makes his point clear and his stance towards translation, which is quite ideological. He tackles with the issue of translation from an ideological point of view and as a result of the revolutionary nature of the ideologies he calls for action and thus changes in the common understanding and practice of translation.
First of all, he broadens the field of study by renaming the act of translation under the title of rewriting. He criticizes the strict definitions of translation and presents this name as an alternative. However, this term is not restricted to translation and any kind of work with the claim of representing another text is a rewriting for him. But this approach is quite problematic from different angles. First, the interlingual nature of the translation (proper) is blurred. Because while on th subject matter of translation there lays the issue of source and target text which are written in different languages. However, the umbrella of rewriting also covers the translation criticisms, anthologies etc., which are written generally in the same language as the target or the original text. Here, if we evaluate translations and source texts; and anthologies and the original works which are given in these anthologies on the same basis of rewriting, wouldn't it take us to somewhere wrong, or isn't it also possible that we would end up at a blind alley? Also, on the point of the anthologies, the source that is presented is the original work; however, this original work is generally received in the target culture via translation. As an example, in an anthology of English classics, there will be books of English literature written mostly in English. But these books would be read mostly in Turkish in Turkish culture via translation. Then is it possible to explain this triple relation on the grounds of rewriting?
Moreover, the ideologically-oriented approach of Lefèvre calling for awareness about the power relations misses an important point. In the definition (though he does not present a clear-cut definition of the term) of the rewriting, the issue of representation matters. In the context of the translation, original text is the represented one while the translation is the representative one, in other words translation representing the original. However, this term itself reveals an issue of hierarchy from the very beginning. That is to say, in the general perception the represented is regarded with a greater respect than the representative and the represented has something valuable enough to be represented. Here, translation (this may not be implied) is not as valuable as the original. (With valuable, I do not mean any specific value judgment, my aim is just to present the unequal degree between translation and original in the context or rewriting.) Also, one may infer that the aim/function of the translation is to represent, which is not on the same path with Lefèvre's idea on translation who views it as a whole with the original.
Furthermore, Lefèvre's ideas on patronage with economic, ideological conditions and status are important to understand the power relations leading the field of translation. This human perspective draws attention on the translation and in a way increases his/her visibility. However, on the issue of patronage, it is not very easy to define these relations on clear-cut basis in the real life situations, because some ideologies, economic interests are clearly stated in some cases while they are not in others and in some cases some may pretend to have the different ideologies and their acts would be evaluated on the basis of their expressed ideologies which may lead to wrong conclusions.
*Lawrence Venuti is another ideologically oriented translation scholar, whose ideas are also quite controversial. First of all, he adopts an interventionist approach to translation. For him, translation I a means of realizing an aim. However, this at the very beginning brings about a few questions: “ does the translator really have such a right? To what extent a translator may intervene into the text? and What is the reason behind translating? If the translator will present something different than the original in his/her translation, why doesn't he/she write on his/her own instead of translating?” Venuti defines the result of this approach (to present the foreignness of the translation, defamiliarizing etc.) as a scandal an unethical process. However, he does not state that this is wrong. For him, this scandalous and unethical end is what is to be realized in translation. It is presented as a natural feature of translation. How right is it to present such an unethical feature as a very natural feature of an act, which is translation in our context? Is it the definition of translation proper for him: scandalous and unethical. What about the non-scandalous and ethical way of translation? Wouldn't it work in the context of unequal power relations? By the way, what is scandal, is it scandalous because it is something very different from the general expectation? Or is it scandalous because it is also something which is very wrong? (The word scandal presents both natures and in Venuti, which one is referred is not very clear ) Also, he is in favor of a resistant translation strategy and against the regime of fluency. For him, keeping what is foreign is not enough and translator is to break the taboos of the target language. However, despite the fact that he calls for such an attitude for a certain aim, it is again open to debate. Because, such a translation would not be very intelligible. The addressed reader would be very restricted. Then these facts bring about other questions. Wouldn't such a strict addressee prevent the translation from achieving his/her goal? Also would it be really effective to play with the established nature/usages of the language? Is language really so flexible? And more importantly, this distorted language usage may reveal the fact that there is something different in this translation, there is something which is aiming at calling for awareness about some point/issue/idea etc. However, wouldn't it be in vain just to understand the fact that there is something that is to be understood unless you understand what is meant?
Furthermore, he calls for a minoritizing project. In this act, he states his idea about language, and according to him a text is always beyond the intentions of the author and mean something more. So he calls for attention in the choice of the texts that are to be translated. At this point he is in favor of translating texts possessing minority status in their cultures. Here, it becomes clear that his ideas on translation are actually language restricted. That is to say, his main aim is to shake the regime of English and thus his ideas are mostly relevant in the cases of into English translations. So, the strategies suggested by him would not work in the case of translations from English to Turkish. Even it would work in the opposite way and strengthen the hegemony of English if the foreign elements of the English languages are kept in Turkish translations, which would also bring quite resistant responses to the translation.
Moreover, on the point of the human agency in the translational act, his stance towards the translator is quite clear and he calls for visible translator. With his/her interventions and the project realized the translator makes himself/herself visible. This is to be achieved in the text via the protection of the foreign in the target text. This is also a feature of the good translation for Venuti on the point of ethical stance with the elimination of the ethnocentric judgments. However, the visibility of the translator is also quite open to debate. As the practicer of the translational act, I also think that the translator should be visible. However, it is not very possible to draw the limits of this visibility and the limits become more ambiguous in the case of an ideological stance and act in translation. It is possible for the translator to come up with a totally different text from the original text with the interventionist approach he/she adopts. Also, as Venuti problematizes in the case of translation and original, the concept of authorship may also gain different meanings. Translation is generally viewed as a case of inauthenticity, distortion and contamination of the original, and the translator as the cause of these points according to him. The calls of Venuti to the translators challenge the concept of authorship and also drives it to a scandalous end. One may be right to claim that the hierarchical relation/view between the translator and the writer is to be eliminated. I mean a translator is not of a lesser value than a writer or vice versa. However, if a text is produced by someone whom we call as the author in this context, then he/she naturally has a right to decide and lead the reception of it in different languages and the translator in a sense is to respect this expectation. I do not mean that the translator is to obey all the things that are required by the author or the text however there should be a limit in the freedom of the translator. I do not think that using a text written by someone to realize an ideological aim via translation is not a right thing to do. I am quite aware of the fact that Venuti's cases are relevant in the context of translations from languages that are generally marginalized or in a minority status into English which has a hegemony over other languages. In these cases, the translator is to keep the culture-specific elements of the source culture in the target text in order to make the English reader aware of the fact that there exists another culture somewhere in the world. In this case, the translator actually does not intervene into the text and becomes visible in the target culture with the kept foreignness of the source culture. The problematics that are mentioned above are generally relevant for vice versa translations and my aim is just to question the concepts in different contexts.
Furthermore, the concept of remainder presented by Venuti is an important one in understanding the difference between the original and translated texts within a cultural context. When one is to compare a translation and an original text, two terms which are used as their equivalents in different languages turn out to be something more than intended. As an example, when one translates the English word “festival” as “bayram” in Turkish. They may seem to mean the same thing however, apart from their basic meanings resembling one another they also have some other connotations. Here we have both national and religious festivals and the meaning intended in English text with this word may be just a special day that is celebrated. In translation with the word “bayram” this meaning is in a way conveyed however religious connotation and national connotations are still there. This is the remainder part. This term is quite useful to preserve an awareness about the cultural differences and in this way one would be able to avoid ethnocentric attitudes which are claimed to be the reason behind bad translations for Venuti.
In conclusion, Lefevere and Venuti with their ideological approach to translation theories, unlike the value-judgment free theories of DTS scholars, provide an understanding of the conditions that would lead the translator as an agent and the translation as an act. With the economic, political and ideological concepts involved in the theories, the field of study is broadened and critical point of views are presented with a call for action by translator scholars. Also with the involvement of the power relations that actually affect all the acts taking place around the world into the translation studies, the theories produced are brought closer to the real life conditions (I do not have any intention to compare them with other theories, they all contribute to the field in a different perspective, this may be seen as the contribution of this kind of theories). By the way noone would expect a social science like translation taking place between cultures to be as objective and neutral as the neutral sciences.
REFERENCES:
Lefèvre, Andrè. 1992. “Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame”. London: Routledge. (Chapters1-3)
Venuti, Lawrence. 1988. “The Scandals of Translation: Towards an Ethics of Difference”. London: Routledge. (Chapter: 1,2,4.)
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder