3 Ocak 2011 Pazartesi

WEEK 11 - KATE STURGE, MARIA TYMOCZKO, ŞEBNEM SUSAM-SARAJEVA, THEO HERMANS

* Kate Sturge, in her article she compares the translation and museum as well as presenting a clear picture of the translational act taking place in museums. That is to say, she uses the terms translation in double sense: metaphorical and literal meaning. The main issue she deals with is ethnocentrism existing in both senses. Museum is like translation in the sense that you take an object from its culture, geographical and historical context and display it in a different environment with a possible interpretation. It is similar in the translation where you take the text in a source culture and present it in a framework in the target culture. The biases, purposeful manipulations that can be valid for translation are also applicable to museums. The main idea here is the representation. In the case of translation of the labels, texts in ethnographic museums different methods are applied, which generally results in the anonymity and corrupted representation. In the context of museums, the objects are displayed as if they are products of the whole culture and the actual maker of them are not mentioned and generally are not known or searched. As for the translations, they are are made briefly without any further explanation or detail. Actually the oversimplified representations of the objects which have the potential to lead to complex explanations present another issue, which is power balance. This is also another important point about museums. Because what is displayed in the context of ethnographic museums are generally given as primitive, underdeveloped etc. That is to say the higher presents a part of the history of the lower or subordinated. The importance of translation here is its potential to change this view and reception of the people. There may be different solutions offered like detailed inscriptions of the objects displayed without strict categories. Also a new trend of scattering words of the other culture in the translation is also applicable. However, I doubt the efficiency of such an approach. Because, though it may be useful to give an instinct of the existence of a foreign to the reader, it may result in weird translations, which would lead to less intelligibility and thus would not serve for the aim. Furthermore, she calls for a different system so as to eliminate these deficiencies on the issue of translation of the museum labels and texts. What she suggests is a critical point of view and approach to cultural representations, more awareness and different strategies so as to make the represented more visible in the eye of the visitors.
* Maria Tymoczko is one of the scholars who deserves appreciation for her critical point of view and clarity in expressing her statements. In her article she mainly deals with the issue of (non)representation of the non-Western in translation studies and the drawbacks of the presuppositions held in this field with the solutions that she suggests. She clearly presents the complexity of the translation process with her claim that translation does not take part in different group it may occur in the same group, which is composed of more than one cultural group. This point bring in the question of whether it is possible to draw the lines between the groups clearly. Also, her emphasis on the too much emphasis on written text is important to draw our attentions to the oral translations, which would also present different and interesting features as well as its contribution to non-Western where literate people are low in number. Furthermore, her problematization of too much individualistic view about the translator opens the issue into question and once more makes us think about the other agents taking place in the process. In this way, we would end up with a more comprehensive and clearer picture of the process. The issue of relation between the source and target texts is another problematic point, which would necessitate to re-conceptualize all of the terms of the field, which are shaped according to the point of view and biases of the dominant culture. This would give a chance to the non-Western to rise its voice. Furthermore, the text type determination problem and the limitations about this point in the field is another problem. Studies are generally restricted to a limited number of text types, which are common in the hegemonic culture (in this context it is the Western culture.) But as she suggests there exist other type of texts which are unique to their cultures and translation of them should be included in the field with an unbiased point of view to give the opportunity of self representation to the non-Western. However, all of her ideas are not very much applicable to Turkish context. As an example, her criticism about the presumption that translators are generally well educated experts of their field would not be hold true in Turkey, where translators are generally treated as amateurs and the institutionalization of the professional association is not at a powerful stage.
Also, the concepts of transculturation and the usage of translation as a cluster concept are some of the important points that draw attention. Transculturation as a concept provides us a tool to detect the culturally internalized elements of other cultures. It is a tough job but it would prove to be useful to present cultural relationships, cultural exchanges in more detail. However, here one can easily ask to which culture are we supposed to attribute this cultural element? That is to say, as an example, the Chinese food is largely consumed in a culture, it is very common and possible to find anywhere in that culture and it becomes a part of the eating habits of that culture. Then is it still Chinese or can that culture appropriate it to its culture? Cultural elements are not very easy to deal with with respect to the issue of ownership. As for the translation as a cluster concept, it helps us understand that there are receptions and perceptions of translation. All of these different approaches display similarity but not one shared, established ground. Each approach would be applicable in its own context. The importance of this idea is that it shows us the impossibility as well as the unnecessity of the works to fixate the term. Because it would always continue to say something different to anyone. On that point, I am not very sure about the limits of this non-fixation. I mean, as anyone wold agree it is not a good idea to limit the definition of a study so as to give it place to do its research and improve its field. However, in the universe of endless cases and interpretations isn't it necessary to have some common grounds on which the studies are to be executed? I do not have any clear suggestion for this problem but I am also not quite comfortable with the idea of this too much flexibility.
All of these concepts, ideas suggested by Tymoczko would help to broaden the field, enrich it and move it towards a more neutral (if not neutral to a more democratic) position giving equal place the so-called Others in a social science like Translation Studies. In conclusion, as sh suggests translation can be used for both good and ill. That is why it is important to think twice about the studies of the field with a critical point of view on the grounds of the elimination process of Eurocentric hegemony over the field.
* Şebnem Susam-Sarajevo, in her article mainly deals with the question of “Does political and economic power necessarily bring linguistic power?” She naturally touches upon the power relations and in this context explains the general tendencies between the language groups. Here the hegemony of some languages and the hierarchy between languages are presented. According to her claim, most of the works in the field are seen as products in English and thus products of the English culture or in a more general terms w of the Western culture. Also the fact that the more powerful a language is, the more probable that it would be received as the source and the weaker a language is seen, the more probable that that would be seen as the target. It is also possible to regard the source and target issue as central and peripheral consecutively. These ideas are open to debate from a number of points. First of all, what determines the source of a study? That is to say, is it the language that determines the source or is it the culture of the producer or is it the subject matter of the case study? Secondly, the issue of Western and non-Western distinction is not a clear one. What determines this Westernness? Is it geographical if so how come products of Israel can be see as Western? Is it language? If so in some part of the countries like Algeria, French is spoken. It is also a part of the European dominant languages but do we regard the products of that culture as Western? There not just one answer to these questions. But probably the language is a very dominant factor as the texts on the field are generally published in English no matter what the nationality of the scholars that produce them like Lefevere, Nida etc. and we receive them as the products of Western culture. The aim of the scholars writing in English rather than their mother tongues is explained as the will to reach more people and be accepted by the dominant institutions of the field. No one can blame them for their choice. But that does not necessarily mean that everybody would support them. Because, they sometimes bring about paradoxical statements. As an example, a post colonial writer criticizes the hegemony of the English culture and thus the language on the subordinated. But to express this, s/he uses English. She serves for two parts which are contradictory. On one hand she states her idea on the issue so as to raise awareness while on the other hand she produces her text in English and thus helps English strengthen its power with a new product in it. Furthermore, the idea of universality is a complex subject, which is open to question. Is is really possible to produce value-free, culture-free and neutral theories? I do not think so as no one can think outside the limits of his/her language, which is shaped with the biases, ideologies, ideas, traditions of that culture in which that language is spoken. On these points, her suggestion is to call for a more democratic distribution of scholarly models. But one can easily question the efficiency of democracy, as it may also mean the tyranny of the majority and it would not be difficult to determine the Big Brother in the context of the languages.
* Theo Hermans in the last chapter of “The Conference of the Tongues” opens the issue of the meanings of the concepts in different languages into question and states that the same concept may mean totally different things in different languages. Also with the term domestic representation he makes it that no one can avoid the inscriptions of his/her point of view while dealing with another subjects. That is to say, some extent of subjectivity is inevitable and total neutrality is something impossible. On the point of concepts what he suggests is to provide thick descriptions. It means to provide possible meanings of the terms used with the historical and situational context they are used in. However, this does not sound very achievable. Is it really possible to limit the interpretations? I do not think that it is possible to put an end point to them. Also, how can one determine the historical contexts of these concepts in the cultures other that his/hers? I think no matter how critical, one may provide studies in the field, the end product would always bear some remarks that are peculiar to him/her or in more general terms in his/her culture. Furthermore, according to Hermans, to be able to realize these, what is necessary is to gain access to interpretations of concepts and provide cross-cultural and cross-lingual study of them. However, apart from the infiniteness of the interpretations, the issue of personal cognition also matters here. That is to say, it would not be possible to provide a clear picture of the meanings of the terms in different cultures. Because these cultural differences and interpretations they lead to would also vary from the person to person among themselves in this very complex process. Furthermore, Hermans moves the term thick definition further and comes up with thick translation, which is heavily composed of footnotes, explanations of the terms, ideas. But it is not a gloss-like lists but critical descriptions. This idea is inherently a very good one so as to provide an increased awareness of the culture-bound elements of the texts. However, in the real life when we tackle with this claim what would we come up with? Would these translations be demanded? Would they reach the people so as to realize their aims? In the current situation, I may easily say “no”. But for the translation of text books in the field of translation studies this may prove to be helpful to provide researchers with different perspectives on the same issue. Moreover, the relation between the language and reality is worth discussing. It is not the reality that gives the sense to language but it is the language that makes sense on the point of reality. That is to say, its our attributions to words, concepts etc. that makes them meaningful. In short, they are constructed not inherent. So it would be useful to be aware of other attributions of the same concepts. Also the idea of self reflexivity is a very good one to show both the inevitability of domestic representation and how to deal with this inevitability. Because first you become aware of the fact that your descriptions are loaded with subjective inscriptions and thus deal with other descriptions that are also loaded with inscriptions so as to make a comparison and come up with a critical point of view on these matters. In conclusion he mainly raises the question “do we really communicate?”, which has numerous answers, all of which would also bring about other questions as well as different interpretations in the revision process of the terms of cross cultural studies of translation studies.

REFERENCES

        Hermans, Theo. 2007. The Conference of the Tongues. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
        Sturge, Kate. "The Other on Display" in Theo Hermans (eds.) Translating Others Volume II. Manchester: St. Jerome.
         Susam-Sarajeva, Şebnem. "A multilingual and International Translation Studies " in Theo Hermans (eds.) Crosscultural Transgressions. Manchester: St. Jerome.
         Tymoczko, Maria. "Reconceptualizing of Western Translation Theory" in Theo Hermans (eds.) Translating Others Volume I. Manchester: St. Jerome.

Hiç yorum yok:

Yorum Gönder