There is always some kind of tension between the translation studies as a branch of social sciences and translation as a practice. The tension is mostly derived from the questions “what is the use translation theories to the translators?” “Is translational products are relevant to the study of the translation?” “If there is any, what is the relation between the translator and translation scholars?”Different, sometimes opposing approaches and answers to these questions bring about fierce discussions and result in different views.
First of all I would like to touch upon the article of Sabri Gürses on the subject of “what is the use of the translation studies to the translators?” He states that this is an inherently wrong question; thus it would be in vain to await reasonable and grounding answers from that rhetoric. His attitude towards translation studies is very restricted and he isolates the actual practices of the translational action, the translators from the subject matters of these studies. He deals with the situation in terms of subject-object relation and presents his idea with an extreme example: the relationship between the nuclear physicist and the nuclear molecules. I do not think that this is an appropriate analogy. For sure we can not expect a molecule to ask questions to a physicist. But though a translation can not ask question to a translation scholar, the producer of that translation, the translator certainly can. That is why, Gürses' effort to separate the translator and translation from the translation studies presents an unsuccessful one.
It is really weird to think of a branch of study separately from its very subject matter. Translation even as a concept involves the translational action, it is based on practical act. So, in my opinion, translation study can not ignore the end products of these translational acts, translations and the producers of these translations, translators. On that point, it would be useful to define the vast field of translation studies: the process of translational act, factors that effect and guide this process, analysis of what is going on in minds of the translators during that process, translational decisions, the position of source and target texts also with the relationship between these cultures; social, economical, political conditions leading the translational decisions and so on. These are the ones that come to my mind on the first stance, there are several others. But even these are enough to clearly state that translation studies can not ignore the translators.
However, to come up with an answer to the common question or claim of the translators on the use and pragmatics of the translation studies, it is essential to take a look at the generally accepted method of current translation studies, which is descriptive. Descriptive translation studies aim at as its name suggests describe and define the nature, process and end-products of the translational action. The results of these studies do not present pragmatic answers to the demands of translators. I think though not appreciated by the current translation scholars, it may be the prescriptive translation studies that may be helpful to these needs of the translators. However, this approach, immediately brings into question the value of these studies in a scientific field. This is where I get stuck.
Let me first begin with my opinion on prescriptive approaches to TS. As a candidate researcher of this field, I may sincerely say that I am against the ivory towers that most scholars build and hide in. But at the same time I do not think that it is the requisite of this field to act according to the needs of the practicer of the subject matter of it, which is translation. However, the field can not totally ignore the presence and effect of these actors. It sounds like a slippery slope and more than that like a dead-end. If I am to give an answer to these demands of the translator, I would probably choose to start with the definition and nature of translation. Because, by this way, it would be clearer and easier to understand for the translators that it is almost impossible to come up with de facto rules when it is th translation that is discussed. Let me explain why.
There is almost no consensus even on the very definition of the translation. It is attributed different features, specialties and necessities at different times and places. As it is obvious from this explanation, it is a temporal and spatial bound action. Thus, any norm that may be presented as a rule would be invalid in another situation with different conditions. I am talking about translation in general and this may be a little bit more applicable on the point of technical translations, but certainly more impossible on the point of literary translations. From this point of view, any prescriptive approach and suggestion would be doomed to be falsified and invalidated. It would be now easier to understand the orientation of the scholars towards descriptive translation studies on the scientific way to immortality.
I also would like to touch upon one more point on the center-periphery discussion of Gürses on the field. He states that the globalization of the world is made possible with the globalisation of the translation. He deals with translation as an indispensable part of the social existence and defines that it is effected by the social changes. But I can not understand his reduction of the translation studies that can be pragmatics to a particular concept. If something as a whole can not help another thing, how come a part of this something can help this another thing. I am really curious about whether it is possible to reduce knowledge (which is always universal to me , no matter where it is produced) on a field to reduce to local level. Thus I do not think that it is appropriate to make such reductions/classifications.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder