* Antoine Berman presents different ideas on translation with the metaphor of trial. For him, translation is an act of challenge both for and of the foreign. That is to say, both the source and target cultures are challenged in the act of translation. Berman's ideas on translation are somehow aggressive and describes the translational act more like a rigorous work rather than a neutral one taking place between languages by impartial agents. He is not as ideologically oriented as Venuti but he has an ethical stance towards translation. His ideas about the ethics of translation are quite subjective. For him what is ethical is to reflect the foreign in the target text. The strategies of naturalization are unethical and against the aim of the translation. Taking into consideration the power relations, asymmetrical hierarchies etc one may agree with him on the points of the elimination of an ethnocentric elements in the translation. However he has a negative approach to the translation analysis and defines it in terms of deformations. He claims that translation at the very beginning results in these deformations and what is to be done by a translator is to be aware of these and avoid them. But it is quite hard to agree with him about the definition of these factors as pure deformations. He has a very restricted approach to texts and does not tackle with the issue from comprehensive perspective. Because these tendencies may not always be deformations but improvements, enrichments. (one may state that the aim of the translation is not to enrich or improve the original in the translation. My aim here is not to support such an attitude. I just would like to state that these tendencies may result in positive features in translation not just negative ones as he suggest.) He does not seem to hesitate to come up with generalizations. As every text requires different strategies and solutions, every translation would present different features and thus the translators would have different tendencies. More importantly, he seems to disregard the nature of language from the very beginning. That is to say, by nature every language is different as they are shaped in accordance with their surrounding natures of their different cultures. Thus, any act realized between these different languages would result in something more or less that these languages but not the same. That is why, it is not right to deal with these differences as pure deformations. Furthermore, one of the most differentiating feature of Berman's attitude is his normative approach. Though he writes in a systematic way and presents his ideas clearly. What he does is just to dictate to translators what to do, while what he lacks is suggesting solutions to avoid the tendencies which he call as deformations.
*Walter Benjamin is probably one of the most difficult scholar read in translation studies. His works requires background knowledge of not only philosophy but also of mystical elements. His ideas are basically on language but as a practice taking place between languages they are quite applicable to translation. First of all, he problematizes the polysemy of the texts and their interpretation for every reader. By admitting this nature of language, how come one can expect a translation to mean the same with the original and put such a heavy burden which is maybe impossible to achieve on the translator? Also he talks about the translatability of some texts? According to him, all of the originals are translatable. But it is not very clear to determine his basis on the point of translatability? Is it the inherent nature of some texts? Is it a result of a personal value judgment? Or does it have solid basis like text-type, genre etc?
On that point he also talks about the untranslatability of the translations. But where does it stem from? Is it because of the fact that it is already pure and there no way further? However, translation as a process of interpretation is endless and any text translated may be translated again. (I am aware of the fact that re-translations are done on the basis of the originals but there may be cases when the re-translations are done on the basis of the previous translations.) Also, such an approach to translation would marginalize it as a text. It is quite understandable to differentiate between the original and translation but how right is it to draw a borderline between them as translatable vs. untranslatable?
Furthermore, his approach to translation as form of after life provider is quite assertive. According to him, some original works gain an after life, longer life with translation. However, the concept of after life is also a difficult concept to define, let alone defining translation on the basis of this concept. Because it has different meanings in different beliefs. As an example, it may mean to have another life after the end of one while in others it may mean to have a better and more importantly eternal life in a different universe. Which one is valid for Benjamin's usage? Maybe the first, maybe the latter and maybe none. This is important because the definition of this term would lead us to different understandings of hierarchy of the original and translation. In the former definition, translation and original may be seen to be on equal basis but within different circumstances, but in the latter one translation is of more value than the original with a more sacred nature.
Also, the definition of translation as a mode is quite problematic. First of all, what is meant with the term “mode” is not clear. The definition of the word “mode” are various and all refer to different ideas. But among them, if translation is viewed as a form then is it an alternative form of what? What is the aim of shaping the original and presenting it in a form? Is this form a foreign form introduced in the target or a foreign form for the original.
Furthermore, the idea of pure language is quite difficult to understand and analyze. Does it have mystical basis or philosophical grounds? This idea reminds me of the Sun-Language Theory of Turkish Republican period. (It may not be as groundless as this but for sure it as vague as this.) All languages emerging from one, which is the pure language. These ideas are uttered in different political, ideological environments but the idea of having single language as a basis for all the other is similar. Also, it is quite difficult to understand his statements on the similarity of the languages. Despite the idea of having one language as a root, for Benjamin this relationship between the languages does not necessarily mean similarity. They may be (as they are now) different from each other and this difference is something good for him and is to be preserved in the act of translation.
Moreover, he tackles with the issue of language and content and for him the same statements expressed in one language would mean totally different things in another one. That is to say, language and content forms different unities in each language and any text produced in these languages would serve to different aims. As for the issue of task of the translator on that point, for Benjamin, translator is to find the intended effect (intention) and reflect it in the target and thus present the pure language. As it can be observed from this statements, it is not an easy task for the readers of Benjamin to understand what he really means with the task of the translator. If it were easier to understand him, it would be more probable to come up with clearer conclusions. According to him, pure language is to be achieved via translation but he does not state any grounds for this interpretation process. That is to say, interpretation is a subjective act and any interpretation would not necessarily lead the translator to what it to be understood from the original. How to neutralize this subjectivity in the light of pure language is left open to question.
On the point of the evaluation of a translation, he talks about real translations and define their determining feature as their transparency. But to what extend is it possible? Because translation is like taking off the clothes of words of the original and putting on clothes of the target culture on them. Transparency brings about nudity in a sense but this is probably not the case for an act taking place between cultures. Anyone can not receive a text outside the limits of his/her culture. By the way, the term “real translation”sound weird? Is it an alternative to the vague descriptions of good and bad? Or something different? If so real according to whom and what?
What is more, his definition of the ideal translation as literal translation destroys all the efforts to understand him with the text as a whole. I think he presents a good example to the question “how incomprehensible can one be?” by concluding his mystical-philosophical ideas to literal translation.
For him, the journey realized between the languages which exist in harmony may end up at literal translation but it would be hard for anyone to define what is meant with the word “literal” It is possible that he uses it in the general sense. But as the terms acquire and are attributed different meaning in all theories, it is hard to believe that the “literal” used by Benjamin is literally literal.
* Rosemary Arrojo, tackles with the issue of translation from a psychoanalytic point of view and presents her ideas with a departure point of philosophical grounds of Nietzsche, Freud etc.
According to her, meaning is not found but constructed and thus texts as meaning units are creations. Arrojo problematizes the relation between creation and power. This relationship can be dealt from different point of views and for Arrojo, the act of creation stems from the will to power. But isn't it too much generalization to conclude the act of writing. Is it really always to gain power? Isn't it possible for the writer to have the have another intention like sharing what s/he has in mind. Also the root of this power is not very clearly defined. Does it stem from ownership? If so does it necessarily bring the authority to control the reception of that work in another languages, which are translations.
Also, Arrojo touches upon different point of the act of translation via metaphors. In the first one, the translator is compared to a burrow and the translational process is resembled to the effort to dig a tunnel. But this tunnel digging process turns out to be so complex that the burrow ends up with a labyrinth in which it is lost. Is it really the case for the translator? Are all the translators are lost in the act of translation? Isn't it possible for them to find their ways? Also being lost may have different references. I mean someone may be lost as s/he does not know where to go (this describes the situation of an incapable translator in which the translator is seen inferior to the original writer) or someone may be lost before the eyes of someone (in this case s/he is said to be lost because nobody sees them.) Is it possible for one to compare the latter option to invisibility of translator?
In the second metaphor, the translator is compared to a thief and accused of stealing. Is this a conscious or an unconscious act? Also isn't the word “steal” is a very strong one to describe the differences between an original and translated text. As well as its negative connotation, it brings about a very strict understanding of the act itself. That is to say, it sounds as if the translator has no right to make any changes on the original work in the translation. But as an intercultural as well as an interlingual act, translation by its nature requires some changes. The concept of fidelity is preserved in the strictest sense here. Does an original writer really have such power over the translator? Isn't it inappropriate to marginalize the idea of authorship to such extents? Because it totally restricts the translator's area of movement. But translation as a process is composed of decisions of translators. In such a strict sense, how can a translator make right decisions with the shadow of the original over him/her all the time? Also, what is actually controlled by this power which is created as a result of the creation of a text? Because as we know, meaning is always out of control and even what is meant in the original text may be understood differently by different people. So with this idea in mind, the impossibility of such a control mechanism would be clearer. Furthermore, it is also possible for one to problematize the idea of original. Is there something as original? Because if it is the former-latter act thing, then there is always a source for every original no matter how you call it such as inspiration, theme, subject etc.
Also, for Arrojo it is defined as a guilt to improve the original but without defining what is meant with improvement, it is not very easy to understand what improves a text. It becomes more difficult taking into consideration the relativity of the term, improvement according to whom and what. However, this is not the end point for Arrojo and the translator's assumption of himself or herself as a writer is something worse than it. But how can one conclude that the translator of the text X thinks of himself/herself as the writer? What will be the grounds for such a claim? If the utmost feature of a writer is his/her creativity, what about the creativity of the translator? In such a perception, the idea of respect to original is exaggerated and leads to the point of blind fidelity.
In the end, Arrojo comes up with two suggestions to eliminate these problems, which are the acceptance of the differences and the change in the general assumptions about the act of translation. However, she is far from presenting solutions to realize these suggestions.
*Luise von Flotow, in her paper, she presents a good summary of the current situation of the Feminist Approaches to Translation Studies. She defines these theories under three common grounds which are identity politics, positionality and historicity. These are useful terms to understand the different conditions surrounding the translation process in different cultures. That is why, the theories produced on the basis of the products and assumptions of different cultures lead to different conclusions on the basis of the same approach. In this context, all of the scholar (like Alicia Parker, Gayatri Spivak, Rosemary Arrojo, Barbara Godard etc.) mentioned in the paper have a feminist stance towards translation but though some may have some point in common they generally come up with different ideas on the issue of translation. . Also what is highly praised by von Flotow is the dis-unity and diversity of the ideas on this issue. As the points problematized by these scholars are different from each other and shaped according to the needs and conditions of their cultures, the theories produced does not have a unity and conclusions are diverse. With the improvement in feminist scholarship, this diversity and dis-unity are to increase, which is something good for the field of translation studies as it would broaden the field as well as enrich it with different perspectives to the translational act.
REFERENCES:
Arrojo, Rosemary. “Writing, Interpreting and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning.”. In Maria Tymoczko, Translation and Power. USA: Massachusetts Press.
Benjamin, Walter. 2000. “The Task of the Translator”. In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
Berman, Antoine. 2000. “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign” In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge.
Von Flotow, Luise. 1988. “Dis-Unity and Diversity- Feminist Approaches to Translation Studies.”. In Lynne Bowker Unity in Diversity- Current Trends in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder