![Translation and Relevance](https://img.perlego.com/books/RM_Books/taylor_francis_lm_feonmi/9781317640899_300_450.webp)
Translation and Relevance
Cognition and Context
Ernst-August Gutt
- 272 pagine
- English
- ePUB (disponibile sull'app)
- Disponibile su iOS e Android
Translation and Relevance
Cognition and Context
Ernst-August Gutt
Informazioni sul libro
From the outset, this book has evoked strong responses. Its central claim is that given a comprehensive theory of inferential communication, there is no need for a special theory of translation. This has been praised by some as "wise and right" (Dell Hymes) and condemned by others as "astonishing, not to say perverse" (Kirsten Malmkjaer).
Gutt's call to move from semiotics to an inferential paradigm of communication remains a challenge for many. The debate continues and so does the demand for the book, resulting in this second edition. There is a 'Postscript' entitled 'A decade later', where the author addresses peer criticism, especially from those involved in the movement of 'translation studies', and attempts to bring out more clearly the unique mandate of translation. New perspectives, such as authenticity, are also introduced. Marginal notes, some tongue-in-cheek, liven up the discussion and new references ensure its currency.
Domande frequenti
Informazioni
1. The State of the Art – Some Critical Observations
Despite this rich history, and despite the calibre of those who have written about the art and theory of translation, the number of original, significant ideas in the subject remains very meagre.
Only a part of the literature on the problem of translation moves on the theoretical plane. Until today most studies and book publications, especially on literary translation, have not gone beyond the limits of empirical deliberations or essayistic aphorisms. (Levý 1969:13, translation my own)
Slightly modifying the phrase used by Bertold Brecht to describe literary scholarship as ‘a mass of opinions’, it could be said that the many views expressed on translation in the past centuries amount to a mass of uncoordinated statements; some very significant contributions were made, but these never coalesced into a coherent, agreed upon, intersubjectively valid theory of translation.
A New Initiative
The choice of research topic was determined by the recognition that attempts to formulate a comprehensive theory had to fail because of insufficient basic research into the most important invariants and variables of literary translation. … The most urgent task is … to describe the nature of those factors operative in the process of translation, to identify them precisely, as far as possible, and to formalize them for application. (1980:1, translation my own)
What distinguishes the modern science of translation from previous considerations of translation theory is its interest in knowledge of methodology and its keener awareness of the problems involved. (Wilss 1982:53)
Its [modern science of translation, E-AG] efforts to establish a clear idea of its field of study … have meant that in addition to linguistic points of view, aspects associated with the science of communication, with psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, textlinguistics, speech act theory, philosophy of action (Handlungstheorie), the study of literature, and – last but not least – with teaching, have taken on relevance for the science of translation. (1982:53)
Translators do not engage in the mere transplantation of words; … their interpretive acts deal with the exploration of situations that are constituted by an intense interaction of linguistic, psychological, anthropological, and cultural phenomena. (1987:2)
We believe strongly that the time is ripe – indeed, long overdue – for a wholehearted commitment by linguists (broadly defined), other human scientists, practicing translators, language teachers and translator-trainers in a multidisciplinary approach to the description and explanation of translation; as both process and product. (Bell 1986:7)
Reservations
The risk of (multidisciplinary) disintegration
The ensuing problems of objectification can be explained primarily by pointing out that translation cannot be termed a purely ‘linguistic operation’ …, but rather must be thought of as a psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic and pragmalinguistic process … which lends itself to an exhaustive scientific depiction only with the greatest difficulty. (Wilss 1982:65)
Translation is also a science in the broad sense of the term, for it is an activity which may be systematically described and related meaningfully to various disciplines. In the strict sense of the word, however, translating is not a science but a technology, for it is built upon a number of scientific disciplines, including psychology, linguistics, communication theory, anthropology, and semiotics.
The problem of determining the domain of the theory
intralingual vs interlingual translation, translation of isolated words or sentences (e.g. in foreign language teaching) vs translation of whole authentic texts, translation vs interpretation (consecutive vs simultaneous interpretation), translation as process vs translation as product of that process, translation from one language to another vs translation from a natural language into another system of signs (e.g. Morse code), translation vs transliteration (translation into another writing system, for example from Cyrillic to Roman script), human vs machine translation, translating from (the foreign language) vs translating into (the foreign language), translation vs free paraphrase or imitation (1986:5, translation my own).2
Much of the theorizing about translation, in our time as well as in the past, has however largely neglected this relativistic point of view. Most of the definitions given are prescriptive rather than descriptive; they serve as norms for translation practice – or rather, for a certain kind of practice – and fail to account for the description of existing translations, in as far as they pay no regard to norms operative in areas and times other than those for which they were designed.
How … are translations to be distinguished from non-translations within the target culture, if such a distinction is to serve as a basis for the establishment of corpora, appropriate for study within DTS [Descriptive Translation Studies, E-AG]? (1985:19)
The answer is that, if one does not wish to make too many assumptions which may prove difficult or impossible to maintain in the face of the empirical data, one really has no foolproof criterion for making such a distinction a priori. The only feasible path to take seems to be to proceed from the assumption that, for the purpose of a descriptive study, a ‘translation’ will be taken to be any target-language utterance which is presented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds … (1985:19f.)
Indice dei contenuti
- Cover Page
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Contents
- Preface to 1st Edition
- Preface to 2nd Edition
- Acknowledgements
- 1 The State of the Art — Some Critical Observations
- 2 A Relevance-Theoretic Approach
- 3 Covert Translation
- 4 Translating the Meaning of the Original
- 5 Translation as Interlingual Interpretive Use
- 6 Translating What was Expressed
- 7 A Unified Account of Translation
- postscript
- General Bibliography
- Index