Translator as reader

Response paper on Rosemary Arrojo’s “Writing, Interpreting, and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning: Scenes from Kafka, Borges, and Kosztolányi”

In her article, Rosemary Arrojo focuses on the controversial relationship between writing and interpreting, authorship and readership in the axis of creation of meaning. She introduces both triadic and multidimensional relation between the author, the reader and the text, and she explains why this net of relationships plays a crucial role in Translation Studies.

Arrojo, following Nietzche’s assertion that every act of reading “involves a fresh interpretation, an adaptation through which any previous ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ are necessarily obscured or even obliterated” (Nietzsche in Arrojo 2002:73). In Karamcheti’s terms, every act of interpreting is “subversion” of reality or the subversion of an essential meaning. As Arrojo states:

… we cannot separate the text from its reading, the latter is inextricably related to the will to power and, thus, is a way of taking over rather than protecting or merely reproducing someone else’s meaning (65)… we cannot help but to impose our own meaning on texts (…) we would not settle for a simple, “uninteresting” interpretation and are thus also caught by the narrator’s misleading clues as we approach his textual maze (72).

As Gayatri Spivak defines translation as “the most intimate act of reading”, the translator is first and foremost an interpreter and a reader. According to Arrojo’s deconstructive approach, there is no consensus, not even a motivation to compromise on a common meaning between the author and the reader/traslator. On the contrary, as Nietzche asserts, there is a “struggle” and this struggle is based on “power” and “control over meaning” As she states,

the implicit relationship between authors and interpreters is not exactly inspired by cooperation or collaboration (…) but, rather, is constituted by an underlying competition, by a struggle for the power to determine that which will be (provisionally) accepted as true and definite within certain context and under certain circumstances” (Arrojo 2002:73)

Arrojo’s article raises important questions on the task of the translator and his/her “rights and privileges of authorship” (74). First, she clarifies one of the main the reasons why, in translation, there will always be shifts of meaning and why it is irrational to expect from the translator to be “invisible and as humble as possible” (74). Then, she positions the translator with his/her double layered role as “reader” (or interpreter) and as the “creator” of a new text.

My first criticism towards Arrojo’s article is in philosophical order. I would like to ask, here, if we can really expand the concept of “power struggle” in every textual relations concerning “meaning”. Or, to put it in other way, is every act of interpretation can be defined as a “power struggle”? This is for sure that, when it comes to literary production and its interpretation, there is an absolute collision (or encounter) of two different intellects: Author’s (creator’s) intellect and reader’s (interpreter’s) intellect. In fact, it is quite difficult to establish this encounter or collision simply between these two agents and solely in the limits of “control over meaning”. Because various interpretations are in play. The author is not only a creator of meaning; s/he begins by interpreting a reality and goes on with creating his/her own. The “meaning” in case is already the result of the latter’s interpretation. Then comes the interpretation of the reader, or of the translator, who will create in turn and inescapably his/her own reality. His/her interpreation and translation will, inevitably be a “subversion” of the author’s meaning. If we base our theoretical approach on the difference of interpretations, we are forced to say that translation, by its very nature, is already a sort of subversion. Because reading, is a sort of subversion. Because interpreting, is a sort of subversion. If the creation of a new meaning in order to interpret another one is defined by the term “power struggle”, then conversing, dialoguing, communicating or reporting, they are all different kinds of semantic “struggles”. It would be very helpful if Arrojo have more clearly stated that the “power struggle” relation, that Nietzsche introduces, offered a valuable insight to analyze Kafka’s, Borges’, and Kosztolányi’s conceptualization of interpretation, but that this approach can not be expanded to all literary productions and reading.

My second criticism is in the practical order and is more related to Translation Studies. My question here, is, how this approach will affect translation criticism? If this is interpretation that shapes the translator’s work, how can we set up measures and criteria for assessing the quality of his/her work? It is not a sufficient step to qualify the translator simply as a reader with his/her own, passive interpretation. Readership is just the first step and the rest of his/her task is quite different. It is not solely his/her interpretations that shape his/her translation, but also the degree of knowledge s/he possesses on the literary text and the consciousness towards his/her task are important factors which redefines the effectiveness of this struggle. The variety of interpretations and different degrees of knowledge lead different kinds of shifts in the target text.

The translator, as an intellectual entity, has his/her own socio-cultural background. This background has some unconscious components which affect the way the translator interpret the text s/he is facing with and this unconscious forces will lead some inevitable shifts in the translation. But, these shifts are different than those which are related to the lack of knowledge about the text, the literary work and its author. Does preliminary research on the literary work and its author helps the translator to make a fuller access to the text? Does it change also the way s/he interprets the text and make him/her get closer to the reality of the author and the text? So, even though interpretation appears to be the main factor that creates the major shift between the original meaning and the interpreted meaning, the consciousness the translator has towards his/her task does not make him/her aware that s/he can easily be manipulated by his/her own perceptions and interpretations?

REFERENCES

Arrojo, Rosemary (2002) “Writing, Interpreting, and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning: Scenes from Kafka, Borges, and Kosztolányi”, in Edwin Gentzler and Mari Tymoczko (ed.) Translation and Power, pp. 63-79, University of Massachusetts Press, 2002.

Karamcheti, Indira (1995) “Aimé Césaire’s Subjective Geographies: Translating Place and the Difference It Makes”, in Between Languages and Cultures by Anuradha Dingwaney and Carol Maier, pp. 181-197, Pittsburgh and London: The University of Pittsburgh Press.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1992) “The Politics of Translation”, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader, pp. 397-416, London: Routledge, 2000.

Restitution of meaning and literary deformation

Response paper on Antoine Berman’s “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign”

In his article entitled “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign”, Berman focuses on the “deformations” that occur in translations of literary prose, especially of novels. He analyzes twelve “deforming tendencies” which form “a systematic whole” (288), intends to explain via the “analytics of translation” the reasons behind these tendencies and proposes a solution to “neutralize” them.

The purpose of this response paper is not to analyze or criticize all the “deforming tendencies” Berman elaborates, but to offer a general criticism to his concept of “deformation”, to reflect on the possibility of his solution to prevent these “deformations” and on how his work can contribute to Translation Studies (TS) in general.

Berman begins his article with a highly common approach to translation, shared by many scholars in TS, by defining translation as the “the trial of the Foreign” in two senses: First, because it “opens up a foreign work in its utter foreignness” and second, “the foreign work is uprooted from its own language ground” (284). What he mainly problematizes here, is the opposite assumption that translation is rather the “acclimation”, “negotiation” or “naturalization” of the Foreign, than its “trial” (285). Especially in case of literary translation.

Berman’s focus is centered on literary translation because it does not limit itself with plain semantic and instrumental transfer of the content (as non-literary translation does) but it is:

concerned with works, that is to say texts so bound to their language that the translating act inevitably becomes a manipulation of signifiers, where two languages enter into various forms of collision and somehow couple. (285)

Then, he explains why he concentrates on literary prose, especially on “the novel” and “the essay” as:

Literary prose collects, reassembles, and intermingles the polylingual space of a community. It mobilizes and activates the totality of “languages” that coexist in any language. (…) Hence, from a formal point of view, the language-based cosmos that is prose, especially the novel, is characterized by a certain shapelessness, which results from the enormous brew of languages and linguistic systems that operate in the work. (287)

Berman cites some contemporary claims on literary prose, which defines novel as “not a producer, but a consumer of style” (Broch in Berman, 287), a “bad writing”, an “enormous linguistic mass”, which “in its multiplicity and rhythmic flow, can never be entirely mastered” (287). Afterwards, Berman asserts that “the principal problem of translating the novel is to respect its shapeless polylogic and avoid an arbitrary homogenization” and also that “the deformations of translation are more accepted in prose,” because “the novel is considered a lower form of literature than poetry” (287).

Why translation cannot be the “trial of the Foreign” but the “negotiation” of it? Berman’s first answer to this questios is a psychoanalytic approach to the translator and the act of translation itself. Translation is assumed to be a “largely unconscious system, present as a series of tendencies or forces that cause translation to deviate from its essential aim” (286). Every translator, he asserts, is “exposed to the play of [deforming] forces” and these “unconscious forces form part of the [his/her] being, determining the desire to translate” (286). Berman considers that via the “analytic of translation”, these forces can be discovered. His purpose is not to find a way to access to the black box of the translator, but to see the traces of his/her unconsciousness in the product of his/her translation, where these forces or deformations are “practiced” in the target text (TT) (286).

Berman points out that deformations are also related to “the ethnocentric structure of every culture, every language” (286). Still, he distinguishes “analytics of translation” from “the study of norms” (296) because norms “apply (…) to any writing practice whatsoever” (296) including the production of ST. But the analytics of translation focus on “the universals of deformation inherent in translating” (ibid).

As a final and summarizing criticism, Berman offers a general explanation on the main inclination of Western literary translation which can be described as the “restitution of meaning” (296). This aim has a double reason: First, it is because Western translation (in relation with the Western way of thinking) is “based on the typically Platonic separation between spirit and letter, sense and word, content and form, the sensible and the non-sensible” (296). Second, and perhaps the main reason of this aim, is because “all translation is, and must be, the restitution of meaning” (297). His concern is that this restitution results in a TT which is full of “more”s, such as “more elegant”, “more clear”, “more fluent” or even “more pure” than ST (297). Because, “only languages that are ‘cultivated’ translate, but they are also the ones that put up the strongest resistance to the ruckus of translation. They censor” (286).

After asserting such criticism, he proposes a solution another “figure of translating” which is “literal translation” or a translation “attached to the letter” (297). He explains that “labor on the letter in translation is more originary than restitution of meaning” (297) because it “restores the particular signifying process of works” and then “transforms the translating language” which allows translation to “play [its] formative role” (297). Western translation, on the contrary, prevents translation to play this formative role.

Needles to say, Berman’s approach to translation is highly source oriented and his negative approach is strictly inductive. What concerns him the most is the “deformations” (not even “shifts”) occured in the TT compared to the ST. Even though, from a strictly etymological point of view, the term “deformation” could be understood as an objective, even neutral term, it is hard claim that in Berman’s article. Deformation here, as he put in many parts of his article, goes along with concepts such as “destruction”, “annihilation”, “obscuring”, “muffling”, “loss”, “asystematization”, “injury”, “ridiculing”, even “effacement” and “impoverishment” as kinds of deforming tendencies themselves. All these concepts can be part of various criticisms and have solid grounds, but putting them as the only possible types of tendencies in translation is going too far in negative criticism, even being stuck in it.

Every “deforming tendency” Berman sites offers a valuable insight and aid to translation scholars, translations critics or editors to consider what kind of deformations, or in Popovic’s terms, what kind of “shifts” occurred in the TT, how they can be categorized and why they could occur. Still, as he admits, Berman’s formulations are “provisional” and based on his “experiences as a translator (286). This is why, the twelve “deforming tendencies” he elaborated constitute only a part of a larger universe of tendencies. But there is something Berman never said, or maybe never even considered: All these “deformations” appears to be the consequence of some tendencies, mainly unconscious ones. Could such a thing be possible?

Berman, in the introductory part of his article, as mentioned above, considers that the unconsciousness of the translator can be “neutralized” by submitting his/her practice to “analysis” (286). Still, during the development part and towards the end of his work, he does not return to this idea of psychoanalysis. His work’s focus limits itself in analyzing the TT and consider the deformations. It is quite comprehensible, because it is not reasonable enough to relate all possible “deformations” or “shifts” to some unconscious tendencies. As an intellectual human being, the translator makes some decisions. In his explanations on “Rationalization”, “Clarification”, “Expansion”, “Ennoblement” and many others, it is quite surprising to see that he never mentions an awareness on behalf of the translator. “Clarification” or “ennoblement” can easily be planned considering a given audience. “Qualitative impoverishment” is sometimes inescapable because it is impossible to find same sonority of every source language word in the target language, not even via literal translation. Can one claim that literal translation can be an absolute solution to the “Destruction of expression and idioms”? Berman puts the translator in such a position that s/he appears to be a simple agent who is cannot be the master of his/her own language, of the foreign language s/he is dealing with, nor of his/her own profession as translator.

The general approach of the article to translation is mostly philosophical. Berman cites many “deforming tendencies”, as concrete problems, but puts too few examples which concretize them. In order to answer or reflect on some necessary questions such as “How to establish a general theory of literal translation?” or “How it can be expected from every translator to follow a strategy of literal translation for any literary work?”, some concrete examples or propositions could help to a better understanding.

All negative criticism ahead, Berman opens up a fertile way of thinking on translation and on many themes such as the philosophy of literary translation, the relation between literary theory and translation, interculturality, the foreignness of the source text, the unconscious in translation and other ramifications of it. Many scholars like Venuti, Toury or Spivak, in their works, offered valuable insights, elaborated various concepts and proposed different reflections concerning the questions above.

REFERENCES

Berman, Antoine (1985) “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign”, translated by Lawrence Venuti, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader, pp. 284-297, London: Routledge, 2000.

Popovic, Anton (1970) “The Concept ‘Shift of Expression’ in Translation Analysis” in The Nature of Translation: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Literary Translation, ed. James S. Holmes, pp. 79-87, Bratislava: Slovak Adacemy od Sciences, 1970.

Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1992) “The Politics of Translation”, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader, pp. 397-416, London: Routledge, 2000.

Toury, Gideon (1978 / revised 1995) “The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation”, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader, pp. 198-211, London: Routledge, 2000.

Venuti, Lawrence (1995). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation, London and New York: Routledge.

Translator, The Expert

Response paper on Hans J. Vermeer’s “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”

This response paper is on, as Vermeer states, “the short sketch” of his own Skopos Theory of translation. This theory, I think, is crucial to understand, to define and to improve many dynamics in applied translational works. Even this “short sketch” of his essential work deserves to be analyzed in many views as, for example, the role given to the source text (Vermeer 1989:222), the translator’s position in the process of intercultural communication (ibid), the relation between the purpose of a translational act, its serviceability and its targeted audience (ibid) and many others. His theory expands to other theories and comprises other theories’ approaches to the questions on, for instance, the task of translator, the definition and what is can be expected from a translated text or translatum.

My purpose, in this paper, is to discuss specifically the notion of “expertise” which, I think, plays a significant role in marking out the extent and the originality of his theory. Not only because this notion breaks the possible misunderstanding that Vermeer’s theory gives to the translator an unlimited freedom in his/her task, but also because it gives many insight about much of today’s general situation and applications in various fields related to translation.

The way Vermeer conceptualize the “expert” is as follows:

It is usually assumed, reasonably enough, that [experts] “know what is all about”; they are thus consulted and their views listened to. Being experts, they are trusted to know more about their particular field than outsiders. In some circumstances one may debate with them over the best way of proceeding, until a consensus is reached, or occasionally one may also consult other experts or consider further alternative ways of reaching a given goal. An expert must be able to say – and this implies both knowledge and a duty to use it – what is what. His voice must therefore be respected, he must be “given a say.” The translator is such an expert. (Vermeer 1989: 222)

According to Vermeer, the translator is or must be an expert. This expertise does not imply that the translator should be the one who defines the “purpose” of a translational task, because this decision is, at least theoretically, up to the “commissioner” (Vermeer 1989:229). Translator, here, is the one who knows how to “realize” this purpose, or the skopos (ibid). In this regard, the translator is not only the expert on the specific subject or content s/he is translating, but also on the target culture and the target audience because what s/he does is mainly a “transcultural communication” (Vermeer 1989:222).

This view is crucial when we consider today’s general application in various translational fields as literary publishing, scientific publishing, journalism, translations of legal texts and many others. In these fields, the necessity of the very existence of an editor, considered as the real (even, sole) expert on the subject in case, is one of the main actual debates. According to Vermeer’s theory, the translator does not need an editorial expert’s aid for his/her translational task to be achieved, because s/he is already the expert on this task and this expertise has a binding power on “matters of ethics” and “accountability” in his/her task (Vermer 1989:226).

At this point, remembering Immanuel Wallerstein’s approach in his work entitled “Concepts in the Social Sciences: Problems of Translation” would be practical. There, Wallerstein states that “a social science text utilizes concepts as the central mode of communication” and that “these concepts are not universally shared” (Wallerstein 1981:88). He also accordingly adds that “the translator must be someone not merely skilled in translation as a generalized technique but familiar with the literature of the subfield over a long period of time, and preferably someone with a direct interest in the material under discussion in the text” (Wallerstein 1981:89). Wallerstein, here, implies the need for translators “trained in both translation techniques and social science” (ibid).

In Vermeer’s approach, the scope of the possible contents subject to translation is far more general than Wallerstein’s. They are even unlimited. The problem of translator training appears, then, to be one of the main points to be discussed when a degree of “expertise” is expected from the translator. How the translator will be expert in many contents? If it is expected from him/her to be an expert in a single subject, will his/her task as a translator be limited only in the given subject? In such a case, should translator training programs aim solely at subjects who are already studied specific disciplines such as law, medicine, political sciences or who are experienced on different literary styles or writers? Such questions are worth to be debated to understand the expectation of “expertise” from the translator and to recognize the extent of his/her task as a translator.

REFERENCES

Vermeer, Hans (1989) “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, translated by Andrew Chesterman, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader, London: Routledge, 2000

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1981) “Concepts in the Social Sciences: Problems of Translating”, in Marilyn Gaddis Rose (ed.) Translation Spectrum: Essays in Theory and Practice, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1981.