RSS

#13 Postcolonial Approach - Spring 2010 - 筆譯研究方法專論

張貼者： NTNU GITI BLOG on 2010年2月22日 星期一
標籤：
#13 Postcolonial Approach
Vincente L. Rafael, “Introduction” & “The Politics of Translation,” Contracting
Colonialism

3 意見:

Unknown 提到...

This week’s article by Vicente Rafael is quite similar in many regards to last week’s reading. Obviously, the subject matter is again the colonizer, the colonized and their “history”. In particular, Rafael, like Niranjana, investigates a situation in which the history of colonization has been written, for the most part, by the colonizer. In the Philippines, as in India, history of colonization from the perspective of the colonized is all but non-existent. On page four of the Introduction, Rafael writes, “The overwhelming majority of sources available from the period [the colonial period] in Philippine history were written by the colonizers rather than the colonized.” Although this is very similar to the situation in Niranjana’s India, a major difference between the two lies in the dissimilarity of the colonizers, namely the British in the case of India and the Spanish in the case of the Philippines.
One of the most important aspects of the Spanish colonization of the Philippines is the drive to “Christianize” the native cultures. As we saw in Niranjana’s account of the British colonization of India, the notion of “Christianization” of the locals was not necessarily at the forefront of the colonizing act. However, just as Niranjana discusses the notions of advancement and development in the colonies as a way for the British to justify their presence there, so too does Rafael speak of the Spaniards views of the “Christianization of the natives” as an appeasement to the conscience of the colonizers. Thus, as Rafael notes, the colonizers’ account of the situation is lacking in that it, firstly, “takes the structure of Christianity for granted as an unproblematic given of colonial rule” and, secondly, “avoids the question of the linguistic determination of conversion.” It is mainly this second issue that Rafael discusses in the first chapter of his book Contracting Colonialism.
On page 26 of Chapter One, Rafael explains the nature of the power ascribed to the language of the colonizers, especially as it relates to the act of translation and conversion, “That Castilian could and did become the “language of empire” was due to its translatability into other languages; and this notion of translatability in turn hinged on the possibility of subordinating the speaker’s first language to the structural norms of a second.” Rafael goes on to describe how the Spanish missionaries had to first turn to Latin grammar and Castilian discourse in order to ‘reconstruct’ Tagalog grammar, the language of the colonized, so that it would better fit the task of translating the Christian doctrine to be used in the ‘conversion’ of the native population. When I read this part (top of pg 27), I couldn’t help but think of how Mandarin is constantly being ‘reconstructed’ by modern linguistics, educators, and TRANSLATORS, to fit the needs of their own agendas, namely comprehension and translation of the language of the Other.
Of course, as with the Tagalog case, it is not only the non-native speakers who are effecting this ‘reconstruction’ of Mandarin but also the native speakers themselves. Another interesting parallel between the two cases is the notion that one language can act as a broker through which the other language can receive knowledge of, or participate in, what is deemed a privileged realm. For example, the difference between having work published in English as opposed to having it published in Mandarin. Obviously, the internalization of this hierarchical view of language will necessarily lead to differing views of “translation” depending upon where along the hierarchical continuum one sees one’s own language positioned.

2010年5月18日 上午11:06
Craig 提到...

Vicente Rafael writes an amazing critique of the use of western linguistic and spiritual traditions as instruments of power, suppression and erasure. In classical Foucauldian style, he deconstructs power relations in the Castilian re-conceptualization of the Tagalog language using Latin grammar, which points to the broader project of the re-imagining of the Orient through western eyes.

Bringing this notion back to my own experience; clearly equivalence theories which assume grammatical relatedness between European and non-European languages reproduce the power of western conceptual systems in a similar fashion. As translators working across the East/West continuum, we can only understand a theory like Vinay and Darbelnet's translation procedures by forcing non-European languages into the European linguistic mold, which to me feels like an act of violence.

I also was interested in Rafael's extended metaphor of structural linguistics to critique the Castilian concept of language and religious hierarchy. Starting from the signified, the mind of god existed in a near tautological relationship with the Latin language, and vernacular languages were placed in the position of mere signifier. In this lower position, vernacular was expected to emulate some of the structures of the higher order language, regardless of degree of actual relatedness. Of course this is an essentialist construct redeploying the a priori validity and power of Catholic dogma. The best part of course was Rafael's description of the Tagalog reception of the church sermon. Not fully understanding what was being said, the local population construed the message their own way, but retained the essential allegory of power.

Rafael aligns biblical allegory with the translation, in the sense that hope for salvation is held out to those who continually recite scripture, spread the word of god and translate it into other languages. The impossibility/necessity of translation seems much like this unreachable hope for communion with god, as both are ritually re-enacted only to temporarily help us forget the impossibility of success. It is interesting to compare Derrida's use of the Babel allegory with Rafel's critique: in pointing out god's prohibition of global linguistic unity, and then invoking Lacan's “the name of the father”Derrida similarly situates translation in a place of perpetual deferral. But Derrida, it is the very prohibition that creates in us the desire to overcome this division between cultures. This relation between prohibition, authority and transgression seems to be a basic construct on which civilization is built.

2010年5月18日 下午2:35
charlotte wu 提到...

In this week’s reading, Rafael talks about the relation between Tagalog and Christianity. As I am also taking the course on the Ming Dynasty China and Christian literature, I think Rafael’s discussion is very interesting. He first talks about how Tagalog is ‘established’ by the colonization of the Spaniard. I think this may be the best example of the double-sidedness of ‘self/other’. Without the existence of other, the self is hardly perceived. In this sense, translation then serves to be the medium to demonstrate the difference, rather than the sameness, between the two. And I would say that this example can also explain why Derrida would emphasize the difference in translation. It is by translation that the boundary between others and the self is established. And what I wondered here is that since China also had contact with the Southeast Asian areas, why it is by Jesuits that the concept/identity of Tagalog is established. Is it because that the Ancient Chinese did not try to use their writing systems to incorporate the Tagalog? If so, then this is also a nice example that the site for translation is indeed the site for colonization.

Second, with regard to the grammar written for Tagalog, Rafael suggests that it demonstrates a contrastive perspective between ‘language as gift’ and ‘language as machine’ when translating between Tagalog and Castilian. I think this also happens in the translation of Christian literature in the Ming Dynasty China. First, the ‘language as gift’ viewpoint is also dominant in the translation then, where to translate means to disseminate the ‘voice’ of God in the Ming Dynasty China. That is why when Jesuits came to China, they devoted most of their time in translating Christian literature. In these cases, most frequently, the Jesuits are also using their own mother tongues or vernaculars as the mediating languages to translate the Latin into Chinese. This also demonstrates the preordained hierarchy of languages in the Christianity. Second, in terms of the ‘language as machine’ viewpoint, it is not reflected in the writing of grammar book as in the Tagalog case, however, it is illustrated in the writing of rhetoric guidebooks of the Jesuits. Just as the case of Arte, these rhetoric guidebooks were at the same time providing the examples of beautiful rhetorical expressions as well as Christian morals.

To me, these similarities and dissimilarities in the dissemination of Christianity in both Tagalog and Ming Dynasty China show not only the strong manipulative propensity of translation, but also the responsive influences that the local context may in return exerts.

2010年5月18日 下午3:55

張貼留言