RSS

#5 Anthony Pym, Exploring Translation Theories - 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：
#5 Anthony Pym, Exploring Translation Theories

4 意見:

charlotte wu 提到...

In the second half of the book, Pym bases his argument on the uncertainty of meaning and the uncertainty of the content of ‘translation as a discipline’. Because of these uncertainties, the focus of translation studies has moved from prescriptive models to descriptive models. Theorists pay their attention on describing why translations may be the way they are. No matter this question is approached from a top-down or a bottom-up perspective, what hinges the ‘descriptions’ of translation is in fact the norms of translation. The norms become the guiding principle of the decision-making in the translation process. In the meantime, the description of the translation practice also reveals that translation can hardly be demarcated as source-oriented or target-oriented. It is under this perspective that Pym further introduces the notion of indeterminist. The indeterminists try to solve the problem of indeterminacy of meaning in terms of different theoretical standpoints, such as constructivism, de-construction or hermeneutics. In spite of the variety of perspectives in the indeterminists, I think the fundamental basis for their arguments is similar: translation is no longer seen simply as the conduit for ‘message-transmission’ as meaning is never a stable concept no matter interlingually or intralingually. In this sense, the notion of the ‘non-existence’ of stable meaning may evolve to what cultural translation theorists care about: the inevitable intervention/ active participation of the translator/ subject. For cultural theorists, ‘translation’ is much more than the interlingual translation. It is the metaphorical mechanism that can function from the level of social acts to the level of power relationships in the society. Hence, the notion of translation has been expanded and lifted out of the limit of texts. I think the development from description of translation, indeterminists to cultural translation is very interesting. It reflects that along with the gradual realization of the uncertainty of meaning, the subjective judgment/ interpretation of the translator is firstly concerned with (in the indeterminists) and then valued (in cultural translation).

That is to say, what used to be stigmatized as ‘un-objective’(e.g. the interpretation of translator) has now become the indispensible elements that makes translation to be translation. Also, with the development of GILT (globalization, Internationalization, Localization, Translation), the lack of source texts as well as the more global and instantaneous medium have also made ‘translation’ different from what we used to deem as translation (i.e. translating cross texts).

To sum, although the theoretical concerns in these four chapters may not be the same, I think they all point out loud and clearly that translation is never a simple process of text transmission. As far as I am concerned, it is a means of pointing out differences between communities and cultures. It is also a means to verify various perspectives and social regulations/inclinations. Most important of all, it is a kind of social act that the involvement of people can never be excluded from itself. That is why I do agree with Pym’s idea of seeing the work of translator as risk management. This viewpoint not only values the subject intervention of translators, but also places them in a professional and empowered position in the industry.

2010年3月22日 中午12:07
Unknown 提到...

This week’s reading seemed to be more in line with what we have been discussing in class (and out of class…over beers). Obviously, the main shift here is from prescribing what a translation should look like to describing what they are actually like. The other big advancement seems to be in the acknowledgement that translations play a role in the development of cultural systems. Interestingly, these cultural systems also then play a role in shaping the culture of translation itself. This of course, is the jumping of point for normative theorizing about translation. Discussion of translation as it relates to other systems then becomes an instructive process.
As Pym points out, this relativist view of translation gives rise to the question of what, in fact, makes something a translation. With respect to this issue, it may be useful for translation studies scholars to look more closely at the invisible line that distinguishes a translation from a re-write. This issue then seems to bring the focus back onto what Pym calls the question of uncertainty, in all its different shades ranging from purely deterministic to completely indeterministic. Since my undergraduate degree is in Evolutionary Biology, I am quite interested in the section of the uncertainty chapter in which Pym outlines Jiri Levy’s use the notion of game theory to analyze the decision making process involved in translation. Interestingly, the idea that ‘one decision becomes a determinant for others’ is, in my mind, a major component of the Buddhist notion of causal reality. In fact, it seems that this manner of thinking of translation from vary standpoints is a key factor of the more recent movement toward the concept of cultural translation.
Some of the more important issues that Pym raises include: the circular nature of the definition of translation; Descriptive theory’s unawareness of its own historical position; theory’s inability to inform professional practice; and whether or not theorists necessarily must also be practicing translators. I would also add to this the question of whether or not instructors at translation institutes must also be working translators themselves.

2010年3月23日 下午2:13
Elaine Lee 提到...

I do agree with a point raised by the descriptive paradigm that translations can be considered facts of target culture with a couple of reasons in the following. First, translators, as members of the target society, are equipped with knowledge and understanding of the prevailing norms and expectations of translation. Hence they may be well aware of the approaches they could and should take in dealing different topics in the source texts. During the process of translation, it is inevitably and common that translators may apply target terms frequently appearing in the society to make themselves understood and seek recognition from their assumed readerships. Of course, they do have chances to challenge the prevailing norms in the target society. Secondly, translated works can to some extent reveal the functions translators and/or their publishing teams tried to achieve in target cultures. In this way translations may carry more implications from the target culture than the source one. By the approach and function in translations we may have a rough picture of the role translation works have played in the development of cultural systems in the target society. Besides, through translations we may be able to know relations between cultures, regulations by collective norms potentially operating upon translators and possibly their responses to such regulations in the texts. To my mind, the descriptive paradigm levels up the importance of translation and translators rather than confining both merely in pursuit of meaning equivalence.

Reading on the following chapter in Pym, I found some concept in descriptive paradigm can be continued and developed while discussing the extent translation is possible in a world of uncertainty. Apart from the uncertainty principle Pym raises for us to explore ‘the paradoxes of theory’ when applied in translation studies, he provides several theories to live with uncertainty. One of them, hermeneutics which is connected to philosophy of dialogue, could be useful to modify the way we look at translation. According to Pym we may apply the mode to translation to encourage translators ask ‘What does this person mean?’ during the process of translation; therefore we may view translation is the result of ongoing dialogues between the translator and the author. After the publication, readers can read the translation and in some way join the dialogue, interacting with the text. In this way, during the dialogue everyone has her/his right to interpret the text; that is, the text is open to interpretation so that we may have different versions of translation by different translators. During the process, translators interpret the text, depending on personal experience and background, and the target context they are situated in. Translations, therefore, could bring certain ideological implications in translations. This line of thought corresponds to the quotation in Chesterman and Arrojo (2000: Ad 10) in page 119 that ‘[m]eanings are always context-bound,’ and ‘no translation will ever escape ideology or perspectivism.’

2010年3月23日 下午3:38
Craig 提到...

Suddenly, starting with Chapter 5, theories seems to be growing in both complexity and applicability. Systems theories and norms are useful in describing many of the operations that take place in translation and their applications across cultures. Systems theories specifically discuss how translations and text choice influences cultures, and with norms, how cultures influence translators. Learning about different norms through history and across cultures also gives translators more strategies to choose from, and thus heightens their awareness and improves translation quality.

Uncertainty seems to be a constant of any undertaking, and especially so in language. Instability, rather than permitting the translator complete freedom, actually demands more rigor. Assuming writing has many interpretations simply means the translator must do a closer reading in uncovering multiple possibilities, and likewise the translator as writer might try to exercise more control over their product. Working in this nuanced, mufti-faceted world seems much more interesting than one where there is only one “right” answer. I realize that this may make some people feel uncomfortable, but our nature tends to determine how we view and deal with the world. Translation as a dangerous adventure makes everyday at work new and interesting. Viewing texts as organic components of a wider cultural, or cross cultural, spectrum con yield many opportunities for scholarship and enriching the lives of those around us.

Postcolonial perspectives, ethnographic techniques, awareness of power relations; these should be the basis of our discussions about translator ethics. The fact of hybridized texts, translator ethnocentrism and strong and weak cultures do more to influence how translations are produced or mis-produced than notions of equivalence. Furthermore, to ensure sensitivity, fuller interpretation, representation and equality (or purposeful inequality), cooperative, inter-cultural translating is probably the most effective means. I am curious to know why the norm is for translators to work independently. We have unseated the author, but do we still buy into an ideology of translator as an lone-gun(wo)men? If so, why? Ego?

The psychoanalytic approach, specifically focusing on the act of manifesting subjectivity, touches on all parties concerned in the process, from writer, translator (co-translators/editors) and reader. Rendering all parties and their subjectivities visible in a translation is a rich and compelling project, and one I am interested in hearing more about.

2010年3月23日 晚上9:26

張貼留言