Gideon Toury, Some New (and Newer) Myths in Translation Studies
(Sigue, previamente a la clausura del congreso sobre
"Translation and Cultural Identity", la última conferencia plenaria del
congreso, de Gideon Toury, autor entre otros muchos libros de
Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Versa la conferencia sobre
"Mitos nuevos y novísimos en los estudios sobre traducción", y aquí hay
unas notas sobre la misma, en inglés live).
A paper and a
closing statement. As the conference ends, "I’ve had enough of
translation for the time being". Let’s shift to translation studies, and
the identity of translation scholars. A closing statement should
provide some food for thought, perhaps inconvenient thoughts.
Pro trivial questions. ¿Can we (in our capacity as translator scholars)
take it for granted that translators read their source texts before they
set out to translate them? (We are other things apart from translation
scholars -- please don’t bring translation studies to your children --
[Oops, Mary Poppins]). Simply a question out of curiosity, curiosity
which leads us to new knowledge. Do they read the entire source text? Of
course a measure of reading (or equivalent for oral translation) must
take place. But is there a full reading of the text? 2 answers: "some
do, some don’t" or "sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t" but they
are not good answers because they contribute little knowledge. Further
questions: "when", "how" -- when do translators read the whole thing, or
how do they read the rest of the text? To what extent is the text read
as text? A reading may not be "textual". 2 dimensions in reading a text:
1, forward-movement, 2 helical, non-linear, interactive, without any
simple direction forward ("Serial" and "Structural", for some). Holmes
describes the non-linear as generating a mental map of the text. The
simple one-way linear reading would be a pathological phenomenon,
reading 2 without reading 1 is unimaginable. "Can translators be assumed
by translator scholars to give the text at least one full reading
before the application of translation strategies proper?" Many
translator scholars of the sixties and the seventies, foregrounding the
textual reading, assumed that was the case. Slogans: "translation as
text", etc. -- have their own function in making statements, goals,
theories But usually these statements are presented not as hypotheses
but as axioms, assumptions. Many translation theories are built on such
unexamined assumptions. Critique of Christiane Noord, etc.
Apart
from the myth of the text, we have the myth of "the definitive
definition of translation" that would, supposedly, solve all the
problems of translation studies – moreover, a definition which should be
ahistorical and non-culture specific Such essentialist notions of
definition do not hold water. The definition myth seems to have been
exploded, but...
A more recent myth: the myth of the
"translation universals" -- that there are phenomena which are found
only in translations and would therefore be intrinsic to this activity.
E.g. explicitation, disambiguation, avoidance of repetition, etc.
Several research modes are used to examine texts in order to test for
these supposed universals. Toury is skeptic, and would prefer to speak
of probabilities. E.g. in some translations implicitation may be more
important than explicitation.
Why so much focus on "myth"? We
could even use the notion of "mythology" and of "gods and heroes" Some
people whose authority is associated with the myth. An everyday notion
of myth is "a commonly held but erroneous belief"; better still: "a
story which is granted authority by a given community, irrespective of
its mixture of fact and fiction". A myth is valid without evidence. It
has a function which is not simply to reflect reality or give true
reports on it. One of the functions of myth is to establish the group
activity; it has a constitutive function for the group. It is not the
myth itself that is important, but the fact that it is shared by a given
group. Overlaps, etc., of course, but only partial: there are no two
communities with the same mythology.
In the mythical end of the
spectrum, the actual state of affairs becomes irrelevant. Myth as
disguised propaganda to maintain a privileged social order, etc.?
Community-making function. Translation scholars have long had a wish to
belong, to become a community: with networks, associations, etc. We have
already become a community, or a loose aggregate of sub-communities.
But any attempt to find a common ground is bound to fail. For instance,
there is no general agreement that a common ground should be identified
or established. But that doesn’t prevent people form engaging into
missionary activity, trying to convert people to their own myth, without
telling them it is a myth.
Toury is not against any particular
myth, or against myth in general. In fact, he has actively contributed
to the creation of some myths and catchphrases. Actually, many myths are
reduced to catchphrases through shortened, simplified and second-hand
formulations. Reformulations replace the original story. Many people
don’t bother to read the story that gave birth to the myth in the first
place.
An example of a myth pushed to the extreme: "the
relationship between translation and ideology – all translation is
political". Research nowadays does not begin with the bare facts, but
with an ideological agenda which predetermines the facts which are going
to be focused on: feminist, postcolonial, or whatever. This leads to
the neglect of other points of view; this leads to using texts as
instruments in a political struggle. Although this has not led to much
insight in translation methodology proper, it has created a sect, and
has led to a politization of the discussion and a kind of new religion
of political correctness.
E.g. the boycotting of translation
studies done "in a particular country", as if the scholars represented
the state as a whole, or the official politics of its government. Not
giving names. Perhaps this will be leading to a new association, with
different journals and the original myth originating this community, and
the specific boycott which started everything in the summer of Summer
2003, will soon be forgotten.
Vs. the prospect of sectarianism
in translation studies. People are choosing, little by little, different
conferences to meet in, and the "politically-correct" and the
"apolitical" group are drifting apart, although there are a good number
of scholars connecting both groups, mediating and trying to prevent the
growth of sectarianism.
Discussion generally agrees on
supporting the speaker’s defense of a tolerant community of scholarly
encounters which is not subordinated to specific nationalist or
anti-nationalist political aims, and which does not make scholars the
collateral victims of their governments’ policies.
(La
discusión tras la conferencia apoya la defensa que ha hecho Toury de una
comunidad académica que no esté subordinada a proyectos políticos,
nacionalistas o anti-nacionalistas, su oposición a que se haga de los
académicos víctimas colaterales de los conflictos políticos
censurándoles de entrada en función de su nacionalidad -- como sucede en
algunos foros con los académicos isralíes, y antes sucedió con los
sudafricanos... En absoluto se apoya con esto las políticas de esos
gobiernos, al contrario, se defiende la tolerancia y se lucha contra el
sectarismo acrítico en que, sorprendentemente, acaban derivando algunas
posturas políticas críticamente concienciadas.
Y con esto se
cierra el congreso sobre "Translation and Cultural Identity", con
numerosos participantes internacionales, de cerca de veinte países, y
también de muchas partes de España; aunque, en contraste, con una
asistencia un tanto escasa de profesores y alumnos del departamento
organizador... ironías de la vida. Sectarismos también, a veces. Y eso
que nos habían interrumpido las clases para que asistiese todo el
mundo).
2 comentarios
José Ángel -
Potter -
Y tal vez en esa idea de un dios más allá de la semántica y el sentido pudiera ser una visión, si no más real, más modesta que la cristiana.
Por otro lado, si nos referimos a la comunicación como el mecanismo mediante el cual se comparten experiencias... el sentido quedaría distorsionado por el diferente contexto de los implicados... como ver un videocassete PAL en una VCR NTSC (no me agrada el ejemplo tecnificado pero en este caso funciona :D ).
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario