Centuries of Binarism

Running head: DIRECTIONAL EQUIVALENCE
Centuries of Binarism: Directional Equivalence Exposed
By: S. Saeed Habibi
Instructor: M. Gholaami, Ph.D.
Kharazmi University of Tehran
Abstract By taking a close look at the notion of directional equivalence, the present study tries to explore every aspect of such translation theories, examine their merits and shortcomings, and investigate the underlying reasons for such high interest in binary theories of translation, especially in the 20th century. It is concluded that the binary nature of translation, the fact that it deals with two poles namely source text and target text, and the influence of figures like F. D. E. Schleiermacher and E. Nida are the main reasons of such interest in directional equivalence. Key words: binarism, directional equivalence, translation theory.
Introduction Equivalence is a central concept in translation theory, but it is also a controversial one. Approaches to the question of equivalence can differ radically: some theorists define translation in terms of equivalence relations (Catford, 1965; Nida & Taber, 1969; Toury, 1980; Pym, 1992; Koller, 1995) while others reject the theoretical notion of equivalence, claiming it is either irrelevant (Snell-Hornby, 1988) or damaging (Gentzler, 1993) to translation studies. Yet other theorists steer a middle course: Baker (1992) uses the notion of equivalence for the sake of convenience because most translators are used to it rather than because it has any theoretical status. Thus equivalence is variously regarded as a necessary condition for translation, an obstacle to progress in translation studies, or a useful category for describing translations. Proponents of equivalence-based theories of translation usually define equivalence as the relationship between a source text and a target text that allows the target text to be considered as a translation of the source text in the first place. Equivalence relationships are also said to hold between parts of source texts and parts of target texts. This definition is not problematic, however, Pym (1992) has pointed to its circularity: equivalence is supposed to define translation, and translation, in turn, defines equivalence. Unfortunately, few attempts have been made to define equivalence in translation in a way that avoids this circularity. Theorists who maintain that translation is predicated upon some kind of equivalence, have, for the most part, concentrated on developing typologies of equivalence, focusing on the rank, word, sentence or text level, at which equivalence is said to be obtained, or on the type of meaning, denotative, connotative, pragmatic, etc., that is said to be held constant in translation.
Among many different kinds of equivalence-based theories, the notion of directional equivalence has occupied the history of translation studies up to the present and many scholars have tried to define translation in a binary fashion. For these theories, if one translates from language A into language B, and then back-translates from language B into language A, the result in language A needs not be the point from where the translator started. This means that directionality is a key feature of translational equivalence, and that translations are thus the results of active decisions made by translators. Whereas the sub-paradigm of natural equivalence develops categories of translation procedures, the sub-paradigm of directional equivalence tends to have only two opposed poles, for two opposed ways of translating (Pym, 2010). Since translators must decide how they are going to translate, there is no guarantee that the two translations of the same text will ever be the same. Examples of such dichotomies are alienating and naturalizing translation (Schleiermacher, 1813/2004), formal and functional translation (Nida, 1964), anti-illusory and illusory translation (Levy, 1969), semantic and communicative translation (Newmark, 1981), adequate and appropriate translation (Toury, 1995), fluent and resistant translation (Venuti, 1995), overt and covert translation (House, 1997), and documental and instrumental translation (Nord, 1997). But why there have always been two options for us to choose. Why should one pick a position, accept one side and reject the other one? Why has not there been one single option or more than two? Why should a translator forsake the target language and invite the recipients to wonder in the peculiarities of the source language? Or on the other side of the extreme, why should one translate in a way that the original author would have written if he had belonged to the target society, culture and language?
And indeed the above last two questions are the main concerns in binary translation theories. Theories that are dominant in the related literature, yet they introduce a notion of repetition as one starts to get themselves familiar with the background of the discipline. The concept, the bisectional nature of sense or content, has remained intact and the terminology has helped little, if say no, to bring the whole scenario out of dullness. A scenario that has been reiterated over the past centuries and every student of translation studies is familiar with. But, as the source text is single and unique with its own peculiarities, the true translation needs to reflect the characteristics of its origin. From this point of view, translators do not require a continuum and a favored side; rather they need a roadmap that illuminates the way whenever they are left in the darkness, helps them to choose whenever there is a dilemma, and finally shows them the way to the true translation. A translator indeed needs such a universal practical roadmap that addresses all aspects of translation all-in-one. However, the need has become a niche in the literature of the field and the thirst for such a theory continues to the 21st century. Binary translation theories have been reiterated over the past centuries with little difference except the way the two sides of the continuum have been designated. The present study explores these kinds of translation theories in a chronological fashion and discusses their similarities, differences, merits, and weaknesses. It goes further to understand the reason behind such high interest in a binary translation theory, especially during 20th century. Centuries of Binarism The history of translation well dates back to 100 BC when M. T. Cicero (106 - 43 BC), a prominent figure in translation history, played a pivotal role in introducing two different kinds of translating methods known as Interpreter and Orator. Back then,
Interpreter was referred to a translator who favored word-for-word (Literal) translation. On the other side of the continuum, there was Orator who would advocate sense-for-sense (free) translations. The notion of free and literal translation survived ages before Common Era and became a hot topic during Middle Ages. Names like St. Jerome (347 - 420 AD), Martin Luther (1483 - 1546), E. Dolet (1509 1546) are famous during this era in the literature and a lot of efforts and even sacrifice were made to justify sense-for-sense translation and reject word-for-word translation favored by the strong Church. The pre-linguistic period of translation history which was dominated by the debate over literal or free translation (Newmark, 1981) is not the only period of binarism in the literature of the field and the notion survived to live in the linguistic era of translation as well. The first seminal work was done by F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768 1834) to introduce two methods of translation: leaving the author in peace and moving the recipients toward him, or leaving the recipients in peace and moving the author toward them (Schleiermacher, 1813/2004). The debate before Common Era and during Middle Ages over free and literal translation together with what Schleiermacher put forth in 1813 influenced quite a few theories in 20th century either directly or indirectly. These are formal and functional translation, anti-illusory and illusory translation, semantic and communicative translation, adequate and appropriate translation, fluent and resistant translation, overt and covert translation, and documental and instrumental translation. What follows is the discussion of these binary theories of translation, focusing on their similarities, differences, merits, and shortcomings.
Polarities of Directional Equivalence Most theories of directional equivalence do not list procedures or linguistic levels, as in theories based on natural equivalence, but instead separate different kinds of equivalence. They also talk about different kinds of translating, which amounts to much the same thing, since one translates quite differently depending on the level at which you want equivalence to work. Many of the theories here are based on just two types of equivalence, sometimes presented as a straight dichotomy in which one has to translate one way or the other. That general approach goes as far back as Cicero, who conceptualized that a text can be translated from Greek to Latin in two different ways: ut interpres, like a literal interpreter, or ut orato, like a public speaker (Cicero, 46 BCE/1960 CE). That is, literally or free. It should be mentioned that the distinction needs not to map on to any profound difference between natural or directional equivalence. If anything, the freer translation is likely to be the most natural in the target language, whereas the more literal translation is the one most likely to give reciprocal directionality, but there is no guarantee (Pym, 2010). This is why the dichotomy is viewed as part of a directional theory of translation, since Cicero was not particularly concerned with anyone translating speeches from Latin back into Greek. The important point is that the naming of those two different ways necessarily assumes there is some value that remains constant between them; they are different translations of the same thing. That was a fundamental conceptualization of equivalence, although without the term. The problem with what Cicero proposed many years ago is that he failed to operationalize these two methods of translation. Just designating different names does not help translators to produce a quality translation. There are also some terms that need to be defined. For instance, what does it mean to keep the same figures of
thoughts as Cicero put forth? Furthermore, these two methods are too general to address all aspects of translation and remain at the level of lexicon or the message, and they do not even cover these levels completely. During Middle Ages different explanation was put forth to justify each orientation once proposed by Cicero. On the one hand, the Church would emphasize on the usage of word-for-word translation for Holy Scriptures. This was due to the pneumatic aspect of Holy Scriptures where the words are not simple lexicons, but logos, having different dimensions and layers of meanings. From this point of view, the grammatological human language was incapable to convey all dimensions and layers of meanings together with all mysteries of the text at once. As a result, the Church would reject any translation of Holy Scriptures in which the translator forsakes the structure, syntax, or word order to produce a readable and natural text for the recipients. Back then, the Church used to take extreme measures to prevent such translations of the Scriptures. Dolet was executed by theological faculty of Sorbonne in 1546 for adding a short phrase in his translation of one of Platos dialogues (Munday, 2008). On the other hand, there were some scholars like Cicero who would reject wordfor-word translation and favor sense-for-sense translation. St. Jerome, Dolet, and Martin Luther were among these scholars, all advocating sense-for-sense translation. The main reason for them to reject word-for-word translation was that in most cases this method was incapable of conveying the message and sometime it led to misunderstanding on readers part. The argument about literal or free translation continued over centuries during prelinguistic era, but little effort was made to bring these to two methods to practicality. The shortcomings of Ciceros work continued to exist during this period. The question how one can achieve literal or free translation was remain unanswered and the scholars
were, in a way, obsessed with justifying their favorite method, and as a result the debate turned into a battle in which everyone tried to persuade the other for the sake of their preferred end, but the mean to achieve the end remained vague. Some early attempts were made by Dolet (1540/1997) and Tytler (1790/1997) to systematize the process of translation. Although these attempts were made to reject word-for-word translation and they prescribe a kind of translation like what we now know as naturalized translation, the very notion of following some steps and reaching a result paved the way for the linguistic era of the field and drew scholars attention toward scientifically studying translation. The early 19th century German philosopher, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1813/2004) argues that translations could be either foreignizing or domesticating. He postulates that either the translator leaves the author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader toward that author, or the translator leaves the reader in peace, as much as possible, and moves the author toward that reader (Schleiermacher, 1813/2004). As in binary theories, Schleiermachers approach ultimately allows the translator to decide. The decision does not particularly depend on the nature of the source text. Following is what Schleiermacher proposed as the dangers a translator must face in translating texts using alienating method.
The attempt seems to me to be the strangest form of humiliation a writer who is not a bad writer can impose on himself. Who would not like to allow his mother tongue to stand forth everywhere in the most universally appealing beauty each genre is able to give? Who would not rather sire children who are their parents pure effigy and not bastards? Who would willingly force himself to appear in movements less light and elegant than those he is capable of, to appear stiff and brutal, at least at times, and to shock the reader as much as is
Running head: DIRECTIONAL EQUIVALENCE necessary to keep him aware of what he is doing? Who would put up with being thought clumsy by trying to stay as close to the foreign language as his own language allows? Who would suffer being accused of bending his mother tongue to foreign and unnatural dislocations instead of skillfully exercising it in its own natural gymnastics not unlike parents who abandon their children to acrobats? Finally, who would like to be exposed to the compassionate smiles of the greatest masters and experts who would be unable to understand his laborious and ill-considered German if they were unable to supplement it with their Latin and Greek? These are the sacrifices every translator is forced to make, these are the dangers he exposes himself to when he fails to observe the most delicate balance in his attempts to keep the tone of the language foreign. (Schleiermacher, 1813/2004: 55-56)
10
Beside the fact that his description makes alienating technique quite a terrible thing for the translator to do (Pym, 1998), the usage of metaphors in the explanation makes the method stand apart from reality and practicality. Sticking to one side of the continuum, in this case alienating technique, cannot address all translation problems. He strongly favored alienating to naturalizing strategy, claiming that there is no mixed solution and that the translation must belong to one country and people have to adhere to one language or another (Schleiermacher, 1813/2004). Yet, he failed to clarify how one must adhere to one language or another, how one can achieve an alienated or naturalized translation in a practical sense. He does not make reference to any actual translation as alienated or naturalized one. In his paper, Schleiermacher metaphorically says to leave the author or the readers in peace. Yet, he does not explain, in a practical sense, what he means by leaving in peace. How can a translator leave the author or readers in peace? What techniques a translator should use to achieve alienated or naturalized translation? What are the
11
procedures in going toward one of these sides? These are the questions that Schleiermacher did not bother himself to answer in his paper. Recently, many questions have been raised about the true intention of what Schleiermacher proposed in 1813. Pym (1998) argues that the main concern of Schleiermachers paper was the problematic of social belongings. By taking a different point of view, Pym suggests that Schleiermacher used translation in a metaphorical sense to refer to issues like the sense of living in a community with certain spatial limits of community as place (Pym 1998). Although such an interpretation of Schleiermachers paper is controversial, but there are some questions regarding his paper that need to be answered. Issues like lack of any actual translation examples of the two techniques, the way the two methods can be achieved in a real sense, along with the metaphorical and mystical tone of the paper cast doubt on the intended message of Schleiermacher. What if he used translation as a metaphor for social belongings? Perhaps the best known theory of equivalence formulated in this way is the one developed by the American linguist and Bible scholar Eugene Nida. Translations debt to Nidas works is beyond measure. His seminal Toward a Science of Translating (Nida, 1964) was among the attempts that had a grave influence to designate the discipline a science and study it scientifically. He moved the translation of Bible into a scientific procedure and by incorporating latest developments in semantics, pragmatics and generative linguistics, he proposed a scientific roadmap to translation for the first time in the history of the discipline. Of the merits of his work is the attention he paid to semantics, the fact that meaning must be analyzed from different aspect to help the translator discover the true intention of the source text. This aspect of Nidas model, semantic analysis, makes it stand apart
12
from previously proposed models. It becomes even more apparent when Nida proposed the idea of equivalence and finally let go off traditional literal and free translation. But his preferred side on the postulated continuum may seem to be paradoxical, for Nida advocates incorporating of naturalness. Nida argues that the Bible may be translated to achieve either formal equivalence, following the words and textual patterns closely, or dynamic equivalence, trying to re-create the function the words might have had in their original situation and obtain equivalent effect. Whereas Schleiermacher emphasizes on valorizing the foreign, Nida focuses attention on functional or dynamic equivalence which stands as oppose to foreignization. As sated before, Nidas definition of translation claims to be seeking a natural equivalent, which would appear to be more on the dynamic than the formal side. That is indeed his general ideological preference, since dynamic equivalence, the illusion of the natural, is well suited to evangelical purposes. At some point Nida toyed with Chomskys idea of kernel phrases as the tertium comparationis, the underlying third thing to which the source and target segments should both be equivalent (Nida, 1964). Yet the general theory, particularly in its practical application, remains remarkably directional. Nida was mostly talking about translating the Bible into the language of cultures that are not traditionally Christian. What natural equivalent should one find for the name of Jesus or God in a language where they have never been mentioned? Most solutions actually concern a directional notion of equivalence, not a natural one. A general problem of binary theories of translation is that these theories do not propose a set of procedures to achieve equivalence, as oppose to natural equivalence theories. Except Nida who tried to posit some procedures, mainly semantic and structural analysis, in the way toward one side of the continuum, other directional theories just label two different kinds of translations and in some extreme cases, like
13
that of Schleiermacher, they postulate that one should strictly follow one side or the other without any mixed solution. Furthermore, these theories do not posit any new ideas regarding the nature of directionality and binarism, and except some terminological changes, these theories are largely influenced by what Schleiermacher and Nida posited. A similar kind of dichotomy is found in the translation critic Peter Newmark (1988), who distinguishes between semantic and communicative translation. the semantic kind of translation would took back to the formal values of the source text and retain them as much as possible; the communicative kind would look forward to the need of the new addressee, adapting to those needs as much as necessary. Newmarks preferences tend to lie on the semantic side, especially with respect to what he terms authoritative texts (Newmark, 1981). In theory, however, translators have to choose whether to render one aspect or another of the source text. There is thus no necessary assumption of just one natural equivalent and the result is a generally directional theory. As it was stated before, here the categories generally name approaches to the text as a whole. Therefore, large directional polarities can also be based on the way a translation represents its source text. For example, the Czech theorist Levy (1969) distinguishes between illusory and anti-illusory translations. The names are selfexplanatory. When the recipients read an illusory translation, they are not aware it is a translation; it has been so well adapted to the target culture that it might as well be a text written anew. This is an ideal for many common conceptions: a translation is successful when one does not know it is a translation. An anti-illusory translation, on the other hand, retains some features of the source text, letting the receiver know it is a translation. This basic opposition has been reformulated by a number of others. The German theorist Juliane House (1997) refers to over and cover translations, where
14
overt means that the receiver is aware they interact with a translation, and covert means they are not. Christian Nord (1997) prefers the terms documentary and instrumental to describe different translations, since the translation can either work as an explicit representation of the previous text, and thus a document, or it can reenact the communicative function, as an instrument. The Israeli theorist Gideon Toury (1980) talks about translations being adequate to the source text or acceptable in terms of the norms of reception. The American theorist and translator Lawrence Venuti (1995), referring back to Schleiermacher, identifies fluent translations as the domesticating kind he generally finds being done into English, and opposes them to resistant translations, which show the reader the foreignness of the text. Again, in all these dichotomies, we are talking about a choice made by the translator, not necessarily determined by the nature of the source text. Why Only Two Categories? Is there any reason why so many directional theories of equivalence have just two categories? Surely most translation problems can be solved in more than two ways? Naturalistic approaches tend to have many more than two categories: Vinay and Darbelnet list seven main procedures; Koller gives five types; and Reiss works with three. How should we explain this profound binarism on the directional side? Let us suggest a few possibilities. First, there may be something profoundly binary within equivalence-based translation itself that forces theorists to postulate only two ways as the solution to the problem. Pym (2010) argues that translation has two sides, source text and target text, and thus two possible ways of achieving self-reference, and two possible positions from which the translator can speak. This might suggest that directional equivalence is a particularly good mode of thought for certain kinds of translation, and that those kinds,
15
with just two basic side, are particularly good for keeping people on one side or the other, in separate languages and countries. Or could that be the ultimate purpose of all translations? The second reason for having just two categories may be found in the early nineteenth century. Friedrich Schleiermacher argued that there were only two basic strategies: either you move the author toward the reader, or you move the reader toward the author. Schleiermacher claimed it was not possible to mix the two. This is because just as they must belong to one country, so people must adhere to one language or another, or they will wander untethered in as unhappy middle ground (Schleiermacher, 1813/2004). Translators, it seems, cannot have it both ways. They must decide to situate their texts in one country or the other. Equivalence as an Illusion The German linguist and translation consultant Ernst-August Gutt (1991) proposes a very elegant theory that addresses the main problems of directional equivalence. Working on relevance aspect of translation, he argues that the source text and the target text should not necessarily be equivalent with each other literally; rather he defines equivalence as a belief in interpretive resemblance, meaning that the two texts need to be interpretively similar with each other. Translations, when they are accepted as such, do indeed create a presumption of complete interpretive resemblance. There is then no need to go further; no need actually to test the pieces of language according to any linguistic yardstick. Equivalence is always presumed equivalence and nothing more. From this perspective, Gutts position is close to Tourys (1980), where all translations manifest equivalence simply because they are translations. The work is then to analyze what the translations actually are, which is where equivalence becomes a non-issue for Toury. Gutts location of equivalence is also very much in tune with Pym
16
(1992), except that Pym stresses that the belief in equivalence is historical, shared, and cost-effective in many situations: the translator is an equivalence producer, a professional communicator working for people who pay to believe that, on whatever level is pertinent, B is equivalent to A (Pym, 1992). Gutt, Toury, and Pym might agree that equivalence is a belief structure. Paradoxically, that kind of rough consensus also logically marks the end of equivalence as a central concept. If equivalence concerns no more than belief, linguist can venture into pragmatics, descriptive scholars can collect and analyze translation shifts, and historians might similarly shelve equivalence as an idea pertinent only to a particular conjuncture of social and technological factors. All these avenues take debate away from equivalence as a real to an illusory concept. Equivalence might appear to be dead, except for the occasional deconstructionist who has read little translation theory and needs a topic to rave about, a straw man. Then again, history has not finished.
17
References Baker, M. (1992). In other words: a coursebook on translation, New York: Routledge. Catford, J. C. (1965). A linguistic theory of translation, London: Oxford university press. Cicero, M. T. (46 BCE/1960 CE). De optimo genere oratorum. Translated by H. M. Hubbell, London: Heinemann. Dolet, E. (1540/1997). La maniere de bien traduire dune langue en aultre [How to translate well from one language to another]. In D. Robinson (Ed.), Western translation theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche (pp. 7-95), Manchester: St. Jerome. Gentzler, E. (1993). Contemporary translation theories, New York: Routledge. Gutt, E. (1991). Translation and relevance: cognition and context, Oxford: Blackwell. House, J. (1997). Translation quality assessment: a model revisited, Tubingen: Gunter. Koller, W. (1995). The concept of equivalence and the object of translation studies. Target (7) 2, 191-222. Levy, J. (1969). Die literarische Ubersetxung: theorie einer Kunstgattung, Frankfurt: Athenaum. Munday, J. (2008). Introducing translation studies, New York: Routledge. Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation, Oxford: Pergamon. Newmark, P. (1988). A textbook of translation, New York: Prentice Hall. Nida, E. A. (1964). Toward a science of translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Nida, E. A. & Taber, C. R. (1969). The theory and practice of translation, Leiden: E. J. Brill. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity: functionalist approaches explained, Manchester: St. Jerome. Pym, A. (1992). Translation and text transfer. An essay on the principles of intercultural communication, New York: Peter Lang. Pym, A. (1998). Method in translation history, Manchester: St. Jerome.
18
Pym, A. (2010). Exploring translation theories, New York: Routledge. Schleiermache, F. (1813/2004). On the different methods of translating. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The translation studies reader, 2nd edition (pp. 43-63), New York: Routledge. Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies, an integrated approach, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Toury, G. (1980). In search of a theory of translation, Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute. Toury, G. (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond, Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Tytler, A. F. (1790/1997). Essay on the principles of translation. In D. Robinson (Ed.), Western translation theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche (pp. 12-208), Manchester: St. Jerome. Venuti, L. (1995). The translators invisibility: a history of translation, New York: Routledge.

Centuries of Binarism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Centuries of Binarism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running head: DIRECTIONAL EQUIVALENCE