Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Peircean approach
1. INTRODUCTION
However important its theoretical relevance, and despite the frequency with which it is
practiced, the phenomenon of intersemiotic translation remains virtually unexplored in
terms of conceptual model;ing. The main methodological difficulty seems to be related
to the comparison between radically different semiotic systems (see Dusi, this issue;
Eco, 2007; Plaza, 1987). Here we propose a tentative approach, based on Charles S.
Peirces model of sign process, to provide a preliminary conceptual framework to
the phenomena, emphasizing iconic properties and aspects. We hope this approach
presents a heuristically interesting frame to describe translation between different
systems and processes.[iii]
The above triadic relation is regarded by Peirce as irreducible in the sense that it
is not decomposable into any simpler relation or set of relations. He conceived a Sign as
a First which stands in such a genuine triadic relation to a Second, called its Object, so
as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to assume the same
triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object (CP 2.274. See
also CP 2.303, 2.92, 1.541). The triadic relation between sign, object, and interpretant is
irreducible: it cannot be decomposed into any simpler relation. This is why the sign-
object relationship cannot be enough to understand sign-mediated process.
A sign is also pragmatically defined as a medium for the communication to the
interpretant of a form embodied in the object, so as to constrain, in general, the
interpreters behavior
In the context of the most fundamental division of signs (CP 2.275), the
Peircean logical categories correspond to icons (Firstness), indexes (Secondness), and
symbols (Thirdness), which, in turn, match relations of similarity, contiguity, and law
between S and O (sign-object relation) in the triad S-O-I. Icons are signs that stand for
their objects through similarity or resemblance, notwithstanding that they show any
spatio-temporal physical correlation with an existent object. In this case, a sign refers to
an object in virtue of a certain quality that sign and object share. An icon can refer to an
object independently of the spatiotemporal presence of the latter because it denotes the
object merely by virtue of characters of its own, and which it possesses, just the same,
notwithstanding that the object is present or not, and, in fact, notwithstanding whether
the object actually exists or not. Icons play a central role in sensory tasks since they are
associated with the qualities of objects. Thus, they are present in the sensorial
recognition of external stimuli of any modality, as well as in the cognitive relation of
analogy.
In contrast, indexes are signs that refer to an object due to a direct physical
connection between them. Since in this case the sign should be determined by the
object, for instance, through a causal relationship, both must exist as actual events. This
is an important feature distinguishing iconic from indexical sign-mediated processes.
Accordingly, spatio-temporal co-variation is the most characteristic property of
indexical processes. Symbols are signs that are related to their object through a
determinative relation of law, rule or convention. A symbol becomes a sign of some
object merely or mainly by the fact that it is used and understood as such, due to some
of the kind of relations mentioned above.
We are especially interested in iconic processes. Some authors have
emphatically stressed the role of icons in translation phenomena (Merrell, this issue;
Petrilli & Ponzio, this issue; Damiani, 2008; Gorle, 2005).[v] For Stjernfelt (2007), the
icon is the only type of sign that involves a direct presentation of qualities that belong to
its object. In operational terms, the icon can be defined as a sign that, when
manipulated, reveals one or many aspects of its object. Icons are signs essentially
hypothetical, and deeply dependent on the qualites they are made of (Stjernfelt 2007;
Savan 1987-88). In iconic sign process, the form which is communicated from the
object to the interpretant through the sign is a general similarity between the object and
the sign (Queiroz & El-Hani 2006). Generally speaking, an iconic sign communicates a
habit embodied in an object to the interpretant, so as to constrain the interpreters
behavior, as a result of a certain quality that the sign and the object share.
2.3 The Translation Model
Figure 2: Triadic relation in which the sign is the translated work, the object of the sign
is the object of the work, and the interpretant is the translator sign.
Figure 3: Triadic relation in which the sign is the target, the object of the sign is the
translated work, and the interpretant is the interpreter.
According to the process described above, the form communicated from the
object to the interpretant, produced by means of the sign, is different in each version.
How can these differences help us? We can speculate about how the alternatives
provide some insights regarding the phenomenon examined. In another interpretation,
the models are not mutually exclusive but describe two distinct modalities of
intersemiotic translation. According to the first modality, the object is the object of the
source, the object of the translated work. The interpretant (semiotic target) is determined
by the object (the object of the semiotic source) by the mediation of the sign (semiotic-
source). The semiotic target (interpretant) is the semiotic effect produced by the object
(the semiotic-sources object) of the sign (the semiotic source) in a relation mediated by
it. According to the second modality, the object is the semiotic source itself (translated
work). The interpretant (the effect on the interpreter) is determined by the object
(semiotic source), by the mediation of the sign (semiotic-target).[vii] The second model
undoubtedly provides us with another perspective of the phenomenon, with focus on the
interpreter of the translation process.
In an effort to pose a better explanation of the model possibilities, we will
exemplify them with the Spider-Mans comic-film translation. According to the first
possibility (Figure 4), we could replace the sign (semiotic source)-object (semiotic
source object)-interpretant (semiotic target) triad with the comic book - comic book
object - film relation. In this case, the sign is the Spider-Man comic book; the object is
the Spider-Man comic book object that, in a simplified explanation, should be the
overcoming of a spider-man hybrid hero; and the interpretant, the effect, is a Spider-
Man film. According to the second model (Figure 5), the sign (semiotic target) object
(semiotic source) - interpretant (effect on the interpreter) triad could be replaced with
the film - comic book - effect on the audience. Hence, the sign is a Spider-Man film; the
object is the Spider-Man comic book, and the interpretant is the film effect on the
audience.
Figure 4: Triadic relation in which the sign is the semiotic source, the object of the sign
is the object of the work, and the interpretant is the semiotic target.
Figure 5: Triadic relation in which the sign is the semiotic target, the object of the sign
is the semiotic source, and the interpretant is the effect produced on the interpreter.
3. CONCLUSION
There are small amounts of theoretical modeling systematically produced as
regards IT. Indeed, the phenomenon is difficult to characterize and compare with
analogous phenomena (e.g. interlingual translation). As it involves systems of rather
distinct nature, its analysis creates additional difficulties in any theoretical approach
compromised with semiotic processes. One of the consequences of our approach is the
importance ascribed to the materiality and dynamic involved in IT, prioritizing the
semiotic properties of relations between the source and the target signs. The partial
results exhibited constitute a preliminary attempt towards modeling IT.
4. REFERENCES
[i]
Comparative Literature Doctorate State University of Rio de Janeiro ,
UERJ. daniella.aguiar@gmail.com.
Research Group on Cognitive Science and Semiotics Federal University of Juiz de Fora.
[ii]
UFJF. queirozj@semiotics.pro.br,www.semiotics.pro.br.
[iii]
Importantly, we are not concerned here with the typological problem of defining intersemiotic
translation (IT) as a specific class of translation. For a detailed approach of this problem, see Dusi (this
issue); Eco (2007).
[iv]
We shall follow the practice of citing from the Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Peirce,
1931-35, 1958) by volume number and paragraph number, preceded by CP; the Essential Peirce by
volume number and page number, preceded by EP. References to the microfilm edition of Peirce's
papers (Harvard University) will be indicated by MS, followed by the manuscript number.
[v]
When we deal with artwork translation this propertie must be even more relevant (Bense 1971; Plaza
1987; Campos 1972).
[vi]
It is a problem in its own to define the nature of the system.
[vii]
In this case the object is the materiality of the source, its qualities, and on its language strategies and
procedures.
2010, Applied Semiotics / Smiotique applique