Mary Helen McMurran considers the primary act of translating a classical text to be imitation. She says, “Imitation acknowledged the authority of the classics, but it also encouraged the translator to become an author in his own right: one developed his own style by emulating them” (McMurran 152). McMurran’s view could inform Douma’s, in the sense that, if translation is first and foremost imitation, that could explain why a text is untranslatable. An imitation is not a perfect copy, and it can never be what it is imitating, it can only attempt to provide the closest copy possible given the circumstances. In many ways this is the ideal task of a translation: to create the closest copy of the original text possible, given the limitations of language. But again it seems like this may not be enough; “Imitation” doesn’t fully capture what a translation is; this is to say, if imitation were the only goal of a translation, I believe there would be much less variety among the different translations of ancient works.
Anne Quinney, another scholar who works with translation says “In the past translation theory privileged linguistic-oriented approaches that ignored the social and cultural values which themselves translate relationships of power within culture” (Quinney 109). Here Quinney introduces yet another crucial element to the study of translation: socio-political implications.
She clearly states that translation theory must include social and cultural discussions if it wishes to ever fully get to the essence of translation. Again, Quinney could serve to supplement Douma and McMurran’s discussion. It seems that literary texts are in fact untranslatable, but not simply because translations are mere imitations, but because they are imitations fueled by contemporary socio-political atmospheres that invariably effect the way in which a translator is going to interpret an ancient text.
Quinney also goes on to explore
this imperfect nature of translation further. She says:
Translators are entrusted with a job that requires a double vigilance toward language, careful to reproduce the original but careful also of the difference that translation creates. The relationship between an original text and its translation is one fraught with split meanings, approximations, losses, concessions made for the sake of clarity, preservation of meaning etc. (Quinney 122)Quinney, as a translator herself, is aware of the issues a translator faces in practicing their craft. But still it seems the discussion is incomplete. Quinney, I think, is guilty of the very same thing she accused previous translation theories for, that is, she is guilty of providing a theory that is too narrow. She spends most of her discussion on the socio-political implications of translation, and though she mentions it briefly, largely ignores the linguistic side of the argument. Still the need for a more comprehensive discussion lingers on. But it is also growing apparent that translation theorists almost exist in factions: those who take a linguistic argument, and those who take a more literary argument. This of course does not describe all translation theorists, but it is clear that there is still a lot of work to be done. For the remainder of this project, I will provide arguments from the both literary and linguistic perspectives as for why translation fails, and seek to combine the two into a new, coherent, comprehensive translation theory, while at the same time, keeping in mind the translators role in relation to questions of authorship throughout.
No comments:
Post a Comment