An Investigation of the Role of Discourses of Philosophy in the Development of Translation Studies from a Historical Perspective

مطالعات زبان و ترجمه

Article 2, Volume 50, Issue 2, July 2017, Pages 35-66   

Document Type: Research Article

DOI: 10.22067/lts.v50i2.65260

Author

Samad Mirza Suzani^*

Department of English, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, Iran

Abstract

1. Introduction
The various disciplines in the humanities are related by chains of authority. Sociolinguistics, for example, historically refers to linguistics and to sociology for the authority of its founding concepts, just as linguistics in turn might refer to philology, or sociology might look back to history, to psychology, or to political economics. In the same vein, the investigation of discourses of philosophy from a historical perspective might be related to translation and translation studies, so that frames and theories in the interface of philosophy and translation can be historically projected. These chains allow concepts to be borrowed and thus constantly displaced. They also allow authority to be projected back onto the discipline referred to, such that authority itself is also constantly displaced across disciplines in consideration.
Proposing frames can enable us to idealize Western philosophy as a set of discourses that do not ostensibly borrow authority from external disciplines. It is, instead, a place where terms and concepts would be elaborated and refined for use in other disciplines; it might supremely act in the service of others. On the other hand, translation of philosophy and philosophical discourses has been a concern of Western philosophy ever since the relation with the classical past became problematic. In this vein, the authority of philosophy and the role it takes in other fields of study, including translation studies is notable, which is the main topic of the current study.
Drawing on the immense prominent theories and notions proposed by varied scholars in the field of philosophy, the main objective of the present study is to theorize on translation and offer an all-round framework to enable us to hypothesize that translation studies, as a client discipline, is drawing on philosophical discourses and indeed on many other intermediary disciplines as well. In this vein, taking advantage of varied theories and concepts in the area of philosophy, the present research aims to find answers to the following questions:
1. What is the historical relationship between discourses of philosophy and translation studies?
2. How can revision of discourses of philosophy assist development of translation studies?
3. How can hypothesis-making on translation studies be attained through proposing a general all-round framework?
2. Methodology
As a descriptive study, the current research aims to investigate the role of the discourses of philosophy in the development of translation studies from a historical perspective. Accordingly, it attempts to unravel the interfacing role of the philosophical discourses in translation studies to probe the main impact of philosophy on translation and translation theories and reveal in which way(s) the revision in discourses of philosophy can contribute to the developing area of translation studies.
3. Discussion
The evidence proposed in this study revealed a major problem in the relationships between philosophy and translation. Considering the relevant evidence, the findings showed that authority would mostly flow more from philosophy to translation studies than the other way around. In other words, the theorization of translation has leant on philosophical discourses far more than philosophers have seriously considered translation. In this highly asymmetric relationship, difficult texts fall into the hands of readers from more generalist spheres, therefore, one may suspect that the philosophers would not always identify with what has been done in their name. Besides, in the presence of philosophical authority, many translation theorists are needlessly parochial, while in the absence of philosophical authority, a rather quaint empiricism rules, as in much of Descriptive Translation Studies, or in corpus linguistics, or think-aloud protocols, which rarely transcend positivist notions of science. The central divisions of philosophical discourse itself could help poorly in this respect. Hence, the result is not just a lack of dialogue, but serious misunderstandings.
Furthermore, considering the findings it was shown that the discourses of philosophy might be related to translation studies in at least three ways: Philosophers of various kinds have used translation as a case study or metaphor for the issues of more general application; translation theorists and practitioners have referred to philosophical discourses for support and authority for their ideas; and philosophers, scholars, and translators have commented on the translation of philosophical discourses.
4. Conclusion
Translating can be seen as a problem-solving activity in which a source element may be rendered by one or more elements in the target language. If translators have only one available option, there is no more to be said; no philosophy is needed. When, however, they have two or three options, translation is worth talking about, ideally between translators, who start theorizing. And when there are numerous options available and no clear theory about how to reduce that complexity, the cause for discussion reaches levels where philosophical discourse may be turned to, for ideas about the options, although rarely for translational solutions. This can be seen in most of the theories and approaches which have been dealt with in this study.
In general, what the philosophical discourses may miss, are for the most part the logics of the more everyday activities, the many techniques by which translators themselves constantly reduce complexity. In addition, philosophical discourses show great tendencies to be revised with respect to problems where more than three or four alternatives are available, and while to develop words appropriate to those alternatives might be the role of philosophy; to adapt and propose them might be one of the roles of translation studies. The current study, as well as the following analogous studies in future, can prepare the ground for proposing further frames and theories in the interface of philosophy and translation.

Keywords

Revision; Theory; Discourses of Philosophy; Translation Studies

References

1. Ammann, M. (1994). Von Schleiermacher bis Sartre: Translatologische Interpretationen. In M. Snell-Hornby, F. P. Ochhacker and K. Kaindl (eds) Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline (pp. 37-44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

2. Badawi, A. (1968). La transmission de la philosophie grecque au monde arabe. Paris: Vrin.

3. Benjamin, A. (1989). Translation and the Nature of Philosophy: A New Theory of Words. London: Routledge.

4. Benjamin, W. (1970). The task of the translator (H. Zohn, trans.). In W. Benjamin (H. Arendt, ed.) Illuminations (pp. 69-82). London: Fontana (original work published in 1923).

5. Berman, A. (1985). La traduction et la lettre: Ou l'auberge du lointain. In A. Berman (ed.) Les Tours de Babel (pp. 35-100). Mauvezin: Trans-Europ-Repress.

6. Berman, A. (1992). The Experience of the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany (S. Heyvaert, trans.). Albany: State University of New York Press.

7. Bigelow, J. (1978). Semantics of thinking, speaking and translation. In. F. Guenthner and M. Guenthner-Reutter (eds) Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches (pp. 109-135). London: Duckworth.

8. Blanchot, M. (1949). Traduit de... In M. Blanchot La Part du feu (pp. 173-187). Paris: Gallimard.

9. Bourdieu, P. (1994). In Other Worlds: Essays towards a Reflexive Sociology Cambridge: Polity Press.

10. Burge, T. (1978). Self-reference and translation. In F. Guenther and M. Guenther-Reutter (eds) Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches (pp.137-153). London: Duckworth.

11. Chau, S.S.C. (1984). Hermeneutics and the translator: The ontological dimension of translating. Multilingua 3 (2), 71-7.

12. Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation: The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

13. Chesterman, A. (1999). The empirical status of prescriptivism. Folia Translatologica 6, 9-19.

14. Davidson, D. (1984). Enquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

15. Deleuze, G. (1977). Intellectuals and power: A conversation between Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze. In M. Foucault Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews by Michel Foucault (D.E. Bouchard, ed.; S. Simon, trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

16. Derrida, J. (1985). Des tours de Babel (English and French versions, J. Graham, trans.). In J. Graham (ed.) Difference in Translation (pp. 165-207; 209-248). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

17. Feleppa, R. (1988). Convention, Translation, and Understanding: Philosophical Problems in the Comparative Study of Culture. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

18. Foucault, M. (1966). Les mots et les choses. Paris: Gallimard.

19. Frege, G. (1984). Collected Papers on Mathematics, Logic, and Philosophy (B. McGuinness, ed. and M. Black, trans.). Oxford: Blackwell.

20. Grant, C.B. (1999). Fuzzy interaction in dialogue interpreting: Factual replacements, autonomy and vagueness. Linguistica Antwerpiensa 33, 85-100.

21. Guenther, F. and Guenther-Reutter, M. (eds) (1978) Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches. London: Duckworth.

22. Hart, W. D. (1970). On self-reference. Philosophical Review 79,523-528.

23. Heidegger, M. (1963). Excerpts from Der Satz vom Grund [1957]. In H.J. Storig (ed.) Das Problem des Clbersetzens (pp. 395-409). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

24. Hirsch, A. (ed.) (1997). Ubersetzung und Dekonstruktion. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.

25. Jakobson, R. (1959/2000). On linguistic aspects of translation. In R.A. Brower (ed.) On Translation (pp. 232-239). Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. (Reprinted in Venuti, L. (ed.) (2000) The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 113-18). London: Routledge.)

26. Johnson, B. (1985). Taking fidelity philosophically. In J. Graham (ed.) Difference in Translation (pp. 142-48). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

27. Katz, J. (1978). Effability and translation. In F. Guenther and M. Guenther-Reutter(eds) Meaning and Translation: Philosophical and Linguistic Approaches (pp. 191-234). London: Duckworth.

28. Ladmiral, J-R. (1979). Traduire: Theoremes pour la traduction. Paris: Payot.

29. Lafarga, F. (ed.) (1996) El discurso sobre la traduccion en la historia: Antologia bilingue. Barcelona: EUB.

30. Laygues, A. (2001). Review article of Buber, Marcel, and Levinas. In A. Pym (ed.) The Return to Ethics. Special issue of The Translator 7 (2), 315-19.

31. Lefevere, A. (1991). Translation and comparative literature: The search for the center. TTR. Traduction Terminologie, Redaction 4 (1),129-44.

32. Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.

33. Levy, J. (1967). Translation as a decision process. In To Honor Roman Jakobson (Vol. 2; pp. 1171-82). The Hague and Paris: Mouton. (Reprinted in L. Venuti (ed.) (2000). The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 148-59). London: Routledge.)

34. Melby, A. & Warner, T.C. (1995). The Possibility of Language: A Discussion of the Nature of Language, with Implications for Human and Machine Translation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

35. Meschonnic, H. (1973/1999). Poetique du traduire. Paris: Verdier.

36. Monacelli, C. and Punzo, R. (2001). Ethics in the fuzzy domain of interpreting: A 'military' perspective. In A. Pym (ed.) The Return to Ethics. Special Issue of The Translator 7 (2), 265-82.

37. Nouss, A. (2001). In praise of betrayal. In A. Pym (ed.) The Return to Ethics. Special issue of The Translator 7 (2), 283-295.

38. Pecheux, M. (1975). Les Verdes de la palice. Paris: Maspero.

39. Peirce, C.H. (1931-58) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (8 vols)(C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A. Burks, eds). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

40. Pym, A. (1997). Pour tine ethique du traducteur. Arras: Artois Presses Universite.

41. Pym, A. (1998). Method in Translation History. Manchester: St Jerome.

42. Pym, A. (ed.) (2001). The Return to Ethics. Special issue of The Translator 7 (2). 169-181.

43. Quine, W.V.O. (1959). Translation and meaning. In R.A. Brower (ed.) On Translation.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Reprinted in L. Venuti (ed). (2000). The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 94-112). London: Routledge.)

44. Quine, W.V.O. (1969). Linguistics and philosophy. In S. Hook (ed.) Language and Philosophy. New York: University Press.

45. Robinson, D. (1991). The Translator's Turn. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

46. Robinson, D. (1992). Classical theories of translation from Cicero to Aulus Gellius. TEXTconTEXT 7, 15-55.

47. Robinson, D. (1996). Translation and Taboo. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press.

48. Robinson, D. (1997). Translation and Empire: Postcolonial Theories Explained. Manchester: St Jerome.

49. Robinson, D. (ed.) (2001). Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St Jerome.

50. Schleiermacher, F. (1838). Uber die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens. Lecture delivered in 1813. In Siimtliche Werke, Dritte Abteilung: Zur Philosophie (Vol. 2; pp. 207-245). Berlin: Reimer. (English version: On the different methods of translating. In D. Robinson (ed. and trans.) (1997) Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to Nietzsche (pp. 225-38). Manchester: St Jerome.

51. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

52. Varela, F.J. (1992). Un know-how per l'etica. Roma-Bari: Editori Laterza.

53. Venuti, L. (1995). The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.

54. Venuti, L. (1998). Introduction. In L. Venuti (ed.) Translation and Minority. Special issue of The Translator 4 (2), 135-144.

55. Vermeer, H.J. (1989). Skopos and commission in translational action. In A. Chesterman (ed.) Readings in Translation Theory (pp. 173-87). Helsinki: Oy Firm Lectura. (Reprinted in L. Venuti (ed.) (2000) The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 221-32). London: Routledge.)

56. Vermeer, H.J. (1996). Das Ubersetzen im Mittelalter (13. and 14. Jahrhundert) (2 vols). Heidelberg: TEXTconTEXT Verlag.

57. von Humboldt, W. (1836). Uber die Verschiedenheit des menschlichen Sprachbaues und ihren Einfluss auf die geistige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechts. Zweiter Nachdruck (1968 facsimile: Bonn-Hannover-Munich: Diimmlers Verlag).

58. von Wright, G.H. (1968). An Essay in Deontic Logic and the Theory of Action. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

59. Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J.B. and Jackson, D.D. (1967) Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: Norton.