A different systemic look into translation

“Translation is no longer a phenomenon whose nature and borders are given once and for all, but an activity dependent on the relations within a certain cultural system.” [Even-Zohar 51]

System, according to Even-Zohar, is the relations between the signs/elements, and accordingly, the polysystem is the relations between different systems, “which intersect with each other and partly overlap, using concurrently different options, yet functioning as one structured whole, whose members are interdependent”. [Even-Zohar 11] These systems are in a dynamic process and there is the continuum of relations in the hierarchy they happen to be a part of. Once the important/powerful/dominant system may be the less of all these features one day. Thus analysing a system synchronically will not help us see this evolution of systems. One also should look at the diachronic dimensions which are “operating on the synchronic axis,” [Even-Zohar, 11] at any given moment. Because Even-Zohar suggests that “a system consists of both synchrony and diachrony, [...] and each of these is separately a system.” [Even-Zohar, 11]

Contrary to Saussure who suggests diachronic relations will not help one to understand the current state of the system, thus need not to be studied at all, Even-Zohar claims that both synchronic and diachronic changes have an effect on the system. This idea is especially important in terms of translation studies because it will eventually affect the choices of the translator according to the time and space. As the polysystem is not homogeneous in itself, more than one diachronic level interferes with synchronic state of time. And this gives the translators the opportunity to analyze the needs of the time better, because this will change the main effort of the translator. The new movements in the literature will inevitably affect the movements in translation, and vice versa. “The fact that certain features tend, in certain periods, to cluster around certain statuses does not mean that these features are "essentially" pertinent to some status.” [Even-Zohar, 16]

Polysystem theory by Even-Zohar sees literature and translation as systems both intra- and inter-related to each other and part of a polysystem which is culture, thus brings a new perspective, which includes the relationships between culture, ideology, society, history, and power, into the translation studies. These features were also included to translation theory by Vermeer in his Skopostheorie, however, his inclusion did not go beyond the target-oriented perspective, for which he was criticized for being a traitor to the source text [Nord 121], and was only restricted with the context defined by the commissioner. This target-oriented approach is not a part of polysystem theory. The main difference between these two approaches is that while Skopostheorie sees translator as a cultural and linguistic expert, i.e. an expert in intercultural communication [Nord 118], polysystem theory puts translator in a position that s/he is the expert of the whole polysystem. I mean the expert of the relationships between the literatures of these two cultures, translation approaches and their status, whether they are canonized or not and whether they are primary or secondary, in the given cultures. So the missions of the translator changes in these two theories. And Vermeer’s translator does not have any effect on the target culture other than the only one translation created by her/him, while Even-Zohar’s translator affects the polysystem, i.e. the culture, since “translation actively participates in shaping the center of the polysystem” [Even-Zohar 46]. And even the anti-universalism claim of Nord does not help exceed the boundaries drawn for translation in the functionalist theories let alone affecting the culture, because cultural relativism defined by Nord is a static state, and is only apparent in the texts.

Consequently, polysystem theory breaks new grounds in the translation studies as making it a part of a larger study and not looking it as a field of study independent from the cultural and literary context.

REFERENCES
Even-Zohar, Itamar 1990. "Polysystem Theory". Poetics Today 11:1, 1990, pp. 9-26.
Even-Zohar, Itamar 1990. "The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem." Poetics Today 11:1, pp. 45-51.
Nord, Christiane 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. St Jerome Publishing.

a faitfhul also target-oriented translation?

Ceyda mostly focuses on the comparision of Reiss' functional equivalence with Vermeer's skopos theory.
This comparision is mostly based on the initial orientation in the translation process. Reiss is claimed to be source-oriented while Vermeer is thought as target-oriented. However, I think it is actually more complicated than it looks. Although it is easier to label Reiss as a source-oriented scholar since she tries to reach the ultimate equivalent TT, Vermeer's situation would be more complicated. As stated by Ceyda in her response "[T]he skopos theory of Vermeer not only breaks the limits brought by source-orientedness [...], but also gains the target text an autonomous character, bestowing the target-text with its own textual potentials."[1]Thus it is always important to keep the role of the commissioner and the expert in the translation process in mind. Because skopos of a text is determined by these two agents in the process and as a consequence, although according to Vermeer the ideal is to create the target-oriented text, a decision on the source-orientedness can perfectly be made by these agents.
Besides, the idea of target-oriented translation does not challenge the idea of faithfulness as one expected. I mean, Vermeer does not mention any kind of equivalence as Reiss; however, he gives the impression that the translation should be dependent on the soource text as much as possible.
"True translation, with an adequate skopos, does not mean that the translator must adapt to the customs and usage of the target culture, only that he can so adapt." [234]
In conclusion, Vermeer takes a step forward a more different, and maybe also novel for its time, approach to translation, but he is still stuck with the traditional European binarisms which limit a potential broader perspective with a narrow one.


[1] http://ceydaelgul.blogspot.com/. Last accessed on October 21, 2009.

REFERENCES

Vermeer, Hans J. (1989). "Skopos and Commission in Translational Action" in Translation Studies Reader ed. Venuti, Lawrence. pp. 227-238.

Text Types and Translation

Katharina Reiss' work mainly focuses on different text types, their functions in the culture they were produced in and how these functions can be reflected in the translation of the text.
She defines translation as the functionally equivalent text of the source text in the target culture. So, her idea of translation depends on the function and creation of the equivalent of it in the target culture.
Reiss' way of looking into translation suggests a systemic and verifiable method to carry out translations since she follows a highly strict way. Reiss defines three main functions. Informative, expressive, and operative. She firstly defines these types/functions of the language/text with clear-cut words and ideas; then defines translation based on and in accordance with these functions. For example; communication of the content is the function of a informative text [Reiss 171]. However, she sets the limits of these function so clearly that she overlooks how actually these functions can be related to each other even in only one text. Of course, she does not claim that a text can only one function; however, according to her one of the functions of a text is the one actually the reader/translator should recognize first, and the other(s) is always secondary thus could be dispensible in the process [Reiss 170,177]. So the duty of the translator would become to find out the "main function" of a text.
In a source text more than one function can be co-existed as well as the very same ST can have more than one function in the TT. Reiss's clear-cut division lacks the perspective to see the variations. One text can be both expressive and operative at the same time. When a translator prefers one function over another in this kind of a situation as Reiss would have suggested, it is impossible for her/him not to miss a part of the text. And this will finally conflict with Reiss' idea of equivalence as the TT will not perform the equivalent function as of the ST.
It is also possible to create a link between Nida's term "effect" [Nida 156] and Reiss' "function". Although these two scholars have different perspectives in general, their idea of equivalence coincides with each other. These two terms have a similar elusiveness which melts the whole reader/receptor range in the same pot and assumes that there is only one kind of a reader and one reading or in Reiss' case one dominant reading of a text. So it can be claimed that although this idea of equivalence considers culture as an important part of the translation, it overgeneralizes a culture and tends to ignore the different parts of a culture.

REFERENCES

Nida, Eugene (1964). "Principles of Correspondence" in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Venuti Lawrence. p.153-167.

Reiss, Katharina (1971). "Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in Translation" in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Venuti Lawrence. p. 168-179.

On "the Nature of Translation Studies"

James Holmes's article The Name and Nature of Translation Studies mostly focuses on the origins of the name of the field and the features/qualities of the field. What I want to focus mainly is the way he classifies these features and their relevance of the translation studies in general.
Holmes suggestion on the classification of translation studies in three categories has also different sub-categories in themselves. However, such a classification, although it proposes a systematic way to look at the translation studies, is bound to be proven ineffienct. Because Holmes's classification divides the field into too many sub-categories and lacks the uniformity to collect these into one general framework. And the general frame he suggested as general translation theory is too general and lacks the human aspect of translation.
If we are to begin with the general translation theory, we see that what is desired to be achieved here is to reach a one ultimate goal "to develop a full, inclusive theory accomodating so many elements that it can serve to explain and predict all phenomena falling within the terrain of translating and translation"[186]. However, it does not seem to be possible to create a theory that would generate the ideas/choices behind all translation activities. Because translation is not a science as it has not "reached a stage of precision, formalization, and paradigm formation"[183] but a humanly act which bounds to differentiate from time to time and person to person. If thought thoroughly, there are as many translations as translators. The very same text can be translated in various ways by different translators and even the same translator can translate the same text differently in two different times. So at least the prediction part of Holmes's propostion may not be quite right. And this general theory will probably fail in explaining the products of different translation processes.
Under this general theory Holmes describes six partial theories which have the tendency to focus in different methods/choices in translation. Although later in the text he mentions combining more than one partial theories to handle generalizations through these theories, the way he looks at them is very isolated and highlights one feature at a time. And these also can be problematic in themselves. For example, in area-restricted theories, the area, either a culture or a language, to focus on should be chosen very carefully in order not to exclude a detail and/or not to be superficial about the translation theory of a culture/language. One of the areas given as example by Holmes is the Slavic languages. However, Slavic languages are a quite big area in itself, including Russian, Bulgarian, Macedonian, and many other languages. It is difficult to reach conclusive ideas on traditions of translation in these cultures just by looking at the language families. Because all these languages have different backgrounds both in social and political terms, so they all have different traditions in using the language and in communicating. To generalize all of them into one category and study on it will probably leave out some parts and will make the scholar lose track of the hypothesis behind.
Another classification made by Holmes is the applied translation field, which also has sub-divisions. One of these subcategories is translation policy which is a way to "determine what works needs to be translated in a given socio-cultural situation, what the social and economic position of the translator is and should be."[190] This sentence is only one of the sentences which shows that Holmes favoures an approach of target-oriented translation rather than a source-oriented one. However, this text does not go into much detail about the reasons of his preference of target orientedness. It is maybe because this text is not to have been written to defend a certain idea but just to describe the general idea of translation. But it confuses a reader favoring a source-oriented approach instead.

Binarisms in Approaches to Translation

Generally translation theory has been an attempt to explain how one has translated what s/he has translated and why s/he translated it. It is about discussing the different choices and suggesting new ideas on translation.
A chronological review to the translation theories gives one the advantage to see the evolution of the translation studies and appreciate/understand today's perspective more easily and throughly.
Beginning with Etienne Dolet and his How to Translate Well from One Language to Another is a good start to see the binary oppositions, which still are dominant in some terms in the translation theory, since he gives a clear distinction between the good and the bad translations and suggests methods to create good translation. The main idea behind the good translation is being faithful to the source text. Ironically enough, he himself was executed for mistranslating. This is an important proof of the strength and effect of words.
The idea of faithfulness, supported by the same binary opposition, is also apparent in the other texts from John Dryden, Alexander Fraser Tytler, Friedrich Schleirmacher, and Andre Lefevere. Either the opposition is about the quality of translation, good vs. bad, or about the text type, literature vs. commercial texts. But the general approach to evaluate a translation, to appreciate a translation and/or to disapprove of it is to think with a split mind and the texts in the framework of faithfulness.
Only Dryden proposes a third way, what he calls an "imitation", although he does not name it as a translation. Even the inclusion of such a possibility into an essay on translation is a little clue for us to consider the variety existed in the translations.
Lefevere's binarism, however, stems from a bigger opposition, West vs. East. He try to see the process of translation both as a product and as a proces through this opposition.
His article on comparision of Chinese and Western ideas on translation suggests a different systematic method to look at translation. He suggests that translation is not a static action and has to be changeable according to the culture, accoring to the time and according to the people. If we are to quote from him:
"Different cutures have tended to take translation by granted, or rather, different cultures have taken the technique of translating that was current at a given time in their evolution for granted and equated it with the phenomenon of translation as such."
However, the problem in his article is his superficial look at both of the cultures. He generalizes a West and a China in his head and tries to prove the reader what he meant by "different". Although his ideas are an ideal start to consider translation and language; translation and culture at the same time, the way he looks at culture is problematic on its own. Because his definition has its own contradictions in it. Although he consider cultures as not fixed and as bound to change, he considers "the culture" of a time is static in itself. He mentions both Chinese and Western cultures as a big united homogeneos culture without any margins or without any oppositions in them.And he misses the point that there cannot be a pure homogenity in a culture.
Another problematic perspective Lefevere is the way he compares these two cultures. He overlooks the dynamics of these culture. He misses the human part in them and approaches them as if independent from their creators.