[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Diogenes
http://dio.sagepub.com
Prolegomena for the Establishment of a General Theory of
Translation
Edmond Cary and Sidney Alexander
Diogenes
1962; 10; 96
DOI: 10.1177/039219216201004006
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://dio.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for
Diogenes
can be found at:
Email Alerts:
http://dio.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions:
http://dio.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Edmond
Cary
PROLEGOMENA
FOR
THE
ESTABLISHMENT
OF
A GENERAL
THEORY
OF
TRANSLATION
Is
a
theory
of translation
possible?
During
the
past
ten
or
twenty
years
this
question
has
begun
to
concern
a
great
many
thinkers.
The interest
which
it
holds for
our
time is
not
only
of
an
academic
order.
The
vigorous growth
of
various
forms
of
teaching
of
translation and
interpreting;
and
the
setting
under
way
of
gigantic
programs
of
translation
by
electronic
machines
(to
cite
only
two
&dquo;spectacular&dquo;
facts)
illustrate
its
practical importance.
Now,
if
an
enormous amount
has
been
written,
in
general
and in
particular,
about
this central
question,
it is all the
more
essential that the
problem
be
posed
with all
necessary
rigor.
With
regard
to
this
subject
there is
no
definition,
no
distinction,
no
methodological
question
which
does
not
give
rise
to
disagreement
of
principles:’
in
short,
there
reigns only
an
inextricable
con-
fusion.
Is translation
an
art
(Theodore
H.
Savory,
The Art
of Translation,
London,
Jonathan
Cape,
1957
—
Antokolski
et
al.,
The Art
of
Translation
(Masterstvo
Translated
by
Sidney
Alexander.
1
96
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
The
following
article
represents
an
attempt
to
focus
the
discussion and circumscribe
the
field.
It will
not
be
surprising
to
find
in it
more
questions
than
answers:
what
is
important
at
the
present
time is that the
inquiry
take
place
on
solid
ground
and
within
very
strict limits.
*
Over the
centuries,
translation
has
been
conceived
of
as a
function
bearing especially
on
the
spoken
language.
All
ancient
terms
designating
this
function
are
connected with the idea of
speech.’
Hermes,
the
god
of fine
speakers-orators,
lawyers,-is
also the
perevoda),
Moscow, 1959);
a
science
(Eugene
A.
Nida,
Toward
a
Science
of
Trans-
lating,
U.S.A.,
in
publication);
should
it
be studied
as a
branch of
stylistics
(Vinay
and
Darbelnet,
Stylistique
comparée
du
français
et
de
L’anglais
-
Méthode de
traduction,
Paris, Didier, 1958)?
Should
one
conceive of
it,
above and
beyond
the
variation
of
types,
as a
linguistic operation,
thereby
studying
it
within the framework
of
linguistics
(Andrei
V.
Fedorov, Introduction
to
a
Theory
of Translation, Moscow,
1953)
or,
on
the
contrary,
is
it
necessary
to
carry on
such studies within the
framework of
literary
research when it is
a
question
of
literary
translation
(Anto-
kolski
et
al.,
Problems
of Literary
Translation
(Voprosy
khudojestvennogo
per-
voda),
Moscow, 1955)?
Does
analysis
of
literary
translation
(Georges Mounin,
Les
belles
infidèles,
Paris,
Cahiers du
Sud,
1955
-
Reuben A. Brower
et
al.,
On
Translation,
Cambridge,
Mass.,
Harvard
University
Press,
1959),
scientific and
technical translation
(R.
W.
Jumpelt,
Die
Uebersetzung maturwissenschaftlicher
und
technischer
Literatur,
Berlin, Langenscheidt, 1961),
or
automatic translation
(An-
thony
G.
Oettinger,
Automatic
Language
Translation,
Cambridge,
Mass.,
Harvard
University
Press,
1960)
lead
to
the
theory
of translation?
2
"Truchement"
("interpreter")
comes
from
tardjouman
(drogman)
which
goes
back
to
the
Assyrian
ragamou
(to
speak).
In Chinese "to
translate"
(i *)
is
composed
of the
sign
i **
(to
observe,
to
lead)
and of
yen***
which
means
"word",
"to
speak".
In
Latin,
the
usual word is
interpres,
and
St.
Jerome
has
left
us a
De
optimo
genere
interpretandi
which deals
with
translation
in
general.
Martin
Luther,
in
his
Sendbrief
vom
Dolmetschen
(a
family
of words
relating
to
Middle talami and
which has
given
us
tolmatch
in Russian
(equivalent
to
the French
"truchement"),
tlumacz in Polish
etc.)
states
specifically:
"It is
not
literature which should
be
consulted... but the mother
at
the
hearth,
the children in the
street,
the
common
man
in
the
marketplace, looking
them
in
the mouth
to see
how
they
are
speaking-that
is where
translating begins."
97
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
god
of
interpreters. Perhaps
most
of
all:
the
verb hermeneuein
refers
exclusively
to
the
act
of
interpreting.
The
distinction established
today
between
&dquo;translating&dquo;
(written texts)
and
&dquo;interpreting&dquo;
(oral)
is
recent.
It
was
the
Renaissance which
enthroned
the
book
in
our
civilization.
So
much
so
that the written
word
has
supplanted
the
spoken
word
and
&dquo;translation&dquo;
has
come
to
be considered
as
a
higher
species
and
&dquo;interpreting&dquo;
as an
inferior
activity.’
How
can
we
explain
the
fact
that the
spoken
word
played
a
more
important
role than the
written
word
for
so
long
a
period
and
that
language
has
always
been felt
as
the
act
of
speaking,
and
only
very
subordinately
as
the
act
of
writing?
Does
the
expla-
nation
reside
in the
fact
that
for
millennia the
great
mass
of
the
population
was
illiterate?
That
is
undoubtedly
true,
and is
a
truth which
must
be
kept
in
mind
every
time
one turns
one’s
attention toward
the
earliest
epochs
or
towards
societies
where
education
remains
very
limited.
jos6 Ortega
y
Gasset
cogently
reminds
us
that it is
still
necessary
to
be careful
not to
deduce
by
simplistic
reasoning
from
the
factor of
mass
illiteracy
that written
language
is somehow
superior
to
spoken
language.
&dquo;...
Reading
a
book
is...
a
utopistic
need ...
’to read’
implies
the intention
of
fully
understanding
a
text.
Now,
of
course,
that is
impossible...
A
book
is
an
act
of
speaking
which
has
been
fixed,
’petrified;’
...
the authentic
act
of
speaking...
is that which
grows
out
of
a
situation,
as a
reaction
to
it.
Uprooted
from
its
original
situation,
the
’saying’
alone is
only
half of itself...
The
better
we
know
how
to
read,
the
more
we
will feel
the
spectral
sadness
of
the written
word,
without
any
voice
to
express
it,
without
the
living
flesh
to
incarnate
it
and
concretize
it.
Goethe
was
right
in
declaring
that the written
word
is
a
substitute,
a
poor
Ersatz
of
the
spoken
word.&dquo;
(Diogenes,
No.
28,
1959)
Describing
"interpreting"
in
his
own
fashion,
an
American
author
(K.
W.
H.
Scholz,
The
Art
of
Translation,
Philadelphia,
1918)
concludes: "Translation is
more
than that.
It
properly
begins
where
interpreting
ends." The
phenomenon
of
interpreting
at
conferences and the
development
of international
contacts
have
somewhat shaken
this
final
assurance.
With the
help
of radio and
cinema
may
we
not
look forward
to
a
renewal of
spoken
civilization?
3
98
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Translating
a
written
text
is
always only
a
makeshift.
What
one
has
opposite
oneself
is
only
a
pale, incomplete
and
deformed
reflection of
what the
author
wanted
to
say,-and
what
every
translator
tries,
more or
less
conscientiously,
to
recapture.
*
Historically,
the
first conclusive
mention that
can
be found of
translation
systematically
exercised
is
borne
by
the
Elephantine
inscriptions
(5th-6th
dynasties
in
Egypt).
The
princes
of
this
city
carried
the title
of
&dquo;Chief
Interpreters&dquo;
of
the
Pharaohs.
Toward
the
year
2350
before
our
era,
one
of
them,
Herkouf,
led
an
expedition
&dquo;into
the
lands
of
Imaou&dquo;,
among
the
Blacks,
taking
along
a
dwarf
named
Deng.
One
may
follow
these
princes
in
their missions
toward the desert
courses,
toward
Nubia,
Sinai
and
the
seas
bordering
Asia.
These
dignitaries
are
the
ancestors
of
a
long,
ever
flourishing
line
of
translators
and
&dquo;duty&dquo;
interpreters
who
operate
in
ad-
ministrations
and
general
staffs,
consulates
and
courts
of
justice.
Over the
course
of
the
centuries
they
have
played,
and continue
to
play,
a
considerable
role.
What
we
note,
first
of
all,
about
them is that the
loyalty
to
which
they
are
bound
goes
entirely
to
their
chief,
their
sovereign,
their
captain. Military interpreters
act
&dquo;for
the
benefit of
the
Command.&dquo;
According
to current
rules,
they
are
&dquo;the
valuable
auxiliaries
of
the
Command&dquo; and
&dquo;their
role
lies in
rendering
comprehensible,
by
means
of
translation,
the
writings
and docu-
ments
of
all
orders
which
might
be
captured
from
the
enemy.&dquo;
This
attitude
with
regard
to
a
text
reflects
a
very
ancient
and
tenacious attitude
with
regard
to
language
itself.
The
way
in
which,
today,
we
voluntarily
pretend
to
view
language only
as
a
more or
less
practical
tool,
a
&dquo;vehicle&dquo;
serving
&dquo;communication&dquo;
which the
translator,
with
total
impersonality,
is
simply
obliged
to set
on
other
rails,
was
certainly
unknown
to our ancestors.
For
them,
language
was
a
means
of
acting
on
reality.
The Sumerian who
proclaimed
a
deed
was
persuaded
that
he
was
giving
life
to
that
deed;
in
conferring
a
name on
something,
he
was
investing
that
thing
with the
properties
con-
nected
with that
name.
In
ancient
China,
to
know
a
name,
to
99
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl adbuxwork.keep.pl
Diogenes
http://dio.sagepub.com
Prolegomena for the Establishment of a General Theory of
Translation
Edmond Cary and Sidney Alexander
Diogenes
1962; 10; 96
DOI: 10.1177/039219216201004006
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://dio.sagepub.com
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for
Diogenes
can be found at:
Email Alerts:
http://dio.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions:
http://dio.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Edmond
Cary
PROLEGOMENA
FOR
THE
ESTABLISHMENT
OF
A GENERAL
THEORY
OF
TRANSLATION
Is
a
theory
of translation
possible?
During
the
past
ten
or
twenty
years
this
question
has
begun
to
concern
a
great
many
thinkers.
The interest
which
it
holds for
our
time is
not
only
of
an
academic
order.
The
vigorous growth
of
various
forms
of
teaching
of
translation and
interpreting;
and
the
setting
under
way
of
gigantic
programs
of
translation
by
electronic
machines
(to
cite
only
two
&dquo;spectacular&dquo;
facts)
illustrate
its
practical importance.
Now,
if
an
enormous amount
has
been
written,
in
general
and in
particular,
about
this central
question,
it is all the
more
essential that the
problem
be
posed
with all
necessary
rigor.
With
regard
to
this
subject
there is
no
definition,
no
distinction,
no
methodological
question
which
does
not
give
rise
to
disagreement
of
principles:’
in
short,
there
reigns only
an
inextricable
con-
fusion.
Is translation
an
art
(Theodore
H.
Savory,
The Art
of Translation,
London,
Jonathan
Cape,
1957
—
Antokolski
et
al.,
The Art
of
Translation
(Masterstvo
Translated
by
Sidney
Alexander.
1
96
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
The
following
article
represents
an
attempt
to
focus
the
discussion and circumscribe
the
field.
It will
not
be
surprising
to
find
in it
more
questions
than
answers:
what
is
important
at
the
present
time is that the
inquiry
take
place
on
solid
ground
and
within
very
strict limits.
*
Over the
centuries,
translation
has
been
conceived
of
as a
function
bearing especially
on
the
spoken
language.
All
ancient
terms
designating
this
function
are
connected with the idea of
speech.’
Hermes,
the
god
of fine
speakers-orators,
lawyers,-is
also the
perevoda),
Moscow, 1959);
a
science
(Eugene
A.
Nida,
Toward
a
Science
of
Trans-
lating,
U.S.A.,
in
publication);
should
it
be studied
as a
branch of
stylistics
(Vinay
and
Darbelnet,
Stylistique
comparée
du
français
et
de
L’anglais
-
Méthode de
traduction,
Paris, Didier, 1958)?
Should
one
conceive of
it,
above and
beyond
the
variation
of
types,
as a
linguistic operation,
thereby
studying
it
within the framework
of
linguistics
(Andrei
V.
Fedorov, Introduction
to
a
Theory
of Translation, Moscow,
1953)
or,
on
the
contrary,
is
it
necessary
to
carry on
such studies within the
framework of
literary
research when it is
a
question
of
literary
translation
(Anto-
kolski
et
al.,
Problems
of Literary
Translation
(Voprosy
khudojestvennogo
per-
voda),
Moscow, 1955)?
Does
analysis
of
literary
translation
(Georges Mounin,
Les
belles
infidèles,
Paris,
Cahiers du
Sud,
1955
-
Reuben A. Brower
et
al.,
On
Translation,
Cambridge,
Mass.,
Harvard
University
Press,
1959),
scientific and
technical translation
(R.
W.
Jumpelt,
Die
Uebersetzung maturwissenschaftlicher
und
technischer
Literatur,
Berlin, Langenscheidt, 1961),
or
automatic translation
(An-
thony
G.
Oettinger,
Automatic
Language
Translation,
Cambridge,
Mass.,
Harvard
University
Press,
1960)
lead
to
the
theory
of translation?
2
"Truchement"
("interpreter")
comes
from
tardjouman
(drogman)
which
goes
back
to
the
Assyrian
ragamou
(to
speak).
In Chinese "to
translate"
(i *)
is
composed
of the
sign
i **
(to
observe,
to
lead)
and of
yen***
which
means
"word",
"to
speak".
In
Latin,
the
usual word is
interpres,
and
St.
Jerome
has
left
us a
De
optimo
genere
interpretandi
which deals
with
translation
in
general.
Martin
Luther,
in
his
Sendbrief
vom
Dolmetschen
(a
family
of words
relating
to
Middle talami and
which has
given
us
tolmatch
in Russian
(equivalent
to
the French
"truchement"),
tlumacz in Polish
etc.)
states
specifically:
"It is
not
literature which should
be
consulted... but the mother
at
the
hearth,
the children in the
street,
the
common
man
in
the
marketplace, looking
them
in
the mouth
to see
how
they
are
speaking-that
is where
translating begins."
97
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
god
of
interpreters. Perhaps
most
of
all:
the
verb hermeneuein
refers
exclusively
to
the
act
of
interpreting.
The
distinction established
today
between
&dquo;translating&dquo;
(written texts)
and
&dquo;interpreting&dquo;
(oral)
is
recent.
It
was
the
Renaissance which
enthroned
the
book
in
our
civilization.
So
much
so
that the written
word
has
supplanted
the
spoken
word
and
&dquo;translation&dquo;
has
come
to
be considered
as
a
higher
species
and
&dquo;interpreting&dquo;
as an
inferior
activity.’
How
can
we
explain
the
fact
that the
spoken
word
played
a
more
important
role than the
written
word
for
so
long
a
period
and
that
language
has
always
been felt
as
the
act
of
speaking,
and
only
very
subordinately
as
the
act
of
writing?
Does
the
expla-
nation
reside
in the
fact
that
for
millennia the
great
mass
of
the
population
was
illiterate?
That
is
undoubtedly
true,
and is
a
truth which
must
be
kept
in
mind
every
time
one turns
one’s
attention toward
the
earliest
epochs
or
towards
societies
where
education
remains
very
limited.
jos6 Ortega
y
Gasset
cogently
reminds
us
that it is
still
necessary
to
be careful
not to
deduce
by
simplistic
reasoning
from
the
factor of
mass
illiteracy
that written
language
is somehow
superior
to
spoken
language.
&dquo;...
Reading
a
book
is...
a
utopistic
need ...
’to read’
implies
the intention
of
fully
understanding
a
text.
Now,
of
course,
that is
impossible...
A
book
is
an
act
of
speaking
which
has
been
fixed,
’petrified;’
...
the authentic
act
of
speaking...
is that which
grows
out
of
a
situation,
as a
reaction
to
it.
Uprooted
from
its
original
situation,
the
’saying’
alone is
only
half of itself...
The
better
we
know
how
to
read,
the
more
we
will feel
the
spectral
sadness
of
the written
word,
without
any
voice
to
express
it,
without
the
living
flesh
to
incarnate
it
and
concretize
it.
Goethe
was
right
in
declaring
that the written
word
is
a
substitute,
a
poor
Ersatz
of
the
spoken
word.&dquo;
(Diogenes,
No.
28,
1959)
Describing
"interpreting"
in
his
own
fashion,
an
American
author
(K.
W.
H.
Scholz,
The
Art
of
Translation,
Philadelphia,
1918)
concludes: "Translation is
more
than that.
It
properly
begins
where
interpreting
ends." The
phenomenon
of
interpreting
at
conferences and the
development
of international
contacts
have
somewhat shaken
this
final
assurance.
With the
help
of radio and
cinema
may
we
not
look forward
to
a
renewal of
spoken
civilization?
3
98
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Translating
a
written
text
is
always only
a
makeshift.
What
one
has
opposite
oneself
is
only
a
pale, incomplete
and
deformed
reflection of
what the
author
wanted
to
say,-and
what
every
translator
tries,
more or
less
conscientiously,
to
recapture.
*
Historically,
the
first conclusive
mention that
can
be found of
translation
systematically
exercised
is
borne
by
the
Elephantine
inscriptions
(5th-6th
dynasties
in
Egypt).
The
princes
of
this
city
carried
the title
of
&dquo;Chief
Interpreters&dquo;
of
the
Pharaohs.
Toward
the
year
2350
before
our
era,
one
of
them,
Herkouf,
led
an
expedition
&dquo;into
the
lands
of
Imaou&dquo;,
among
the
Blacks,
taking
along
a
dwarf
named
Deng.
One
may
follow
these
princes
in
their missions
toward the desert
courses,
toward
Nubia,
Sinai
and
the
seas
bordering
Asia.
These
dignitaries
are
the
ancestors
of
a
long,
ever
flourishing
line
of
translators
and
&dquo;duty&dquo;
interpreters
who
operate
in
ad-
ministrations
and
general
staffs,
consulates
and
courts
of
justice.
Over the
course
of
the
centuries
they
have
played,
and continue
to
play,
a
considerable
role.
What
we
note,
first
of
all,
about
them is that the
loyalty
to
which
they
are
bound
goes
entirely
to
their
chief,
their
sovereign,
their
captain. Military interpreters
act
&dquo;for
the
benefit of
the
Command.&dquo;
According
to current
rules,
they
are
&dquo;the
valuable
auxiliaries
of
the
Command&dquo; and
&dquo;their
role
lies in
rendering
comprehensible,
by
means
of
translation,
the
writings
and docu-
ments
of
all
orders
which
might
be
captured
from
the
enemy.&dquo;
This
attitude
with
regard
to
a
text
reflects
a
very
ancient
and
tenacious attitude
with
regard
to
language
itself.
The
way
in
which,
today,
we
voluntarily
pretend
to
view
language only
as
a
more or
less
practical
tool,
a
&dquo;vehicle&dquo;
serving
&dquo;communication&dquo;
which the
translator,
with
total
impersonality,
is
simply
obliged
to set
on
other
rails,
was
certainly
unknown
to our ancestors.
For
them,
language
was
a
means
of
acting
on
reality.
The Sumerian who
proclaimed
a
deed
was
persuaded
that
he
was
giving
life
to
that
deed;
in
conferring
a
name on
something,
he
was
investing
that
thing
with the
properties
con-
nected
with that
name.
In
ancient
China,
to
know
a
name,
to
99
Downloaded from
by Paolo Magagnin on February 8, 2007
© 1962 International Council for Philosophy and Humanistic Studies. All rights reserved. Not for
commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]