Brisset - Cultural Perspectives On Translation

 

Cultural perspectives on translation

Annie Brisset The fo The foll llow owin ing g stud study y aims aims to show show ho how w th thee relation rela tionship ship to othe othernes rnesss and cult cultura urall div diversi ersity ty is mani manifest fested ed in disc discussi ussions ons acc accompa ompanyin nying g the evolution of translation practices since the 1950s, in other words since the point when, on the one ha hand, nd, tra transl nslati ation on bec becam amee globa globali lised sed and thu thuss indu indust stri rial alis ised ed an and, d, on th thee ot othe her, r, th thee cr cris isis is of  representations emerging in the humanities as a result of independence and postcolonialism, gave rise a little later to what came to be known as translation’s transla tion’s ‘‘cultura ‘‘culturall turn’’.

An initial ethnolinguistic approach. It is hard to locate precisely when wh en cu cult ltur uree en ente tere red d co conn-

increasin increa sing g vol volume umes, s, int into o one or sev severa erall lan lan-guages very quickly. Translation became part of  a productivity-based system requiring the optimisa mi sati tion on of it itss pr proc oced edur ures es.. In the the fie field ld of  specialis speci alised ed commu communica nications tions in whic which h trans translati lation on oper op erat ates es,, the the mo most st ur urge gent nt ne need ed wa wass for for the the labelling of realities. Linguistics was called on to identify the real or supposed problems presented to tran transl sla ati tion on by pa part rtiicul cular and di div vers rsee cultures. Representative studies include Roman Jakobson’s Jakob son’s (195 (1959) 9) arti article cle ‘‘On ‘‘O n lin lingui guisti sticc asp aspec ects ts of  Annie Brisset is Professor at the School of  translati trans lation’’ on’’ and Geor Georges ges Transl Tra nslati ation on and Int Interp erpret retat ation ion in the  ` Mounin’s Mouni n’s (196 (1963) 3)   Proble `Fa Facu cult lty y of Ar Arts ts of the the Univ Univer ersi sity ty of    A sociocritique Ottawa and the author of  A mess the me the´ o oriq rique uess de la trad traduc uc-of translation (Ann Saddlemyer Prize) and tion. Thes Thesee tw two o li ling ngui uist stss many articles on translation theory and sought to circumscribe the criticism criti cism.. Found Founder er memb member er and curr current ent untranslat untra nslatabil ability ity eman emanatatPresident Pres ident of (Inte (Internat rnational ional Associati Association on in ing g from from the the di dive vers rsit ity y of  for Translation and Intercultural Studies, she is also a consultant to UNESCO on la lang ngua uage gess an and d cu cult ltur ures es.. translation-related translation-re lated projects and a member of the Royal Society of Canada. Email:   abrisset@uot Email: [email protected] tawa.ca

temporary thinking on translatio la tion, n, in relati rel ation on to eit either her the process or its result. In the decade 1950–1960, when tr tran ansl slat atol olog ogy y wa wass st star arti ting ng to fo form rm in into to an inde indepe pend nden entt di disc scip ipli line ne,, th ther eree wa wass a st stro rong ng ethnoc eth nocult ultura urall dim dimens ension ion,, but thi thiss con concer cerned ned langu la nguage age rat rather her tha than n the hum human an gro groups ups tha thatt transl tra nslati ation on see seeks ks to bri bring ng tog togeth ether, er, no dou doubt bt because linguistics was the pilot discipline and the per period iod was dom domina inated ted by str struct uctura urali lism. sm. During the period following the Second World War, the creation of major international bodies and developing exchanges led to the industria-

How is it possible of to meanestablish equivalences in ing g betw betwee een n la lang ngua uag ges when they represent reality differently and, furthermore, express anthropological and cosmological realities that are often ir irre redu duci cibl blee to ea each ch othe other? r? Le Lett us reca recall ll ho how w Jakobson explains the principle of translatabilit ity y. The mea eani ning ng of a si sign gn,, he say says, is its definition. A sign is thus translatable into any langua lan guage ge bec becaus ausee it can can als also o be expre expresse ssed d in th thee same same la lang ngua uage ge in an anot othe herr wa way. y. If ther theree is no corresponding sign in the foreign language, th thee sig ign n of th thee ori rig gina nall langua nguage ge can be

lisa lisati tion on of tr tran ansl slat atio ion. n. Su Sudd dden enly ly it be beca came me necess nec essary ary to tra transl nslate ate doc docume uments nts rel relati ating ng to every field of human activity, in exponentially

simply borro simply borrowed, wed, calqued or para paraphras phrased. ed. In other oth er wor words, ds, Jakob Jakobson son con conclu cludes des,, lan langua guages ges ca can n ex expr pres esss ever everyt ythi hing ng,, but but us usin ing g di diffe ffere rent nt

ISSJ199 r UNES UNESCO CO 2010 2010.. Publishe Published d by Black BlackwellPublish wellPublishingLtd., ingLtd., 9600GarsingtonRoad, 9600GarsingtonRoad, Oxford,OX4 Oxford,OX4 2DK,UK and350 MainStreet,Malden,MA 02148, 02148, USA.

 

70

 

Annie Brisset

Translation: a socially governed action

means. mean s. Tr Tran ansl slat atab abil ilit ity y is ‘‘eq ‘‘equi uiva vale lenc ncee in difference’’ (1959, p.80). The attention paid to cultural diversity was primarily lexical in aim: the sign reigned over translation as it did over linguistics. However, in the same period Eugene Nida (1959, pp.14, 16) published a manual for translating the Bible in which he set out his ‘‘ethnolinguistic gui stic mode model’’ l’’ of comm communic unicati ation on and tran transla slation tion.. A sem seman antic ticia ian n of the gen genera erativ tivee sch school ool and and a special spec ialist ist in Ame Amerind rindian ian lan langua guages, ges, Nida proposed a method for the translation of the sacred texts undertaken by the Universal Biblical Alliance, anc e, from an eva evangel ngelist ist pers perspect pective ive.. The cri crititicisms of this approach by Meschonnic (1973) and then by the theorists of postcolonialism are well known kn own,, but the they y have have ove overs rsha hadow dowed ed the co conntribution of Nida’s ethnocultural thinking, which was new for the time. Nida proposes an approach to equivalence based on a pragmatics of communication. His work takes Jakobson’s principle of ‘‘equivalence in difference’’ out of the narrow field of naming real realit ity y an and d in into to tha thatt of so soci cial al pr prac acti tice cess an and d visi vision onss of the wor world. ld. Nid Nida a und unders erstan tands ds tra transl nslati ation on as ‘‘communic ‘‘com municativ ativee equiv equivalenc alence’’, e’’, in other words, that it must function in the target culture. To rend rendeer the the Bibl Biblee tex text in inte tell llig igib iblle an and, d, mo most st importa imp ortantl ntly, y, pert pertine inent nt in cul cultur tures es ver very y dis distan tantt from the Judeo-Christian world, the translation must incor incorporate porate the symbo symbolic lic repres representati entations ons and usages of the group for which it is intended. Howe Ho weve verr thi thiss mo mode dell ha hass it itss limi limita tatio tions ns,, re rela lati ting ng in the firs firstt plac placee to the pr pros osel elyt ytic ic ap appr proa oach ch an and d seco second ndly ly to the be beha havi viour ouris istt fr fram amew ewor ork k su surr-

With the decline of structuralism in the late 1970s the so soci cio-h o-hist istori orical cal con contex textt mov moved ed to the centr centree of  thinki thi nking ng about about tra transl nslati ation. on. We owe thi thiss new appro approach ach to the des descri cripti ptive ve mod model el of Gid Gideon eon Toury (1995), (1995), which was seen as a paradigm sh shift. ift. Centred on the product of translation, this model was dev develop eloped ed by lit literar erary y theor theorists ists from sma small ll countr cou ntrie iess whe where re the there re wa wass a lo lott of tra transl nslati ation on (such as Belgium, Israel and The Netherlands). Thesee foun Thes founders ders of tran transla slation tion stud studies ies (Hol (Holmes mes et al . 1978; Toury 1980) established the journal Target. The title evokes the translation’s target audience and refers to the cultural, and more still, li lite tera rary ry co cont ntex extt in wh whic ich h fore foreig ign n wo work rkss are are selected and integrated through translation. The particular – and at that time new – characteristic of the des descri cripti ptive ve mo model del is that that it und unders ersta tands nds translation as a behaviour, in other words, as a social act and, as such, governed by norms. It is derived deri ved from Ita Itamar mar Eve Even-Zo n-Zohar har’s ’s polysyst polysystem em theory (1978), a cybernetic model that extends the principle of self-regulating systems to the description and explanation of literary exchanges and, more broadly, intercultural transfer. The idea of  the polysystem also draws on Russian formalism. This heritage almost certainly explains why the de desc scri ript ptiv ivee ap appr proa oach ch to wh whic ich h it gave gave ri rise se stop stopss on the threshold of a sociology of translation since, while it is indeed concerned to identify the norms thatt gove tha govern rn the beh behav avio iour ur of li liter terar ary y tra transl nslato ators rs in any given society, this is not yet to shed light on the question of the translating subject nor on the

rounding the of communication. This said said,, at th the e pragmatics he heig ight ht of the st struc ructu tura rali list st pe peri riod od Nida’ Ni da’ss eth ethnoc nocult ultura urall conc concerns erns sta stand nd out as an exception. At this time the thinking on translation that was developing primarily in the field of  litera literary ry stud studies ies was sub subord ordina inated ted to wha whatt Der Derrid rida a (1985) (19 85) cal calls ls the ‘‘B ‘‘Babe abelia lian n mode model’’ l’’.. Inh Inheri erited ted fro from m German Germa n Roman Romanticis ticism m and revis revisited ited by Walte Walterr Benj Be njam amin in,, thi thiss mo mode dell wa wass rei reinf nfor orce ced d by the formalisms that developed in the early twentieth century. It is centred on the letter and literary aesthe aes thetic tics. s. Unl Unlike ike Nid Nida’ a’ss fun functi ctiona onalis listt mod model el whic wh ich, h, in th thee Lu Luth ther eran an spi spiri ritt of the Re Refor form, m, emphasises the users of translation, the Babelian

social status the translator, tounderlying reveal the economic andofpolitical forms ofnor logic interna inte rnation tional al lite literary rary exch exchang anges. es. Star Starting ting from the principle that the target literature interacts with the translated literature, the aim is to understand the fun functi ction on of the these se excha exchange ngess in a pa parti rticul cular ar literatu lite rature re and the resu resultin lting g text textual ual tran transfor sformamati tion ons. s. Th Thee stud study y of the the ro role le of tran transl slat atio ion n in shaping or restructuring a national literature or a literary genre a att a parti particular cular moment iin n its h history istory is based on the description of the writing practices at work in translation strategies. Ultimately the analogy between translation and social practice that characterises this model makes it possible to

model emphasises the singularity of the original work wo rk,, its its au auth thor or’s ’s cr crea eati tivi vity ty an and d th thee act act of  interpretation through which it is expressed.

analys anal ysee the the li lite tera rary ry dy dyna nami micc en enge gend nder ered ed or undergone by translation (Lambert and Lefevere 1993 1993). ). Tr Tran ansl slat atio ion n no norm rmss act act to reve reveal al this this

r UNESCO 2010.

 

Cultural perspectives on translation

dynamic. They can be seen in the regularity of  translation behaviour observed in large corpora translations are initially compared to the original works to which they correspond, then linked to works in the same genre produced at the same time in the same society. In total, if the norm is social, this is primarily because it is statistical. Al Alll th thee sa same me,, it wo woul uld d be inac inaccu cura rate te to re rega gard rd the descriptive model as purely textual. While it is true that the core of the analyses remains the texts rather rath er than agen agents ts and soci socioeco oeconomi nomicc cons constrai traints, nts, the search for preliminary norms that govern the selec sel ectio tion n of for forei eign gn tex texts ts (pr (pref eferr erred ed cou countr ntries ies,, languages, genres, authors and translators) is, as theirr desi thei designa gnation tion sugg suggests ests,, a vita vitall prec precondi ondition tion for understanding the value given to them in a particular state of a literature and a society. We should, however, recall that the descriptive model suspends susp ends val value ue judg judgemen ements, ts, star starting ting with thos thosee th that at es essen sentia tiali lise se the act act of tra transl nslati ation on and its result. Translation is now seen as encompassing everything that a society delegates to this use at a particular particul ar moment.

 

71

Although Althou gh the foc focus us on tra transl nslati ation on beh behav aviou iourr alrea already dy tou touche ched d on the eth ethos os of tra transl nslati ation, on, study of its human effects was still some way off. Thiss was lef Thi leftt to the pos postco tcolon lonia iall app approa roache ches, s, feminism and civil rights movements. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, translation studies which

investigated western representations of the otherness of indigenous peoples in the Americas and, most imp importa ortantly ntly,, Tej Tejaswi aswini ni Nir Niranja anjana na (19 (1992), 92), who examined the British colonisation of India and the role played in this process by translation. Al Alll three three are are the theor orist istss of pos postco tcolo lonia niali lism sm wh who o took too k tra transl nslat ation ion as the their ir obj objec ectt of stu study dy.. The The cultural turn that revolutionised translation studi dies es oc occu curr rred ed in the the wa wake ke of the the im imp por orta tant nt historical period of decolonisation. A little later, translat tran slation ion studies studies ado adopted pted the epis epistemo temologi logical cal and critical ideas of the anthropologists, who had earlier earl ier ques question tioned ed thei theirr pract practices ices and resu resulti lting ng ef effe fect cts. s. Ho How w can can the the me mean anin ings gs of Ot Othe hers rs be translated? The anthropologists were concerned to kn know ow wh what at ha happ ppen ened ed to the the tran transl slat atio ion n of  otherness when that otherness was little understood. Talal Asad, Clifford Geertz, James Clifford, George Marcus and Mary Pratt questioned what the German cultural theorist Doris Bachmann-Medick calls ‘‘the interpretative power of  western anthropology’’ and the representations it ha hass produc produced ed.. Thi Thiss ant anthro hropo polog logic ical al criti critique que undermined the authority of the anthropologist as translator (Bachmann-Medick 2006, p.34). Considering the development of the discipline since the 1950s, Bachmann-Medick shed useful light on the anthropological basis of the cu cult ltur ural al turn turn that that tran transl slat atio ion n stud studie iess wa wass to make a little later. The problem for anthropology is that the translation of other cultures is alwa lways bese besett by th thee da dang nger er of dis isto torrti tion on posed by interpreting indigenous concepts in a co conc ncep eptu tual al syst system em that that is fore foreig ign n to them them,, th then en re-e re-exp xpre ress ssin ing g the the mo mode dess of thou though ghtt of 

ha had d un unti tilland th then en be been en ca caug ught ht on on aqu ques esti tion onss of  language literature, set off new path. It is this that Susan Bassnett and Andre  ´´   Lefevere (1990) called ‘‘the cultural turn’’. Following the logic set in motion by the descriptive approach, the new cri critiq tique ue anc anchor hored ed tra transl nslati ations ons mor moree de deep eply ly in the the sour source ce an and d ta targ rget et cu cult ltur ures es by looking at the manipulations (Hermans 1985) involved in the transfer from one to the other. Here He re tr tran ansl slat atio ion n stud studie iess fe fell ll in st step ep wi with th it itss fellow expanding interdisciplinary field of cultural studies. The new critical current emerged in translation studies through the work of researchers such

other cultures in the categories and conceptual system of languages, a western audience (Bachmann-Medick 2006, p.35). The need to problematise the cultural context of translation had come from anthropology anthropology as far back a ass the work of Ma Mali lino nows wski ki.. In the the atte attent ntio ion n the the la latt tter er explicitly paid to context we can see the idea of  an interpretative practice that Ryle (1971) later called a ‘‘thick description’’, in other words, one that is contextualised. Following Ryle, Appiah (2004) proposed the concept of ‘‘thick translation’’, the most immediate example of which is provided by the anthology of translation theories in China edited by Martha Cheung (2006,

as Vice Vicente nte Rafa Rafael el (19 (1988), 88), who stud studied ied tra transla nsla-ti tion on pra practi ctices ces linke linked d to the evan evange geli lisat sation ion of  th thee Ph Phil ilip ippi pine nes, s, Er Eric ic Ch Chey eyfit fitzz (1 (19 991), 91), wh who o

2008) and, more precisely, by the strategy used to highlight the specificity of notions such as xin, da   and   ya, which are deeply rooted in Chinese

Translating cultures or the question of context

r UNESCO 2010.

 

72

 

Annie Brisset

The cultural turn of tran tr ansl slat ation ion:: to towa ward rds s an et ethi hics cs of difference

thought and can be approximately rendered as  fidelity,  intelligibility  and  elegance. To bring out the defi definin ning g fea featur tures es tha thatt dis distin tingui guish sh Chi Chines nesee concepts from their western ‘‘equivalents’’, the texts on translation are accompanied by other texts from the same period but diffe different rent genres, such as philosophy, in which the same concepts appear. Each concept is illustrated by a dozen contextualising texts, juxtaposed with the translatological text from the period in question. As the historical periods unfold, the Chinese concept, transcribed and graphically highlighted, is render ren dered ed in sev severa erall dif differ ferent ent way ways. s. Eac Each h new translation of the term is accompanied by an explanatory note to enable the reader to understand the development of the concept and how it differs from its western ‘‘equivalent’’. To explain how much translation’s cultural turn turn ow owes es to et ethn hnog ogra raph phy, y, Wo Wolf lf (200 (2002) 2) an and d BachmannBach mann-Medi Medick ck (200 (2006) 6) reca recall ll that the analogy between the two practices dates back to the 1950s. Lienhardt (1954) was almost certainly the first to use the term ‘‘translation’’ to describe the work of the ethnographer, while Evans-Pritchard (1957) launched a debate on the ‘‘linguistic tran tr ansl slat atab abil ilit ity’ y’’’ of cu cult ltur ures es wi with th hi hiss st stud udy y of the Nuer religion. Thirty or so years later the cri critiq tique ue of rep repres resent entati ation on cry crysta stalli llised sed aro around und the debate set in motion by Clifford and Marcus (1986) in their book  Writing culture. The poetics and and po poli liti tics cs of ethn ethnogr ograp aphy hy. In addition to questions quest ions of inter interpreta pretation, tion, the ethnog ethnographe rapherr faces fac es the pro proble blem m of tra transl nslati ating ng act action ionss and spoken words into a fixed written form. At the very very lea least, st, wri writin ting, g, say sayss Cli Cliffo fford, rd, imp implie liess the

Without leaving the field of language (in fact the de deve velo lopm pment ent of in infor forma matio tion n tech technol nolog ogie iess and and language engineering bolstered the field of translation tio n and and term termin inol olog ogy) y) or aban abando doni ning ng the text text,, translation studies introduced anthropos as an area for stu study dy,, payi paying ng new new atte attenti ntion on to the hu huma man, n, social and geopolitical dimensions of translation. At th thee sam same ti tim me it un unde dert rtoo ook k a crit critic ical al rereexamination of the history of translation practices, the re repr pres esen entat tatio ions ns resul resultin ting g fro from m the them, m, the pow power erss they the y serv servee or have have serv served ed,, the the hi hier erar arch chie iess they they const construc ruct, t, the ma marg rgin inal alis isat atio ions ns they they gi give ve ri rise se to and and the inequalities they consolidate. At the core of the ne new w cul cultur tural al que quest stio ionin ning g of tra trans nsla latio tion n la lay y the the asymmetry in the weight given to languages and cultures and in the relations of force and power be betwe tween en hu huma man n and and soc socia iall gr grou oups ps.. Th This is as asym ymme metr try y is based on an identical power relationship to that denounced by the ethnographers, noting that they had cla claime imed d the rig right ht to ‘‘t ‘‘tran ransla slate’’ te’’ the ritual rituals, s, myths and customs of the primitive world into the rati rationa onall sche schema mass of the ci civi vili lize zed d wor world ld,, to repre represe sent nt th this is wo worl rld d and and to sp spea eak k for for it it.. Th Thee cu cult ltur ural alis istt approach to translation was manifested in studies of different forms of manipulation and appropriation in his histori torical cal con contex texts ts whe where re tra transl nslati ation on has served in the conquest of peoples and the constitution of empires (Robinson 1997). The Americas, Afri Af rica ca and, and, mo most st im impo port rtan antl tly, y, In Indi dia a we were re the the prefe pre ferre rred d field fieldss of stu study dy (Ba (Bass ssnet nettt and and Triv Trivedi edi 1999; Dingwaney and Maier 1995; Ramakrishna

translation experience into textualisform. The ‘‘translationofturn’’ of anthropology linked to this realisation. All these ideas lead to the view that, while anthropological translation is itself a cultural practice, it is dependent on a particular epistemological and discursive environment (for example, orientalism or colonialism). Above all, it be beca came me ap appa pare rent nt that that th thee tr tran ansl slat atio ion n of  cultures is bound up with power relations that are asymmetrical by definition. Thus the crisis of  representation, which, alongside anthropology, had affected disciplines including literary theory and histo historiog riography raphy,, now exte extended nded to transla translation tion studies. It also triggered a symmetrical critique

1997;Reclaiming Simon and St-Pierre Venuti 1992). the right2000; to speech gives rise to translation practices that sometimes express resistance,, sometimes tance sometimes repar reparation. ation. For exam example, ple, they may ma y serv servee to co cons nstr truc uctt id iden enti titi ties es of a na nati tion onal al (Ban (Bandi dia a 2008 2008 for for Af Afri rica ca;; Fe Fento nton n 2003 2003 for for the the countries of the South Pacific; Tymoczko 1999 for Irelan Ire land) d) or soc socioio-sex sexual ual (Go (Godar dard d 199 1990; 0; Ha Harve rvey y 2003; Santaemilia 2005) nature. Against the background of an approach that focuses on the power rela re lati tion onss betwe between en la lang ngua uage gess and and cu cult ltur ures es,, the work wor k of La Lawre wrence nce Ven Venuti uti (19 (1998) 98) des deserv erves es men mentio tion, n, as it involves subverting the hegemony of English from the insid inside, e, using a str strategy ategy of ‘‘m ‘‘minorit inoritising ising’’. ’’.

of the eurocentric authority of translation, as reflected refle cted in the first post postcolo colonial nialist ist stud studies ies (Raf (Rafael ael,, Cheyfitz, Niranjana) on translation itself.

This initially involves selecting literary texts that ha have ve a mi mino norr stat status us in thei theirr so soci cial al co cont ntex extt of  origin ori gin,, the then n tra transl nslati ating ng the them m and ins insert erting ing int into o

r UNESCO 2010.

 

Cultural perspectives on translation

them soc them socioio-ect ectal al ele elemen ments ts or fra fragme gments nts of dis dis-courses from the margins of the receiving culture, in this case that of the USA. The aim is to des desta tabil bilise ise,, ‘‘ ‘‘det deterr errito itoria riali lise’ se’’’ (De (Dele leuze uze and Guattari) or ‘‘provincialise’’ (Homi Bhabha) readers ers by pre prese senti nting ng the them m wi with th a hyb hybri rid d langu languag agee inte intend nded ed to dece decent ntre re th thei eirr id iden enti tity ty.. Thes Thesee fe few w exam exampl ples es sh show ow that that th thee anth anthro ropo polo logi gica call and and postcolonialist critique has led to an interventionist, not to say militant conception of translation (Gentzler and Tymoczko 2008, Munday 2008). The eth ethics ics of tra transl nslato ators rs and tra transl nslati ation on has never been so present in critical commentaries on the the subv subver ersi sive ve pr prac acti tice cess of hy hybr brid idis isin ing g identities. The focus on ethics reveals the role played by the translating subject. In this debate th thee tran transl slat ator or is ho howe weve verr un unde ders rsto tood od as an indiv ind ividu idual al sub subjec jectt who can cho choose ose to esc escape ape instit ins tituti utiona onall and dis discur cursiv sivee con constr strain aints. ts. The ‘‘ethics of difference’’ (Venuti 1998) arising out of the recognition of otherness was based on a binary bina ry and high highly ly load loaded ed opposi opposition tion betwe between en tr tran ansl slat atio ion n pr prac acti tice ces: s: sour source ce/t /tar arge gett-ba base sed, d, foreignising/domesticating, foreignising /domesticating,domination/resi domination/resistance, stance, etc. Questions were asked about the position of  transl tra nslato ators rs in the (po (polit litic ical, al, ide ideolo ologi gical cal,, mor moral al,, etc etc.) .) place from which they interpreted the otherness of  the foreign text. Subversive practices such as those  justt men  jus mentio tioned ned,, inv involv olving ing,, for exa exampl mple, e, def defami amilia liarrisation or polyphony, were part of the postcolonialis al istt thin thinki king ng that that ha had d pr prod oduc uced ed th this is et ethi hics cs of  difference for which translating subjects were said to be al alon onee re resp spon onsi sibl ble, e, in inde depe pend nden entl tly y of th thee politica poli tical, l, econ economic omic,, insti institutio tutional nal and disc discursi ursive ve circum cir cumsta stance ncess wei weighi ghing ng dow down n on the them. m. Dis Discus cussio sion n

 

73

a plu plural rality ity of agent agentss and sta state te or comm commerc ercia iall bodie bod iess – for me medi diati ation on,, fundi funding, ng, pub publi lishi shing, ng, promotion, marketing – which intervene in the circuits of production and distribution for translated books. Postcolonial culturalism was taken up by sociology (Simeoni (Simeoni 200 2002). 2). This trend can be seen see n in the sud sudden den pro proli lifer ferati ation on of stu studi dies es dra drawin wing g on ethnohistory, socioeconomics and the sociology of communication or of institutions. These st stud udie iess seek seek to ch chan ange ge the the vi visi sion on of or ordi dina nary ry criticism’’ by crossing the boundaries between the disciplines. In relation to literature and literary translation, the aim was to dissolve the antinomy . . . between internal criticism, which findss the main mean find meaning ing of tex texts ts onl only y wit within hin the tex texts ts th them emse selv lves es,, and and exte extern rnal al crit critic icis ism, m, wh whic ich h desc descri ribe bess the histo historica ricall condit conditions ions in which texts were produ produced, ced, but is alwa always ys denou denounced nced by liter literary ary critics as incap incapable able of recogn recognisi ising ng the their ir litera literary ry qua qualit lities ies and singul singular arity ity.. (Casanova 1999, p.15)

The new sociological thinking approaches translation and literature through the overall context in which they occur (currents of ideas, political movements move ments,, world lite literatur rature, e, comm commerci ercial al circu cuit its, s, publ publis ishi hing ng me mech chan anis isms ms an and d so on on), ), enabling them to be understood in a new way. Monographs and collective works have proliferated, with case studies in this vein from a wide rang rangee of hi hist stor oric ical al an and, d, most most im impo port rtan antl tly, y, geogra geo graphi phical cal (wo (world rld,, reg region ional al and nat nation ional al)) perspectives. The sociological orientation is also apparent in the journals. In France two consecuti sec utive ve iss issues ues of Ac Acte tess de la re rech cher erch chee en sc scie ienc nces es

The new context of globalisation and the liberalisati sation on of cu culltu tura rall exch cha ang ngee by th thee GAT ATT T agreements of 1986 (Uruguay Round) intensified

sociales   (a (a jo jour urna nal l foun fo unde ded by Bo Bour urdi dieu eu)) appeared in 2002, the first ond translation and inte intern rnat atio iona nall ex exch chan ange ge,, the the seco second nd on the the international circulation of ideas. In 2005, the British journal The translator publi published shed a specia speciall issue on Bourdieu and the sociology of translatin ing g an and d in inte terp rpre reti ting ng wh whil ile, e, in 2007 2007,,   Social  semiotics published a special issue on translation and conflict. conflict. The follo following wing yea yearr saw the creat creation ion of the journal  Translation studies, mainly focusing on the sociology of translation. The same interest in the sociological aspects of translation ca can n be seen seen to vary varyin ing g de degr gree eess in gr grou oups ps wo work rkin ing g on interculturality (Hermans 2002, 2006; Kenny

the flow of translation, simultaneously expanding the fiel field d of inv invest estiga igatio tion n for tra transl nslati ation on stu studie dies. s. It beca became me appa apparen rentt tha thatt tra transl nslati ation on wa wass sub subjec jectt to

2008; Wolf and Fukari 2007) or, more diffusely, in journals journals on sociology sociology,, pragmatic pragmatics, s, liter literary ary critic cri ticism ism and phi philos losoph ophy, y, not for forget gettin ting g the

of the eth ethics ics of tra transl nslato ators rs and tra transl nslati ation on thu thuss remained speculative as long as these constraints were not systematically studied. This would be the function of the ‘‘sociological turn’’ which began during the 1990s.

Sociological approaches to translation

r UNESCO 2010.

 

74

 

Annie Brisset

many do many doct ctor oral al thes theses es ex expl plor orin ing g th thee flow flow of  translation and its function in particular periods and societies. Europe has returned to the foreground with a marked interest in the eastern Europe (Popa 2004; Skibin ´ska 2006). Translati Tran slation’s on’s socio sociologi logical cal turn draws exte extennsive sively ly on the the wo work rk of Bo Bour urdi dieu eu.. Am Amon ong g th thee seminal studies of this current, Pascale CasanoLa a re publique ´  mondiale des va’s va’s (19 (1999 99,, p.1 p.15) 5)   L lettres   stand standss ou outt for for th thee sc scal alee of it itss subj subjec ect, t, whic wh ich h is wo worl rld d lite litera ratu ture re.. Th This is pr prov oves es to be unequa une quall in nat nature ure and hen hence ce ‘‘s ‘‘subj ubject ect to in invis visibl iblee viole vi olence nce’’. ’’. Tra Transl nslati ation on app appear earss as one of the dominant phenomena acting on the international market in literature. It is described as the ‘‘great conse consecr crati ating ng autho authori rity ty . . . the majo majorr issue issue and weapon in the univers universal al rivalry between players, a specific form of struggle within the international literary space’’ due to the unequal credit given to the languages and the literatures dependent on th them em (p (pp. p.18 188– 8–18 189) 9).. In re rela lati tion on to lang langua uage gess themselves, study of the flow of translation leads   ´´ to the same observa observation tion (Calvet and Ose Oseˆˆ ki-Depre 2002; Heilbron 1999). Globalisation increases the volume of translation, but paradoxically hinders cultu cultura rall div diver ersit sity y due to the hi hiera erarch rchy y of lanlanguages to which attention is paid. According to the stu study dy for UN UNES ESCO’ CO’ss globa globall rep report ort on cul cultur tural al dive divers rsit ity y (2 (200 009) 9),, 75 pe perr cent cent of all all bo book okss re regi gist ster ered ed in the Index translationum (1979–2007) have been transla tran slated ted from only thre threee lang languag uages es (Eng (English lish,, Fren Fr ench ch an and d Ge Germ rman an). ). As a sour source ce lang langua uage ge Engl En glis ish h al alone one cov covers ers 55 pe perr cen centt of tra transl nslat ated ed books across all genres. Another revealing statistic in relation to the asymmetry of exchanges is

to int intern ernati ationa onall tra transa nsacti ctions ons,, which which ten tends ds to reduce the translated work to a product like any other, oth er, with no con concer cern n for the asy asymme mmetry try of  languages and the hierarchisation of symbolic goods. Sociology has been brought in to explore th thee ex exte tern rnal al cond condit itio ions ns of pr prod oduc ucti tion on an and d circulation of translations and their function in the cultural field of which they are a part. It re reve veal alss the the role role of the the agen agents ts wh who o act act thro throug ugho hout ut the process of their production and distribution, the pla places ces in whi which ch the they y ope operat ratee (pu (publi blishi shing ng houses hou ses,, fundin funding g bod bodies ies,, boo book k fai fairs, rs, cul cultur tural al broadcasts, literary prizes and so on) and, above all, the power relations and agendas underlying exchan exc hanges ges.. It sho shows ws tha thatt the glo global balise ised d spa space ce works wor ks acc accord ording ing to dif differ ferent ent and som someti etimes mes co comp mpet etin ing g ki kind ndss of lo logi gic, c, no nota tabl bly y in inte tern rnal al political interests and relationships between the countr cou ntries ies inv involv olved, ed, whi which ch det determ ermine ine the way that translations are disseminated. The situations analysed from this point of  view vary over time and space. We can cite as an ex exam ampl plee the the role role of tran transl slat atio ions ns co comb mbin inin ing g Greek and Latin classics with founding myths in the Nahuatl language in the emergence of the Mexica Mex ican n ide identi ntity ty und under er col coloni onisat sation ion (Payas (Payas 2005) or, in the early nineteenth century, the role of the press in the adaptation and diffusion in Spanish of ideas imported from France and the USA USA,, whi which ch fos foster tered ed the La Latin tin Ame Americ rican an revolutionary movements (Bastin 2004). In our contem con tempor porary ary soc societ ieties ies tra transl nslati ation on ser serves ves a range of aims. For example, the translation of  fo fore reig ign n ar arti ticl cles es acts acts to regu regula late te acce access ss to info inform rma ati tion on in th thee Ar Ara abi bicc pr pres esss of som some

 Index th that some some 800 80016la lang ngua uage gess id iden enti tifie fied d in th the 20at– of including European languages – eare the, source of 96 per cent of translated books. The same same im imba bala lance nce can be see seen n in rel relati ation on to the target languages: half of the books identified were trans tra nsla lated ted int into o onl only y five lang langua uages ges (G (Germ erman an,, Spanish, French, English and Japanese). Sociological approaches to translation generally consider large sets of phenomena. On the onee ha on hand nd,, th they ey ar aree se seek ekin ing g to br brea eak k with with a critical approach confined to the relationships between an original text and its translation seen in iso isolat lation ion,, wit withou houtt con consid sideri ering ng the ins instit tituutional conditions (apparatus, agents, discourse)

countr cou ntries iesip.whe where reothe the there is ampl res restri tricti ve the and activ acbtle tive e cens ce nsor orsh ship . An Anot herre r exam ex ple ective is th e subt su le functi fun ction on of pol politi itical cal oppos oppositi ition on in the ris risee of  translations into Farsi of works celebrating the gr gran ande deur ur of an anci cien entt Pe Pers rsia ia,, wh whic ich h act act as a counte cou nterwe rweigh ightt to the Isl Islam amic ic identi identity ty of Ira Iran. n. Alongside the role of translation in the creation and renewal of a literature, culture or national identity, ident ity, many sociolog sociological ical studi studies es reve reveal al that the status of translators and translation varies from one cultural space or historical moment to the next. They highlight both the agonic conditi tion onss stru struct ctur urin ing g cu cult ltur ural al fie field ldss or affe affect ctin ing g societ soc ieties ies and the com comple plexit xity y of the net networ works ks

that shed that shed th thee mo most st ligh lightt on th thee na natu ture re an and d functi fun ction on of the these se rel relati ations onship hips. s. On the oth other er hand, they differ from the economic approach

underlying the production of translations and their distribution on a national or international scale. Translation is shown to be a very sensitive

r UNESCO 2010.

 

Cultural perspectives on translation

index of current or past situations of conflict. Alongside economic issues (such as the presence in a publisher’s catalogue of Nobel prizewinners or successful authors) these studies reveal how fa farr tran transl slat atio ion n acti activi viti ties es ar aree de dete term rmin ined ed by politica poli ticall and ideo ideologi logical cal condi conditions. tions. This can be seen in the case of the countries of central and eastern Europe before and during the communist period, but we could also mention the very different case of several Arab countries, such as Egypt Eg ypt or Le Leban banon, on, in whi which ch the there re hav havee bee been n translatio trans lation n prog programm rammes es run by forei foreign gn countries concerned to consolidate their position in the aftermath of decolonisation. One sociological current, as yet representing a minority in translatology, draws on Bruno Latou La tour’s r’s the theory ory of the act actoror-net networ work. k. Unl Unlike ike Bourdi Bou rdieu, eu, who ana analys lyses es soc socia iall pra practi ctices ces fro from m the poin po intt of view view of agen agents ts an and d th thei eirr po posi siti tion onss with within in a field, Latour examines the modes of (human and non-human) interaction that enter into the produc pro ductio tion n of obj object ectss cir circul culati ating ng in soc societ iety. y. Latou La tourr ado adopts pts an eth ethnog nograp raphic hic app approa roach ch to analyse the production of scientific knowledge (1989) and the development of law (2002). With its its em emph phas asis is on in inte tera ract ctio ion, n, acto actorr-ne netw twor ork k th theo eory ry ma make kess it po poss ssib ible le to st stud udy y th thee agen agents ts activ activee in pro produc ductio tion n pro proces cesses ses fro from m an ang angle le that is different from that of Bourdieu. Transposed to the domain of translation studies, the method of participatory observation enables the direct monitoring of, for example, a chain of  indiv ind ividu idual al and col colle lecti ctive ve dec decisi isions ons ma made de by a publishing house in relation to the production of  a translation and its arrival on the book market (Buz (B uzel elin in respo 2005 2005). ). Th This is for soci sociol olog ogic ical alonap appr proa oach ch modifies modi fies responsibi nsibility lity trans translati lation choic choices, es, whic wh ich h we were re un unti till re rece cent ntly ly at attr trib ibut uted ed to th thee translator. It obliges us to reframe the debate on the ethics of translation.

 

75

on the the in inte terp rpre reta tati tion on of me mean anin ings gs an and d the the relationship between the original and its translation and, on the other, the subjectivist, relativist approach introduced by postcolonialist thought derived from anthropology, which concentrates on the modes of appropriation of texts, their permeability and hybridisation. To escape this alternative, say the sociologists, we must abandon the intertextual problematics of a decontextualis tua lised ed rel relati ations onship hip bet betwee ween n sou source rce tex textt and target text (Sapiro 2007). Seen in this light the argument has validity, but it has a blind spot, since it fails to recognise the intense and fertile research that, for a good quarter century now, has incorporated human and social factors into the stu study dy of tra transl nslati ations ons.. Moreov Moreover er the con con-textualis textu alisatio ation n propos proposed ed by socio sociology logy is too often confined confin ed to appa apparatus ratus and their agents (literar (literary y movements move ments and insti institutio tutions, ns, publi publishing shing,, trade and so on). Pierre Lassave asks

Is there no place for a sociology of translation that is not only a sociography of translators . . . or a mere functional annex of the theory of cultural fields and the inequality of  their exchanges? (2006, p. 137)

Li Limi mitin ting g att attent ention ion to agent agentss and in insti stitut tutio ions ns ten tends ds to mean leaving out any analysis of the discursive context, in other words the interdiscourse at work in the translated texts. Translation, rooted in the logos  in whatever medium, surely cannot confine itself to the external kinds of logic that influence cultural exchanges, those of publishing, trade or politics, without without concernin concerning g itself with the logic of  discourse. In other words, the analysis of transla-

Sociological Sociologi cal studi studies es gene generall rally y confin confinee thems themselve elvess to the con condit dition ionss tha thatt gov govern ern the pro produc ductio tion n and cir circul culati ation on of tra transl nslati ations ons,, lea leavi ving ng asi aside de discursive components, although these are sub ject to the same conditions. This is done in the

tion (and retransl retranslation) ation) phenomena surely cannot do withou wit hout t a soc socio io criti critique que tha thatt con consi sider ders s the relat rel ation ionshi ships ps bet betwee ween n tra transl nslati ation on and the sur sur-rounding social discourse. We shou should ld rec recal alll that that the the term term ‘‘ ‘‘so soci cioocritique’’ was devised in 1971 by Claude Duchet  Litte´ ´ rature rature, in the first issue of the French journal  Litte which also introduced the principles of this sociohistorical approach to texts. Coming out of the   ´´ cs an work wo rk of Lu Luka ka and d then then Go Gold ldma mann nn,, it deve develo lope ped d into in to a so soci cial al sema semant ntic icss of text textss ba base sed d on the the phil ph ilos osop ophy hy of the the Fr Fran ankf kfur urtt Scho School ol and and the the dialogism of Bakhtin, later updated in the notion of intertex intertextua tuality lity and exte extende nded d more widely to

name of a bi name bipo pola larr an and d some somewh what at re redu duct ctiv ivee re repr pres esen enta tati tion on of tr tran ansl slat atio ion n cr crit itic icis ism: m: on the one part, the objectivist approach centred

that of interdiscourse. In the 1980s work on social discourse around Marc Angenot (1989) did much to rel release ease soci socio-cr o-critic itical al stud studies ies (ini (initia tially lly orie orientat ntated ed

Tran ransla slatio tion n as soc social ial discou discourse rse

r UNESCO 2010.

 

76

 

Annie Brisset

towards genetic criticism) from the concentration on the the text textua uall fo forr wh whic ich h soci sociol olog ogy y to toda day y so criticises translation studies. The socio-discursive cu curr rren entt co cons nsid ider erss th thee text text – be it lite litera rary ry,, sc scie ient ntifi ific, c, legal leg al,, journ journal alis istic tic,, pol politi itica call or oth other er – in rel relati ation on to the rest of the social discourse, comparing it to otherr disc othe discursi ursive ve forma formation tionss (Fou (Foucau cault) lt) that are pr prod oduc uced ed an and d circ circul ulat atee in th thee same same st stat atee of a society. This comparison is based on two postulate lates: s: the firs firstt is a gener general al int intera eracti ction on bet betwee ween n di disco scours urses es,, the sec second ond a heg hegem emony ony gove governi rning ng what can be opined, said or written in a given society at a particular point in its history. The aim of this socio-critical movement is to identify the ideological configurations or  ideolo gemes  gem es   which, which, like like rhi rhizo zomes mes,, link link and uni unite te the very different discourses circulating in society in equally equa lly recu recurren rrentt and soci sociall ally y regu regulate lated d form formss (obje (ob jects cts of di disco scours urse, e, nar narra rativ tives, es, argu argumen ments, ts, concepts conc epts,, mod models els and para paradig digms). ms). Tra Transla nslation tion enter enterss thi thiss anal analyt ytica icall fra frame mewor work k as di disco scours ursee (Brisset 1996). Hence, the importance of comparing texts that have been translated or retranslated  – whet whether her as a corp corpus us or indi individ viduall ually y – with the discourse of the target society and above all with the disc discours oursee pred predomin ominatin ating g in an inst institut itutiona ionall subset (for example literature, law or science) in order ord er to un uncov cover er the these se tra transv nsvers ersee el eleme ements nts of  discourse, be they aesthetic, doxological (related to public opinion), axiological or ideological. An ex exce cell llen entt ex exam ampl plee is pr prov ovid ided ed by th thee transl tra nslati ations ons of Nie Nietzs tzsche che and the their ir fun functi ction on in structuring philosophical and political thought in the USA (Giroux 2003). To reveal the discursive corres cor respond pondenc ences es lin linkin king g a tra transl nslati ation on or ret retran ransla sla--

model for dev model develop eloping ing a soci socio-cr o-critic itical al app approach roach that will free the study of translations from the agon agonic ic po posi siti tion on in wh whic ich h the the so soci ciol olog ogy y of do domi mina na-ti tion on seem seemss to ho hold ld it it.. Deri Derive ved d from from Ta Talc lcot ottt Parso Pa rsons’ ns’ the theor ory y of soc socia iall sy syste stems ms and and Geo George rge Spen Sp ence cerr Br Brow own’ n’ss lo logi gicc of di dist stin inct ctio ion n (l (law aw of  form) for m),, Lu Luhma hmann’ nn’ss mod model el seeks seeks to und under ersta stand nd the complexity of human institutions. It borrows the principle of  autopoiesis   or self-repr self-reproduction oduction from Matu Maturan rana a and Varel Varela’s a’s cogniti cognitive ve biol biology ogy (Luhmann 1986). Every social system (literature, sc sciien ence ce,, la law, w, econ econom omiics, cs, me medi dia a an and d so on on)) functions like a cell, whose survival and evolution depend on its selective interaction with a complex environment. Like a cell, every social system is a syst system em of me mean anin ing, g, func functi tion onal ally ly clos closed ed bu butt structurally open to its environment, with which it constant constantly ly inte interact ractss throu through gh rec recursi ursive ve retr retrooaction loops. Agents are assumed, but are absent fr from om the the mo mode dell on the the pr prin inci cipl plee that that ‘‘ ‘‘on only ly communication communicates’’. Here the question is not so much whether translation constitutes a system of communication in in itsel itself, f, but a mat matter ter of o observ bserving, ing, from tthis his heuristic position, the unnoticed socio-semantic dimensions of translation in the communication that is its very essence. Notably, how does it contribute contr ibute to the selfself-repro reproducti duction on and trans trans-formation of any social system that draws on it at a given moment in its history and in what form and for what use? Of the studies explicitly based on this model we can cite that of Sergey Tyul Ty ulen enev ev (200 (2009) 9) on the the pl plac acee gi give ven n to tran transl slat atio ion n by Peter the Great and then Catherine the Great in modernising Russia in the eighteenth century.

tion other intellectual or public productionstoofallitsthe environment, including those of the (philosophical, literary, legal etc.) social system in whic wh ich h it appe appear ars, s, is to hi high ghli ligh ghtt the ne nece cess ssar ary y ‘‘pe ‘‘perrspective spect ive of histor historical ical simul simultanei taneity’’ ty’’ (Gumb (Gumbrecht recht 1997, p.427) that permits its internal logic to be understood. under stood. This   sociogrammatical   (Duchet (Duchet)) or 1 ideosemic (Cro (Cross 200 2003) 3) cont context extual ualisa isatio tion n tie tiess in with translatology’s current interest in pragmatics and an d the the re revi viva vall of na narr rrat atol olog ogy y in th thee An Angl glooAmer Am eric ican an wo worl rld, d, as sh show own n by Mo Mona na Ba Bake ker’ r’ss st stud udy y (2006) on the circulation of narratives and their reinforcement, reframing or subversion by translators and interpreters (here in the context of war

Oth Other er stu studie s ind indire irectl ctly y rel relate ated d to of thesemiotic mod model el include thedies analysis of the reception and str struct uctura urali list st theori theories es in Turkis Turkish h lit litera erary ry criticism, or that of the importation of feminist th theo eori ries es to the the US USA A in the the 1960 1960ss (Sus (Susam am-Sarajeva Sara jeva 2005). Thes Thesee studi studies es rema remain in isola isolated ted (Herma (He rmans ns 2007) 2007);; but the then, n, Luh Luhman mann’s n’s man many y complex studies have been comparatively little translated and distributed.

or conflic conflict). t). Nikl Ni klas as Lu Luhm hman ann’ n’ss (198 (1984) 4) soci sociol olog ogy y of  communication certainly offers the most fertile

r UNESCO 2010.

Translation’s new cultural objects The soc sociol iology ogy of tra transl nslati ation on tha thatt dom domina inates tes today focuses largely on a sociography of the

 

Cultural perspectives on translation

 

77

agents of translation and their fields of operation. It proclaims loud and clear that we must turn away from the text, which was formerly the object of all attention. Clearly this perspective sheds new and necessary light. But it is slightly out of phase with current thinking, which has already broadened to include intralinguistic and inte inters rsem emio ioti ticc form formss of tr tran ansl slat atio ion n – am amon ong g which we must include those introduced by the new med media ia and tec techno hnolog logica icall for format matss – and and,, mostt imp mos import ortant antly, ly, hig highli hlight ghting ing the spa space ce of the these se pr prac acti tice cess an and d th thee ma many ny is issu sues es ar aris isin ing g ou outt of  them. If we observe the wide range of practices with with wh whic ich h tran transl slat atio ion n st stud udie iess is co conc ncer erne ned d toda to day, y, it wo woul uld d se seem em th that at th thee ac accu cusa sati tion onss levelled against it by sociography, itself moreover largely fixated on literature (with a timid incursion into the social sciences), are something of an optical illusion. While multimedia technologies have undermined the notion of ‘‘text’’, we shou should ld re reca call ll that that th thee an anal alys ysis is of te text xtua uali lity ty,, or what is today called discourse, has been largely absent from thinking on non-literary translation practices. Yet these are far greater in volume, and are continually expanding as a result of the globalisation of exchanges and information and communications technologies. Moreover, the many conflicts and ensuing migrations are at least as important as globalisation in increasing the diversification of forms of  interl int erling inguis uistic tic and int interc ercult ultura urall med mediat iation ion,, which break down the traditional definition of  tr tran ansl slat atio ion n or at leas leastt ca caus usee it to shif shiftt (T (Tym ymoc oczk zko o 2006). These require new theorisations and new teaching focusing as much on social skills ( savoir-

pa parod rodies ies,, di discu scursi rsive ve sub subve versi rsion on of tra tradi ditio tiona nall genres such as the panegyric and epic narrative) and and int inters ersem emio iotic tic (us (usee of aud audiov iovis isua ual, l, music musical al and and artis artistic tic for forms ms). ). Wit Withou houtt und undere erest stima imatin ting g the histor his torica icall con contex text, t, it rem remai ains ns the case case tha thatt the internal inte rnal dyna dynamic micss of the post postcol colony ony (Mbem (Mbembe be 2001) are better suited to the study of translation practi pra ctice cess see seekin king g to sub subver vertt the dis discou cours rses es of  authority, power and repression (Bandia 2008). More generally, translation studies is payin ing g ne new w atte attent ntio ion n to pu publ blic ic la lang ngua uage ge (Pra (Pratt tt 2002 2002,, 2003), contact zones (Apter 2005) and bilingual aest aesthe heti tics cs (Som (Somme merr 2004 2004)) thro throug ugh h theo theori ries es whos wh osee effe effect ct is to gi give ve tran transl slat atio ion n a cl clea eare rerr position among cultural practices. The diverse et ethn hnoo-la land ndsc scap apee of wo worl rld d ci citi ties es in invi vite tess an examination of the languag languagee transactions under under-lying the everyday functioning of citizens, which belie ideological discourses of nation or do not necessarily reflect the state’s policies on identity and nationalism (Simon 2006). There are spaces within wit hin the these se cos cosmop mopoli olitan tan cit cities ies whe where re lin lingui guisti stic, c, et ethn hnic ic,, reli religi giou ouss an and d othe otherr di diff ffer eren ence cess ar aree negotiated. Simon observes that thinking about cosmopolitanism, increasingly a feature of our times, tim es, nec necess essari arily ly inv involv olves es the stu study dy of the these se places of cohabitation and exchange, from the most mo st ha harm rmon onio ious us to the the leas least. t. Mo More reov over er,, in approaching the cosmopolitanism of the great metropolises from the point of view of translation rather than multilingualism, we are obliged to observe the dynamics of interactions between groups and their various effects. Similarly, the role of translators and interpreters is seen in the geopolitical context and,

eTo   ˆ ˆ tre treday’s savoir-faire ) as onnslati tec teation chn hnic al ca capa paci ties ese (in ). Today ’s tra transl onical sch schol olars arsciti are ar inter teres ested ted in forms of language transaction whose importance is much wider than that usually associated with translation. Let us take, for example, the critique of postmodern productions in African countries that have undergone colonisation. Today domination is played played out between gover governing ning elites and populations, so that dichotomies such as coloniser/col ser/ colonis onised, ed, cen centre/p tre/perip eriphery, hery, west west/res /rest, t, etc. havee beco hav become me inad inadequa equate. te. Resi Resistan stance ce stra strategi tegies es now seek to counter internal powers. Products of  an auth authori oritari tarian, an, repr repressi essive ve env environ ironment ment,, they are embodied embo died in proc processe essess of tran transla slation tion which, to

mo most stiatio im impo port rtan antl y, in thfro e m soci social al spac sp ace e als wh wher ere e media med tion n tak takes estly, pla place, ce,the from the hos hospit pitals of  diasporic dias poric metr metropoli opolises, ses, where trans translati lation on and interpretation are sometimes a civil right, to the paralegal bodies that grant refugee status, not forgetting military units where interpreters are involv inv olved ed in the ‘‘i ‘‘inte nterro rroga gatio tion’’ n’’ of pri prison soners ers (Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib), the post- apartheid  tribunals and those set up to hear war crimes cases cas es (Rw (Rwand anda, a, exex-Yug Yugosl oslav avia, ia, Cam Cambod bodia) ia).. These The se tra transl nslati ation on pra practi ctices ces are the obj object ect of  socio-discursive analyses (the intermediation of  refugee stories, the truths constructed by these narratives differently interpreted by the western

return ret urn to Ja Jakob kobson son’s ’s typ typol ology ogy,, mov movee fro from m the interlinguis interlin guistic tic mode (or tran transla slation tion prop proper) er) to the intralinguistic (heteroglossic devices, linguistic

authorities and so on). Each case study shows the ina inadeq dequac uacy y of the li lingu nguist istic ic and cul cultur tural al frameworks in which the relationship between

r UNESCO 2010.

 

78

 

translation and otherness is usually placed. The spatialised study of translation radically leads to questions of an ethical, legal and political nature (Inghilleri 2003).

Annie Brisset

The overview provided above shows the evoluti tion on of th thee sta statu tuss of cu culltu ture re in st stud udiies on transl tra nslati ation on sin since ce the these se began began to coa coales lesce ce int into o an independent discipline. Initially culture was se seen en as an ob obst stac acle le to the the tr tran ansf sfer er of th thee me mean anin ing g to be ex expr pres esse sed. d. Ne Neve verr de defin fined ed,, it ap appe pear ared ed implicitly as a monolithic whole, coextensive with the use of a language that was assumed to reflect the beliefs, world view and life style of the place where it was spoken. Translation was understood in a cont contex extt at on once ce no nomi mina nali list st and and un univ iver ersa sali list st:: th thee principle of ‘‘equivalence in difference’’ permitted the the pe perm rmut utat atiion of si sig gns wh whiile its pr priimar ary y post po stul ulat atee wa wass the the eq equa uali lity ty of lang langua uage gess an and d cult cultur ures es.. Di Did d this this me mean an any any co comp mpar aris ison on of cu cult ltur ures es was cir circum cumscr scribe ibed d wit within hin the sym symbol bolic ic dom domain ain and purely verbal? Not really, since the otherness that resists translation was an ‘‘exotic’’ otherness, nota no tabl bly y in the the Bi Bibl blic ical al do doma main in,, an im impo port rtan antt foundation for the emerging translation studies. The superiority of the western ‘‘message’’ was implicit here. If translation was part of a civi civili lizi zing ng mi miss ssio ion, n, it wa wass at th thee pr pric icee of th thee acculturation of the translation users, but sometimes also a two-way acculturation. With poststructural struc turalism ism and the postc postcoloni olonialis alistt criti critique, que,

continuation continua tion in an age agent-c nt-centr entred ed soci sociolog ology y setti setting ng up an opposition between dominated and dominant. nan t. The dur durab abil ility ity of thi thiss dua duali list st schem schema a in transl tra nslati ation on cri critic ticis ism m is dou doubtl btless ess rela related ted to the fact fact that the western tradition was already organised in terms of the double paradigm of source and targe tar get, t, con contra trasti sting ng res respec pectt for the le lette tterr wit with h practices that are adaptive and ethnocentric – in other words, condemnable. Thiss sai Thi said, d, sociol sociology ogy has rep replac laced ed an oft often en over-speculative discourse with models providing concrete data on the intercultural transactions of  transl tra nslati ation, on, not notabl ably y on the age agents nts and app appara aratus tus at the origin of imbalances that sociology would also quantify. Moreover, the sociological current has transf tra nsform ormed ed the tra transl nslati ation on stu studie dies’ s’ ide idea a of cul cultur ture. e. Instead of a homogeneous whole coextensive with a par partic ticula ularr lan langua guage, ge, cul cultur turee was hen hencef cefort orth h repres rep resent ented ed as a plu plural ral ent entity ity,, whose whose end endles lessly sly interacting components are themselves subject to in inte tere rest stss and and po powe werr rela relati tion ons. s. The The no noti tion on of  cu cult ltur uree has has been been repl replac aced ed by that that of so soci ciet ety y as translation practices are now considered closer to home, either in terms of emancipation related to identity (translation being mobilised to promote repressed identities) or from the perspective of the citize citizen n (tra (transl nslati ation on as a trigg trigger er of interc intercult ultura urall rapprochement, interethnic reconciliation and so on.) within a society. Again thanks to sociology, and and mo more re pr prec ecis isel ely y so soci cial al sy syst stem em theo theory ry,, the communication element or materiality of translati tion on itse itself lf ha hass been been rece recent ntly ly reas reasse sert rted ed.. At the the sa same me ti tim me the the du dubi biou ouss op oppo posi siti tio on of cent centrre and periphery, the latter designating a geographically distant dista nt and, crucia crucially, lly, mino minoritis ritised ed other space space,, was

the linguistic approach culture gave to a humanist approach thattodestroyed the way egalitarian beliefs of the preceding period: it became appare app arent nt tha thatt tra transl nslati ation on is a fidu fiduci ciary ary ope operat ration ion carrying with it a danger of confiscation and instrumentalisation, particularly if, as is often the the ca case se,, it ta take kess pl plac acee be betw twee een n pa part rtne ners rs in an asy asymm mmetr etrica icall rel relati ations onship hip.. Whi While le all lan lan-guages may have the same capacity to express reality, they do not carry the same weight on the world stage, and the same is true of cultures. Transl Tra nslati ation on pra practi ctices ces wer weree rere-exa examin mined ed in a poli po liti tica call an and d ax axio iolo logi gica call fr fram amew ewor ork k th that at revealed the relations of power and domination

strongly strong ly challeng chal lenged. Thecomponent intern internation ationalis alisation ationnew of  translation was aed. major of this expl explor orat atio ion. n. Ba Base sed d un unti till rece recent ntly ly on en enti tire rely ly eurocentric data, western conceptions of translation are now being tested against theories developed in other cultures. In a reciprocal way, there has been a recognition of the need to move away from a tendency to borrow models made in the west we st an and d su supe peri rimp mpos osee them them on to on one’ e’ss ow own n history, traditions and practices (Liu 2008). The increa inc reasin sing g num number ber of int interc ercont ontine inenta ntall res resea earch rch conference confe rencess on trans translati lation on and inter intercultu culturali rality, ty, monogr mon ograph aphs, s, ant anthol hologi ogies es and jou journa rnall iss issues ues on non-we non -weste stern rn tra tradit dition ions, s, partic particula ularly rly fro from m Asi Asia a

between translated and translating cultures. The table of values according to which good translati tion onss we were re se sepa para rate ted d fr from om ba bad d ha hass fo foun und d a na natu tura rall

(Cheung 2009; Hung and Wakabashi 2005; Luo and and He 2009 2009), ), offe offerr tang tangib ible le si sign gnss of this this new new cultural expansion of translatology.

Versions of culture in translation studies

r UNESCO 2010.

 

Cultural perspectives on translation

 

79

Kantorowicz (1984) in the field of  law. In both cases we can see how the meaning of an ideoseme or a maxim (for example ‘‘To die for

one’s country’’) is regenerated in a functional way at different moments in the history of a society or social system.

BUZELIN, H., 2005. Unexpected allies. How Latour’s network theory could complement Bourdieusian Bourdieusian analyses in translation studies.  The Translator, 11 (2), 193–218.

Berkeley, CA: University of  California Press.

Note 1. Cros’ Cros’ss work around around the notion notion of the ideoseme illustrates the coupling of literature and social discourse. It is related to that of 

References tat du ANGENOT, M., 1989.  Un e´ tat discours social . Montre´ Montre´ al ´ Longueuil: E ditions Le Pre ´ ´ ambule.

APPIAH, K. A., [1993] 2004. Thick translation.  In:  L. Venuti, ed.  The translation studies reader. London: Routledge,, 389–401. Routledge PTER, E., 2005.  Translation zones. A Princeton, Princeton , NJ: Princeton University University Press.

BACHMANN-MEDICK, D., 2006. Meanings of translation in cultural anthropology.  In:  T. Hermans, ed. Translating others. Vol. I. Manchester: St Jerome, 33–42. BAKER, M., 2006.  Translation and  conflict. A narrative account. London: Routledge. BANDIA, P., 2008.  Translation as reparation. writing and translation in  postcolonial Africa. Manchester: St Jerome. BASTIN, G. L., 2004.  HISTAL. Hist Histoi oire re de la trad traduc ucti tion on en Ame Ame´ rique rique latine  [online]. Universite ´ ´   de Montre ´ ´ al. Available from: http:// from:  http:// www.histal.umontreal.ca/[16 August 2010]. BASSNETT, S.   AND  T RIVEDI, H., eds 1999.  Postcolonial translation: theory and practice. London: Routledge.

CALVET, L.-J.   AND  O SE ˆ KI-DEPRE ´ , I., 2002. Mondialisation et traduction: les rapports inverses i nverses entre centralite´ centralite´ et diversite ´ ´ . Available from: http:// from:  http:// sites.univ-provence.fr/ francophonie/archives_calvet/ textes/conferences/ mondialisation_traduction/ mondialisation_traduction.pdf [16 August 2010].

DERRIDA, J., 1985. Des tours de Babel.  In:  J. F. Graham, ed. Difference in translation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 165–248. DINGWANEY, A.  A ND  M AIER, C., eds 1995.  Between languages and  cultures. Translation and crosscultural contexts. Pittsburg, CA: Pittsburgh Pittsburg h University University Press.

´  CASANOVA, P., 1999.  La Re´  Re publique mondiale des lettres. Paris: Seuil.

DUCHET, C., 1971. Pour une sociocritique.  Litte  Litte´ ´ rature rature, no.1, 5–14.

CHEUNG, M., ed. 2006.  An anthology of Chinese discourse on translation. Vol. One: from earliest times to the Buddhist project. Manchester: St Jerome.

EVANS-PRITCHARD, E., 1957.  Nuer religion. Oxford: Clarendon.

CHEUNG, M., 2008.  An anthology of  Chinese discourse on translation. Vol.. Two Vol Two:: fro from m the thi thirte rteent enth h cen centur tury y to the revolution of 1911 . Manchester: St Jerome.

J. Lambert, and R. Van Den Broeck, eds  Literature and translation: new perspectives in literary studies. Louvain: Acco, 117–127.

CHEUNG, M., 2009. Chinese discourse on translation. Positions and perspectives [online].  The Translator, 15 (2).

BASSNETT, S.   AND  L EFEVERE, A., 1990.  Translation, history, culture. London: Pinter Publishers.

CHEYFITZ, E., 1991.  The poetics of  imperialism. Translation and  colonization from The Tempest to Tarzan. New York and London: Oxford University Press.

BRISSET, A., 1996.  A sociocritique of  translation. Toronto: University of  Toronto Press.

CLIFFORD, J.   AND  M ARCUS, G., eds 1986.  Writing culture. The poetics and politics of ethnography.

r UNESCO 2010.

CROS, E., 2003.  La sociocritique. Paris: L’Harmattan. L’Harmattan.

EVEN-ZOHAR, I., 1978. The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem. polysystem.  In:  J. Holmes,

FENTON, S., ed. 2003.  For better or  for worse. Translation as a tool for change in the South Pacific. Manchester: St Jerome. GENTZLER, E.  A ND  T YMOCZKO, M., eds 2008.  Translation and resistance . Manchester: St Jerome. GIROUX, D., 2003. Fascisme et magie en Ame´  Ame´ rique. rique. Lectures contemporaines de Nietzsche. Thesis (PhD) Universite Universite ´ ´  du Que ´ ´ bec. GODARD, B., 1990. Theorizing feminist discourse discourse/translati /translation. on.

 

80

In:  S. Bassnett and A. Lefevere, eds Translation, history, culture. London: Pinter, 87–96.

GUMBRECHT, H. U., 1997.  In 1926. Living at the edge of time . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. HARVEY, K., 2003.  Intercultural  movements. American gay in French translation. Manchester: St Jerome. HEILBRON, J., 1999. Towards a sociology of translation. Book translations as a cultural world system. The European journal of  social theory, 2 (4), 429–444. HERMANS, T., 2007.  The conference of the tongues. Manchester: St Jerome. HERMANS, T., ed. 1985.  The manipulation of literature. studies in literary translation. London: Croom Helm. HERMANS, T., ed. 2002. Crosscultural transgressions. Research models in translation studies II. Historical and ideological  issues. Manchester: St Jerome. HERMANS, T., ed. 2006.  Translating others. 2 vols., Manchester: St Jerome. HUNG, E.   AND  W AKABASHI, J., eds 2005. Asian translation traditions. Manchester: St Jerome. HOLMES, J., LAMBERT, J.   AND LEFEVERE, A., eds 1978.  Literature and translation: new perspectives in  ´ ´ literary studies. Louvain: Universite Catholique de Louvain.

INGHILLERI, M., 2003. Habitus, field and discourse: interpreting as a socially situated activity.  Target, 15 (2), 243–268. JAKOBSON, R., 1959. On linguistic aspects of translation.  In:  R. Brower, ed.  On translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 232–239.

 

LAMBERT, J.   AND  L EFEVERE, A., 1993.  La traduction dans le de de´ ´ veloppement veloppement des litte´  litte´ ratures. ratures. Actes e  `s de l’Association du XI  congre `s internationale de litte´  litte´ rature rature compare´ ´ e. Bern: Peter Lang. compare LASSAVE, P., 2006. Sociologie de la traduction. L’exemple de la ‘‘Bible des e ´ ´ crivains.,  Cahiers de sociologie 120 (1), internationaux 133–154. LATOUR, B., 2002.  La fabrique du droit. Une ethnographie du conseil  d’e d’e´ ´ tat tat. Paris: La De ´ ´ couverte. LATOUR, B., 1989.  La science en action. Paris: La De ´ ´ couverte. LIENHARDT, G., 1954. Modes of  thought.  In:  E. E. Evans-Pritchard et al ., ., e ´ ´ ds  The Institutions of   primitive society . Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 97–99. LIU, Y., 2008. Towards ‘‘representational justice’’ in translation translatio n practice. In:  J. Munday, ed.  Translation as intervention. London: Continuum, 102–129. LUHMANN, N., 1984.  Soziale Systeme: Grundrisse einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.. (Social systems, trans. J. Suhrkamp Bednarz, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1995). LUHMANN, N., 1986. The autopoiesis of social systems.  In:  F. Geyer and J. Van der Zouwen, eds Sociocybernetic paradoxes. Observation, control and evolution of  self steering systems. London: Sage, 172–192.

LUO, X.   AND  H E, Y., eds 2009. Translating China. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. MBEMBE, A., 2001.  On the  postcolony. Studies on the history of  society and culture. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. MESCHONNIC, H., 1973.  Pour la  poe´ ´ tique  poe tique II . Paris: Gallimard.

KANTOROWICZ, E., 1984.  Mourir  pour la patrie. Paris: Presses

`mes MOUNIN, G., 1963.  Les proble  `mes the´  the´ oriques oriques de la traduction. Paris:

Universitaires de France. KENNY, D., ed. 2008.  Crossing boundaries. London: Continuum.

Gallimard. MUNDAY, J., ed. 20 2008. 08. Translation as intervention. London: Continuum.

r UNESCO 2010.

Annie Brisset

NIDA, E., 1959. Principles of  translation as exemplified by Bible translating.  In:  R. Brower, ed.  On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 11–31. NIRANJANA, T., 1992.  Siting translation. History, postcolonialism and the colonial colonial context. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. PAYAS, G., 2005. Lorsque l’histoire de la traduction sert a `   re ´ ´ viser l’histoire. Available from: http:// from:  http:// www.histal.umontreal.ca/pdfs POPA, I., 2004.  La politique exte´ ´ rieure exte rieure de la litte´  litte´ rature. rature. Une sociologie de la traduction des litte´ ´ ratures litte ratures d’Europe de l’Est (1947–   ´  cole 1989). Thesis (PhD). Paris: E  ´  tudes en Sciences des Hautes E Sociales. PRATT, M. L., 2003. Building a new idea about language.  Profession 2003, MLA, 110–119. PRATT, M. L., 2002. The traffic in meaning: translation, contagion, contagion, infiltration.  Profession 2002, MLA, 25–36. RAFAEL, V., 1988.  Contracting colonialism: Translation and  Christian Conversion in Tagalog society under early Spanish rule . Durham, NC: Duke University Press. RAMAKRISHNA, S., ed. 1997. Translation and multilingualism. Postcolonial contexts. Delhi: Pencraft. ROBINSON, D., 1997.  Translation and  empire. Postcolonial translation theories explained . Manchester: St Jerome. RYLE, G., 1971. The thinking of  thoughts: what is ‘‘le penseur’’ doing?  In:  G. Ryle ed.  Collected   papers. Vol. Vol. 2. London London:: Hutch Hutchins inson on,, 480–496. SANTAEMILIA, J., ed. 2005.  Gender, sex and translation. Manchester: St Jerome. SAPIRO, G., 2007. Pour une sociologie de la traduction: bilan et perspectives. perspectiv es. Available from: from: http://  http:// www.espacesse.org/fr/art-257.html [17 August 2010].

 

Cultural perspectives on translation

 

81

SIMEONI, D., 2002. Translation and society: the emergence of a conceptual conceptu al relationship. relationship.  Journal of  Contemporary Thought, 15, 5–23.

SUSAM-SARAJEVA, S., 2005.  Theories on the move. Translation’s role in the travels of literary theory. Amsterdam:: Rodopi. Amsterdam

UNESCO WORLD  R EPORT, 2009. Investing in cultural diversity and  intercultural dialogue. Paris: UNESCO.

SIMON, S., 2006.  Translating Montreal. episodes in the life of a divided city. Montreal: McGillQueen’s University Press.

TOURY, G., 1995.  Descriptive translation studies and beyond . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

VENUTI, L., 1998.  The scandals of  translation. Towards an ethics of  difference. London: Routledge.

SIMON, S.   AND  S T-PIERRE, P., eds 2000.  Changing the terms. Translation in the postcolonial era. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

TOURY, G., 1980.  In search of a theory of translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.

VENUTI, L., ed. 1992.  Rethinking translation. Discourse, subjectivity, ideology. London: Routledge.

SKIBIN ´  SKA , E., 2006. La traduction au service de l’ide ´ ´ ologie: ‘‘Liste des lectures francaises’’ en polonais dans les anne ´ ´ es 1946–1960.  In:  M.  ¨ bersetzen-translatingWolf, ed.  U  traduire: towards a ‘‘social turn’’?  vol. 1 (Representationtransformation). Vienna and Berlin: LIT Verlag, 131–141. ¸

SOMMER, D., 2004.  Bilingual  aesthetics. A sentimental education. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Universit y Press.

r UNESCO 2010.

TYMOCZKO, M., 1999.  Translation in a postcolonial context. Early Irish literature in English translation. Manchester: St Jerome.

WOLF, M., 2002. Culture as translation – and beyond. Ethnographic models of  representation represent ation in translation translation studies.  In:  T. Hermans, ed. Crosscultural transgressions. Research models in translation studies. Vol. 2: Historical and  ideological issues. 180–192.

TYULENEV, S., 2009.  The role of  translation in the westernization of  Russia in the XVIII thcentury. Thesis (PhD). University of Ottawa.

WOLF, M. AND FUKARI, A., eds 2007. 2007. Constructing a sociology of  translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

TYMOCZKO, M., 2006.  Enlarging translation. empowering translators. Manchester: St Jerome.