ENLARGING WESTERN TRANSLATION THEORY:
INTEGRATING NON-WESTERN THOUGHT ABOUT TRANSLATION
Maria Tymoczko
Professor of Comparative Literature
University of Massachusetts Amherst
In Western 1 tradition most statements about translation that date before the
demise of positivism are relatively useless for current theorizing about translation,
because most are limited by the dominant ideological perspective of their time--say,
Western imperialism--or are primarily applicable to a particular Western historical
circumstance--say, the position of a national language and literature within a larger
cultural hegemony. These problems are before me whether I read the statements of
Latin writers including Cicero and Jerome, the Germans including Martin Luther and
Friedrich Schleiermacher, or the English including Alexander Tytler and Matthew
Arnold. Such early writers speak to their own condition, out of their own time and
their own historical circumstances, but there is rarely any self-reflexivity or
acknowledgment about limitations of their own perspective. The result is declamation
that is supposed to address translations of all times and everywhere, but that is
sorely circumscribed by a cultural moment.
1 There is, of course, a problem with the terms east and west, both of which implicitly imply perspective and position. East or west of
what? In Chinese tradition where China is the "middle kingdom", India is "the west": hardly the case for the imperial British. To the
Romans the nations of southwestern Asia were considered "the east", a perspective still encoded in the phrase "the Near East". At the same
time, there are European countries with histories of colonization, notably the Celtic fringe, and hence have affinities with the Third World.
Here I am using the term Western roughly to refer to ideas and perspectives that initially originated in and became dominant in Europe,
spreading from there to various other locations in the world, where in some cases, such as the United States, they have also become
dominant. At this point in time, however, when Western ideas have permeated the world and there is widespread interpenetration of
cultures everywhere, the terms east and west become increasingly problematic.
Tymoczko
The restricted perspectives of Western pronouncements about translation
before World War I are not always apparent because of the positivist, generalized,
and prescriptive discourses that frame them. Yet some of the boundaries of Western
thinking about translation in these statements should be patently obvious: the fact
that most views have been formulated with reference to sacred texts, including both
religious scripture and canonical literary works, for example. Similarly Western
theorizing has been distorted by its concentration on the written word. Not least are
difficulties caused by the vocabulary in some languages that links translation with
conveying sacred relics unchanged from place to place: the word translation is
paradigmatic of this problem (cf. Tymoczko 2003a). Western translation theorists are
heirs of these limitations. It is only in the postpositivist period that Western
theory begins to show an awareness of its circumscribed nature, and even then many
theories of translation retain a surprisingly positivist formulation or efface
recognition of their own specific commitments and pretheoretical assumptions.
There is a need in translation studies for more flexible and deeper
understandings of translation, and the thinking of non-Western peoples about this
central human activity is essential in achieving broader and more durable theories
about translation. Here I explore the implications of some non-Western concepts and
practices of translation, as well as marginal Western ones that fall outside the
domain of dominant Western theory. As a whole, I argue that in order to expand
contemporary theories of translation, it is not sufficient merely to incorporate
additional non-Western data pertaining to translation histories, episodes, and
artifacts. The implications of those data must be analyzed and understood, and the
results theorized. The consequence will be the refurbishing of basic assumptions and
structures of Western translation theory itself. 2
Let me begin by observing that all theory is based on presuppositions--
called axioms or postulates in mathematics. In the case of translation theory, the
2 Note that in good research there is always this sort of reciprocity between theory and data. Theory drives the collection and interpretation
of data, but data in turn refine and refurbish theory. See Tymoczko 2002.
Tymoczko
current presuppositions are markedly Eurocentric. Indeed, they grow out of a rather
small subset of European cultural contexts based on Greco-Roman textual traditions,
Christian values, nationalistic views about the relationship between language and
cultural identity, and an upper-class emphasis on technical expertise and literacy.
For more general and more universally applicable theories of translation, those
presuppositions must be articulated and acknowledged, they must be reviewed and
rethought.
Before turning to such an articulation, however, an excursus is in order.
It's worth asking whether a universal theory of translation is possible and, if so,
whether constructing such a theory should be a goal of translation studies. This
question is, of course, a subset of a larger question, namely, is it possible to
construct any humanistic theory that will have universal applicability? It is quite
feasible to construct theories of solar systems that are universally applicable, or
theories of the cell. There can be theoretical knowledge that pertains to all six-
sided geometrical objects. But can there be a theory of literature, say, or human
cultural behaviors in general? It is possible to have more than a local theory of
translation? In fact, is "normal" a concept that applies to human culture at all, or
is it just a setting on a washing machine?
Here I weigh in with those who believe that much is to be learned by
attempting to formulate general theories, even if such attempts are ultimately
defeated or only partially realized. General theories are not necessarily achievable-
-a complete description of literature, for example, may be impossible--but the virtue
of pushing theories of human culture toward broader and broader applicability is that
paradoxically researchers actually end up learning more and more about the particular
phenomena that are of greatest interest to them. It is only possible to define the
self when we are clear about the boundary that divides the self from the other (cf.
Luhmann 1984). Thus, the nature of literature in a specific culture and the
positioning of that literature with reference to its own culture become more clear
when such arrangements are compared to the situation of other literatures; the
broader the comparison, the deeper the resulting understanding of specific local
Tymoczko
phenomena. Thus, I believe that broader and more general theories of translation will
illuminate all specific phenomena related to translation everywhere, if only in
virtue of the increased awareness of difference.
I. Rethinking current presuppositions about translation
Let us turn to some current presuppositions about translation that are taken
as a matter of course by most Western translation scholars and that underly most
Western translation theory. Why wouldn't they be taken as givens, in view of their
widespread applicability in Western countries? Yet these are presuppositions that are
in need of rethinking if translation theory is to be extended to non-Western
situations, and, moreover, there are many situations within Western cultures that
current translation theory cannot adequately account for or describe because of these
prevailing assumptions. In what follows I draw on such marginal examples to
illustrate some of the problems with current paradigms, which incorporation of non-
Western experience, thought, and perspectives may mitigate. What follows is a
selection of basic assumptions upon which contemporary Western translation theory
rests, assumptions that have not been well examined or fully interrogated.
1. Translators are necessary in interlingual and intercultural situations;
they mediate between two linguistic and cultural groups. This is a basic assumption
of the discipline of translation studies, yet all who study translation are
subliminally aware that there are many situations in which this presupposition does
not apply. Monolingualism has been taken as the norm, whereas it may turn out to be
the case that plurilingualism is more typical worldwide. I think, for example, of my
grandmother who grew up in the southeast corner of Slovakia at the turn of the
twentieth century, who left school at the age of 12, but who spoke as a matter of
course two languages: Slovak and Hungarian. The same grandmother later learned to
switch back and forth between Bohemian and Slovak, she came to understand Polish, and
she learned to speak, read, and write English as well. What is the role of
Tymoczko
translation in such plurilingual communities as those of my grandmother? Are there
normally translators per se in such cultures? Or are the monolingual marginalized and
relegated to restricted and impoverished domains of cultural participation and
competence, with monolinguals not privy to participation in the world of, say,
commerce? Are monolinguals afforded summary more than translation, observation more
than participation? These are questions that translation studies has not adequately
researched.
Numerous cases also illustrate the fact that translation can be an essential
element of plurilingual cultures but not for the purpose of mediation or
communication between linguistic groups. For example, there is a bilingual community
of Hawaiian nationalists who insist on speaking Hawaiian in official U.S. government
contexts, particularly legal ones, and who insist on having the services of
government translators who can translate between Hawaiian and English. The speakers
of Hawaiian do not ask for translation to facilitate communication, being usually
less facile in Hawaiian than in English which is generally their first language.
Rather, the Hawaiian speakers insist on translation as part of their attempt to block
"common-sense" communication in the United States, to thwart U.S. business-as-usual,
and to promote recognition of the existence of a pre-Anglo culture in their islands.
Similarly, as I have argued in Translation in a Postcolonial Context (1999),
postcolonial cultures illustrate the limitation of this presupposition that
translation facilitates communication between groups. In fact translation in a
postcolonial context can mediate across languages within a single group, functioning
to connect a people with its past, for example, more than to connect one people with
another. Translation can be done of a source community for the community itself, even
when it involves translation between two languages, rather than translation from one
state of a language to another.
This basic premise of translation studies is complex as my counterexamples
indicate. It involves presuppositions about the way that languages function in
plurilingual layering, the purpose of translation as primarily communicative, and the
Tymoczko
belief that translation operates to connect different groups. These assumptions may
all reflect an Anglo-American model of linguistic (in)competence, equating nation
with language, and national identity with linguistic provinciality. 3 Translation
studies has, after all, been heavily theorized by English speakers, who are
notoriously deficient in language acquisition, and who, thus, may be particularly
biased in their theorizing of translation. More research may show that the assumption
about monolingualism built into translation studies is ultimately atypical of Europe,
never mind the world as a whole.
2. Translation involves (written) texts. This second premise of dominant
Western translation theory has marginalized interpretation as a central activity to
be theorized in translation studies. A sign of the bias toward seeing translation as
a literacy practice is that even studies of interpretation are slanted in favor of
conference interpretation, an activity that begins with a fixed written text. The
focus on written texts as the subject of translation has been decried within
translation studies by those promoting the study of interpretation (see Cronin 2002
and sources cited). But it is a much more serious deficiency, for most human cultures
through time have been oral, and this continues to be the case in much, if not most,
of the non-Western world; it follows that most translation through time and space has
been oral. Orality is the central condition of human biology and culture, and
translation must be theorized so as to acknowledge these conditions. 4 In expanding
translation theory to incorporate non-Western experience, the premise that
translation primarily involves written or fixed texts must be adjusted, for the
majority of human beings outside the West still live in cultures where literacy plays
a very restricted role.
3 This is a model that relates to the specific histories of a number of key English-speaking nations, including England (and later the United
Kingdom), the United States, and Australia.
4 Preliminary exploration of the question is found in Tymoczko 1990.
Tymoczko
3. The primary text types that translators work with have been defined and
categorized. Many Westerners believe that they know, use, and have categorized the
central human text types: epic, drama, and lyric poetry, for example; or novel,
academic lecture, and business letter. In fact, text types can vary dramatically from
culture to culture, and defining a culture's repertory of primary forms and text
types is enormously complex. There is even evidence within Western tradition that
those primary forms characteristic of Greek culture (e.g. epic, lyric, drama) are not
universal but a result of cultural diffusion from the Greco-Romano tradition. 5
Needless to say, the question of text types is further complicated by other aspects
of cultural embeddedness of discourse: speech acts (e.g. irony), signals pertaining
to relevance, and so forth (cf. Hatim 1997:ch. 16). Translation theory has hardly
touched these complexities of text type, yet they are essential to understand if
current thinking about translation is to be enlarged. The question of text types
intersects with the need to understand orality, for oral cultures often have very
different text types and different semiotic structurings of texts from those of
literate cultures. Far from being well conceptualized in existing translation theory,
questions pertaining to text type must be explored further if translation theory is
to expand beyond Western models.
4. The process of translation is a sort of "black box": an individual
translator decodes a given message to be translated and recodes the same message in a
second language. Although this classic representation of the process of translation
has been criticized as too simple by many scholars, nonetheless the model continues
to operate implicitly in many, even most, Western formulations of translation theory.
The concept of decoding/encoding has become a matter of scholarly debate, 6 but the
overall picture of a single translator engaged in a mysterious inner process
(conditioned, of course, by social context) continues to hold sway. The translation
5 For the argument, see Tymoczko 1997, discussed below.
6 A classic statement of this model is found in Nida 1964:ch. 7; see Katan 1999:ch. 7 on debate about decoder/encoder models, as well as
other current models of the translation process.
Tymoczko
process thus conceived is very individualistic and bound to Western individualism as
well as dominant Western translation practice, but the model has assumed normative
status in a great deal of translation studies research. This view of translation
practice does not reflect the full range of translation practices worldwide and may
not even be the dominant mode crossculturally. It should be contrasted, for example,
with the practice of translation in China as it can be traced for two thousand years:
a practice that has typically involved more than one person working on a translation,
even groups of people working together assigned to highly differentiated roles. 7 Such
non-Western practices of translation challenge basic Western thinking and research
about the translation process.
5. Translators are generally educated in their art and they have
professional standing; often they learn their craft in a formal way connected with
schooling or training that instructs the translator in language competence, standards
of textuality, norms of transposition, and so forth. This presupposition is widely
deployed despite its logical and practical problems, in part because the professional
status of translators is so deeply rooted in Western culture. 8 The difficulties with
this assumption have been most obvious to those scholars who are interested in
community translation (still perhaps the most common type of translation in the West,
as elsewhere), where translators are rarely trained or schooled, indeed where they
are amateur almost by definition. But the extension of this model to non-Western
situations brings obvious absurdities: with so large a percentage of the world
illiterate and holding schooling at a very high premium, it is obvious that
professionalized translation as found in the West will not occur in oral cultures and
that translator training and apprenticeship will take radically different forms from
those of the West.
7 Team translation has also played a prominent role in the West, but it continues to be inadequately theoretized. Consider, for example, the
translation of the King James Bible or current protocols of the American Bible Society.
8 Consider the doctrinal and linguistic expertise required by Biblical translators or the official standing enjoyed by the latimers, the king's
translators in the British Isles in the medieval period. On the logical problems associated with attempting to theorize translators as
professionals, see Tymoczko 1998.
Tymoczko
6. Currently translation is entering a completely new phase and assuming
radically new forms because of cultural movements and diaporas associated with
globalization and because of the hybridity of the ensuing cultural configurations.
This is a hypothesis that has generated some of the most interesting and entertaining
speculative writing on translation in the last 15 years, but it is clearly a view
that can only be sustained by those who know very little history, even very little
modern history. The written history of the West alone documents vast population
migrations from the earliest times: for example, the simultaneous migration of
thousands of Celts who moved from what is now Switzerland to the Iberian Peninsula,
passing through Provence under the watchful eyes of the Roman legions in the second
century B.C.E. The Roman Empire itself was an immense realm covering much of Africa,
Asia, and Europe, where there was constant intermingling of languages and cultures,
where cultural and linguistic translation
本文档为【tymoczko ENLARGING WESTERN TRANSLATION THEORY】,请使用软件OFFICE或WPS软件打开。作品中的文字与图均可以修改和编辑,
图片更改请在作品中右键图片并更换,文字修改请直接点击文字进行修改,也可以新增和删除文档中的内容。
该文档来自用户分享,如有侵权行为请发邮件ishare@vip.sina.com联系网站客服,我们会及时删除。
[版权声明] 本站所有资料为用户分享产生,若发现您的权利被侵害,请联系客服邮件isharekefu@iask.cn,我们尽快处理。
本作品所展示的图片、画像、字体、音乐的版权可能需版权方额外授权,请谨慎使用。
网站提供的党政主题相关内容(国旗、国徽、党徽..)目的在于配合国家政策宣传,仅限个人学习分享使用,禁止用于任何广告和商用目的。