136 of retranslations (ibid). Like non-translations, worLs that are only translated once can reveal the meéhanismsand conditions of inclusion and exclusion of foreign worLs in a given culture. In his study of translations of siixxvsranne's pHyio I+mna(2X)n u sxWLnative perspective on retranslation that is also characterized bar active competition. Drawing on Bourdieu's sociology (she 8OCIOLO-GICAL nrrnonc:rims), Hanna argues that retranslators of Shalmspeare's tragedies into Arabic in the late nineteenth and early twentieth cent made use of various forms of Ylistinction’ to eet their translations apart from earlier ones, claiming, for example, that they had better access to the source text, the soume culture or the author (ibid: 208). As another form ofdistinction(in the Bourdieusean sense), some retranslators tried to Reviewing and criticism In the nineteenth century, come sinologists tried to defme the norms of translation from Chinese by openly criticizing earlier translations (St André 2003a: es); St André ofre» the example of Sir John Francis Davis, whose desire to establish himself as an authority on Chinese culture motivated his retranslation of Han gut zhuan in ig29 (ibid: 64). Nevertheless, individual choices are nan embedded in a larger social context, and as Venuti notes, ’transindividual factors inevitahly enter into translation projects’ (2tD3: 30). The interaction between the individual translator and the larger context in which retranslations are pmduced reminds us that retranslation is a function of the dynamics of the target content, rather than a rmponse to any inhemnt properties of the source tezt. diScre6it pteViOilS translations bar pointing Ol2t various deficiencies in them (ibid: 223). Others sought distinction by claiming that their translations served a function in the target culture that had not been served bar earlier translations (ibid: 227). In drawing attention to the active struggle in which retranslators often engage as their attempt to legitimize and distinguish their translations frnm earlier ones, both Hanna's and Susam-Samjevas studies foreground the retranslator's agency, an element that is not given much attention in studies informed by norm theory. Although retranslations, like first translations, cannot be studied outside their historiml context, relying on a strictly social-causational model to explain them runs the risk of overlooking the human element involved in the pre Brisset thus draws attention to the importance of studying retranslations not only from a diachronic but also a synchronic perspective, suggesting that this would reveal those factors that distmguish the work of diffemnt ’translating subjects’ and highlight the cognitive and creative aspects of translation (2OiH: 64). Venuti similarly foregrounds the rule of the individual retranslator and argues that 'retranslations typically highlight the translator's intentionality because they are designed to make an appreciable difference’ (2003: 29). He draws attention to the fact that some retranslations may originate purely from a translator's personal appreciation of a text (ihi‹ : 3o). Retranslators trim also set out to displace the prevailing translation xoaius in a given culture (this: 29). See also: A ifD CHRIS’fJA24; BIBLB JBWTSH TRASL TiOi4; tiOxi+S; RBLAT. CLASSICAL Berman 1990, Gambier 1994; Mihon and Torres 200S; Summ-Sarajeva 2003; Venuti 2003; Brisset 2004; Browrilie 2006. §EHNAZ TAHIR GUR\ACLAR Reviewing and Reviewing and criticism are distinct but related evaluative practices concerned with liternture in the broadest sense, of not only imaginative writing but also non-fiction. The differences cited convenfionally between them also hold true for literature in translation: the reviewer alerts a reader to new books, describing them and panning judgement as to whether they are worth reading and buying¡ the critic addresses books that may or mam not be new, considering them in detail and usually assuming a readers familiarity with them (Berman 1986, 1995; Oates i9so-. ozick zoo7; Leo»«rd woolf is3s: 29; Virginia Woolf 1939: 7). Neither the reviewing nor the criticism of literary translafions has Reviewing and criticism 237 developed fully as a tmdition, however — unli1ø• make it difficult to identify fixed patterns and the reviewing and crificism of literature. This tmnŒ John Dryden mam have spoken confican be explained only in part by the multiple dently about ’good’ and 3›ad’ likenesses (1680), difficulties inherent in establishing appropriate but the distinction between them has always criteria for analysing and passing judgement on depended on thnoœntric approaches to the creative activity. The general lack of value — or task of crificism’ (Kelłjf 1979: 47). Perhaps even Uerary capital’ (Casanova 1999f2ŒH: l6) — more importantly, many of the evaluations that associated with translation in the West has been have proved most influential are, like translation an additional factor, possibly an equally deteritself, not immediately visible. For the unwritten minant one (Bassnett 1980: 10; Sankiyo 1985: history of translation reviewing and criticism 2s—sa Home i988: 78; Vilikov 1988: 72). is not onły characterized bjr the unacknowlAs Leighton (1991: xi—xix and ff.) has indicated, edged, covert, implicit and verbal acts of translation crificism flourishes in a nafionalevaluation that occur in all evaluative practices cultural condifion where translafion is highly (Smith l987f199t1: 18—82), but even the ’highly esteemed. specialized inxtitutionefizød@rms of evaluation’ despite the challenges that evaluafion (ib L: wi) f«›q«ently contain value judgements presents, translators and translation scholars made without reference to explicit criteria In alike increasingly recognize its importance. As addition, such judgements have oiten appeared, a ’special kind of crifical activity’ diknvskÿ and continue to appear, in forms not specifi1988:74), it must be distinguished from the cally identified as evaluative, such as translators’ forms ofcrificism implicit intheactivityoftransprefàcesand annotations, complimentarypoems lation itself (van den Broeck 1985: 61; Lefevere and essays about the work of other translators, 1987; di Stefano 1982; Berman 1986, 1984/1992: scho ø4y writing about translafion theory and 7, 41). At least one scholar has suggmted that practice, and appraisals embedded in fictional translation criticism be considered a eepørate comment. area of applied translation studies (Holmes 1988: Translators’ prefaces and annotations often 7s). Others have stressed its importance as a provide insightful obøervafions about transbetween translation theory and prnctice lation practice. n rnx smmoxs, however, (Newmark 1988:1ß4) and a 'weapon in defence are frequently undertaken with the intent of of the profession’ (Dodds 1992: 4). For Berman, imprœñng or even rectifying existing versions, criticism, when performed as rigorous analysis and the evaluative comments they contain or critique, offers the possibility of releasing a must themselves be evaluated in the light of translations ’truth’ (1995: 13-14). Translators their possible role in a translator's own project and reviewers of literary translation have also (Vanderschelden 2ŒDb). The same is true indicated a need for evaluations that discuss a of writing by translators about the work of translation with more than a single adjective other translators. Such commentary is often and refrain from trashing a translator's work both highly metaphorical and h motivated on the basis of isolated errors (Douma 1972; wãh respect to a translatofs effort or to the Christ 1982; Maier 1990-91; Hearne 1991; profession of translation itself. This means PEN American Center 2004). In the case of that comment must be read in the context both reviewing and criticism, an interest in and of prevailing rhetorical coiwentions, and this concern for evaluation is leading to the study makes the task of extracting general principles of past evaluative practices, discussions about of evaluation treacherous if not impossible. The the criteria appropriate for the evaluation of compliments found in such Renaissance poems translations, and the ecriAiny of current trends as Constantijn Huygens's verses on translain reviewing and criticism. tions by Jacob Westerbaen or those bjr James The study of past evaluative practices presents Wright on Dryden's translations were in fact a a particular eet of challenge The absence of a deliberate stmtegy to improve the subordinate 'universal canon according to which texts may position of translations (Herm isgsb: 117). be assessed’ (Bassnett 1980: 9) and the changes Commentary also provides translators with a thA occur continually in the criteria used to vehicle for enhancing the status of their work measure the success or value of translafions bjr emphasizing the challenges it presents or by 238 Reviewing and criticism asserting the superiority of their own versions (Raffel 1992). Evaluations that prune influential are even found in works of fiction, for example, the comments about translafion and translators that Cervantes included in Don Quyotr (Moner 1990: 519-22). By examining the judgements of critics and reviewers from the past, current translation scholars have begun to document the often complex contexts in which evaluation ocmirs. This work brings to light both the motivation of individual critics and the fact that their assessments were oiten based on informafion apparentbr unrelated to the activity of translation. Williams (1993: 187, 7S) has argued that Alexander Pope's critics judged him as a translator of Homer in terms of his 'poetic virility' using evidence 'only tangentially relevant to their observations'. In his study of Matthew Arnold's In Translating Homer’, Venuti (1995: 118-45) has shown not only that Arnolds attack on Francis Newmans translation of the fried (SPR BBffISH TRADI‘fIO24) 8R£V€' ID ¥12 Newmans wnrk, but also the extent to which a polemics about acceptable translation seen.'rnoirs can be simultane lady about cultural politics. May's discussion ahout Constance Garnett reveals that the long-lived popularity of Gametes many translations from the Russian did not rmult from critical acclaim of her wnrk. Rather, it was due to Garnetfs ability to make Russian wnrks readable to the English-language public and to the unquestioning acceptance on the part of critics and readers alike once her re¡nitntion was established (May 1994: 30—42). From Alexander Tytler (see zarrisii zBADI‘fIox) to George Steiner and others writing more recently, critics have described translations as 'good' or 'bad' without eeriouidy ability of value judgements and question the possibility of’pure descripfion’ (Dodds 1992: 3), but those who tend to eschew value judgements, preferring not to prmJaim one translation better than another, are more numemus (Hatim and Mason 1990b: 1). Concerned less withtmditional concepts of quality than with understanding the translated texts work (van den Broeck isgs: ssh), they speak instead of defining a tmnslator's methods (VilikovsY 1988: 7s) and purpose (Newmark 1988: 186); these are to be discussed with respect to a given translation and, in come instances, also to a critic's own, individual purpose (Newmark 1988: 186—9). The majority of critics expect that both description and criticism will involve originals as well as translated texts, even when they advocate varying degrees of comparison, seek to answer different questions, or document the possibility of more than one competent translation (Nida isib). v « model, for example, is based on an understanding of translafion criticism as an instrument for describing the observational facts of interliterary contact’ (1988: 74). This model consists of three principal relationéhips¡ one is limited to the 'literarjr context' of the tmnslation, but the other two relationships — between the original and the metatext’ and between 'the two literarycontexts’— involve both the original and the tmnslation. A description of the translator's methods and a discussion of the translafion's of adequacy' and 'level of equivalence' pertain to the first relationship (ibkL: 74, 77, 7S). NewmarHs five-part model also includes the analysis of the eource language tent, a comparison of it and the translation, and comments about the translation's potential role as a translation; the compamtive study is the 'heart' of this mode (issu: ias). Dod‹n (1985: 191) describes the translation critic as yync win: 13-14; Steiner 1975: 596). At the same time, however, thoughtful efforts to bring increased attenfion to bear on evaluation and establish systematic evaluative criteria do exist. The error identification and highly subjective appraisals that chamcterize much translation criticism have no doubt been largely responsible for both critics who argue exclusively for linguisfics-based evaluafions and those who adopt more eclectic approaches for evaluafions grounded on thorough analysis and descripfion (eee quxrrrv). Some critics uphold the desir- a 'text analyst whose threefold analysis must encompass the language of the source text, that of the target text and a comparison between the twn. Hatim and Mason (l99ob: 10) outline a eet of compamtive parameters that can be used to analyze and compare translations Their principal interest lies in the cultural semiotics of language’; they focus not on individual words but on a ’thread of discourse which is sustained through a communicative transaction' Other comparative models include de Beaugrandes discussion of translating room , 239 Reviewing and criticism in which the critic is urged to establish criteria for evaluation that address the 'presuppositions and expectations about texts' shared bjr readers and writers in each language (1978: 122). Van den Br e k(isgs: s6) posits as the starting point of his description a comparative analysis of the source and target that includes both ’text structumf and 'systemic of texts'. Wilss (lsg2: 220) argues for a principally empirical, linguistic approach that rests on a comparison of source and target language texts, and Simpson (1975: 255) similarly recommends a linguistic appmøch that is primarily compamtive-, Kirknv (198ß: 231) suggests more comprehensive 'amtheticlinguistic criteria' but still considers both translation and original The seven features of textuality proposed by Neuhert and Shreve (1992) also pmvide a framework that could be used for comparative analysis and evaluation, as do Snell-Hornby’sanalyses (ised). Compamtive models, however, do not represent the only approach to translation criticism, despite an insistence on the part of some scholars that translation criticism must not be performed without taking the original into tmt (Vllikovskÿ 1988: 75; de Beaugrande 1978: 121). Nor are the critics who study only the translated text and its context nece the reviewers and editors who overlook the fact of translation entirely. On the contrary, Lefevere (1981: s5, s9) has explained the roLTćíTćí hypothesis and its focus on the product of translation in the context of the target culture rather than on the translation process. Toury's Ørk Wİłll translabonal tiORHS dIsO SuggeSt evaluative criteria centred on the target system alone (ised. i aob). Although Toury argues that compamtive study might have come role in translation criticism, he notm that comparisons between translations and originals often lead to an enumerntion of errors and a reverence for the original (1978: 26). His comments are echoed, albeit in diffemnt frameworks, by Jorge Luis Borges and Tom Conley. Borges points to the crippling effect that bilingual editions can have on a reader's ability to read, and implicitly, to evaluate a translation (Alifano l9ß4: 5l), and coup (ices: 4s) saes that 'critics fabricate ”something [to be] lost in translation" at the very instant they place their eyes between two verSİOns Of a CdØonical text'. BezTnan eidÒO- rated and argued for a 'pmductive critique' in which the 'confrontafion' of a translation and the original is a decisive, but not the sole component of an ethiml and aesthetic evaluation that considers a translation in relafion to İtS OWfl ldnguage dØd literary ÍTdÒibOn (U95: 83-96) and to the experience of the foreign it makes possible in them (1999: 74—S). Recent work in literary criticism and theory, linguistics, anthropology, philosophy and cultural studies has direct, albeã at times contradictory implications for the evaluation of literary translations. On the one hand, not only the 'deconstructionists' entire project (Gentzler 199Sf2O01: 146; SØR DBCOł4S'røuc:riot) but also the entire range of chańenges presented by post-structuralism to prevailing definitions of textual authority and integrity have rendered obsolete conventional evaluative terms, putting in question even the notion of &tween’ in the context of translafion (Tymoczko 2m3). On the other hand, the work of postcolonial scholars has documented the entent to which translations can go 'wrong', even 'respectfully' (Spivak 1992b: 18S) when inequalifies and power relationships between culture are not understood and aćkriowledged appropriately (see POS‘fCOLOi4iAL APPROACHBS). IR bOłÎŁ inStEnGeS the prnctice of translafion becomes newlyvisible and the role of the tmnslator is scrutinized; in both instances value judgements are made acmrding to new and shifting criteria. Despite the unquestionable freedom that the radical decentring associated with postructuralism offers translators, the very requirement of decentring itself carries a set of expectations and implicit evaluative criteria. For if post-structuralism granted a new agency to translators (Venuti 1992: 11), it also imposed on them an increased burden of responsibility. In the absence of universal definitions, translators have been called on to make explicit the strategies and goals that gpvern their practiœ (eee, for example, Arrojo 1998). They are also encouraged to write prefaces, alterwords, and other forms of commentary. Especially in the case of innovative, transgressive texts, they are expected to translate transgressively, and their work has been measured against criteria such as abusive’ (Lewis 1985: S6) or 'destructive' (Conley 1986: 49) fidelity. In this measurement, words like aa:urate and inmrrecf are not relevant. Instead, failure is associated with an Reviewing and cziticism inability to continue the linguistic momentum of a text, with an 'excess of reverence’ that can make it impossible for a translator to Jake the necessary distance from the original’ — which must function not as an absolute but as a point of departure (Sartiliot 1988: 28). Consequently, translations are often measured as well in the light of the translators’ owri words about their work or in terms of the context in which the work appears. Such criticism, in addition to concerning itself with new translations, implies the re-evaluation of translations performed in the past (Conley 1986; Porter 1991). It also implies the acceptance of multiple versions and the evaluation of individual versions with respect to the purposes for which each version is intended — the different values behind what makm a ”gpod" translation’ (Cohen 1988: 111). 4he simultaneons agency and rmponsibility aecorded the translator by contemporary theories of literature and translation also characterize the translator's work as defined by translators and critics who position themselves with respect toa specific Location or ideology. For when tmnslation is defined in terms ofa 'site for raising questions of representation, power, and historicity’ (Niranjana 1992: 1), the expectation is that those questions will be raiseA This is a definition that challenges translators to rethink the conventional use of equire mce, di ercnce and communicefion. In the face of not memly diffemnce hut decided inequalities between languagm and cultures, translators have been asked to construct a'site’in which there is'overlap without equivalence’ (Bhabha 1994a: 186) and urged to maketheir work not ßuent and readable but 'thick’ (Appiah 1993) with the factors that can male smooth intemction an illusion on the part of the more powerful party. This can occur in texts theinselves or in the varions commentaries that accompany them as mbat weapons’ against time (Mukherjeee 1994: 73), but also against transparency on the part of the translation. Consequently, a translation may not be evaluated on the basis of its readibility and the mmunication’ it makes possible but in terms of a newly defined literalism (Robinson 1993: 124; Gaddis Rose 1995: ß4), the extent to which it promptsa crisis in communication,or eventhe extent to which translation is withheld (Spivak 1992a: 192-5,1992b:792).Translatorsthemselves tung je evalunted in terms of their qualifications to represent 'another’ identity — nationality, race, religion, unnoza (Voldeng 198d; de LotbiniereHarwood 1991: 139-91; Spivak 1992a: 178-92). In a similar way, translations can be judged in terms of the (mis)representations and the’exotic and essentializing stereotypes’ their perpetuate (Payne 1993: 3). The co-existence of such numerous and diverse evaluative criteria and approaches offers a challenge to contemporary critics, readers and translators. Whether critics work to evaluate contemporary translations or those performed in the past, they find themselves obliged to inform themselves about the cultural context of a given translation and also to be cognizant of their own evaluative criteria and the context within which they apply them. Likewise, readers and translators must formulate evaluative criteria that will enable them to assess divergent, even contmdictory critical evaluations. For emmple, Venuti has discussed the innovative, subtly ’foreignizing’ scores in the translations of the work by writers such as Argentine Julio Cortâzar that during the 1960s altered both the 'canon of foreign fiction in AngloAmerican culture’ and british and American fiction’ (Venuti 1995: 266). Payne, on the other hand, finds that translations of the ’Fig four" of the Latin American boom’ have reinforced, rather than challenged, North American stereotypes about Latin America (1993: 3B—3l, 33). An additional example is pmvided by recent evaluations of the work of Sir William Jones, whose translations into English of Indian literature were highly in8uential in the late elghteenth century (eee mDIA24 'rnxoI‘fIOi4). Cannon praises Joness work without qualification, particularly his translation of Kalidasns Sehintefe (1789), stating that his work prompted Europeans to have a new respect for Indian literature (1986: 181). Figueim, however, finds that Jones's translation, like those of other translators of the Se nfoio, was ofien ’erroneous’, genernting misrepresentations of the Indian work (1991: 198—9). Niranjana (1992) and Sengupta (l99S) offer still harsher evaluations Sengupta emphasize the oversimplification of Kalidasas wnrk that occurred as Jones shaped an ’image’ for it that Eumpeans wnuld find acoeptahle (1995: 161-2); Niranjana details his pamcipation, thmugh his translation, in the construction of the English-language Hindu Rewrlting 241 character, psyche and way of life (1992: 13-14, 6o). Looking towards the future, it is possible to note two trends in evaluative practices. Translators and translation scholars are devoting increased attention to reviewing, criticism, the study of reception (see, for example, Bush 200df2O05; Cohn 2006; Fawcett 2000; Munday 1998b, 2007; Vanderséhelden 2tO0a) and the effectiveness of the alienating strategies advanced by Venuti and others (eee, for example, Abel 2005; Leppihalme 2000); the proposal of more comprehensive approaches to reviewing (Tymoczko 2O00b); and the advomcy for reviews of translations that addrms the translator's work (PEN). In addition, the rise is well underway of an interactive, international discumion on the Internet that includes general readers and bloggers as well as critics, scholars and professional reviewers. One hopes that these exchanges will raise the level of commentary ahout the evaluation of literature in translation and counter, at least to an extent, the cursory, and in some places significantly decreased coverage of litemture in translation found in the print media. B o: kfIBKARYTRANSkATION;PDBTRK,QUAkfFY. Woolf 1959; Houma 1972; de Beaugrande 1978; van den Broeck 1985; Newmark 1988; Smith 1987/1990-, Vilikov 1988; Hatim and Mason 1990b-, Maier 1990-91; Hearne 1991; Munday 1998b-, PEN American Center 2004¡ Bush 2004/2005. CAROL MAIER Rewriting The theory of rewriting proposed bar André Lefevere (1945-96) draws on systemic/ descriptive approaches and treats translation as a discursive activity embedded within a system of literary conventions and a network of institutions and social agents that condition textual BOOM (S€€ POkYSYETBM; DBSCRIPTIYE VS. COHHI‘f‘fBD APPBOACHBS). TrdfiSlEtiSlg, according to Lefevere, is one of several types of practice that result in partial representafions of reality. These forms ofrewriting include editing, reviewing and anthologizing — with translation being a particularly effective form of rewriting that has been instrumental thmughout the ages in the circulation of novel ideas and new literary trend Rewriting and refraction (the latter a term used in Lefevere's earlier work) refer to the projection of a perspectival image of a literary work (novel, play, poem) (Lefevere isgii2O00: 234—5, 1992a: lo). Lefevere nevertheless questions the concept of originality (see DBCONS‘fBUC‘fIO24), arguing that the notion of authorial genius and the idea that there can be access to an author's intenfion stem from the poetics of Romanficism and are untenable given that no original’ is sacred and that all originals’ draw on prior sources (l982f2tXD: 234). As Hermans(1999: 124) puts it, the picture Lefevere draws ’does not quite amount to a postmodern hall of mirrors and simulacra without a trace of any ”originals", but it certainly highlights both the quantitative and the qualitative significance of these ”refraction for the perception and tmnsmission of cultural goods* Rewriting issubject to certain'intra-systemic’ constraints: fengucige, die wiiverse of discourse and potties; it is also subject to the in8uence of regulatory forces, namebr, tire pm innols within the literary system, and potmncigc opemting from outside the system. Both types of constraint opernte as control factors’ in Lefeveres model. Under language, Lefevere discusses differences between the eource and target language and linguistic sinrzs of various 1dnds that are dictated, for emmple, by the dominant aesthetic criteria and IDBOinuv of the time (Lefevere 1992a: 103-9). Universe of discomse refers to the knowledge, the learning but also the objects and the customs of a certain time, to which writers are free to allude in their work’ (Lefevere 1985: 233), in other words, to ’cultural scrip (l992a: 87; see ). Poetics refers to aesthetic precepts that dominate the literary system at a certain point in time. Poetics consists of two components, an im'cnfmy component (a repertoire of genres, literary devices, motifs, certain symbols, pmtotypical chamcters or situations) and a Jncfionot component, which concerns the issue of how liternture has to or can function wiihin eo<ieiy (Leisvere isa2/2ooo: z3a, iss2a:
You can add this document to your study collection(s)
Sign in Available only to authorized usersYou can add this document to your saved list
Sign in Available only to authorized users(For complaints, use another form )