Poetics revisited
Manchester, 01-05-2011
Cees Koster & Ton Naaijkens
When writing a possible history of literary translation of a single receiving culture one
has to deal with at least three historiographic disciplines: translation history, reception
history and literary history. In all these disciplines, one might say, current debate is
centered around the relationship between institutional approaches and approaches
oriented at the evolution of poetical ideas and practices. In the past few years
approaches from within the sociology of culture have come to have a strong bearing on
translation studies and have entered into a debate with dominant paradigms already
concerned with sociological and historical aspects of translation.
A ´sociology of translation´ is mainly concerned with agents, norms, institutions, group
behavior, mechanisms of transnational circulation (cf. Toury 1995, Heilbron & Shapiro
2006; Bachleitner & Wolf 2004; Wolf 2007). A comprehensive translational history
requires that one delves into more aspects (cf. Merkle 2008, Naaijkens 2008, Pym 1998);
it has to deal with for instance events, incidents, moments, with import (and possibly
export) of translations, with poetical views, ideas, debates and attitudes, with
institutional infrastructures and actions by mediating agents and by institutions, and:
with texts, text transfers (and this list, of course, is by no means exhaustive).
We should not make too fine a point about the distinction between sociological
approaches and historiography, after all it was Bourdieu himself who stated that there is
no sociology without history and no history without sociology.
What we would like to do here today is to present a theoretical proposal (or aspects of
it) for the description of the historical dynamics of the field of literary translation in
terms of the positions taken by a translator as an individual actor. We will skip here the
theoretical discussion on whether it is justified to use the term field with respect to the
phenomenon of translation. For the sake of the argument we simply assume it is. All we
need to do is to show that translators can take different positions within their
professional field. Our task, then, is to arrive at an idea of what the possible positions
are, and find a way to describe these positions, find descriptive instruments and notions.
Before doing just that, however, we would still like to mention some of the theoretical
assumptions that constitute our frame of reference.

Positions are taken by translators, so the focus has to be on the individual actor
within an institutional field of forces. As to the ulterior motives of a translator we
posit that he or she will aspire to a high level of independence in shaping his or
her career. Initially a translator has to enter into a relation of dependence with a
commissioner, but with respect to several aspects there is the possibility of
achieving a certain level of independence. The accumulation of symbolic capital,
the acquisition of prestige, enables a translator to achieve a position of relative
independence.

Focus on translation as a social activity, does not exclude a view on translation as
a textual practice, a creative practice, performed by an individual with his own,
motives, intentions and ideas, which find their way into a finished product. We
would like to stress that in our view a translator’s position in the field has to be
expressed both in terms of institutional and poetical dimensions.

It is emphatically not our intention to arrive at a paradigm of fixed positions, that
would be a reduction of the dynamic character of a field. Rather we set out to
arrive at notions that are able to locate the dimensions or the coordinates of a
position.
The focus on the individual translator as an intermediating agent positioned in the field
of literary translation allows for an integrated viewpoint. It can be related to an
institutional focus, which allows for the study of infrastructural issues, and to the
poetical focus, which allows for the study of both explicitly formulated views on
translation and literature and actual translation practices.
Our considerations on this point are related to the broader discussion on how the study
of the practices of individual agents can be incorporated into the broader institutional
and poetical frameworks – a question relating to the need of what has been called ‘a
sociology of the individual’ (Meylaerts 2008, Lahire 2003). Any meaningful statement on
a translator’s personal motives and intentions has to be located between the descriptive
categories of structure, of the larger whole the translators are part of, or consider
themselves part of, and of agency, of their own practices and, we would also like to add:
views.
The focus on the individual agent as ‘a dynamic and plural subject-grounded category’
(Meylaerts 2008:95) in this heuristic search is used as the integrating factor, the
interface [intersection, crossroads] between institutional factors (concerning the
relationship of the translator with other actors and institutions, both in terms of
economic and professional position) and poetical factors (concerning the ideas,
attitudes, norms of the translator, in terms of literary, cultural and ideological position).
Our intention at the outset of this study, then, was to arrive at a description of the role
and position of the translator, of the way translators function within the field of literary
translation, and as our main heuristic tool we posit the ‘translator’s profile’. This term
is often used in a casual, more or less undefined way (Meylaerts 2008: 95; Heilbron &
Shapiro 2007:??), but seems suitable for the kind of integrated approach we are looking
for, as it takes the relevant activities of an individual actor as a starting point from which
the other relevant aspects can be dealt with. The ultimate aim of a translator’s profile is
to determine the position of an individual translator in the field of literary translation in
both institutional and poetical terms (noot habitus en socio-biography).
Much of what we are going to say is the result of an exploratory study we performed
with a large group of students from our MA in Translation Studies into the field of
literary translation into Dutch in a fairly recent period: the extended sixties, 1955-1975.
In the actual experiment, 41 translators were profiled, which of course is a mere fraction
of the total amount of translator’s working in the field. The translator’s were selected in
a relatively random way: on the basis of our own prior knowledge of the field, the
relative visibility of the translator, the anticipated availability of material, and the wish
to include a variety of languages.
A translator´s profile
A translator’s profile would have to consist of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of
four initial parameters relevant to the translator’s position: a) oeuvre, b) career &
habitus and c) poetical views, and d) visibility in the field.
[HANDOUT]
As far as oeuvre is concerned, research is to be focused on a full inventory of
publications of the translator, of translations and original texts (if any), both in book
form and journals/magazines; both of translations and poetical texts. The inventory may
be analysed with respect to: chronology (productivity), source languages, authors,
genres (poetry, prose, drama, non-fiction), domains (children’s literature, popular
fiction), publishers, and number of funded translations [remark on Dutch field]. As far
as career & habitus is concerned, the profile concentrates on aspects like socialization
and training (linguistically, literary, culturally and translational), at literary professional
activities other than translation (criticism, literary texts, teaching); at the way the
translator got access to the field; at translational activities other than literary
(subtitling); membership of networks (academia, professional organizations, award
jury’s); eligibility for funding of translations; awards granted; at the general visibility in
the field, especially in so far as the translator acts strategically. With respect to poetical
views, analysis is directed at both external poetics and internal poetics (about which
more later), from a point of view relevant to one of the other parameters.
Visibility concerns the effects of a translator’s positions, not only in the field of
translation, but also in other fields in which the translator is active, for instance the
academic field or the field of media, and also concerns the reception of her work, the
Nachleben, the presence of the translator in public debates on ideological, political,
religious and social issues.
Positions in terms of dependence
From the data collected and the analyses of the parameters in the profiles we were able
to extrapolate a tentative, preliminary continuum of possible positions in terms of the
relative dependency or independency of the translator – dependency here to be
understood not only economically, but rather as a label for a general attitude, a certain
self-awareness.
A provisional distinction can be made between four possible positions: dependent, semidependent, semi-independent, and independent. A dependent position is characterized
by the following institutional and poetical coordinates: translator translates separate,
individual works, for several publishers; works only on assignment; complies to
mainstream norms; does not express himself on poetics and does not participate in
debates (low visibility); no other professional activities in literary field, or other
adjacent fields; no, or hardly any, financial support from subsidizing agencies. A semidependent position has the following characteristics: translator translates separate
works, but also has the exclusive right to the works of specific authors; works for a
limited amount of fixed publishing houses; works only on assignment (but can be sure of
assignments concerning works of own author(s)); complies to mainstream norm; does
not, or only rarely express himself on poetics or participate in debates; no other
professional activities in literary field, or other adjacent fields; eligible for financial
support from subsidizing agencies on grounds of past performance. It is hard to make a
discreet distinction between the positions of semi-dependency and semiindependency; the difference between both positions is a gradual one, and lies for
instance in the number of fixed authors and publishers, the number of subsidized
translations, and the relative visibility in the field. The position of an independent
translator can be characterized as follows: selects works or authors to be translated
himself; works for one single publisher, or possibly a few; can take liberty to deviate
from mainstream norm (pioneering role); frequently expresses himself on poetics or
participates in debates (high visibility in the field); performs other professional
activities in literary field, or other adjacent fields (education); receives limited financial
support from subsidizing agencies, because of alternative income sources.
The study of poetics
Obviously we could devote hours of discussion to any aspect of the translator’s profile,
but let us for now turn to poetics, which may be the most problematical.
Poetics (in the sense in which is used here), was first posited as a term by James Holmes.
It may be defined as ‘a coherent set of ideas and opinions on translation as a
phenomenon and on translations as cultural and literary artefacts’ (after Gillaerts). A
distinction can be made between external poetics, that is to say, any kind of paratext
linked to a specific translation (fore- and afterwords, footnotes and the like), and essays,
reviews, interviews, letters, diaries and other documents and documentation on debates
the translator is involved in, and internal poetics, that is to say: textual analysis of
translations, as separate texts or comparatively.
The role of the analysis of texts within a field theoretical approach (which might also be
called an institutional-poetical approach) is a controversial one.
As to our presentation, we have a choice between two options. We might the look into
the theoretical niceties of poetical research, and for instance discuss the relationship
between the notions of ‘poetics´ and ‘norm’, why ‘poetics’ may be more suitable within a
context of literary history, the epistemological problem of the implicitness of internal
poetics, or the methodological implications of comparative research (whether or not we
would prefer a so-called distinctive feature method over a repertory method), or we
might discuss an actual case study and show how poetical analysis fits in with analysis of
the other parameters.
We will do the latter and will use one of the more interesting translators from our
corpus: Pé Hawinkels (FACTSHEET HANDOUT).
During the collection of material for any profile (inventory of oeuvre, [archival] research
into documentation on biography, career, reception, and poetics) all kinds of micro-level
questions emerge that contribute to the answer on the comprehensive question as to the
position of the translator. In the process one will come across cases which may be
illuminating in particular with respect to strategic position taking – controversies, for
instance, or debates.
More often than not these cases concern specific translations and their reception. It then
becomes relevant to take a look into the translations themselves from the point of view
of a micro-level question.
In the case of Hawinkels a public debate on his translation of Thomas Mann’s Der
Zauberberg was the impetus for a comparison. In the debate there were to main
positions, taken by clearly distinguishable parties. When the book came out in 1975, the
majority of literary reviewers was very appreciative, praising the translation for its
consistency, its accessibility and its stylistic richness. There were some dissenting
voices, mainly from reviewers with an academic background in German literature, who
felt that Hawinkels had perverted Thomas Mann by adapting the style of novel to a
modern audience. The controversy came to a climax when the jury of the most
prestigious Dutch translation prize decided not to award the prize that year because no
published translation was deemed good enough. The debate then shifted to the question
why Hawinkels’ translation did not get the award. An analysis of the debate shows that
two main points of contention where at the centre: 1) should one consider the
translation as a text in itself (the position held by the reviewers) or as a mere
reproduction of the original (the position of the academics); and 2) the question
whether Hawinkels’ interpretation of Thomas Mann as an early 20th century writer was
justified. The second aspect can function as a trigger for an analysis of the internal
poetics, the leading micro-level question being what Hawinkels’ views on the novel and
by extension on Thomas Mann were. The answer to that question can be constructed
from a comparative stylistic analysis (in this case on, for instance, register in narrator’s
text and character text, use of archaisms in idiomatic expressions, or in a broader sense,
the way he dealt with the traces of the historical character of the text).
Looking at the texts themselves, allows us to see the debate between the interested
parties in a more neutral perspective. As is it turns out, the academics greatly overstated
their case, using a few limited examples to underline it. That the debate go so heated,
was in no small part due to Hawinkels himself. He was not prone to public justification
of his views, unless challenged by public criticism. When challenged he himself liked to
exaggerate his position of independence. That he was not awarded the Nijhoff
Translation Prize testifies to the fact that his was not a mainstream position, and that his
poetics, both external and internal, were controversial.
The study of internal poetics, then, by way of comparing translations and their originals
may be considered an useful and necessary part of compiling a translator’s profile. How
such a comparative analysis of texts is done, is an altogether different question, that it
will contribute to a more complete picture of the way a translator strategically positions
himself in the field is, to our minds, beyond doubt.