Skip to main content

Week 2 Readings, or the Methodology to his madness.

In his article “The Significance of Hypotheses,” Andrew Chesterman presents an enlightening new take on how we go about producing theories in Translation Studies. Chesterman acknowledges the importance of ‘Empirical Hypotheses’—propositions that can be falsified against available data—but goes on to propose the use and the usefulness, and indeed the ubiquity, of ‘Interpretive Hypotheses.’ He defines interpretative hypotheses as a way of understanding or describing some complex thing by comparing it to something simpler and more familiar. He notes that we do this all the time; we constantly make use of metaphors in academic and non-academic discourse. Chesterman suggests that this use of metaphors—of seeing something as something else—is a useful and undervalued aspect of theory production in Translation Studies.

This being the case, it opens up exciting avenues for research within the discipline, since any metaphor one may encounter presents an opportunity for analysis. Consider, for instance, two metaphors for the act of translation itself: translator as ferryman and translator as opponent.

The former is a fairly common description. Indeed, the word translation is etymologically related to the idea of ‘carrying across.’ The metaphor implies that translation is an act of delivery and protection as the translator/ferryman and his passengers travel from one spatiotemporal location to another. The translator/ferryman requires a special skillset and particular resources. The metaphor hints at an aspect of danger, and also contains the idea of profession and reimbursement. The ferryman doesn't cross the river for his own sake. His business is not on one side or the other. His business is between.



But this is not the only way of seeing of the act of translation. I came across the metaphor of translator as opponent in a quote by Romanian-English translator Sean Cotter:

The process of translation feels like playing chess with a more talented opponent, who makes a seemingly mysterious move with the rook. Maybe a piece is left unguarded as a result, maybe the position seems more awkward, and I stare and stare at the board, trying to guess the point. Why this enjambment? Why didn’t the character respond to the flashing light? Why put the word ‘dentures’ in the middle of the sentence, rather than the end?1

According to this interpretation, the translator’s main task is to infiltrate the mind of the original author. The ultimate goal is the domination of the text and its creator. The translator as opponent is satisfied with nothing less than perfection. The connection between the translator and the act of translating differs between the two metaphors. Whereas the ferryman translates for someone else’s benefit (or for the remuneration involved), the chess player/opponent translates for her own internal reasons: for the challenge, for personal satisfaction, or for accolades.

Is it possible and desirable, as Chesterman contends, to test the validity these metaphors? Can these ways of seeing as yield new and fruitful questions regarding processes of translation? About translator training? About the role of the translator in society? Can they potentially contribute to the articulation of a general theory of translation?  It is clear that each metaphor is imperfect and contains ambiguities. What, for instance, do the passengers represent in the ferryman hypothesis? Are the readers of the Target Text being carried over to the Source Text? Or is the Source Text being carried to the readers? In other words, is the ferryman/translator responsible to the text or to his audience? For that matter, to whom is the chess player/translator responsible if her goal is domination and personal glory. Evidently neither theory is adequate on its own. But, as Chesterman points out, even a unsupported hypothesis can challenge our assumptions and shed valuable light on the field.

Matt Robertshaw
21 September, 2017





1 Jessie Chaffee, “36 Metaphors for Translation,” Words Without Borders, 18 July 2013, http://www.wordswithoutborders.org/dispatches/article/36-metaphors-for-translation-jessie-chaffee. Emphasis in original.



Sources:

Chaffee, Jessie. “36 Metaphors for Translation.” Words Without Borders, 18 July 2013. http://www.wordswithoutborders.org/dispatches/article/36-metaphors-for-translation-jessie-chaffee


Chesterman, Andrew. “The Significance of Hypotheses.” TTR 242 (2011): 65-86.

Comments

  1. sehnaz tahir24 September 2017 at 21:27

    Thank you for this response Matt. I enjoyed how you focus on translation metaphors as forms of interpretive hypothesis and explore their value for translation scholars. Thank you, also, for bringing Chaffee's piece to my attention. I had not read it before. Also, thank you for indicating your sources.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 8 Readings, or History Repeats Itself (in Translation)

As a student of history with a strong interest in translation for its own sake, I found this weeks readings particularly eye-opening. Quite often when I read history—whether primary documents or the works of historians—I ask myself how these people from various linguistic communities are communicating. Despite Julio-César Santoyo’s attestation that there are “thousands of examples [… of] documents that tell of interpreters involved in embassies and legations (both secret and official), peace and trade treaties, settlements of frontiers, royal marriages,” the fact remains that the critical role of translators and interpreters is overwhelmingly absent from historical records and narratives. 1 This, no doubt, speaks to the ubiquity of translators and the notion that a good translator must remain invisible, but it also poses a problem for those who wish to study the history of translation. I would be keenly interested, for instance, to know more about the processes and power dynamics at ...
2 comments
Read more

TS Paper, initial thoughts

Here are some initial thoughts on my research paper: Research question: For my research paper I’m planning to look at three recent Haitian Creole translations of Jacques Roumain’s celebrated novel Gouverneurs de la rosée (1944). One of them, Clotaire Saint-Natus’s Mèt lawouze douvanjou (2007) was written for a Haitian audience, while two, Maude Heurtelou’s Fòs lawouze (2000) and Jan Mapou’s stage adaptation Mèt lawouze (2012) were intended primarily for the Haitian diaspora in the United States. I would like to know how these three authors dealt with the challenges of translating a work of formal literature into an emergent literary language. I will draw from André Lefevere’s systems approach to literary studies to analyze how Saint-Natus, Heurtelou and Mapou’s refractions are shaped by the patronages and poetics of their milieus. Initial Bibliography: Fosdick, Charles. “Translation in the Caribbean, the Caribbean in Translation.” Small Axe 48 (November 2015): ...
1 comment
Read more

Notes and Bibliography

Notes: 1 Edmund Wilson, Red, Black, Blond and Olive: Studies in Four Civilizations: Zuni, Haiti, Soviet Russia, Israel (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), 110. 2 Paul Berry, “Literacy and the Question of Creole,” in The Haitian Potential: Research and Resources of Haiti , Vera Rubin and Richard P. Schaedel, eds. (New York: Teachers College Press, 1975), 85; Central Intelligence Agency, “Haiti,” The World Factbook. Accessed 30 November 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ha.html. 3 For a thorough analysis of the divided structure of Haitian society, see Michel-Rolph Trouillot, Haiti, State Against Nation: Origins and Legacy of Duvalierism , (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1990). 4 Matthew Robertshaw, “Pawòl Gen Zèl: Language Legitimation in Haiti’s Second  Century,” (master’s thesis, University of Guelph, 2016). 5 George Lang, “Translating from, to and within the Atlantic Creoles,” TTR 13 no. 2 (January 2000): 11. 6 Itamar Even-...
Post a Comment
Read more