The question of equivalence is central to an understanding of translation. Can any word, with all its semantic baggage, ever find an equivalent in another language? Is precise translation possible at the morphological level? For that matter, is there such thing as equivalence within a language? Are there perfect synonyms? In his essay “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation,” Roman Jakobson maintains that “there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code-units.”1 As a trained linguist, Jakobson was well aware of the arbitrary relationship between signs and the things they represent. He knew, for instance, that even a word as seemingly simple as ‘cheese’ —the definition of which seems external of the symbol, bound to something concrete and found in the real world—has countless nuances of meaning within and between languages. He insists, however, that translation is not a lost cause, as it is always possible to express the full meaning of a word through “loan-words or loan-translations, neologisms or semantic shifts, and […] circumlocutions.”2 Language, he believes, has an intrinsic ability to creatively make up for its own limitations, and therefore any idea can be expressed in any language. On the level of semantics, then, the problem of equivalence is resolved.
For translators (especially translators of poetry) the matter of equivalence is complicated by the fact that words not only have specific and complex meanings, they also have specific phonemic characteristics. This means that a translator of poetry must not only render the meaning of a text into a second language, she must also strive to render euphony, rhyme, meter and plays on words—a task which at first glance seems all but impossible. With all this in mind, Jakobson explicitly states that “poetry by definition is untranslatable.”3 Not one to throw up his hands and surrender, however, Jakobson proposes the idea of ‘creative transposition.’ Form in poetry, he says, is best re-rendered as part and parcel with meaning. Equivalence in poetry can be achieved, for example, by transposition “from one poetic shape into another,” or “from one system of signs into another, e.g., from verbal art into music, dance, cinema, or painting.”4
Of course, this whole matter of equivalence, as understood by Jakobson, may well have been challenged by his German colleague of the younger generation, Hans J. Vermeer. Though he was also a linguist by training, Vermeer was more interested in the action of translation than in the minutiae of semantics and lexicological equivalence. Precision, for Vermeer, is only one of many possible goals (skopos) of an action of translation. In other words, he acknowledges that exact equivalence need not necessarily be the ultimate aim of a translation. He is more interested in the underlying purpose of a text, whether original or translation. If he is concerned with equivalence, it is on this level. Does a Target Text have the same skopos as a source text? Is equivalence at the level of skopos even possible or desirable? Indeed, he admits that “functional constancy” between a source and target text “is the exception rather than the rule.”5 So what is the rule? Skopos theory leaves it up to the translator and commissioner/client to decide. Personally, I find Vermeer’s argument for skopos theory convincing. While a translator can never escape the fact that her job consists mainly of seeking more or less exact equivalences, it is reassuring to think that in cases where no (or many) equivalences are available, she can look to her skopos to help guide the decision making process at the heart of the action of translation.
Matt Robertshaw
12 October, 2017
Notes:
1 Roman Jakobson, “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation,” in The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., ed. Lawrence Venuti (New York; London: Routledge, 2000), 114.
2 Ibid., 115.
3 Ibid., 118.
4 Ibid., 118.
5 Hans J. Vermeer, “Skopos and Commision in Translational Action,” in The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., ed. Lawrence Venuti (New York; London: Routledge, 2000), 228.
Sources:
Jakobson, Roman. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., edited by Lawrence Venuti, 113-118. New York; London: Routledge, 2000.
Vermeer, Hans J. “Skopos and Commision in Translational Action.” In The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., edited by Lawrence Venuti, 221-232. New York; London: Routledge, 2000.
Thank you, I think you have the potential to approach Vermeer and skopos theory a bit more critically, which can also help expand your arguments in the term paper. The criticisms raised against Vermeer can guide you in that. For example, is this a realist or excessively idealistic theory? Are translators always consulted and regarded as an expert in each assignment that they take. What do translation ethics mean in the context of the skopos theory where the translator is empowered to an unprecedented degree.
ReplyDelete