On Rosemary Arrojo's “Writing, Interpreting, and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning: Scenes from Kafka, Borges, and Kosztolanyi”

As Nietzsche argues in relation to contemporary language theories, “nothing or nobody could claim to be outside the domain of interpretation,” “there is no text in itself apart from the activity of interpretation (cited by Arrojo 65). According to Arrojo “because we cannot separate the text from its reading, the latter [that is, reading] is inextricably related to the will to power and, thus, is a way of taking over rather than protecting or merely reproducing someone else’s meaning” (Arrojo 65). Kafka’s story “The Burrow” is both “a text” and a labyrinth, “it has passages” which have to be constantly reviewed (ibid 65). The creator of the labyrinth goes through the passages over and over again to see if there is anything which would result in an intruder to come into labyrinth. The creator of the labyrinth is obsessed with this idea, it must be alone in his kingdom, and no other creature is allowed. Every time it goes through the passages, it realizes there is something missing and “redoes his work again” (69). In fact, every time it goes through the passages - hence “the intruding Other whom he [the creature] imagines as a faithful projection to himself” (Arrojo 68) - it is no more the creator but the intruder, no more the writer but the reader. I think, as soon one goes through even her/his own creation, one is no more the creator but the intruder, no more the writer but the reader, so there is no way but interpreting over and over again. There are always passages in texts which would lead even the “original” author to interpret, let alone another reader. Arrojo argues that in Borges’ story Scharlach can do what the creature in Kafka’s story cannot and prisons his reader (71); however this is fiction, and in real life, no such thing is possible; there are always passages in texts which cause the reader to interpret, and construct his own meaning: we as readers of Borges’ story will eventually escape from the prison of Borges, as soon as we find a passage which we can take over. At this point Arrojo rightfully asks (73): “If one cannot clearly and forever separate the author from the interpreter, the text from its reading, or even one text from another, and if the will to power as authorial desire is that which moves both writers and readers in their attempts at constructing textual mazes that could protect their meanings and, thus, also imprison and neutralize any potential intruder, is it ever possible for interpreters to be faithful to the authors or to the texts they visit?” “In a tradition that generally views originals as the closed, fixed receptacle of their author’s intentional meanings... translators are not only denied the rights and privileges of authorship but also must endure a reputation for treachery and ineptitude while being urged to be as invisible and as humble as possible” (Arrojo 74). The hero in story “The Kleptomaniac Translator” written by Dezso Kosztolanyi stands for the fate of all translators who “indulge in addictive authorial pleasure” even if they “attempt to compete with mediocre authors” so as to turn those authors’ “second-rate originals into artistic pieces” (Arrojo 77). Fortunately, “we are beginning to chart almost unknown ground in which writing and interpretation overlap as we attempt to review the old clichés that have devalued the impact of the translator’s task on the shaping of history and culture” (Arrojo 78).
Reference:
Rosemary Arrojo “Writing, Interpreting, and the Power Struggle for the Control of Meaning: Scenes from Kafka, Borges, and Kosztolanyi”.

On “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”

Translation is an action. Translation, which is a kind of action, has a purpose. Skopos is the technical word for the aim of translation. Translational action results in a verbal or non-verbal “target text”, whereas translation results in a translatum, which is the resulting target text (Vermeer 2000:221). When the translational action is initiated by the initiator (say, the company who wants a specific advertisement to be translated), the commissioner (say, the coordinator at the translation bureau) who has been informed on the offer of translation calls the expert (ibid 2000:222), which is the translator. All initiator, commissioner and the translator might be the same person as well, and in this case the translator wants to translate a specific text, an even in that case, this action has a purpose, for the translator should explain why he chose to translate this particular text while he could have acted otherwise (ibid 2000:223). If the former example is the case, explaining what kind of purpose s/he has in mind, the initiator should negotiate with the translator on the prospective features of the target text. “A precise specification of aim and mode is essential for the translator” so as for the translator make a good job (ibid 2000:221).The purpose of the source text will direct the translator throughout the process of translation (ibid 2000:222). There might be different purposes in one particular text. In that case the translator will “use the skopos concept with respect to segments of translatum” (ibid 2000:222).
“The source text is oriented towards the source culture” (ibid 2000:222). “Language is part of culture” (ibid 2000:222). “Source and target text may diverge from each other quite considerably”, but in other cases the skopos might also be literal translation of the source text, say for a book of comparative linguistics (ibid 2000:223). “The point is that one must know what one is doing, and what the consequences of such action are” (ibid 2000:223). The action during the process of translating involves decisions: “for an act to be called an action, the person performing it must potentially be able to explain why he acts as he does although he could have acted otherwise” (ibid 2000:223). Cicero argues that “some disadvantage, or some advantage is neglected in order to gain a greater advantage or avoid a greater disadvantage” (cited by Vermeer 2000:223). Tymoczko’s view of translation is similar: “there are many parts that can stand for the whole... which part we pick out determines which aspect of the whole we are focusing on... The metonymic aspects of translation are not random, but systematic” (1999:58) Metonymic here means a part standing for the whole, and its systematicity is no different than the strategy which is determined according to the skopos.

REFERENCES:
Tymoczko, Maria (1999) “The Metonymics of Translation” in Translation in a Post-colonial Context, St. Jerome.
Vermeer, Hans (2000) “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.

On “The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation”

Translational activity has cultural significance. Since culture involves norms, translation is a norm governed activity (Toury 2000:198). According to Toury “socio-cultural constraints have been described along a scale anchored between two extremes: general, relatively absolute rules, on the one hand and pure idiosyncrasies on the other,” and right in the middle of these are found what is called norms (2000:199). Some norms are “more rule like (basic norms), some are weaker (secondary norms or tendencies), and some are almost idiosyncratic (tolerated behavior)” (ibid 2000:199,208).

Norms are constraints, and these constraints are not static, they change over time (ibid 2000:199). “Each type of constraint may, and often does move into its neighboring domain(s) through processes of rise and decline. Thus, mere whims may catch on and become more and more normative, and norms can gain so much validity that they become as binding as rules” or stop being deemed rules, and if the former is realized, in the course of time these constraints become norms (ibid 2000:1999). Norms are acquired by the individual during his/her socialization and always imply sanctions”, and one is evaluated by the society to the extent of her/his adherence to norms (ibid 2000:1999). Another important fact is stated by Herman’s that “non-compliance with a norm does not invalidate the norm” (cited by Toury 2000:200). “At the same time, there would normally be a price to pay for opting for any deviant kind of behavior” (Toury 2000:200), which means the deviant individual shall bear the consequences.
In translation, “initial norm” is constituted in two ways: translator’s subjecting herself/himself to the norms of the original text (adequacy), or subscription to those of the target culture (acceptability) (Toury 2000:201). Even if the translator wants her/his translation to be as adequate as possible, “shifts from the source text will be inevitable” (Toury 2000:201). “Actual translation decisions will necessarily involve some ad hoc combination of, or compromise between the two extremes implied by the initial norm” (Toury 2000:201). In other words, no matter how hard the translator might endeavour, no translation can be totally foreignizing or vice versa.
Preliminary norms are the norms regarding the translation policy (which source texts to be selected for translation) and the directness of translation (whether or not the translation is to be made from a mediating language or not, which languages are accepted as mediating languages, in the event of translation from a mediating language, is it overtly mentioned which mediating language the translation is made from) (Toury 2000:202). It can be said that norms affect the preparation period for the translation process, the translation process itself, and last but not least the product which is the result of such process. Preliminary norms are priceless for shedding light on asymmetric relations between languages, for example, is there a gap in the number of translations made from English into Turkish when compared to those made from Turkish into English? What are the mediating languages Turkish publishers tend to accept to translate from? Operational Norms govern the process of translation itself: “matricial norms govern the selecting of target language material. Omissions and additions may be determined by norms” (Toury 2000:202). Norms are not static, they change over time: “three types of competing norms can be observed in a society: the ones that dominate the centre of the system, the remnants of the previous ones and the rudiments of the new ones” (ibid 2000:205). So “who is allowed by a culture to introduce changes under what circumstances and under what circumstances such changes may be expected to occur and/or be accepted” (ibid 2000:206) can change over time, too.
Norms are not directly observable (ibid 2000:206). In the case of translation, only products, which are translated texts (“textual sources”) give information about the nature of norms (ibid 2000:207). There are also other kinds of texts, which Toury calls “extratextual sources” such as metatexts on translations, but Toury warns against the extratextual sources: “they are likely to lean toward propaganda and persuasion” (ibid 2000:207).

Reference:
Toury, Gideon (2000) “The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.

On “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem”

Even-Zohar argues that translated works in a particular language “correlate in at least two ways”: (a) “in the way their source texts are selected by the target culture…” (b) “in the way they adopt specific norms, behaviors, and policies (Even-Zohar 2000:192-193). Even-Zohar’s including “at least” in this utterance gives me the opportunity to say that another quality such translations share is that they might be selected by the source culture, as well. As İsmail Kaplan argues, this is the result of a translation policy adopted by the USA. His article on George Orwell’s Animal Farm makes it clear that the dominant power USA is capable of getting a work to be translated exactly when it wants it to be translated, not before. So there may also be times when a particular work is selected to be translated by not the target culture but the source culture. This is a fact supporting that systems are always in relation to one another, and also that those occupying the central position have an effect on those occupying the weak or peripheral position.
Regardless of by whom it is selected, how does translation play a major role in shaping the center of the polysystem? When does translation become one of the means of introducing new repertoire? (ibid 2000:193). There are different but related answers can be given to the question: “When a literature is in the process of being established”, “when a literature is ‘peripheral’ or ‘weak’or both”, or “when there are turning points, crises or literary vacuums in a literature” (ibid 2000:194). When a literature is being established it “cannot immediately create texts in all types known to its producers, it benefits from the experience of other literatures” by translating (ibid 2000:194). This assumption is also valid for literatures whose “resources are limited and whose position within a larger literary hierarchy is generally peripheral” (ibid 2000:194). Translation also plays a major role in the making of the repertoire when “no item in the indigenous stock is taken to be acceptable, as a result of which a literary ‘vacuum’ occurs” (ibid 2000:194). In such a vacuum it is easy for foreign models to infiltrate. In his book The Scandals of Translation Lawrence Venuti he is trying to shake the regime of English. This can be interpreted in the light of Even-Zohar’s ideas that Venuti’s political agenda consists of transforming standard(ized) English getting translation to play a major role in the making of the repertoire of English. In fact, Venuti advises translators to be strategic in two things: (a) selecting which foreign texts to translate (b) developing discourses to translate them. These two steps can be compared to Even-Zohar’s “selecting the source text” and “adopting specific norms” mentioned above. Probably Venuti agrees with Even-Zohar that no polysystem can keep occupying the central position forever, and tries to end the occupation of the central language as soon as possible.
Despite the endeavors of Venuti, translation might be yet to begin playing a major role in the realm of English. But when translation assumes a central position (in the making of the repertoire in any language), “in the process of creating new, primary models, the translator’s main concern is not just to look for ready-made models in his home repertoire into which the source texts would be transferable. Instead [she or] he is prepared in such cases to violate the home conventions,” “translation will be close to the original in terms of adequacy” (Even-Zohar 2000:196). This will not be immediately accepted by the reader of the target text; “of course, from the point of view of the target literature the adopted translational norms might for a while be too foreign and revolutionary, and if the new trend is defeated in the literary struggle, the translation made according to its conceptions and tastes will never really gain ground” (Even-Zohar 2000:196). In Toury’s words, the translator who does not conform with the norms of her/his culture will bear the consequences. Even-Zohar says “periods of great change in the home system are in fact the only ones when a translator is prepared to go far beyond the options offered to him by his established home repertoire and is willing to attempt a different treatment of text making” (Even-Zohar 2000:196-197). Is there a great change in the home system of English, or is Venuti, with his 4.000 selling translation in two years, an exception to this rule? Only time will tell.

Reference:
Even-Zohar, Itamar (2000) “The Position of Translated Literature within the Literary Polysystem” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.

On “Translation and the Trials of the Foreign”
Berman sees translation as the “trial of the foreign”(2000:284), which has a dual meaning: 1- from the perspective of the translator and the readers of the target text 2- from the perspective of the source text which begins its adventure of survival in the foreign realm (the target realm). The translator will try to keep the foreignness of the text and the readers will have access to it (1), and the work will have been borne into another language (2). As Berman argues (2000:284) Hölderlin’s version of Sophocles makes the target reader feel the strangeness of the source text; however most translations have a tendency to “attenuate or cancel it” (2000:284). The violence of the work can only be freed (from its original language) by way of “accentuating its strangeness” (2000:285). This is the only way the target text reader will have access to the text.
In translating poetry, Alain seems to share Walter Benjamin’s approach (whether with or without being aware of his remarks): “I have this idea that one can always translate a poet exactly word for word, without adding anything, preserving the very order of the words, until at last you find the meter, even the rhymes...” (Cited by Berman 2000:285). Berman thinks that “thanks to such translation, the language of the original shakes with all its liberated might the translating language” (2000:285). Nevertheless, in this very article, he seems more interested in translation of literary prose than that of poetry. Due to reasons of brevity, poetry translation is more easily compared with the source text and criticized (2000:287). This handicap of novel translation is what Berman wants to remedy with his “analytic of translation” (2000:286). His “negative analytic” sheds light on “ethnocentric”, “annexationalist” and “hypertextual” translations. Berman speaks of deforming forces which do harm to the foreignness of the translated text and adds that every translator, consciously or not, serve these forces (2000:286).
A criticism prose often comes under is its “shapelessness”, which is the totality of languages coexisting in any language (Berman 2000:287). This is the result of the gigantic work the prose writer has to include in her/his work (ibid 2000:287). What makes prose be considered “bad writing” is in fact its richness: its polylingualism (ibid 2000:287). In my opinion, if works of prose, including those which are deemed the annals of world literature are criticized because they are rich, because they bring together different languages and/or vernaculars, then translations thereof are entitled to have the same richness and bring together different languages, as well, and this richness can be maintained with the help of keeping the foreignness of the source text in translation. Berman argues that “all translation is, and must be, the restitution of meaning” (2000:297). The ultimate task of the translator however, is not to neglect the other essence of translating, which is to maintain the trial of the foreign. Berman’s enumeration of tendencies is more than helpful in showing what should not be done so as to carry out that ultimate task.

Reference:
Berman, Antoine (2000) “Translation as the Trials of the Foreign” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.

On "The Task Of The Translator"

Benjamin argues that a translation which is not bad never “undertakes to serve the reader” (2000 :16). He supports this idea with the fact that “the original does not exist for the reader’s sake” (2000:16)”. The moment of creation of a poem similar to those of Baudelaire’s includes the transmission through the poet of ideas and feelings belonging to a superior being, therefore the original is written by the poet-prophet, and it is by no means created for the sake of those who will read it. So as to make a good translation, the fact that the original is not intended for the reader’s sake (and neither should be the translation) is to be taken into consideration by the translator. If a work is decided to be translated, neither this decision nor the translation process should be intended for the reader. Linked to this, is the notion of “translatability”:

“The question of whether a work is translatable has a dual meaning. Either: Will an adequate translator ever be found among the totality of its readers? Or, more pertinently: Does its nature lend itself to translation and, therefore, in view of the significance of the mode, call for it?” (2000:16)

If a work is translatable, which means is worth being translated, its encounter with one of its readers might result in the translation of the same. Even if this encounter, or the result of this encounter is not realized, that does not prove that the work is not translatable (ibid 2000:16). How does one decide, then, if a work is worth being translated or not? The answer might be related to the notion of universal language, or to the fact that the “kinship of languages” is hidden in elements which are language or culture specific (2000:17). “Languages are not strangers to one another, but are, a priori and apart from all historical relationships, interrelated in what they want to express” (ibid 2000:17). Then it can be said that, if a work will serve to show the differences of expression, make its readers aware of the different “modes” of expression and get them to acquaint themselves with the kinship of languages, it should be translated. Benjamin chooses to translate Baudelaire, for he believes he is the one who believes to be responsible to share with German speaking readers what Baudelaire says in French. This way, relating two different languages to one another, those who read his translation will come one step closer to the universal language.

“Wherein resides the relatedness of two languages, apart from historical considerations? Certainly not in the similarity between works of literature or words. Rather, all supra historical kinship of languages rests in the intention underlying each language as a whole- an intention, however, which no single language can attain by itself but which is realized only by the totality of their intentions supplementing each other: pure language” (Benjamin 2000:18)

Even the most similar words in two languages referring to or “intending” the same object, in other words the different signifiers in two languages of what seems to be the same signified, such as Brot and pain, are different from each other, for they are different modes of intention (ibid 2000:18). The act of translating (well) and reading of (good) translations help discover the hidden meaning of individual languages by showing what each of them lacks, and what one of them lacks is found in another language, and this way, one completes the other, until the pure language is realized as a result of all the various modes of intention (ibid 2000:18-19). Then, in light of these, it can be said, as Benjamin does, that what is included in the original work might not be found in its translation, but, I think, the original might lack what is included in the translation, as well, for as Tymoczko argues, there is always “loss and gain” in translation, and as Benjamin says, what one language lacks is present within the barriers of the other. Translation is more than helpful for comparing and contrasting of languages. As Akşit Göktürk says, it is “the language of all languages”.

REFERENCE:
Benjamin, Walter (2000) “The Task of The Translator” in The Translation Studies Reader ed. Lawrence Venuti, New York: Routledge.