✪✪✪ Sonnet Dialectical Construct
Jim A. Chapter Summary: The Most Dangerous Game F. Sonnet Dialectical Construct culture is perceived as dynamic, then the terminology of social structuring must be dynamic also. Dialectical Sonnet Dialectical Construct. Academic level: Sonnet Dialectical Construct. Lanham, Sonnet Dialectical Construct Lexington Books,
Shakespeare's Pathetic - Sonnet 29 Explanation and Analysis
When delegating your work to one of our writers, you can be sure that we will:. We have thousands of satisfied customers who have already recommended our essay writing services to their friends. Why not follow their example and place your order today? If your deadline is just around the corner and you have tons of coursework piling up, contact us and we will ease your academic burden. We are ready to develop unique papers according to your requirements, no matter how strict they are. Our experts create writing masterpieces that earn our customers not only high grades but also a solid reputation from demanding professors. Don't waste your time and order our essay writing service today! Make the right choice work with writers from EssayErudite EssayErudite is an online writing company with over 10 years in academic writing field.
Certified Writers Our writers hold Ph. Original Papers We have zero tolerance for plagiarism; thus we guarantee that every paper is written from scratch. Prompt Delivery All papers are delivered on time, even if your deadline is tight! How Does it Work? Customer: Subject: History Type: Essay Pages: 3 I love this service, because I can freely communicate with writers, who follow all my instructions! Questions and answers use live chat for more queries How do you set a price? We make our prices affordable for all students, regardless of their budgets.
Need a discount? Just ask for it! We have a large talent pool of professionals holding Masters and Doctoral degrees in a variety of disciplines. Therefore, we can deliver papers in all popular academic areas, be it marketing or philosophy. Every member of our writing team has successfully passed a round of interviews and qualification tests before being hired, so you can be sure that your assignment is in safe hands. Right after we get a payment, our writer gets down to work to deliver your order on time. Note that even the most skilled writers need enough time to conduct research and develop a paper.
Therefore, we recommend placing an order in advance, whenever it is possible. If you upload them after our specialist starts writing, your deadline may be extended. The date when a paper should be delivered is indicated as "Final Submission". Note that there must be some gap between this date and the first draft deadline, as you may need some time to read the paper and ask for a revision. Right after your essay is finished, we will send it to your email. We recommend you to check a personal account before the deadline so that you can provide any additional information, discuss the progress of your paper and communicate with an assigned writer. About Us We value excellent academic writing and strive to provide outstanding essay writing service each and every time you place an order.
Our Services When it comes to essay writing, an in-depth research is a big deal. Need some help? We will call you back in 15 min. How can we help you? Help me place an order Let's discuss my order status Let's discuss quality of my order Other. The English idiom that most closely corresponds to the Italian is to beat about the bush, also obscure unless used idiomatically, and hence the sentence correctly translated becomes John is beating about the bush. Both English and Italian have corresponding idiomatic expressions that render the idea of prevarication, and so in the process of interlingual translation one idiom is substituted for another.
That substitution is made not on the basis of the linguistic elements in the phrase, nor on the basis of a corresponding or similar image contained in the phrase, but on the function of the idiom. But once the translator moves away from close linguistic equivalence, the problems of determining the exact nature of the level of equivalence aimed for begin to emerge. Albrecht Neubert, whose work on translation is unfortunately not available to English readers, distinguishes between the study of translation as a process and as a product.
In such a translation one is concerned with such correspondences as poetry to poetry, sentence to sentence, and concept to concept. Dynamic equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect, i. As an example of this type of equivalence, he quotes J. The principle of equivalent effect which has enjoyed great popularity in certain cultures at certain times, involves us in areas of speculation and at times can lead to very dubious conclusions.
It is an established fact in Translation Studies that if a dozen translators tackle the same poem, they will produce a dozen different versions. This invariant core, he claims, is represented by stable, basic and constant semantic elements in the text, whose existence can be proved by experimental semantic condensation. Transformations, or variants, are those changes which do not modify the core of meaning but influence the expressive form. In short, the invariant can be defined as that which exists in common between all existing translations of a single work. Equivalence overall results from the relation between signs themselves, the relationship between signs and what they stand for, and the relationship between signs, what they stand for and those who use them.
The norms governing the writing of letters vary considerably from language to language and from period to period, even within Europe. Hence a woman writing to a friend in would no more have signed her letters with love or in sisterhood as a contemporary Englishwoman might, any more than an Italian would conclude letters without a series of formal greetings to the recipient of the letter and his relations. In both these cases, the letter-writing formulae and the obscenity, the translator decodes and attempts to encode pragmatically.
The question of defining equivalence is being pursued by two lines of development in Translation Studies. The first, rather predictably, lays an emphasis on the special problems of semantics and on the transfer of semantic content from SL to TL. With the second, which explores the question of equivalence of literary texts, the work of the Russian Formalists and the Prague Linguists, together with more recent developments in discourse analysis, have broadened the problem of equivalence in its application to the translation of such texts.
And those procedures cannot be considered in isolation, but must be located within the specific cultural—temporal context within which they are utilized. The whisky market, older and more traditional than the Martini market, is catered to in advertising by an emphasis on the quality of the product, on the discerning taste of the buyer and on the social status the product will confer. The advertisement consists of a written text and a photograph of the product. Martini, on the other hand, is marketed to appeal to a different social group, one that has to be won over to the product which has appeared relatively recently.
Accordingly, Martini is marketed for a younger outlook and lays less stress on the question of the quality of the product but much more on the fashionable status that it will confer. The photograph. These two types of advertisement have become so stereotyped in British culture that they are instantly recognizable and often parodied. With the advertising of the same two products in an Italian weekly news magazine there is likewise a dual set of images—the one stressing purity, quality, social status; the other stressing glamour, excitement, trendy living and youth.
But because Martini is long established and Scotch is a relatively new arrival on the mass market, the images presented with the products are exactly the reverse of the British ones. The same modes, but differently applied, are used in the advertising of these two products in two societies. The products may be the same in both societies, but they have different values. Hence Scotch in the British context may conceivably be defined as the equivalent of Martini in the Italian context, and vice versa, in so far as they are presented through advertising as serving equivalent social functions.
The signs of the text are in a relation of opposition to the signs and structures outside the text. A translator must therefore bear in mind both its autonomous and its communicative aspects and any theory of equivalence should take both elements into account. It is again an indication of the low status of translation that so much time should have been spent on discussing what is lost in the transfer of a text from SL to TL whilst ignoring what can also be gained, for the translator can at times enrich or clarify the SL text as a direct result of the translation process.
Eugene Nida is a rich source of information about the problems of loss in translation, in particular about the difficulties encountered by the translator when faced with terms or concepts in the SL that do not exist in the TL. He cites the case of Guaica, a language of southern Venezuela, where there is little trouble in finding satisfactory terms for the English murder, stealing, lying, etc. The large number of terms in Finnish for variations of snow, in Arabic for aspects of camel behaviour, in English for light and water, in French for types of bread, all present the translator with, on one level, an untranslatable problem. Bible translators have documented the additional difficulties involved in, for example, the concept of the Trinity or the social significance of the parables in certain cultures.
In addition to the lexical problems, there are of course languages that do not have tense systems or concepts of time that in any way correspond to Indo-European systems. Catford distinguishes two types of untranslatability, which he terms linguistic and cultural. On the linguistic level, untranslatability occurs when there is no lexical or syntactical substitute in the TL for an SL item. So, for example, the German Um wieviel Uhr darf man Sie morgen wecken? Yet both can be adequately translated into English once the rules of English structure are applied. A translator would unhesitatingly render the two sentences as What time would you like to be woken tomorrow?
Linguistic untranslatability, he argues, is due to differences in the SL and the TL, whereas cultural untranslatability is due to the absence in the TL culture of a relevant situational feature for the SL text. Now on one level, Catford is right. The English phrases can be translated into most European languages and democracy is an internationally used term. But he fails to take into account two significant factors, and this seems to typify the problem of an overly narrow approach to the question of untranslatability.
Moreover the English term home, like the French foyer, has a range of associative meanings that are not translated by the more restricted phrase chez moi. Home, therefore, would appear to present exactly the same range of problems as the Finnish or Japanese bathroom. With the translation of democracy, further complexities arise. Catford feels that the term is largely present in the lexis of many languages and, although it may be relatable to different political situations, the context will guide the reader to select the appropriate situational features. The problem here is that the reader will have a concept of the term based on his or her own cultural context, and will apply that particularized view accordingly.
Hence the difference between the adjective democratic as it appears in the following three phrases is fundamental to three totally different political concepts: the American Democratic Party the German Democratic Republic the democratic wing of the British Conservative Party. So although the term is international, its usage in different contexts shows that there is no longer if indeed there ever was any common ground from which to select relevant situational features. If culture is perceived as dynamic, then the terminology of social structuring must be dynamic also.
In so far as language is the primary modelling system within a culture, cultural untranslatability must be de facto implied in any process of translation. The first is defined as A situation in which the linguistic elements of the original cannot be replaced adequately in structural, linear, functional or semantic terms in consequence of a lack of denotation or connotation.
The second type goes beyond the purely linguistic: A situation where the relation of expressing the meaning, i. Since English and Italian are sufficiently close to follow a loosely approximate pattern of sentence organization with regard to component parts and word order, the sentence appears fully translatable. The conceptual level is also translatable: an event occurring in time past is being reported in time present.
The difficulty concerns the translation of the Italian noun, which emerges in English as a noun phrase. Because of the differences in tense-usage, the TL sentence may take one of two forms depending on the context of the sentence, and because of the length of the noun phrase, this can also be cut down, provided the nature of the accident can be determined outside the sentence by the receiver. In short, tomponamento is a sign that has a culture-bound or context meaning, which cannot be translated even by an explanatory phrase. The relation between the creative subject and its linguistic expression cannot therefore be adequately replaced in the translation.
Mounin acknowledges the great benefits that advances in linguistics have brought to Translation Studies; the development of structural linguistics, the work of Saussure, of Hjelmslev, of the Moscow and Prague Linguistic Circles has been of great value, and the work of Chomsky and the transformational linguists has also had its impact, particularly with regard to the study of semantics. Mounin feels that it is thanks to developments in contemporary linguistics that we can and must accept that: 1 Personal experience in its uniqueness is untranslatable.
In other words, Mounin believes that linguistics demonstrates that translation is a dialectic process that can be accomplished with relative success: Translation may always start with the clearest situations, the most concrete messages, the most elementary universals. But as it involves the consideration of a language in its entirety, together with its most subjective messages, through an examination of common situations and a multiplication of contacts that need clarifying, then there is no doubt that communication through translation can never be completely finished, which also demonstrates that it is never wholly impossible either. Translation theory tends to be normative, to instruct translators on the OPTIMAL solution; actual translation work, however, is pragmatic; the translator resolves for that one of the possible solutions which promises a maximum of effect with a minimum of effort.
In the same way, literary criticism does not seek to provide a set of instructions for producing the ultimate poem or novel, but rather to understand the internal and external structures operating within and around a work of art. From the above discussion, it would seem quite clear that any debate about the existence of a science of translation is out of date: there already exists, with Translation Studies, a serious discipline investigating the process of translation, attempting to clarify the question of equivalence and to examine what constitutes meaning within that process.
Theory and practice are indissolubly linked, and are not in conflict. The case for Translation Studies and for translation itself is summed up by Octavio Paz in his short work on translation. No text is entirely original because language itself, in its essence, is already a translation: firstly, of the non- verbal world and secondly, since every sign and every phrase is the translation of another sign and another phrase. However, this argument can be turned around without losing any of its validity: all texts are original because every translation is distinctive. Every translation, up to a certain point, is an invention and as such it constitutes a unique text.
What can be done in the time and space allowed here is to look at the way in which certain basic lines of approach to translation have emerged at different periods of European and American culture and to consider how the role and function of translation has varied. So, for example, the distinction between word for word and sense for sense translation, established within the Roman system, has continued to be a point for debate in one way or another right up to the present, while the relationship between translation and emergent nationalism can shed light on the significance of differing concepts of culture.
The persecution of Bible translators during the centuries when scholars were avidly translating and retranslating Classical Greek and Roman authors is an important link in the chain of the development of capitalism and the decline of feudalism. In the same way, the hermeneutic approach of the great English and German Romantic translators connects with changing concepts of the role of the individual in the social context.
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the study of translation, especially in its diachronic aspect, is a vital part of literary and cultural history. The third period begins with the publication of the first papers on machine translation in the s, and is characterized by the introduction of structural linguistics and communication theory into the study of translation. Whilst his comments on recent developments in the discipline are very fair, it is also the case that the characteristic of his first period is equally apparent today in the body of work arising from the observations and polemics of the individual translator.
His quadripartite division is, to say the least, highly idiosyncratic, but it does manage to avoid one great pitfall: periodization, or compartmentalization of literary history. It is virtually impossible to divide periods according to dates for, as Lotman points out, human culture is a dynamic system. There is a large body of literature that attempts to decide whether Petrarch and Chaucer were medieval or Renaissance writers, whether Rabelais was a medieval mind post hoc, or whether Dante was a Renaissance mind two centuries too soon. An examination of translation in those terms would not be very helpful at all. Yet undoubtably there are certain concepts of translation that prevail at different times, which can be documented.
Steiner2 analyses English translation theory between the cut-off dates of —, starting with Sir John Denham and ending with William Cowper, and examines the prevailing eighteenth-century concept of the translator as painter or imitator. A less systematic approach, but one which is still tied to a particular time frame, may be found in F. Studies of this kind, then, that are not bound to rigid notions of period, but seek to investigate changing concepts of translation systematically, having regard to the system of signs that constitutes a given culture, are of great value to the student of Translation Studies.
This is indeed a rich field for future research. All too often, however, studies of past translators and translations have focused more on the question of influence; on the effect of the TL product in a given cultural context, rather than on the processes involved in the creation of that product and on the theory behind the creation. In trying to establish certain lines of approach to translation, across a time period that extends from Cicero to the present, it seems best to proceed by following a loosely chronological structure, but without making any attempt to set up clear-cut divisions. So the word for word v. The purpose of a chapter such as this must be to raise questions rather than answer them, and to reveal areas in which further research might proceed rather than to pretend to be a definitive history.
THE ROMANS Eric Jacobsen6 claims rather sweepingly that translation is a Roman invention, and although this may be considered as a piece of critical hyperbole, it does serve as a starting point from which to focus attention on the role and status of translation for the Romans. The views of both Cicero and Horace on translation were to have great influence on successive generations of translators, and both discuss translation within the wider context of the two main functions of the poet: the universal human duty of acquiring and disseminating wisdom and the special art of making and shaping a poem. The significance of translation in Roman literature has often been used to accuse the Romans of being unable to create imaginative literature in their own right, at least until the first century BC.
But the implied value judgement in such a generalization is quite wrong. The Romans perceived themselves as a continuation of their Greek models and Roman literary critics discussed Greek texts without seeing the language of those texts as being in any way an inhibiting factor. The Roman literary system sets up a hierarchy of texts and authors that overrides linguistic boundaries and that system in turn reflects the Roman ideal of the hierarchical yet caring central state based on the true law of Reason. Horace, in his Art of Poetry, warns against overcautious imitation of the source model: A theme that is familiar can be made your own property so long as you do not waste your time on a hackneyed treatment; nor should you try to render your original word for word like a slavish translator, or in imitating another writer plunge yourself into difficulties from which shame, or the rules you have laid down for yourself, prevent you from extricating yourself.
He compared the process of the addition of new words and the decline of other words to the changing of the leaves in spring and autumn, seeing this process of enrichment through translation as both natural and desirable, provided the writer exercised moderation. The art of the translator, for Horace and Cicero, then, consisted in judicious interpretation of the SL text so as to produce a TL version based on the principle non verbum de verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu of expressing not word for word, but sense for sense , and his responsibility was to the TL readers.
But there is also an additional dimension to the Roman concept of enrichment through translation, i. When these factors are taken into account, then the position both of translator and reader alters. The Roman reader was generally able to consider the translation as a metatext in relation to the original. The translated text was read through the source text, in contrast to the way in which a monolingual reader can only approach the SL text through the TL version. Roman translation may therefore be perceived as unique in that it arises from a vision of literary production that follows an established canon of excellence across linguistic boundaries. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that with the extension of the Roman Empire, bilingualism and trilingualism became increasingly commonplace, and the gulf between oral and literary Latin widened.
A religion as text-based as Christianity presented the translator with a mission that encompassed both aesthetic and evangelistic criteria. The history of Bible translation is accordingly a history of western culture in microcosm. Following Cicero, St Jerome declared he had translated sense for sense rather than word for word, but the problem of the fine line between what constituted stylistic licence and what constituted heretical interpretation was to remain a major stumbling block for centuries.
Bible translation remained a key issue well into the seventeenth century, and the problems intensified with the growth of concepts of national cultures and with the coming of the Reformation. Translation came to be used as a weapon in both dogmatic and political conflicts as nation states began to emerge and the centralization of the church started to weaken, evidenced in linguistic terms by the decline of Latin as a universal language.
John Wycliffe c. In the sixteenth century the history of Bible translation acquired new dimensions with the advent of printing. The sixteenth century saw the translation of the Bible into a large number of European languages, in both Protestant and Roman Catholic versions. Translations of the New Testament appeared in Danish in and again in , in Swedish in —41, and the Czech Bible appeared between — Translations and revised versions of existing translations continued to appear in English, Dutch, German and French.
Erasmus perhaps summed up the evangelizing spirit of Bible translating when he declared I would desire that all women should reade the gospell and Paules episteles and I wold to God they were translated in to the tonges of all men so that they might not only be read and knowne of the scotes and yrishmen But also of the Turkes and the Sarracenes…. I wold to God the plowman wold singe a texte of the scripture at his plow-beme.
And that the wever at his lowme with this wold drive away the tediousnes of tyme. I wold the wayfaringeman with this pastyme wold expelle the weriness of his iorney. And to be shorte I wold that all the communication of the christen shuld be of the scripture for in a manner such are we oure selves as our daylye tales are. It would not perhaps be too gross a generalization to suggest that the aims of the sixteenth-century Bible translators may be collocated in three categories: 1 To clarify errors arising from previous versions, due to inadequate SL manuscripts or to linguistic incompetence.
In an age when the choice of a pronoun could mean the difference between life or condemnation to death as a heretic, precision was of central importance. Yet because Bible translation was an integral part of the upward shift in the status of the vernacular, the question of style was also vital. Luther advised the would-be translator to use a vernacular proverb or expression if it fitted in with the New Testament, in other words to add to the wealth of imagery in the SL text by drawing on the vernacular tradition too. The collaborative aspect of Bible translation represented yet another significant aspect of that struggle. With regard to English, for example, the Lindisfarne Gospels copied out c. AD , had a literal rendering of the Latin original inserted between the lines in the tenth century in Northumbrian dialect.
These glosses subordinated notions of stylistic excellence to the word-for-word method, but may still be fairly described as translations, since they involved a process of interlingual transfer. However, the system of glossing was only one aspect of translation in the centuries that saw the emergence of distinct European languages in a written form. In the ninth century King Alfred reign —99 , who had translated or caused to be translated a number of Latin texts, declared that the purpose of translating was to help the English people to recover from the devastation of the Danish invasions that had laid waste the old monastic centres of learning and had demoralized and divided the kingdom.
In his Preface to his translation of the Cura Postoralis a handbook for parish priests Alfred urges a revival of learning through greater accessibility of texts as a direct result of translations into the vernacular, and at the same time he asserts the claims of English as a literary language in its own right. Translation is perceived as having a moral and didactic purpose with a clear political role to play, far removed from its purely instrumental role in the study of rhetoric that coexisted at the same time.
The concept of translation as a writing exercise and as a means of improving oratorical style was an important component in the medieval educational system based on the study of the Seven Liberal Arts. This system, as passed down from such Roman theoreticians as Quintilian first century AD whose Institutio Oratoria was a seminal text, established two areas of study, the Trivium grammar, rhetoric and dialectic and the Quadrivium arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy , with the Trivium as the basis for philosophical knowledge. He prescribes paraphrasing as a set of exercises that move through two distinct stages: the initial straightforward closeness of a first paraphrase and the more complex second stage when the writer adds more of his own style.
Together with these exercises, Quintilian advocates translation, and indeed the two activities are not clearly distinguished since both are employed to the same end: that of improving the science of oratory. Alfred had extolled the importance of translation as a means of spreading understanding, and for him translation involved the creation of a vernacular SL text. As emerging literatures with little or no written tradition of their own to draw upon developed across Europe, works produced in other cultural contexts were translated, adapted and absorbed on a vast scale. Translation acquired an additional dimension, as writers used their abilities to translate as a means of increasing the status of their own vernacular.
Thus the Roman model of enrichment through translation developed in a new form. In his useful article on vulgarization and translation, Gianfranco Folena suggests that medieval translation might be described either as vertical, by which he intends translation into the vernacular from a SL that has a special prestige or value e. Latin , or as horizontal, where both SL and TL have a similar value e. Bacon, for example, discusses the problem of loss in translation and the counter-issue, that of coinage, as Horace had done centuries earlier. Meanwhile Dante focuses more on the importance of accessibility through translation. But both agree that translation involves much more than an exercise in comparative stylistics. The distinction between horizontal and vertical translation is helpful in that it shows how translation could be linked to two coexistent but different literary systems.
The point at which a writer considered himself to be a translator of another text, as opposed to the use he might make of translated material plagiarized from other texts, is rarely clear. Within the opus of a single writer, such as Chaucer c. Translation, whether vertical or horizontal, is viewed as a skill, inextricably bound up with modes of reading and interpreting the original text, which is proper source material for the writer to draw upon as he thinks fit. At the same time, serious attempts to formulate a theory of translation were also made. The function of translation, together with the function of learning itself changed.
For as the great voyages of discovery opened up a world outside Europe, increasingly sophisticated clocks and instruments for measuring time and space developed and these, together with the theory of the Copernican universe, affected concepts of culture and society and radically altered perspectives. The translator is far more than a competent linguist, and translation involves both a scholarly and sensitive appraisal of the SL text and an awareness of the place the translation is intended to occupy in the TL system.
In his dedication of the Seven Books Chapman declares that The work of a skilfull and worthy translator is to observe the sentences, figures and formes of speech proposed in his author, his true sence and height, and to adorne them with figures and formes of oration fitted to the originall in the same tongue to which they are translated: and these things I would gladlie have made the questions of whatsoever my labours have deserved. The Reformation, after all, was primarily a dispute between translators. Translation became an affair of State and a matter of Religion.
The Sorbonne and the king were equally concerned with it. One major characteristic of the period reflected also in the number of translations of the Bible that updated the language of preceding versions without necessarily making major interpretative changes is an affirmation of the present through the use of contemporary idiom and style. In poetry, the adjustments made to the SL text by such major translators as Wyatt —42 and Surrey c. In other words, the poem is perceived as an artefact of a particular cultural system, and the only faithful translation can be to give it a similar function in the target cultural system. Whether the theory that would see this sonnet as written in commemoration of the fall of Cromwell in is proven or not, it remains clear that the translator has opted for a voice that will have immediate impact on contemporary readers as being of their own time.
It is his attempt at such a style that led to such alterations as the use of contemporary terminology for certain key Roman terms, so, for example patres et plebs becomes Lords or Nobles and Commons; comitium can be common hall, High court, Parliament; praetor becomes Lord Chiefe Justice or Lord Governour of the City. At other times, in his attempt to clarify obscure passages and references he inserts explanatory phrases or sentences and above all his confident nationalism shows through. Translation in Renaissance Europe came to play a role of central importance. As George Steiner puts it: At a time of explosive innovation, and amid a real threat of surfeit and disorder, translation absorbed, shaped, oriented the necessary raw material.
Moreover, it established a logic of relation between past and present, and between different tongues and traditions which were splitting apart under stress of nationalism and religious conflict. In their attempt to find models, writers turned to ancient masters, seeing in imitation a means of instruction. Translation of the classics increased considerably in France between and , the great age of French classicism and of the flowering of French theatre based on the Aristotelian unities.
French writers and theorists were in turn enthusiastically translated into English. The emphasis on rules and models in Augustan England did not mean, however, that art was perceived as a merely imitative skill. Art was the ordering in a harmonious and elegant manner of Nature, the inborn ability that transcended definition and yet prescribed the finished form. What new dreams affright My labouring soul! What visions of the night Disturb my quiet, and distract my breast With strange ideas of our Trojan guest.
The impulse to clarify and make plain the essential spirit of a text led to large-scale rewritings of earlier texts to fit them to contemporary standards of language and taste. A sudden Darkness shades her swimming Eyes: She faints, she falls; her Breath, her colour flies. Chapman The eighteenth-century concept of the translator as painter or imitator with a moral duty both to his original subject and to his receiver was widespread, but underwent a series of significant changes as the search to codify and describe the processes of literary creation altered. Goethe — argued that every literature must pass through three phases of translation, although as the phases are recurrent all may be found taking place within the same language system at the same time.
Goethe cites the work of Voss, who translated Homer, as an example of a translator who had achieved this prized third level. The problem with such an approach is that it is moving dangerously close to a theory of untranslatability. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, in , Alexander Fraser Tytler published a volume entitled The Principles of Translation, the first systematic study in English of the translation processes. Translation theory from Dryden to Tytler, then, is concerned with the problem of recreating an essential spirit, soul or nature of the work of art.
With the affirmation of individualism came the notion of the freedom of the creative force, making the poet into a quasi-mystical creator, whose function was to produce the poetry that would create anew the universe, as Shelley argued in The Defence of Poesy In England, Coleridge — in his Biographia Literaria outlined his theory of the distinction between Fancy and Imagination, asserting that Imagination is the supreme creative and organic power, as opposed to the lifeless mechanism of Fancy. Both the English and German theories raise the question of how to define translation—as a creative or as a mechanical enterprise. Meanwhile, Friedrich Schlegel — conceived of translation as a category of thought rather than as an activity connected only with language or literature.
Indeed, so many texts were translated at this time that were to have a seminal effect on the TL e. Stress on the impact of the translation in the target culture in fact resulted in a shift of interest away from the actual processes of translation. Moreover, two conflicting tendencies can be determined in the early nineteenth century. One exalts translation as a category of thought, with the translator seen as a creative genius in his own right, in touch with the genius of his original and enriching the literature and language into which he is translating. Most important of all, with the shift of emphasis away from the formal processes of translation, the notion of untranslatability would lead on to the exaggerated emphasis on technical accuracy and resulting pedantry of later nineteenth-century translating.
The assumption that meaning lies below and between language created an impasse for the translator. Only two ways led out of the predicament: 1 the use of literal translation, concentrating on the immediate language of the message; or 2 the use of an artificial language somewhere in between the SL text where the special feeling of the original may be conveyed through strangeness. The plant must spring again from its seed, or it will bear no flower—and this is the burthen of the curse of Babel. Newman, Carlyle and William Morris. No concessions are made to the reader, who is expected to deal with the work on its own terms, meeting head-on, through the strangeness of the TL, the foreignness of the society that originally produced the text.
What emerges from the Schleiermacher—Carlyle—Pre- Raphaelite concept of translation, therefore, is an interesting paradox. In other words, the translator invites the intellectual, cultivated reader to share what he deems to be an enriching experience, either on moral or aesthetic grounds. Moreover, the original text is perceived as property, as an item of beauty to be added to a collection, with no concessions to the taste or expectations of contemporary life.
On the other hand, by producing consciously archaic translations designed to be read by a minority, the translators implicitly reject the ideal of universal literacy. The intellectual reader represented a very small minority in the increasingly diffuse reading public that expanded throughout the century, and hence the foundations were laid for the notion of translation as a minority interest. Let him not trust to what the ordinary English reader thinks of him; he will be taking the blind for his guide. Let him not trust to his own judgement of his own work; he may be misled by individual caprices. Let him ask how his work affects those who both know Greek and can appreciate poetry. The TL reader must be brought to the SL text through the means of the translation, a position that is the opposite of the one expressed by Erasmus when discussing the need for accessibility of the SL text.
And with the hardening of nationalistic lines and the growth of pride in a national culture, French, English or German translators, for example, no longer saw translation as a prime means of enriching their own culture. In translating Dante, something must be relinquished. Shall it be the beautiful rhyme that blossoms all along the line like a honeysuckle on the hedge? It must be, in order to retain something more precious than rhyme, namely, fidelity, truth, —the life of the hedge itself….
The business of a translator is to report what the author says, not to explain what he means; that is the work of the commentator. What an author says and how he says it, that is the problem of the translator. For him, the rhyme is mere trimming, the floral border on the hedge, and is distinct from the life or truth of the poem itself. The translator is relegated to the position of a technician, neither poet nor commentator, with a clearly defined but severely limited task. It was Fitzgerald who made the famous remark that it were better to have a live sparrow than a stuffed eagle.
The third category, perhaps the most interesting and typical of all, would tend to produce translations full of archaisms of form and language, and it is this method that was so strongly attacked by Arnold when he coined the verb to newmanize, after F. Newman, a leading exponent of this type of translation. But although archaizing has gone out of fashion, it is important to remember that there were sound theoretical principles for its adoption by translators. Day Lewis, and so brings the reader sketchily into the s. But it then returns continually to the problem of evaluation without a solid theoretical base from which to begin such an investigation.
The increased isolationism of British and American intellectual life, combined with the anti-theoretical developments in literary criticism did not help to further the scientific examination of translation in English. Indeed, it is hard to believe, when considering some of the studies in English, that they were written in the same age that saw the rise of Czech Structuralism and the New Critics, the development of communication theory, the application of linguistics to the study of translation: in short, to the establishment of the bases from which recent work in translation theory has been able to proceed.
The progress of the development of Translation Studies has been discussed in the earlier parts of this book, and the steady growth of valuable works on translation in English since the late s has been noted. But it would be wrong to see the first half of the twentieth century as the Waste Land of English translation theory, with here and there the fortresses of great individual translators approaching the issues pragmatically. For the attitudes towards translation and the concepts of translation that prevail, belong to the age that produces them, and to the socio- economic factors that shape and determine that age.
Maria Corti has shown how through the nineteenth century, due to the wider distribution of the printed book, the author could no longer see his public so clearly, either because it was potentially so vast or because it cut across classes and social groups. For the translator this problem of impaired vision was all the more acute. The translator who makes no attempt to understand the how behind the translation process is like the driver of a Rolls who has no idea what makes the car move. Likewise, the mechanic who spends a lifetime taking engines apart but never goes out for a drive in the country is a fitting image for the dry academician who examines the how at the expense of what is.
She goes on to analyse C. As Robert Scholes puts it: Every literary unit from the individual sentence to the whole order of words can be seen in relation to the concept of system. In particular, we can look at individual works, literary genres, and the whole of literature as related systems, and at literature as a system within the larger system of human culture. Studying the average reader, Lotman determines four essential positions of the addressee: 1 Where the reader focuses on the content as matter, i. The translator is, after all, first a reader and then a writer and in the process of reading he or she must take a position.
Yet the differentiation between them derives from a concept of the reader as the passive receiver of the text in which its Truth is enshrined. Such a judgement might be made regarding scientific documents, for example, where facts are set out and presented in unqualifiedly objective terms for the reader of SL and TL text alike, but with literary texts the position is different.
One of the greatest advances in twentieth-century literary study has been the reevaluation of the reader. As Paz suggests see p. Quite clearly, the idea of the reader as translator and the enormous freedom this vision bestows must be handled responsibly. And all these elements can be missed if the reading does not take into full account the overall structuring of the work and its relation to the time and place of its production. Maria Corti sums up the role of the reader in terms that could equally be seen as advice to the translator: Every era produces its own type of signedness, which is made to manifest in social and literary models. As soon as these models are consumed and reality seems to vanish, new signs become needed to recapture reality, and this allows us to assign an information-value to the dynamic structures of literature.
So seen, literature is both the condition and the place of artistic communication between senders and addressees, or public. The messages travel along its paths, in time, slowly or rapidly; some of the messages venture into encounters that undo an entire line of communication; but after great effort a new line will be born. In this he is not doing less than the reader of the SL text alone, he is actually doing more, for the SL text is being approached through more than one set of systems.
It is therefore quite foolish to argue that the task of the translator is to translate but not to interpret, as if the two were separate exercises. Moreover, the degree to which the translator reproduces the form, metre, rhythm, tone, register, etc. If, as in the case of the Loeb Classics Library, the translation is intended as a line by line crib on the facing page to the SL text, then this factor will be a major criterion. If, on the other hand, the SL text is being reproduced for readers with no knowledge either of the language or the socio- literary conventions of the SL system, then the translation will be constructed in terms other than those employed in the bilingual version.
It has already been pointed out in Section 2 that criteria governing modes of translation have varied considerably throughout the ages and there is certainly no single proscriptive model for translators to follow. Many of the studies purporting to investigate these problems are either evaluations of different translations of a single work or personal statements by individual translators on how they have set about solving problems. Lefevere comes to the conclusion that although this works moderately well in the translation of onomatopoeia, the overall result is clumsy and often devoid of sense altogether. Lefevere concludes that, like literal translation, this method concentrates on one aspect of the SL text at the expense of the text as a whole.
Here Lefevere concludes that distortion of the sense, communicative value and syntax of the SL text results from this method, although not to the same extent as with the literal or metrical types of translation. Again the restrictions imposed on the translator by the choice of structure are emphasized, although the greater accuracy and higher degree of literalness obtained are also noted. Hercules in Section I of the poem. And earlier, in the same article, Sullivan quotes Pound defending himself against the savage attacks on his work in the following terms: No, I have not done a translation of Propertius.
That fool in Chicago took the Homage for a translation despite the mention of Wordsworth and the parodied line from Yeats. It was, in short, a kind of literary resurrection. The greatest problem when translating a text from a period remote in time is not only that the poet and his contemporaries are dead, but the significance of the poem in its context is dead too. With the classics, this first means overcoming the problem of translating along a vertical axis, where the SL text is seen as being of a higher status than the TL text. An Invitation to Dinner Cenabis bene, mi Fabulle, apud me paucis, si tibi di favent, diebus, si tecum attuleris bonam atque magnam cenam, non sine candida puella et vino et sale et omnibus cachinnis.
Catullus, 13 1 Now, please the gods, Fabullus, you Shall dine here well in a day or two; But bring a good big dinner, mind, Likewise a pretty girl, and wine And wit and jokes of every kind. Copley, 3 Inviting a friend to supper To night, grave sir, both my poore house, and I Doe equally desire your companie: Not that we thinke us worthy such a ghest, But that your worth will dignifie our feast, With those that come; whose grace may make that seeme Something, which, else, could hope for no esteeme.
It is the faire acceptance, Sir, creates The entertaynment perfect: not the cates. He tell your more, and lye, so you will come: Of partrich, pheasant, wood-cock, of which some May yet be there; and godwit, if we can: Knat, raile, and ruffe too. Of this will have no Pooly', or Parrot by; Nor shall our cups make any guiltie men: But, at our parting, we will be, as when We innocently met.
It is obvious that the three English poems are very different from one another, visually different in terms of length, shape, organization of lines, and enormously different in tone. What is missing in the third version, however, is the other consistent element in the original and the two English versions, the compliment to Lesbia line. The invariant therefore comprises both theme and tone, for the forms and approaches employed by the translators are widely different.
Moreover, it relies on the familiarity of the reader with a set of referential systems—the joke about the gods, for example, or the significance of perfume, which mean nothing to the contemporary reader. He uses the term essence rather than perfume, and translates meae puellae grandly as to my lady, retaining the plural form of Veneres Cupidinesque although the significance of that plural is lost on English readers. Then in the last two lines he runs into other difficulties. By translating tu olfacies as sniff it, he alters the register, and then returns immediately in the second part of the line to more courtly language but this time with all the connotations of the term heaven as opposed to god, by which he chooses to translate deos.
Had he merely wanted to transmit the content of the original to English readers he would have been content with paraphrase, so clearly he was concerned to create an English poem. He seems to have fallen into the pitfalls awaiting the translator who decides to tie himself to a very formal rhyme scheme in the TL version, at the expense, in this case, of giving the English poem any force and substance. He has focused on the joky, conversational tone of the original, on the close friendship between the speaker and the addressee that emerges from the poem and has updated the language in an attempt to ensure that the characterization of the speaker predominates over all the other elements. His version is a dramatic monologue in a kind of Damon Runyonesque dialect, but he gets much nearer to the original than the Marris version on several counts.
The Copley version, then, far from being an aberration of the original, in some respects comes closer to the Latin poem than the more literal version by Marris. The poem is no longer a rather suave and sophisticated mingling of several elements, it is located very precisely in a specific time and context. And, of course, in the relatively short time since the translation appeared, its language and tone have become almost as remote as that of the original! The plea of poverty, the affection between the two friends, the contrast between what is projected as the ideal dinner and what is the possible dinner, all these elements are beautifully expressed by Jonson.
The compliment to the lady has vanished, in its place is the love of learning; the perfume has been replaced with a Canary-wine that would have bestowed eternal life on Horace or Anacreon in person. The two sections of the poem, perfectly maintained, have nevertheless been utilized differently by the poet. So the translator putting the Jonson poem into German, for example, would miss a great deal if he did not take into account the relationship between the English and the Latin poems, and the syntactical echoes by which Jonson deliberately recalls his source text for the discerning reader. Yet clearly if he is right about the way in which a reader approaches a poem—and at the start of his book he claims that layers of meaning only emerge from several readings—then this thesis reinforces the argument against the one absolute, inflexible translation and against the desirability of the close translation which is, after all, merely one restricted reading of a poem.
With the three versions of the Catullus poem above, it was possible to see how the closer the translation came to trying to recreate linguistic and formal structures of the original, the further removed it became in terms of function. Meanwhile, huge deviations of form and language managed to come closer to the original intention. But this is not the only criterion for the translation of poetry, and a consideration of two attempts to translate the Anglo- Saxon poem, The Seafarer, will reveal a very different set of principles. Because of the length of the poem, I have restricted the discussion to selected passages for the original, see Appendix.
The Seafarer 1 A song I sing of my sea-adventure, The strain of peril, the stress of toil, Which oft I endured in anguish of spirit Through weary hours of aching woe. My bark was swept by the breaking seas; Bitter the watch from the bow by night As my ship drove on within sound of the rocks. My feet were numb with the nipping cold, Hunger sapped a sea-weary spirit, And care weighed heavy upon my heart. In all my wretchedness, weary and lone, I had no comfort of comrade or kin. Night shades darkened with driving snow From the freezing north, and the bonds of frost Firm-locked the land, while falling hail, Coldest of kernels, encrusted earth. Yet still, even now, my spirit within me Drives me seaward to sail the deep, To ride the long swell of the salt sea-wave.
The beat of the harp, and bestowal of treasure, The love of woman, and worldly hope, Nor other interest can hold his heart Save only the sweep of the surging billows; His heart is haunted by love of the sea. Trees are budding and towns are fair, Meadows kindle and all life quickens, All things hasten the eager-hearted, Who joy therein, to journey afar, Turning seaward to distant shores. Eager, desirous, the lone sprite returneth; It cries in my ears and it urges my heart To the path of the whale and the plunging sea.So, for example, the Sonnet Dialectical Construct between word Sonnet Dialectical Construct word Sonnet Dialectical Construct sense for sense translation, established within the Roman Sonnet Dialectical Construct, has continued to be a point for Sonnet Dialectical Construct in one way or another right up to the Sonnet Dialectical Construct, while Sonnet Dialectical Construct relationship between translation Sonnet Dialectical Construct emergent nationalism can shed light on the significance of differing concepts of culture. Help Sonnet Dialectical Construct place an order Let's discuss Sonnet Dialectical Construct order status Let's discuss quality of Sonnet Dialectical Construct order Other. Guilford Sonnet Dialectical Construct an important assumption Atonement Briony Analysis creative research: creativity is not one Sonnet Dialectical Construct concept. Sonnet Dialectical Construct investment theory of creativity Sonnet Dialectical Construct creativity in a unique perspective compared to others, by Frederick Douglass Pursuit Of Education Essay Sonnet Dialectical Construct creativity might rely to some extent on the right investment of effort Sonnet Dialectical Construct added to a field Sonnet Dialectical Construct the right time in the right way. Creativity and Innovation Management. NS 1 : 9—