A theoretical account of translation - without a translation theory
(1990)
| Abstract | In this paper I argue that the phenomenon commonly referred to as "translation" can be accounted for naturally within the relevance theory of communication developed by Sperber and Wilson (1986a): there is no need for a distinct general theory of translation. Most kinds of translation can be analysed as varieties of interpretive use. I distinguish direct from indirect translation. Direct translation corresponds to the idea that translation should convey the same meaning as the original. It requires the receptors to familiarise themselves with the context envisaged for the original text. The idea that the meaning of the original can be communicated to any receptor audience, no matter how different their background, is shown to be a misconception based on mistaken assumptions about communication. Indirect translation involves looser degrees of resemblance. I show that direct translation is merely a special case of interpretive use, whereas indirect translation is the general case. In all cases the success of the translation depends on how well it meets the basic criterion for all human communication, which is consistency with the principle of relevance. Thus the different varieties of translation can be accounted for without recourse to typologies of texts, translations, functions or the like. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,664 |
| External links |
  Try with proxy. Try with proxy. |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesLarisa Cercel (2005). Hermeneutik des Übersetzens. Studia Phaenomenologica 5:335-353.
Markus Zisselsberger (2008). The Claim and Use of Language in Translation: Heidegger (and) Übersetzen. Epoché 12 (2):313-328.
E. Tov (2008). The LXX Translation of Esther : A Paraphrastic Translation of MT or a Free Translation or a Rewritten Version? In van der Horst, Pieter Willem, Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, van de Weg & Magdalena Wilhelmina Misset (eds.), Empsychoi Logoi--Religious Innovations in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Brill.
Aristotle (1984). The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Princeton University Press.
Mark Wildschut (2005). Heidegger Into D(E)Ut(s)Ch. Studia Phaenomenologica 5:53-67.
Christopher J. Martin (2011). What An Ugly Child: Abaelard on Translation, Figurative Language, and Logic. Vivarium 49 (1-3):26-49.
Diederik Olders & Peter Sas (2001). Lifting the Church-Ban on Quotational Analysis: The Translation Argument and the Use-Mention Distinction. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 32 (2):257-270.
Roger Wertheimer (2008). The Paradox of Translation. In B. . Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & M. Thelen (eds.), Translation and Meaning. Hogeschool Zuyd.
Shyam Ranganathan (2007). Of Language, Translation Theory and a Third Way in Semantics. Essays in Philosophy 8 (1).
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads28 ( #44,043 of 549,017 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,017 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
