David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
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||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Larisa 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: A Journal for the History of Philosophy 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. [REVIEW] 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):1.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #53,926 of 1,096,651 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #105,642 of 1,096,651 )
How can I increase my downloads?