9,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: Bruno Osimo
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Sprache: Englisch
This Handbook of Translation Studies reflects my experience as a translation scholar, and a translation teacher, and a translator from Russian. The knowledge of the Russian language allowed me to read (and translate into Italian) crucial authors like Popovič, Lyudskanov, Torop, Revzin and Rozentsveyg. Since not many Western translation scholars know them, we get as a consequence a translation theory which is split between West and East according to a sort of 'cultural Berlin wall'.
Das E-Book können Sie in Legimi-Apps oder einer beliebigen App lesen, die das folgende Format unterstützen:
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025
Ähnliche
Handbook of translation studies
Indice dei contenuti
Handbook of Translation Studies
Introduction
0. Scientific Approach
Figure 1 Diagram of the translation process.
1.1.2. Personal limitations
1.1.3. The repetition of repetitions
1.2. Tools
1.2.2. Internet for translators
2. Language
2.1.2. How sense is formed
Figure 2 Equivalence in a Peirceian view of translation
2.1.3. How sense is communicated
Figure 3 Shannon and Weaver’s schema in text version.
Figure 4 The Peirceian triad of signification.
Figure 5 Ogden and Richards' triad of signification.
Figure 6 Classification of sign-object relationship types according to Peirce.
2.1.4. Metaphor and metonymy
2.1.5. A few styles
2.1.6. Plurivocity: registers and idiolects
2.2. Language/culture
2.2.2. Oral versus written communication
2.2.3. Language as worldview and translatability
2.2.4. Realia (cultural-specific elements)
2.2.5. Mother tongues and rational tongues
2.3. Language/communication
2.3.2.. The metalinguistic function
2.3.3. The phatic function
2.3.4. The conative function
2.3.5. The poetic function
3. Text
3.1. Text/interpretation
3.1.1. The text
3.1.2. Open and closed text
3.1.3. The hermeneutic circle
3.1.4. The problem of genre
3.1.5. The Concept of the Model Reader
3.1.6. The Role of Reader Expectations in Textual Interpretation
Figure 7 Strategies in traditional and total translation categories
3.1.7. Translatability of connotation
3.2 Text/communication
3.2.2. Metatext and author information
3.2.4. Second-degree intertextuality
3.2.5. Translation and residue: the metatext
4. The Nature of Translation
Figure 8 Sense shift in intralingual messages
4.1.2. Translation as interpretation
4.1.3. Popovič’s translationality and Toury’s developments
4.2 Translation/Interpretation
4.2.2. Translation as an invariant of sense
4.2.3. Versions and interpretations
4.2.4. Inferential interpretation
4.2.5. Translation: interpretation and recreation
Figure 10 Representation or mnestic image of the word.
Figure 11 The triad of signification eluded by autonimy
Figure 12 The habit-instinct-experience triad
4.2.6. Sense postulates
Figure 13 Translatants of ‘frame’ and their Italian ‘synonyms’
4.2.7. Common frame of reference
4.2.8. Translation-focused analysis
4.3 Translator
4.3.2. Translator as metaphor
4.3.3. The translator as a third wheel
4.3.4. Revision and its traps
4.4. Process
4.4.1. Intersections between semiotics and inner speech
Figure 14 I-I communication
Figure 15 Intersemiotic transformation in intralingual messages (Lotman 1990:156).
4.4.1. The phases of the mental process of translation
5. Types of Translation
5.1. Mediality
5.1.1. The Audiobook: A Form of Translation
5.1.2. Translation for cinema
5.2. Linguality
5.2.2. Words, terms, accuracy, types of translation
5.2.3. Exact translation and model reader
5.3. Textuality
5.3.2. Essay translation
5.4. Target-orientation
5.4.2. Special-purpose translation
6. Translation Techniques
6.1. Translation-focused analysis and translation types
6.2. Terminology
6.3.1 The Arabic alphabet
6.3.3 The Hebrew alphabet
6.4 General principles
Extract from the ISO 2384 standard on translation
References
Dello stesso editore
punti di riferimento
Pagina del titolo
Indice dei contenuti
Inizio libro
Handbook of Translation Studies
Bruno Osimo
Bruno Osimo
Handbook of Translation Studies
A reference volume for professional translators and M.A. students
Second edition
Copyright © Bruno Osimo 2024
Bruno Osimo is an author/translator who publishes himself
ISBN 9791281358560 for the hardcover edition
ISBN 9788898467785 for the ebook edition
To contact the author/translator/publisher: [email protected]
Introduction
This Handbook of Translation Studies reflects my experience as a translation scholar, and a translation teacher, and a translator from Russian and English. The knowledge of the Russian language allowed me to read (and translate into Italian) crucial authors like Popovič, Lyudskanov, Torop, Revzin and Rozentsveig. Since not many Western translation scholars know them, we get as a consequence a translation theory which is split between West and East according to a sort of 'cultural Berlin wall'.
In this book I tried to synthesise both Western and Eastern points of view about the translation process. In science I don’t think that the existence of ‘schools’ can be of any use. Schools imply belief, while science implies evidence.
The terms that are used here belong to both worlds.
For a deeper knowledge of the terminological aspects, you can use another book, ‘Dictionary of Translation Studies’, available both in paper and in ebook form.
I have been teaching translation at the Civica Scuola Interpreti e Traduttori «Altiero Spinelli» in Milan, Italy, for 35 years, and translation theory for 25 years. My students made an important contribution to this book, through their feedback during lectures and exams. Year after year I had the opportunity to evolve my view accordingly. And in the last quarter of a century my books have been reflecting such evolution.
Bruno Osimo
Deiva Marina, 9 January 2025
P.S. Since I hate the hypocrisy of political correctness, to make up for male dominance I have simply used the feminine for all examples.
0. Scientific Approach
There is a tendency to think that there is a strict distinction between scientific disciplines and humanities. But in much of the world, disciplines are called ‘sciences’ or ‘studies’ and are, by definition, scientific. ‘Scientific’ is an adjective that, applied to any context, distinguishes the register of those who deal with something in a serious and documented way from the register of those who address their discourse not to their peers, but to ‘the people’, and then prefer a popularising register (and content). Popularisation is translation of the scientific register into the popular register. Sometimes the use of humanistic (as opposed to scientific) discourse serves to mask the impotence of a study that pretends to be systematic but is not. Rather than compete with the sciences, one entrenches oneself behind this label to shield oneself from indiscreet comparisons. But, in the final analysis, even human phenomena are deconstructable into distinctive traits, and therefore scientifically tractable, although in order to think so, and to try to do so, one must not be lazy.
The science of translation studies the transformation of text (text in the semiotic sense, thus any cohesive and coherent set of signs) that occurs in its transfer from one culture to another (culture in the semiotic sense, thus any set of individuals united by a shared and taken-for-granted heritage of beliefs, and thus also any individual).
Figure 1 Diagram of the translation process.
1.1. General
1.1.1. The Berlin Wall: academia, ideology and freedom of thought
Ideology and scientific research should be maintained as distinct and non-overlapping domains of inquiry. The pursuit of knowledge is inherently free and open, and should not be constrained by ideological or political boundaries. Although often associated with authoritarian regimes, ideological bias can also manifest in academic discourse, as demonstrated in the work of Mona Baker.
The influence of political factors on scientific research can be pervasive, even in contexts where explicit ideological constraints are absent. The Berlin Wall not only divided a city and a nation but also had a significant impact on the global exchange of ideas, including those related to semiotics and translation studies. On the one hand, English and French were the primary languages of international academic discourse, while on the other, Russian was dominant in the Eastern Bloc. This linguistic divide mirrored the political and ideological separation. This meant that a scholar who gained local recognition could have their work easily translated into Russian, further solidifying the division between the two scientific worlds.
Although early translation scholars like James S. Holmes, who was particularly open-minded, attempted to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western scholarship, their efforts were limited by various factors, including their relatively small number and untimely passing. (The only edition of the Slovakian Popovič in a 'Western' language is due to him; Holmes 1970.) Certain translation projects, particularly those involving cross-cultural exchange, have failed to achieve lasting recognition or impact. The anthology I sistemi di segni e lo strutturalismo sovietico by Faccani and Eco (1969) did not achieve the level of influence on translation studies that might have been anticipated. The field of translation studies continues to grapple with the legacy of historical divisions, as evidenced by ongoing efforts to integrate diverse theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches.
The academic discipline of translation studies is subject to disciplinary divisions, with some scholars situating it within the humanities and others within the social sciences. The disciplinary boundaries between the humanities and the sciences have impacted the theoretical and methodological approaches to translation studies. The pursuit of knowledge, irrespective of disciplinary affiliation, necessitates the application of rigorous scientific methods. In the Slavic tradition, the discipline of verbal communication theory adopts a broad approach to textual analysis, encompassing both literary and non-literary texts. The distinction between literary and non-literary texts, while prevalent in Italian academic discourse, often lacks a rigorous theoretical foundation. A particular definition of literature equates it with fiction, encompassing a wide range of creative texts. This definition of literature, while useful in certain contexts, is not universally applicable, as it excludes a significant body of non-fictional works that are traditionally considered literary. Primo Levi’s If This Is a Man is a significant example of literary nonfiction, blurring the boundaries between factual reportage and creative writing. Is "literature" limited to creative writing, or does it encompass a broader range of texts, as suggested by the Slavic term "artistic literature"? The term "literature" can be employed to denote a corpus of written works pertaining to a particular field of study. The lack of a universally accepted definition of "literature" can impede the development of a unified theoretical framework for translation studies, potentially leading to artificial divisions between different types of translation. The Bulgarian scholar Lûdskanov states:
The first steps of the proponents of the linguistic conception of translation met with strong resistance from the exponents of the literary-theoretical conception (especially the translators themselves). These contested the linguistic nature of the translation process, which, according to them, would have a purely literary (or quasi-literary) character (Lûdskanov 2008:65).
A comprehensive understanding of Lûdskanov's work necessitates a consideration of the broader cultural and historical context in which it was produced: Lûdskanov's concept of "linguistic conception" presents a counterintuitive perspective on the relationship between language and thought; Lûdskanov's work transcends the confines of traditional linguistics, emphasizing the importance of intercultural communication and the role of language in shaping cultural identity. Lûdskanov's conception of linguistics extends beyond the traditional boundaries of the discipline, incorporating elements of semiotics and challenging the dichotomy between literary and scientific approaches to language. We don't need a literary approach to literary translation as much as we don't need a zoological approach to the translation of a zoological text:
Consider the widely held and in itself correct view that the translator of scientific texts (e.g. of a treatise on organic chemistry or zoology) must have knowledge in the respective scientific fields. This knowledge, however, is only necessary to carry out the extralinguistic analysis. Does this indisputable fact allow us to state that the translation of scientific texts of this kind is chemical or zoological in nature and requires a chemical or zoological approach? (Lûdskanov 2008:66-7)
Certain scholars within the Western tradition of translation studies employ terms such as "equivalent," "free," and "faithful" in a manner that lacks precision and clarity. As early as 1964, the Russian scholars Revzin and Rozentsveig drew attention to this problem:
Concepts like "literal," "adequate," and "free" translation have been used in translation theory for a long time, but their meanings are often unclear. The concepts of "literal," "adequate," and "free" translation are multifaceted, encompassing both linguistic and aesthetic dimensions (the extent to which linguistic elements in the source and target languages exhibit formal and semantic equivalence), on the other hand, artistic-aesthetic phenomena: The extent to which literary devices and conventions can be effectively transposed across linguistic and cultural boundaries. The development of a robust theoretical framework for translation requires the adoption of more precise and analytically rigorous terminology (Revzin and Rozencveig 1964:121).
The use of imprecise terminology can impede scholarly discourse, hindering the development of a coherent and rigorous theoretical framework. The adoption of a more precise and specialised terminology – as in Eastern Europe – can enhance the rigour and clarity of translation studies.
1.1.2. Personal limitations
The ambitious aim of M.A. courses in translation, usually attended after a B.A. in linguistic mediation, is to train translators. Compared to the older generation of professionals – trained in a more casual way, some with a translator's diploma (whose actual contents are very different from the current ones), some with a degree in literature, and all with a hard practice of work – the graduates of the M.A. courses in translation undoubtedly start with enormous advantages, due to the specific studies that they have followed and to the hard selection to which they have been submitted. This does not mean, however, that their education can be complete.
For translation there are various requirements, ranging from a broad general culture, to acute linguistic and artistic sensitivity, to a considerable critical education. For the translation for publishers, given the lack of balance – in some countries – between economic remuneration and the time needed to do the job, you must be willing to settle for modest living standards, unless you have other income.
For special-purpose translation it is necessary to deepen one's own encyclopedic knowledge in a number of sectors. Given that, as we have seen, not only translatological but also extralinguistic competence is indispensable, the specialized translator limits her activity to a few areas. The professionalism of a translator also shows in the ability to not accept assignments that are not part of her competences.
The fact remains that an editorial translator often finds herself 'tossed' from one text to another, with a borderline status as the least experienced among experts and the most experienced among readers. To get an idea of this kind of experience, I highly recommend to read the splendid autobiographical novel by Luciano Bianciardi La vita agra (It's a hard life):
Objectively, it was a very interesting work, because it allowed you to learn a lot of things about the most disparate subjects. Unfortunately, however, there was no time to assimilate everything as you would have liked. Once the Negroes were over, I had to move immediately to the artificial planets, from the brick moon of which a story appeared in the Atlantic Monthly of 1869-70, up until the first Sputnik put into orbit in 1957. And it's not an easy job because it requires several notions of physics and astronomy, to be assimilated in ten days (there are less than two hundred pages), and then there is the time lost for all the calculations, when you find miles to be reduced to kilometers, feet to decimeters, degrees Fahrenheit to degrees centigrade (here you must subtract thirty-two, then multiply by five and divide by nine). And then you have to watch out for the pitfalls: don't believe, for example, that meteor and meteorite are the same thing, and don't write theory of Games, ignoring the existence of a scientific game theory, otherwise the technical editor, the widow Viganò, takes note and the news passes around, mocking you in the eyes of all (Bianciardi 1962:137-138).
1.1.3. The repetition of repetitions
Another battleground between translators from different schools – in particular between those most rigidly faithful to school rules and those more open to historical stylistic evolution – concerns repetitions. The old school preaches to avoid repetitions because they would be aesthetically deplorable. At the objection that a repetition is reproduced by the translator when it occurs in the prototext, the exponents of this way of thinking usually counter that, however, in a given receiving languaculture repetition is really bad, they absolutely cannot be tolerated.
The suppression of repeated words is a canon of classical oratory, therefore this trend is spread in a fairly homogeneous way in all cultures, usually occupying an important position especially among authors who refer to classical oratory: few among contemporary authors. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to state that in one culture repetition is more unsightly than in another. Translators of this old school, by suppressing repetitions, censor part of the expressive structure of the authors they translate. ‘Say’ is usually ‘say’ and, how many times it may reappear on the same page, it will always remain ‘say’, in the face of synonym hunters. Translation as an embellishment is a dead and buried view, however still put into practice by some old-fashioned publishers.
There are authors translated into other languages who have felt the need to rebel against this practice and to claim the right to be considered authors in all respects, to decide whether in a text – their creation even if translated – repetitions have to be there or not:
If the author starts from [a] word to elaborate a long reflection, the repetition of this word is necessary from the semantic and logical point of view. [...] The prose of the novel (I speak of course of the novels worthy of the name) demands the same rigor [of an essay], above all in the passages that have a meditative or metaphorical character (Kundera 1993:116).
However, there may be exceptions, that are to be identified in translations in which the author is not a professional writer, or is not assisted by adequate editing staff. There may be cases of hastily written texts and/or of people not particularly proficient as far as verbal expression is concerned. Here repetitions may be the result of carelessness, sloppiness, negligence. When the translator is sure of being faced with such cases, as an exception to the ISO 2384 standard, she can claim the right to suppress some particularly unnecessary and annoying repetition.
1.2. Tools
1.2.1. The dictionary
In professional interlingual translation it regularly happens to find words whose meaning is unknown, and it is obvious that we do not know all the meanings, not even the conventional ones. Humility and modesty are very important for a translator – in addition to the largest possible amount of knowledge – since it is much better to suspect not to know something, and to check it, than to presume to know the meaning of a word and take it for granted even when it is not. To put it less gently, but perhaps more clearly, translators with delusions of grandeur are dangerous.
After what has been said about the difference between (contextual) sense and (generic) meaning, about the fundamental interpretative and subjective component of translation, it is quite clear that bilingual dictionaries are lists of pre-packaged, often inevitably subjective, interpretations of the ways you can translate a word into a given language. The serious fact is that these lists do not give any explanation of the path that – in the mind of the author – from a given word has led to a given translatant: they merely propose the latter as a valid replacement of the first. This leads the beginner to use indifferently one of the proposed translatants without making a serious appreciation of the sense they may have. Since there is no equivalence, every time a bilingual dictionary proposes a solution it is necessary to ask “in what sense is this word suggested as translatant of that one?” If you are unable to answer this question, please note you are not competent enough to use a bilingual dictionary. Only apparently the necessary competence to use a bilingual dictionary is less than the one needed for the monolingual: the opposite is true, and proof of this are the versions written using the bilingual dictionary by younger students.
The main tool for understanding the mostly denotative meanings of a word is the monolingual dictionary. It contains essentially an intralingual rather than interlingual translation: one assumes that the interpretations it contains are minor and less misleading than those of the bilingual, and this supposition is confirmed by practical experience. Instead of a magician who turns one word into another by spell as in a bilingual dictionary, here is a person who puts herself in a goodwill to explain in her own words what a given word may mean. This is what happens orally whenever we ask someone for the meaning of a word. The obstacle that keeps many students and translators from using the monolingual dictionary is the difficulty inherent in the fact that the translation offered by the dictionary is intralingual rather than interlingual. But, since they are explanations aimed at a potentially inexperienced public, they often are worded in an easy way. Once the possible meaning of the word in the transmitting languaculture is understood, it is the translator who seeks a translatant for the receiving culture, without delegating this very important task to the author of a dictionary who cannot certainly guess in what context the translator has found a given word.
When one has to search the translatant for a botanical or zoological term, given that the field is very vast, it is rare that in a bilingual dictionary one will find everything and that what one finds is easily ascribable to a very precise species and is scientifically right. It often happens that, to a scientific (Latin) term correspond more terms in 'vulgar' or that, in the case of a species existing only in the environment of the transmitting languaculture, the bilingual dictionary has 'simplified' using the common name of a similar species present in the environment of the receiving culture. To avoid having Doctor Zhivago walk in a holm oak forest, or for the gold diggers in Klondike to fish common rudd, it is advisable to use a different procedure:
use a monolingual repertoire (dictionary or encyclopedic dictionary) of the transmitting languaculture, find the scientific name of the plant or animal, expressed in Latin and by definition equal throughout the world;
identify a reference work in the receiving culture (dictionary, encyclopedia, manual, repertoire, guide) preferably with an index to go back, from the Latin name, to the name in the receiving culture.
1.2.2. Internet for translators
The European Union has online the Iate repertoire (http://iate.europa.eu/), from which the translation of an enormous number of words is obtained in all EU languages, with the specification of the sector of belonging, in the official version established by the European Union itself.
Another frequent use of the Internet for translators concerns bibliographies. The translator is responsible for updating the references of the works she translated with the versions published in the receiving languaculture of the works cited in the translated volume. The fastest system is to connect with the online consultation services of the national library system. For example, by connecting with the site http://opac.sbn.it you can access the electronic catalog of the entire Italian library system. From here, by typing the author's surname, or a title word, or the topic, or one of the keywords, or the names of the editors or translators, it is possible to find works published in Italy. The search result also gives the names of the libraries hosting the requested volume.
To carry out similar searches in other countries, I point out in particular for the United States the largest library in the world, the Library of Congress in Washington, equipped with a complete electronic catalog, easy to use, at loc.gov. For the USA, I also point out the library of the University of California at Berkeley http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/, where there is an excellent organization and a very interesting translation studies section.
For the United Kingdom, the address is https://www.bl.uk. Note that in most cases the works published in the USA and those published in the UK, even when they are the same, have different publishers and ISBN (International Standard Book Number, the number to identify any book). The British edition may also be orthographically edited (British version of the spelling of some words, as ‘behaviour’ instead of ‘behavior’) or lexically edited (lift instead of elevator).
For France I mention the Bibliothèque Nationale Française, which at http://www.bnf.fr allows not only online consultation, but also, for some rare and ancient works, to download them in pdf format, so as to be able to have a sort of 'virtual photocopy' at a distance, completely free.
For Germany I would like to point out in particular the Augusta Library at http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/augustana.html, particularly rich in classical Greek and Latin texts.
2. Language
2.1 Language/discourse
2.1.1. Continuous and discrete languages
The reason why the presence of nonverbal inner speech greatly complicates the picture of the translation process is that natural languages are discrete languages, whereas inner speech is continuous. Discrete languages are defined by the presence of distinct 'units,' descriptions that proceed in discrete steps, and the concept of varying levels of 'definition' or 'resolution.' Examples include digital and numerical languages, such as those employed in digital clocks, digital cameras, and CAT scans." (This version emphasizes the key characteristics of discrete languages, that one can speak of high/low definition of language: examples of this are digital, numerical languages, such as those used by the digital clock, the digital camera, the CAT scan. While in the digital clock there is an abrupt transition from the message ‘10:31’ to the message ‘10:32’, without continuity, in the analog clock the hand gradually moves from 10:31’ to ‘10:32’, and, if the clock is large enough, or if my visual ability is sufficiently powerful, I can see at any instant where the exact time indication is between ‘10:31’ and ‘10:32’.
Similarly, if I look at a painting in which the painter has incompletely blended two hues, and brushed them together leaving shades that go almost imperceptibly from one hue to the next, I can see with my eye this seemingly endless series of shades, because the eye can perceive the overall view and describe it to the mind as a continuum. If, however, I try to translate these perceptions of mine into words, words are not enough for me to describe all the minute differences between one point and another in the picture and colour, and I am forced to approximate: if asked about the colour of one point I will say ‘yellow’ of another point I will say ‘a slightly darker yellow’, until I say of another point ‘orange’, neglecting for want of words all the intermediate shades.
Unlike verbal language, the mind uses a continuous inner language. Thoughts fade into one another, have no precise boundaries. The ‘images’ of the mind are immediate, global, embracing an entire moment. Mental speech is creative multimedia synthesis of reality. This is why it is so useful for us to understand the sense of the sentences we read (even when we have to translate them into another ‘outer’ language).
Thus we have at our disposal two languages: a ‘flash’ one in which we immediately guess everything, and a tedious and meticulous one with which we fix in words the precision of what we want to say, or want others to say. Precisely because of their inherently and structurally different nature, these two languages are mutually translatable only at the cost of a large communicative loss. Reading the original means to transform the text of words into a text of ideas (inner language), the processing of which must then produce another speech of words. Thus every translation between two languages consists of a pair of translations from discrete language to continuous language, and from continuous language to discrete language. The compulsion to transform a speech of words into a continuous mental speech (reading, listening) and to transform a thought into a fragmentary speech of words (writing, speaking) is very creative. Creativity arises from the clash/encounter between two structurally different languages. Thus, because of the translation filter, what is communicated is always different from what one wishes to communicate, and in that difference lies the creative contribution that translation makes to life.
2.1.2. How sense is formed
Many translators are bothered by ‘theory’, and they have good reason to be. But all translators, like it or not, have a view on translation. (What they write when they translate is necessarily a translation of that view.) Any view of translation has as its foundation a view of meaning, or rather sense. Translators are not only so much specialists in understanding what words mean, but in understanding what sense they make in context. A necessary premise to introduce Jakobson's criticism of Saussure, who has heavily influenced the entire Western world.
According to Saussure’s Cours, the inner duality of synchrony and diachrony threatens linguistics with particular difficulties and calls for a complete separation of the two facets: what can be investigated is either the coexistent relations within the linguistic system ‘d’où toute intervention du temps est exclue’ or single successive changes without any reference to the system. His fallacious identification of two oppositions – synchrony versus diachrony, and statics versus dynamics – was refuted by post-Saussurean linguistics. The essential precondition of the envisaged inquiry had been posited by an earlier French thinker, Joseph de Maistre: ‘Ne parlons donc jamais de hasard ni de signes arbitraires’ (Jakobson 1971a[2]:722).
The utopian vision of a language in which, in a kind of symmetrical splitting of reality, on one side there is the gallery of words and on the other side there is the gallery of corresponding things is fascinating but simplistic. And let's say right away that, if that were the case, human translators would be useless, because, when it comes to two-way correspondences, computers are much stronger than we are. Sense is something alive that begins to exist away from the dictionary, in the mind of the person who transposes something. Every text, and every person, constitutes a culture, a system. Communication is the explanation of one culture to another culture; it is the translation of a text for a receiver. The reason there is a bias, a perceptual deviation for any text, for any word, is to be found in the translation of the word into each individual's inner speech, into what Peirce calls the ‘interpretant’. Just as a river, which disperses some of its content into the ground while flowing, and absorbs new content from tributaries and the environment, so a text changes, evolves, accumulates new senses and loses old ones while being communicated. Translation is the evolution of sense. The science that explains this to us is semiotics. If, on the other hand, we resorted to Saussure's semiology, we would derive that translation is a form of equivalence. And this is the famous theory that does not explain the practice. Equivalence is no longer to be sought outside, in the translated text, but inside the mind of the translator, in the logical concatenation leading from the original sign to its interpretation, and then from its interpretation to the metatext sign.
Figure 2 Equivalence in a Peirceian view of translation
Equivalence here lies not between external signs but within internal sign-interpretant-object nexuses.
Signs are viewed by Peirce as equivalent ‘when either might have been an interpretant of the other’ [5.569]. It must be emphasised again and again that the basic, immediate, ‘selective’ interpretant of any sign is ‘all that is explicit in the sign itself apart from its context and circumstances of utterance’ [5.473], or in more unified terms: apart from its context either verbal or only verbalizable but not actually verbalised. Peirce’s semiotic doctrine is the only sound basis for a strictly linguistic semantics. One can’t help but agree with his view of meaning as translatability of a sign into a network of other signs and with his reiterated emphasis on the inherence of a ‘general meaning’ in any ‘genuine symbol’ [2.293], as well as with the sequel of the quoted assertion: A symbol ‘cannot indicate any particular thing: it denotes a kind of thing. Not only that, but it is itself a kind and not a single thing’ [2.301]’ (Jakobson 1956:118).
Interpersonal communication is possible because it moves in the borderline space between equivalence and difference, between the inherent general meaning and the individual sense of personal interpretation, of the interpretant. The notion of sign equivalence in translation is a fundamental misconception. It inevitably leads to frustration for translators and a theoretical impasse, as it ignores the dynamic and multifaceted nature of the translation process.
