Book Reviews 2

This article was downloaded by: On: 18 February 2009 Access details: Access Details: Free Access Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Perspectives Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297831

Book Reviews

Online Publication Date: 01 August 2007

To cite this Article (2007)'Book Reviews',Perspectives,15:3,203 — 214 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13670050802153996 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13670050802153996

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Book Reviews

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

Translation: The Interpretive Model Marianne Lederer. Manchester, UK & Northampton, USA: St. Jerome Publishing, 2003. Pp. 239. ISBN 1-900650-61-4 (pbk): £19.00. This monograph, translated from the 1994 French original, is based on the author’s practice, teaching and research, thereby enabling it to serve as an enlightening interface between translation and its theorisation. The cornerstone of the interpretive model is the contention that translation is, in essence, a process of interpretation on the part of the translator, who deverbalises the text into ‘bits of knowledge divested of their concrete shape’ (p. 13) before he/she re-expresses it in the target language. Deverbalisation brings out the sense, which is distinguished from meaning. Sense comes to be grasped ‘when language knowledge and cognitive inputs fuse together’ (p. 228), while meaning is what remains at the semantic level and can serve only as potential choices in understanding the sense of a text. The sense of a text is grasped in a single mental process, instead of the two stages postulated by Sperber and Wilson (1986). A unit of sense is ‘what results from this fusion of the semanticisms of words and cognitive inputs’ (p. 18) and it varies ‘from one addressee/reader to another’ (p. 18). This suggests that the unit of sense is only identifiable as a product of cognitive processes and that it is idiosyncratic rather than universal. In the interpretive model, langue/language, parole and text are three significantly differentiated concepts: langue/language is, for the translator, ‘static objects of knowledge’ (p. 229); parole, the application of language, ‘lends itself to phrasal and trans-phrasal analysis’ (p. 94) and ‘contributes to the appearance of sense but does not contain it’ (p. 94), while text is ‘a dynamic object of understanding’ (p. 95) and ‘an original text can be defined as the result of the interaction between a translator and a material graphic or oral sequence’ (p. 95). To further expound the relation between langue, parole and text, Lederer, borrowing Coseriu’s terminology, identifies three types of competence in language use: language competence, competence in a given language and textual competence which the translator must acquire, thus throwing into sharp relief textual competence in relation with linguistic competence. Text has a tendency to be reduced to a mere sequence of macrosigns when it is deprived of its ‘specific discourse parameters’ (p. 98). The understanding of a language and the understanding of a text are two distinctive types of cognitive procedures, the former is ‘to recognize rules and words in an utterance’ while the latter is ‘the combination of cognitive inputs with linguistic meanings’ (p. 230). Also distinguished in this theoretical model are such concept pairs as understanding versus explanation, sense versus intention and equivalence versus correspondence. Understanding must be distinguished from explanation (p. 26) just as sense must not be confused with the author’s intentions. Intentions can be understood, but should not be necessarily transmitted in translation (p. 26). ‘Equivalence exists between texts, correspondences between linguistic elements’ (p. 45), but to seek 203

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

204

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

equivalence in translation is not to preclude setting up correspondences when they are equivalent in sense. Synecdoche (p. 53) is a prevailing feature in the use of language. It appears when only a part or parts of a scene or an idea are made explicit and the implicit parts are shared between the author and the reader. ‘The material form of a text is always more an indication than a description’ (p. 54). ‘The fact that two different languages require different synecdoches to refer to the same concrete or abstract objects is one of the reasons why it is impossible to produce a translation by using only correspondences’ (p. 229). The synecdochic nature of language use explains the shifts in point of view and the use of different synecdoches in the target language to produce an equivalent translation. In the framework of interpretive theory, ‘Ambiguities are a problem of language and not of texts’ (p. 22). ‘Experimental psychology has in fact shown that two meanings cannot be understood simultaneously.’ (p. 23) Therefore, the interpretive approach actually eliminates the possibility of ambiguous expressions, unless the reader pauses in the process of reading to ponder over potential meanings. In the interpretive model, foreignness is not favoured. Exoticism in translation would not show up as glaringly as before because of the intensified process of globalisation. Some very practical translation problems are discussed in Chapter 4. Examples are given to show how sense would be distorted when there is insufficient or no deverbalisation. Two important concepts in translation studies are reviewed from an interpretive perspective. The translation unit, when viewed this way, is the ‘mixture of what is explicit and what is cognitive’ (p. 121). Faithfulness in this theoretical framework means to be faithful to the sense. The issue of transferring cultural elements is also discussed, concluding that the cultural gap is not filled only by the various strategies we may adopt, but also by the text we translate if ethnocentrism is properly guarded against. The theory distinguishes between pedagogical translation and the pedagogy of translation, the former being a tool in language acquisition and the latter aiming at training professional translators. The predicament that translation faces in language teaching is that the interpretive nature of any translation of text may hamper the ‘acquisition of a stable and objective linguistic system’ (p. 139). Thus the two operations should be dealt with separately at the level of both theory and practice. Because the French original of this English version was published back in 1994, it is worthwhile to re-evaluate some of the ideas in the book in the context of more recent scholarly discourse. First, from whose side
the author’s or the reader’s
is sense defined? Lederer does not give a clear answer. When she says ‘Sense constitutes a whole in the author’s mind as it does in the translator’s mind’ (p. 17), she implies that sense can be viewed from both sides, but when she says that ‘sense is the result of deverbalization’ (p. 228) or ‘Translators construe the sense of a segment of text or speech from a synthesis of linguistic meanings and their own relevant cognitive inputs’ (p. 228, my emphasis), she is obviously viewing sense from the reader’s side, and she does this consistently throughout the book. Hence the question

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

Book Reviews

205

arises: is sense also the result of deverbalisation on the part of the author? And is the sense in the reader’s mind necessarily identical with the sense in the author’s mind, or in what way might the two senses be related? Secondly, the author spends a whole section (3.4) discussing the subjectiveness and objectiveness of interpretation, arguing that although the production and understanding of texts are subjective activities, as personal experiences and views are involved in the process, the sense of a text would become objective once it is formulated by its author. She says ‘The essential difference between a particular thought and its translation is that the former is subjective both on the level of ideas and expression whereas the latter is objective on the level of ideas but subjective on that of formulation.’ (p. 100). Here Lederer contradicts herself, and has to field a prickly question: can ideas or sense be objective at any stage of the interpretive endeavour? Within the framework of the interpretive theory, sense appears only as an outcome of the fusion of language knowledge and world knowledge, and this inevitable involvement of the reader-translator’s cognitive input is a vehement negation of the objectivity of any idea or sense obtained from a text. Translation is subjective, whether on the level of ideas or that of formulation. Actually nothing in the process of translating can be objective, as human involvement accompanies interpretation throughout the transcultural communicative event. If, as Lederer says, ‘All readers, and by extension translators, are interpreters’, the translation of ideas can in no way be truly objective because it is the translator’s interpretation of the original and is going to be interpreted in turn by the target readers. Ideas or sense only exist in a series of cognitive endeavours. Finally, as Lederer says, faithfulness and freedom in translation are closely associated aspects: the translator has freedom in altering the form and creating equivalence but will lose that freedom when it comes to the sense of a text (p. 84). But, as defined by Lederer, sense comes from the fusion of the reader’s linguistic knowledge and cognitive inputs, including notional and affective inputs, which may well vary from person to person. So, it follows naturally that different cognitive inputs may be brought to bear upon the interpretation of the sense of a text, which means that the translator has freedom to inject his/her own cognitive, especially affective inputs into the process of interpretation. This line of thinking would add to the degrees of freedom, endowing the translator with some liberty in dealing with the sense and in altering the form. doi: 10.1080/13670050802153996

Li Yunxing Tianjin Normal University, China

Reference Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance, Communication and Cognition. London: Basil Blackwell.

206

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

[Translation as Polyphonic Dialogues] Chen Liming. Chengdu: Sichuan University Press, 2006. Pp. xi180. ISBN 7-5614-3517-7: 19.00 RMB. Translation as Polyphonic Dialogues is the first work in China to apply Bakhtin’s polyphonic theory in dealing with the nature and characteristics of translation. Just as Prof. Steve Kulich of Shanghai International Studies University puts it on the cover of the book: ‘This multi-centered dialogic model helps move Translation Studies from its linear monologic frames to a freer, more interacting, more dynamic and creative conceptual process which should enhance future work in the field.’ During the past 30 years, especially since the 1980s, approaches to translation in almost all countries have seen much rapid progress, ushering in an unprecedented boom. Thus comes the saying that ‘The growth of Translation Studies as a separate discipline is a success story of the 1980s’ (Lefevere, 1992: iii). Translation Studies is now better able to borrow from or lend techniques and methods to other disciplines. Nevertheless, it must be pointed out that such a qualitative leap was not made at one go, and of course leaves much to be desired. It is, therefore, a must for us to focus on this leap, which will show clearly that the two mainstreams (humanism versus scientism), the two shifts (from author to text; from text to reader) and the three turns (the irrational turn, the linguistic turn and the cultural turn) have exerted great influence on the development of present-day Translation Studies. We can see clearly from it that in general, Translation Studies has taken a similar path as the Western literary theories, with the only exception that a claim of the translator-centred is added, characteristic of a more static approach. The prosperity in this field still cannot give us a more comprehensively applicable interpretative model. As for translation studies, the ‘author-centred’ approach enjoys a timehonoured history and is still well established, although not beyond reproach, so the relation between the original and the translated always favours the former over the latter. The chapter ‘The Downfall of the Tower of Babel: Logos (Tao), Diffe´ rence, Translation’ sets out from Derrida’s deconstructive position and tries to square up, even subvert, the above metaphysics theoretically in the hope of rethinking the logocentrism of the author- or text-centred. By tracing and comparing the key conceptions ‘Logos’ and ‘Tao’ in SinoWestern philosophy respectively, we maintain that this author- or text-centring has its metaphysical heritage from Tao or Logos. This, in some sense, is believed to have better shown the common pursuit of some pure, unified metalanguage with the transcendental signified; and by calling into question the definition of translation as reproducing, transporting or communicating the ‘meaning’ of the original, Derrida suggests that translation might better be regarded as one instance in which language can be viewed as always in the process of modifying the original text, of deferring and displacing forever any possibility of grasping that which the original text desired to name, which dialectically reveals that the source can be viewed as a starting point instead of an ultimate goal.

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

Book Reviews

207

The meaning of a text is never present but is in a process of infinite difference, erasing, disseminating and supplementing, existing in the reciprocal reading and rereading, i.e. ‘in the work’s presence of works appears the truth, which is being’s opening of works’. By transgressing the limits of the target language, by transforming original texts in the source language, the translator extends and makes languages grow. Such an approach tends to break down the power of the transcendental signified and free translation research from evaluating translations only in terms of their proximity to pure equivalence. ‘A Translator’s and Reader’s Discourse Roles’, based on the description and investigation of translation phenomena throughout history, informs us that in a dialogue between the author, the translator, the reader and the text, the roles of translator and readership cannot be defined as singular, static or exclusive, but as complex, dynamic and complementing. The translator is by nature a liberator, someone who liberates the text from the confines of its source language and allows it to live again in the target language, making it no longer subordinate to the source text but visibly endeavouring to bridge the space between source author, text and the eventual target language readership. As a result, this approach will certainly influence the fundamental classification of these roles, which for the translator should, this monograph argues, at least include the roles as reader, author, rewriter, researcher, conqueror, mediator, spokesperson and manipulator; and for the reader: implied reader, executor, negotiator and patron. This done, the way is paved for the idea of polyphonic dialogue, telling us that translation did/does not happen in a vacuum; instead, it is a necessary part of an ongoing process of intercultural transfer as well as a highly manipulative action or event involving all kinds of stages in that process of transfer across linguistic and cultural boundaries. Translators (especially those in the period of post-colonialism) do not sedulously parrot the original. Moreover, it is translation that endows the given text with its after-life. We should rightly view the translated text as ‘a new original written in another language’. Instead of singular approaches
whether author-, text-, translator- or reader-centred
to translation studies, we should have a more open, broader and interdisciplinary attitude. It is better to understand translation as an essentially multiple dialogue that takes place in a space that belongs to neither source nor target, a process of negotiation between texts, cultures and dialogic subjects, which is a rejection of the onedimensional notion typical of predominant translation studies. Hence comes this new proposition ‘Translation As Polyphonic Dialogues’, which suggests that a translated text is the result of a dialogue that involves each participant, i.e. author, translator and reader, with the given text as the topic. It is expected to be a more proper synchronic and diachronic dialogic model for translation studies, ‘perhaps the most complicated phenomenon in the world’. The following chapter applies to translation studies which Bakhtin terms ‘Dialogicality’, a special form of interaction among the autonomous and equally signifying consciousnesses. Properly and actively applying Bakhtin’s dialogic theory and other theories, such as philosophic hermeneutics and pragmatics, makes us believe with ample justification that ‘translation is but a polyphonic dialogue’. Upon this premise is tentatively built a new interpretative map and

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

208

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

three-levelled fugue-like conversation. This dialogic idea in progress of translation leads us to consider author, text, translator and reader as a unity across space and time. This consideration does not focus on any of the mentioned ‘centres’, but it maintains that ‘Truth is not born nor is it to be found inside the head of an individual person, it is born between people collectively searching for truth, in the process of their dialogic interaction’ (Bakhtin, 1989). This proposition tries to integrate the reasonable elements of each ‘centre’ into translation studies, and listen to and mediate between, ‘a plurality of independent and unmerged voices and consciousnesses, a genuine polyphony of fully valid voices’ made by author, translator, text, reader in translating. It also implies ‘a plurality of consciousnesses’ and voices, ‘with equal rights and each with its own world’ from contrapuntal opposition and mediation. These consciousnesses and voices are liberated from their monologism of isolation and finalisation shared by each ‘centre’; they become thoroughly dialogised and enter the great polyphonic dialogue of translation on completely equal terms. It is impossible to ascribe to these consciousnesses and voices the finalising function of either authorial, translator’s or reader’s ideas in a monologic manner. They are all equally privileged participants in the great dialogue, which does not necessarily come to the conclusion that the output of translation represents a symmetric relationship between author, translator and readership. The impulse of a plural dynamic interaction of equal dialogue enables the dialogic theme to develop continuously and complete the integral producing of a text’s meaning. We thus hope that this idea cannot only make us rethink one-way or monologic principles such as the longstanding ‘equivalence’ and ‘fidelity’, but, most important for us, offer a more comprehensively descriptive methodology for contemporary translation studies. The two following chapters deal with case studies of cross-cultural transmission, focusing on translation from a contextual dialogic perspective. The former investigates the origin and naming of the book titles A Dream of Red Mansions and The Story of the Stone (two English versions of the Chinese classic Hong Lou Meng), and offers therefrom a new translation. From Cao Xueqin’s (1715
1763) novel Hong Lou Meng we may well infer that Vanitas’ (the Taoist’s) words ‘starting off in the Void came to the contemplation of Form; and from Form engendered Passion; and by communicating Passion, entered again into Form; and from Form awoke to the Void’ foresee and conclude with justification the basic theme and general development of the story. And the ‘three subworlds’ skilfully constructed with Form, Passion, Void, correspond to the three relatively independent images of Red, Mansion, Dream. They refer to each other and build a multilevel, three-dimensional world. From ‘Red’ to ‘Dream’, beginning with ‘Form’ and ending in ‘Void’, it is just what the author hopes to express and thinks about human life with his vivid and insightful pen rich in Taoist philosophy and culture after his cutting experience of great awakening; and it best accounts for the popular preference for the title A Dream of Red Mansions rather than The Story of the Stone. The above reading makes us believe that the cited English versions of the book title are not so satisfying, for the simple reason that the word ‘red’ cannot be viewed as the colour modifying ‘mansion’ or ‘chamber’, especially not in the target culture. Therefore, Chen offers a new translation of the book title: Red Mansion Dream.

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

Book Reviews

209

Taking as examples the translation of the idioms (in a broad sense) in Red Mansion Dream, the latter of the two chapters compares Hawkes’ style with that of Yang and Yang, showing that Hawkes, consciously or unconsciously, understands the alien culture with the eye of his cultural superiority, projects European images onto the source culture, makes a colonial writing of others with his native culture in order to erase their cultural identities and in doing so consolidates the ‘centre’ of colonies and the periphery of those colonised, representing some kind of ‘colonisers’ eyes’. Yang and Yang, on the other hand, have managed to metaphrase in the target language nearly everything in the story, regardless of the possible difficulties this strategy may impose on its target readers. These two versions ineluctably manifest themselves in a confrontation of colonisation and decolonisation. This case study is included in the book to draw attention to the problems we have to cope with arising in the conversation/confrontation and communication/contestation between strong cultures and weak cultures in a globalised context, and to find solutions to them. In the last chapter of the book, ‘Unfinalizable Dialogues’, the dialogic nature of human thought in translating is probed into from the point of view of intertextuality, intersubjectivity and indeterminacy. The universality of ‘unfinalisability’ is demonstrated in this way: ‘As long as a person is alive he lives by the fact that he is not yet finalized, that he has not yet uttered his ultimate word.’ The ‘truth’ of a text is not present, but can only result from a polyphonic dialogue between the author, translator and reader, and any attempt to pretend to be the ultimate word is in vain. A text is open for good and all to thou and calls for every successor’s heeding, comprehending and response. We can never exhaust the growing meaning of a text in that every heeding, comprehending and answering add to new referents in some way or other. Dialogue is always in the continuous tense. What translation, as polyphonic dialogues, demands of each dialogic subject is to vigorously enlarge and rework his own specific consciousness so as to embrace the equally signifying consciousness of yours and to approach man’s unfinalisable innermost pursuit rather than repress or deny the other’s voice. Life by its nature is dialogic. To live, we must translate and participate in dialogue, for ‘nothing conclusive has yet taken place in the world, the ultimate word of the world and about the world has not yet been spoken, the world is open and free, everything is still in the future and will always be in the future’ (Bakhtin, 1989: 166). Just as the modern philosopher has it that, as regards philosophy, we are always but on the way to language, as for translation, we are as much forever on the way to dialogue. In sum, the book under review is extremely useful. It tackles translation from a new perspective, and draws a compelling conclusion based on its substantial content, decisive arguments, persuasive analysis and logic reasoning. It is a great contribution to Translation Studies. doi: 10.1080/13670050802154002

Xu Jianzhong College of Foreign Languages, Tianjin University of Technology

210

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

References Bakhtin, M. (1989) Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics (C. Emerson, ed. & trans). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Lefevere, A. (1992) Translation, History, Culture: A Source Book. London & New York: Routledge.

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

Angles on the English-Speaking World. Volume 6. Literary Translation: World Literature or ‘Worlding’ Literature Ida Klitga˚rd (ed.). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen, 2006. Pp. 152. ISBN 978-87-635-0493-5 (pbk): DKK135/$25/t19/ £14.

This engaging collection of articles on literary translation ranges across several continents and more than five centuries. Most of the pieces are essentially pragmatic, with plenty of textual examples to underpin the theoretical discussion. It also appears to have been put together with meticulous care. The opening paper by Eysteinsson, from Iceland, refers to Wellek’s definition of ‘world literature’ as ‘all literature from Iceland to New Zealand’. Is it then a coincidence that the collection ends with a review of a work on Aboriginal and Maori literature, and this reviewer happens to be a New Zealander?! Eysteinsson’s paper considers the function and status of translation in a global literary environment. His elegantly structured argument first considers two views of translation: the ‘textual’ view, based on the authentic status of the original text and hence the dubious value of its translation; and the celebration of translation as ‘facilitating the removal of borders between cultures, thus setting the scene for mutual understanding, tolerance, enlightenment and coexistence’ (p. 13). He also notes two different definitions of world literature
the ‘canonical view’ of a ‘library (. . .) of the most important and valuable works’ (p. 15), and the ‘open view’, where world literature takes us ‘not only beyond our respective national literatures, but also beyond the traditions celebrated in our part of the world’ (p. 17). He suggests that neither view of translation is able to say much about the function of translation in education and culture. He discusses Goethe’s view of ‘world literature’, noting some interesting contradictions, and Walter Benjamin’s ideas, which he sees as focusing on ‘both the resilience and the fragility of the work which is transferred through time and between languages’ (pp. 21
22). He concludes with the idea that world literature today refers neither to the original nor solely to the translation. Its focus is rather precisely at the border. Eysteinsson’s written text suffers from occasional conversational digressions (reflecting the original form of the paper), and would also have benefited from tighter editing of the English. It is however an ideal introduction to the volume, providing a general and theoretical backdrop for the dazzling range of more pragmatic contributions that follow. ‘1495 to 1556: Flores Times Four’, by Tarp, is a truly fascinating glimpse into literary mores and translation practice over five hundred years ago. The

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

Book Reviews

211

romance Grisel y Mirabella by Juan de Flores appeared in Spanish in 1495, and rapidly gained enormous popularity all over Europe. An initial translation into Italian appeared in 1521, providing the basis for a quadrilingual translation that appeared in Antwerp in 1556. Tarp draws attention to the strategies applied by the translators, including above all changes to the names of the characters to make them less rustic, or ‘barbaro’. And the 1556 text also changes the original dedication from Flores to his ‘amiga’ to a ‘discourse on the misdeeds of powerful women’ (p. 27). These changes are described as symptomatic of the way in which the translators have completely deformed the nature and purpose of the text. One of the names rejected as insufficiently genteel, Torrellas, would have linked this cryptomysogonist in a fictitious work to a real poet, well known in Spain at the time for his attacks on the female sex. Thus the text was both a topical tract and a romance, a highly innovative blend of literature and reality, and the anonymous translator(s) have simply failed to understand the modernity of the work. Tarp argues that ‘translation of the 1495 Grisel y Mirabella resulted in its metamorphosis from a culturally and linguistically specific, extremely innovative meta-textual commentary upon a contemporary Castilian literary debate and its protagonists into a universal, far less experimental multilingual European courtly romance.’ (p. 34). From the evidence she presents, it is difficult to disagree, and yet it is also worth reflecting that the translator would have been faced with a difficult choice. Any attempt to convey the content of the tract to ‘outsiders’ would have diminished the impact of the romance, so the original mix of genres would still not have been adequately communicated. It is also true that even without the involvement of translation, the topical elements of works such as Gulliver’s Travels, Dostoyevsky’s The Devils or indeed Sense and Sensibility (of which more in a moment) begin to fade from view for readers in the original, probably within a matter of decades. These reflections do not however detract in any way from an extremely interesting discussion, complete with specific examples, cogently applying modern translation concepts to a 16th-century best seller. In ‘Writing ‘Hindoostanee’: False Translations and The Curse of Kehama’ by Rangarajan, we advance to the beginning of the 19th century and the genre of the ‘false translation’. Kehama is generally regarded as one of Robert Southey’s least successful works (one of his ‘unsaleables’, as Byron put it), but Rangarajan’s interest lies in why this might be the case. She discusses the work as a fascinating case study of colonial attitudes during the flowering of orientalist studies in Britain and attitudes towards translation, in the broad sense of mediation between cultures. She concludes that the failure of the work is not so much the result of a conflict between poetic sensibility and political convictions, but rather a deliberate refusal on Southey’s part to ‘translate’ Hindu mythology in any way that would give it credibility. This idea of the deliberate sabotage of a work in what is by definition a counterfeit genre is one of the most arresting ideas I have encountered for a

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

212

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

long time, and the author is to be congratulated on a most interesting piece of work. ‘‘Forstand og Hjerte,’ or: How Danes Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Jane Austen’ by Mortensen is yet another fascinating glimpse into translation in an earlier time, in this case a Danish translation by Carl Karup, published in 1855, of the novel that first appeared in 1811. He highlights the role of the translated publication, i.e. to present England rather than France as a model for Danish thought and policy, arguing that the contrast between the two sisters in the novel, symbolising (English) sense and (French) sensibility, was the reason for the translation being commissioned. The passages quoted from the translation generally illustrate the translator’s skill, and Mortensen notes that despite Karup’s work being dismissed as inept by the next Danish translator of the novel, he left a lasting impression by establishing ‘the basic strategy followed by later self-abasing translators (. . .), all of whom acted as unconscious participants in the process [of] Denmark’s ‘‘unconditional surrender’’ to Anglo-American civilization throughout the 19th and 20th centuries’ (p. 61). Citing the arguments of Lawrence Venuti, Mortensen illustrates the more resistant approach adopted by a recent translator, Eva Hemmer Hansen. He focuses on her decision to translate the word ‘beau’ as ‘dandy’, as opposed to Karup’s ‘Cavaleer’, among other equivalents. I am not a supporter of Venuti’s approach, but this is a lively and interesting presentation of the argument. The next two articles dare to address some of the most difficult, even impossible, challenges the literary translator will ever face, in James Joyce’s Ulysses. Senn’s ‘Dynamic Changes: Ulysses in Practice’ focuses on specific examples, mainly from passages that themselves comment on the original language. As he points out, these problems are not so much difficult as impossible, but the examples provided of translations into French, Spanish, German, Italian, Dutch and Portuguese are nonetheless absorbing for that. Ultimately, as the author points out, the ‘mere complexity of the task may serve as a general absolution for all intrinsic impossibilities’ (p. 81). Klitga˚ rd’s article is also largely based on specific examples, all drawn from the speech of Molly Bloom. She analyses a series of neologisms: ‘plabbery’, ‘scrooching’, taittering’, ‘skeeting across’, ‘sloothering’, ‘blather’ and ‘strool’. After meticulous research into the possible sources and connotations of these words, her conclusion is that
contrary to Otto Jespersen’s expectations of female speech (quoted on page 88)
Molly Bloom’s speech is highly original, carrying ‘layers of linguistically and culturally hybrid meaning’ (p. 94). In Klitga˚ rd’s view the (male) translator of Ulysses into Danish, Mogens Boisen (whose three versions appeared in 1949, 1970 and 1980) has not however succeeded in matching this level of inventiveness: ‘Boisen follows the beaten track of domesticated language instead of taking Joyce’s foreignising off-roads’ (p. 94). This is another highly engaging piece, not least because the author provides some of her own suggested equivalents, rather than merely chiding the hapless translator. Lock’s ‘Heterographics: Towards a History and Theory of Other Lettering’ is in my view the Achilles’ heel of this collection. He complains that ‘almost all

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

Book Reviews

213

concepts of translation take for their model the act of interpretation, the transposing of semantic value from one spoken language to another’ (p. 102). Is this a problem? None of his quirky comments or trivial games with the ‘symbols’ function in Word do anything to make me think so. Gullin’s ‘Translation and Acculturation: Reflections on Nadine Gordimer’s Reputation in Sweden’ points out some inadequacies in the Swedish translations of two of Gordimer’s novels, and points to inconsistencies between the impression created by the translations and the readings of her works put forward in scholarly studies. There is a conflict between the author’s prestige as a Nobel prize winner on the one hand, and the text of her works as experienced by Swedish readers of the translations on the other. Gullin deduces that ‘translations have little significance when it comes to establishing a writer’s reputation, while at the same time translations are indispensable to confirm it’ (p. 125). She suggests that this raises some important issues regarding the role of the literary translator. Her case is well and clearly argued, but I also admit to some sympathy with the translator. In the case of many of the inadequacies cited in the translation, the Swedish has been made more specific and less mysterious than the original. Yet many literary works contain passages that convey a sense of meaning more through their intensity than their semantic clarity. The patterns of words or sounds may communicate a sense of something important to the author, a preoccupation or obsession that is intuitively perceived by the reader. In such cases a literal translation often falls completely flat, and the intuitively perceived intensity is lost. As a result a passage which clearly means something, even if we cannot say clearly what that significance is, is transformed into a series of words that denies any possibility of meaning. In my experience, the translator does not always have access to the deepest wellsprings of the author’s personality or imagination, and making a statement more specific
however regrettable this might be
is often a strategy for maintaining a sense of the ‘possibility of meaning’, where a lexical translation would convey nothing of the perceived intensity of the original. We might also find comfort in a sort of ‘swings and roundabouts’ view: a literary work functions as a whole, and a skilled reader of a translation containing many inadequacies will often have a better overall understanding of the work than a less skilled reader of the original. My conclusion from reading George Steiner’s Tolstoy or Dostoevsky (1960), for example, was that he had read Dostoyevsky with much greater insight than I was capable of, even though he was relying on translations that are often not well regarded, and I had read the originals. Eysteinsson makes a similar point in his article discussed above: ‘for our present purposes it needs to be spelled out that anxiety over fractured meaning and communication is an existential element of language itself, whether we are translating it, composing original texts in it, or using it in other ways’ (p. 22). The final article in the collection is ‘‘Capturing the Spirit’: Reviewing Literary Translation’, by Johnson. Using reviews of the English translation of Pablo Neruda’s Canto general, she considers the hypothetical stages in the process of translator recognition and the findings of ‘reviewers of reviews’,

214

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

and compares these against a corpus of 60 reviews of this particular work. She finds that the tendencies suggested by earlier researchers do not always apply. Overall, this collection lives up to the promise of its title by examining a refreshingly diverse range of literary translations, and using pragmatic examples to illustrate theories and ideas on translation. doi: 10.1080/13670050802154028

John Jamieson New Zealand Translation Centre

Reference

Downloaded At: 23:24 18 February 2009

Steiner, G. (1960) Tolstoy or Dostoevsky. London, Faber and Faber.