Paul Ricoeur, in his book On Translation , goes further. Because the sign I use never evokes the exact same thing for you as for me, we constantly misunderstand each other. We say what we have to say, but then we also have to explain what we mean. Sometimes we have to explain our explanation, until we are as satisfied as we can be that we have gotten our message through:.
Language is reflexive, and tant mieux -if we could not talk about what we mean, especially when we see our point has not gotten through, communication would grind to a halt. Note, however, that Steiner [] and Ricoeur make an assumption that I do not. Transformation and translation take place whether we think about what signs mean or not. Figure 9 Translation as transformative substitution.
Why dwell on this seemingly minor point? Because we are intelligent human beings, and because we have our own experience that differs from that of the people who produce television, we do not have to agree with what we see on TV. In fact, we can take what we see and arrive at radically different-and equally plausible-interpretations, as we reconfigure meanings to match with our experience and meet our expectations.
That idea of resistance leads me to my conjecture: the gap between signs is productive, something we can put to use. We must as the London Underground reminds us mind the gap.
I have begun to investigate this conjecture as both a theoretical and an empirical question. In particular, I am interested in how we use language to invent ways to welcome strangers into our midst. How do Canadians, for instance, persuade their compatriots to vote for a party whose leader, Justin Trudeau, wants to welcome Syrian refugees?
Such questions are at the heart of what rhetoricians, drawing on Aristotle, describe as invention. Invention in this sense is contingent on circumstances, which change from one situation to the next. It is grounded in the moment of speaking and therefore not knowable in advance. It is a matter of thinking on your toes. Let me illustrate with an example, which comes from Bertolt Brecht, by way of translation studies scholars Boris Buden and Stefan Nowotny The man stands before the judge, and the judge asks him questions about the United States, as part of a citizenship test.
The setting of the exchange is symbolically important. The applicant is asking for admission into a new national community. It is the culmination of a long process of asking-from immigration, to integration in different senses, as he does not speak English , to finally making a formal request.
Thus, when he is refused, according to Buden and Nowotny, it is a literal refusal of his symbolic request, one more refusal on top of all the others he has faced since arriving in his new home. So the man returns later, and the judge asks another question. But something happens for the judge. It is a moment of invention. When the man returns a fourth time, according to Brecht:. The judge, who liked the man, realised that he could not learn the new language, asked him how he earned his living and was told: by hard work.
And on the strength of his correctly answering , he was granted his citizenship. The judge looks at the situation and assesses it. He looks at the tools available to him. He is a judge, so he cannot break the law, but he takes pity on the man and decides the United States would be better for having him as a citizen.
Given those constraints, he contrives a question-one that is in line with all those he has already asked, although today it would be a bit anachronistic-that the man can answer. The judge has worked within the constraints imposed on him to make a stranger no longer strange, a new member of the national community. Hence the expanded set of associations.
What role do signs play in the symbolic universe through which politicians and voters navigate, and how can they find ways to understand these newcomers so that they no longer remain others? In the introduction, I wrote that what you are reading is a translation, a reworking of another article. Why have I made the same argument twice? What is the value of the repetition? What does this version offer that the older version or past links in the chain did not? One answer to these questions is relatively superficial.
The first version Conway, relied on a deductive mode of reasoning. I crafted the version you have just read to rely more on induction-I proceed by examples and build to my conclusions from there.
I hope this version achieves a different effect-I hope it left blanks that you filled in. In short, I wanted it to demonstrate invention as much as explain it.
Another answer to these questions goes still further. In the introduction I also asked: What would a theory of translation look like if it were grounded in the field of cultural studies? How does this logic apply?
Their use here differs from their use in my introduction, if I have succeeded in my translation, because they evoke something new for you. The first time, I had hinted at but not laid out the logic of transformation-substitution. You had to take my assertion on faith. Now, I hope, it stands on its own merits.
The questions of invention that follow from this conception of translation are ones I think we should be asking in the field of cultural studies. If we develop a theory of translation that responds to our concerns, and if we bring the tools we have developed to bear on such a theory, we can conceive new approaches to politics and ethics. In a world where the forces of globalization are constantly accelerating, and where we come into greater and greater contact with people unlike ourselves, few tasks could be as important as this one.
On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse 2nd ed. Kennedy, Trans. Bakhtin, M. Speech genres and other late essays. McGee, Trans. Bassnett, S. The translation turn in cultural studies. Lefevere Eds. Constructing cultures: Essays on literary translation pp. Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
Benjamin, W. Bielsa, E. Translation in global news. New York: Routledge. Buden, B. Cultural translation: An introduction to the problem. Translation Studies , 2 2 , Conway, K. Cultural translation: Two modes.
International Journal of Communication , 11 , Demont-Heinrich, C. Journal of Sociolinguistics , 15 3 , Guldin, R. From transportation to transformation: On the use of the metaphor of translation within media and communication theory.
Global Media Journal-Canadian Edition , 5 1 , Hall, S. Encoding and decoding in the television discourse. CCCS stencilled occasional papers , 7. Cultural studies: Two paradigms. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Willis Eds. London: Hutchinson.
Marx, K. Grundrisse: Foundations of the critique of political economy. Nicolaus, Trans. New York, NY: Penguin. Moran, A. New flows in global TV. Chicago, IL: Intellect. Peirce, C. The philosophy of Peirce: Selected writings.
Ricoeur, P. On translation E. Brennan, Trans. New York, NY: Routledge. Rohn, U. Lacuna or universal? Introducing a new model for understanding cross-cultural audience demand. Steiner, G. After Babel: Aspects of language and translation 3rd ed. Uribe-Jongbloed, E. A clearer picture: Towards a new framework for the study of cultural transduction in audiovisual market trades. Observatorio , 8 1 , Marxism and the philosophy of language L. Titunik, Trans. Communication is translation, or, how to mind the gap.
Palabra Clave, 20 3 , DOI: This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Services on Demand Journal. Abstract In this age of globalization, scholars in cultural studies and translation studies would seem to have a lot to talk about. To answer that question, I propose three axioms: To use a sign is to transform it To transform a sign is to translate it Communication is translation.
Disciplining the Fields First, a more basic question: what constitutes the fields of cultural studies and translation studies? Hall frames these forms of mutual influence as a circuit, which he illustrates in Figure 1 below: Source: Adapted from Hall , p. When Hero 1 on the left uses a sign Figure Axiom 2: To Transform a Sign is to Translate it Hence my second axiom: to transform a sign is to translate it.
George Steiner, in his influential book After Babel [], argued, Any model of communication is at the same time a model of translation, of a vertical or horizontal transfer of significance.
Sometimes we have to explain our explanation, until we are as satisfied as we can be that we have gotten our message through: [I]t is always possible to say the same thing in another way.
Discussions of norms by authors such as Hermans and Simeoni will therefore be left aside. Translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions.
Norms can be expected to operate not only in translation of all kinds, but also at every stage in the translating event. Often when a person does not feel bad, they are considered to be evil.
As the saying, to be human is to have conscience to pay attention to what you have done. Guilt and stress are two traits that can destroy a person and affect their personality in a negative way. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth have ruined their lives due to the poor choices they have made in the first place. Therefore, it is important to think things through and see the long term effects before you ever start an act. The problem affects both our government and social society.
Stereotypes are widely known and are hard to get rid of since, some choose to be ignorant in learning the various types of people we will come to communicate with; their lack of knowledge would force them to use the information available to them, which are stereotypes.
In addition, vague policy mandates can be a disadvantage to public administrators because vague policies can lead to different interpretations of a policy and allow room for confusion and tension to arise among people in achieving a desire goal.
Therefore, an organizational goal loses clear understanding, and eventually becomes inconclusive and unproductive when it. To Percy, this represents a loss of sovereignty, and it is a negative experience. He introduces the idea that the foundation of any worthwhile discovery is rejecting all pre-existing norms to maneuver yourself around symbolic complexes and get a full understanding of a topic. Prejudices damage not only those they are inflicted on but those who hold them.
When humans enable their prejudices to dictate their actions they are often left having lost the chance at knowing some extraordinary people. Clinging to prejudices is very tempting, because being wrong about them would mean it was necessary to change, and change is a scary thing.
Despite this, a necessary lesson to learn is that seeing the truth and being proved wrong are all necessary to cause change, and change is necessary to become a better. Communication and Translation are interrelated skills.
It is translation that makes cross-cultural, cross-national and cross-lingual communication possible. It is not an exaggeration to state that the need for Translation often follows the need to communicate.
Given the range of foreign and native language skills available around the globe, communicating in any language can present a challenge, and that is exactly where the need for translation steps in. Translation converts content from one language to another and make it accessible. Poor translation often results in destroying the quality of a thought and in the worst case, ends up in conveying a completely wrong message to the end receiver.
Whether it is about sharing or giving access to …show more content… Thus a good translator is one who not only knows both languages, but also aware of both cultures, i. As checking oil by a driver before driving is necessary, analyzing cultural elements before translating is vital.
Road signs are translation strategies used in this process which saves the translator from straying away from the original content. Basically, in the translation process, the translators first comprehend the original text; absorb the crux of the text, search for the equivalent expression and finally revises it to purify the text of any unnaturalness from the point of view of target language. It is indeed a task full of responsibility; a minor mistake on the part of translator can be fatal.
In such cases translation can be used to misinform and mislead deliberately. In many languages, while speaking, the accent on a particular syllable can completely alter the meaning of the word. It is extremely important for a translator to be aware of the nuances, the subtleties of a language including the actual context, placement in a sentence structure and double meanings of.
0コメント