May 5, 2008–Translation Studies
I found Lawrence Venuti’s discussion on the current state, as well as the evolution, of translation studies, in terms of both theoretical ideology as well as translation practices, to be quite interesting and suprisingly comprehensive. Because he breaks down the various components ingrained in the theory and practice of translation in such a comprehensive manner, it seems like a difficult task to attempt to address even a couple of the components of his discussion. Therefore, it will, hopefully, serve to consider one of the concepts he addresses.
After reading the first couple of pages of Venuti’s text, you arrive at the point where the evolution of translation studies begins to exclude linguistics. He notes, “Here linguistic analysis is minimized and in some cases excluded in favor of formulating theoretical concepts, reconstructing social situations and historical moments, and performing ideological critiques” (295). This really suprised me because I automatically assume that linguistic analysis would be the foundation of any translation. What could be more important than the linguistics features of a text in attempting to translate it right? When you reach the section where Venuit discusses “equivalence and Shifts”, however, this actually begins to make more sense, and the ideology behind it actually seems justified.
Venuit explains, “The sheer number of definitions shows that equivalence cannot be ascertained by merely comparing the foreign and translated texts; a third, metalinguistic term must be applied to establish and specify a basis of comparison between them. This third term, moreover, is interpretive: not only does” (296). Here, perhaps, the cultural context of the audience can be used to select a method of translation that may achieve a sense of equivalence. Languages have their own structures and their own unique connotations attached to the meanings of words; and these connotations are determined by the members of that language community. Simply transferring words, therefore, from one language to another doesn’t usually work. There has to be something else there for the new text to make sense to the new language community that is going to read it.
An interesting note: I’ve always felt familiar with the notion that some things get lost in translation. But i never considered that so much can actually be gained through translation. I think Venuti’s text is so effective because it seeks to find balance between these two realities.
