The Splendour of Translation

Боднарюк

1. Introduction

José Ortega y Gasset (Madrid, 1883-1955) is considered one of

the most outstanding and influential figures in 20th century Spanish

philosophy. His name is strongly associated with philosophy and

politics. Nevertheless, a vast amount of references and reflection

about language is scattered throughout his works. These recurrent

references to language constitute what could be defined as Ortega’s

philosophical ‘theory of language’. Translation occupies a significant

position within this theory of language, and Ortega dedicated

an essay to developing his ideas on translation. In 1937, he wrote

‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’, an essay that, as stated in

previous works (Ordóñez-López, 2006), has attained the status of a

“classic” of translation theory. However, it would be interesting to

find out whether Ortega’s ideas play an operative and active role in

contemporary Translation Studies.

‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ was first published in the

Argentinian journal La Nación, in a series of five weekly articles,

between June 13th and July 11th, 1937. Taking into account the date

of its publication, ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ can be

included among early twentieth century translation theories. However,

if the approach and tone of the essay are taken into consideration,

one could undoubtedly classify it as a clear example of nineteenth

century German Romanticism. In this sense, Ortega’s approach

to translation could be considered to be a mere continuation

of the paradigms of German Romanticism. Notwithstanding, it is

essential to acknowledge the innovative character of the essay within

the Spanish context. It was Ortega’s firm purpose, as he manifested/

expressed himself on several occasions, to europeanise

Spain, and the transfer of the ideas of German Romanticism to the

Spanish context can be regarded as a way of influencing the country

with European theories.

Despite the current trends, which are more empirical and practice-

oriented, it is of vital importance to undertake the study of the

history of translation, in order to provide the discipline with a humanistic

dimension which, these days, is fundamental given the

increasing orientation towards technical approaches in Translation

Studies. An integrative and dynamic analysis of the historical dimension

of the discipline will contribute to the development and

consistency of Translation Studies.

2. ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’: Ortega’s vision

The essay ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ is structured

as a fictitious dialogue held by academics and students of the Collège

de France, in Paris. The essay is divided into five chapters: Chapter

I, ‘The Misery’; Chapter II: ‘The Two Utopianisms’; Chapter

III: ‘About Talking and Keeping Silent’; Chapter IV: ‘We Don’t

Speak Seriously’; and Chapter V: ‘The Splendour’(1). Ortega’s

comprehensive exposition covers a considerable number of issues

from a philosophical approach which is based, as previously mentioned,

on figures from German Romanticism such as Goethe,

Humboldt and Schleiermacher.

The Miseries of Translation

Ortega begins the discussion by explaining the ‘miseries’ of translation,

as in his opinion admitting these miseries constitutes the necessary

first step towards attaining the possible splendour of translation.

On the path to splendour, Ortega tackles various aspects of

language, which he conceives as the origin and source of knowledge

and which takes a different shape according to each people’s

interpretation of reality.

Ortega begins by defining translation as a utopian activity, ‘Isn’t

the act of translating necessarily a utopian task?’ (Ortega y Gasset,

1992: 93). This utopian dimension is inherent, in Ortega’s view, to

every human endeavour. In the case of translation, the utopianism

is due to the ‘cowardice’ of the translator who, according to the

Spanish philosopher, would find him/herself incapable of rebelling

against established language usage, inevitably betraying the original

writer.

To write well is to make continual incursions into grammar,

into established usage, and into accepted linguistic norms. It

is an act of permanent rebellion against the social environs, a

subversion. To write well is to employ a certain radical courage.

Fine, but the translator is usually a shy character. […]

He finds himself facing an enormous controlling apparatus,

composed of grammar and common usage. What will he do

with the rebellious text? Isn’t it too much to ask that he also

be rebellious, particularly since the text is someone else’s?

He will be ruled by cowardice […] he will betray him.

Traduttore, traditore. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 94)

The utopianism of Ortega’s vision of translation is mainly based

on writers’ personal style, formed by every author’s personal deviations

from habitual usage, as well as on what Humboldt called

the ‘internal form’ of every language, which makes the complete

correspondence of meanings between two languages impossible.

[…] it is utopian to believe that two words belonging to different

languages, and which the dictionary gives us as translations

of each other refer to exactly the same objects. Since

languages are formed in different landscapes, through different

experience, their incongruity is natural. It is false, for

example, to suppose that the thing the Spaniard calls a bosque

[forest] the German calls a Wald, yet the dictionary tells us

that Wald means bosque. […] an enormous difference exists

between the two realities. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 96)

In this vein, Ortega also considers different degrees of difficulty

in the possibility/impossibility of translating different types of texts;

this he attributes –especially in the case of mathematics and the

natural sciences – to the use of a specific terminology, considered

by Ortega to be a ‘pseudolanguage’.

A language is a system of verbal signs through which individuals

may understand each other without a previous accord, while

a terminology is only intelligible if the one who is writing or

speaking and the one who is reading or listening have previUgly

translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas... 45

ously and individually come to an agreement as to the meaning

of signs. […] That is why these books are easier to translate

from one language to another. Actually, in every country

these are written almost entirely in the same language. (Ortega

y Gasset, 1992: 95)

 

 

Годованюк

Attaining the Splendour

It was most important that I emphasize the miseries of translating;

it was especially important that I define its difficulty,

its improbability, but not so as to remain there. On the contrary,

it was important so that this might act as a ballistic

spring to impel us toward the possible splendour of the art of

translation. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 97)

In the three middle chapters of the essay, Ortega deals with

several aspects related to the phenomenon of language, beginning

by distinguishing two utopianisms, personalised in the good and the

bad utopian:

Both the bad and the good utopians consider it desirable to correct

the natural reality that places men within the confines of

diverse languages and impedes communication between them.

The bad utopian thinks that because it is desirable, it is possible.

[…]The good utopian, on the other hand, thinks that because

it would be desirable to free men from the divisions imposed

by languages, there is little probability that it can be

attained; therefore, it can only be achieved to an approximate

measure. But this approximation can be greater or lesser, to an

infinite degree, and the efforts at execution are not limited, for

there always exists the possibility of bettering, refining, perfecting:

“progress”, in short. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 98-99)

As already suggested by the previous quotation, ‘talking’ is also

a utopian action, as language constitutes an ‘unsurmountable obstacle’

(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 101) to the expression of our thoughts

which, besides, are already ‘in great measure attributable to the

tongue’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 102). Therefore, we are doubly

limited by our own language.

[…] when speaking or writing we refrain constantly from saying

many things because language doesn’t allow them to be

said. The effectiveness of speech does not simply lie in speaking,

in making statements, but, at the same time and of necessity

, in a relinquishing of speech, a keeping quiet, a being

silent!. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 103)

Silence is an essential element in Ortega’s conception of language,

which actively participates in the act of translating. Silence

consists of two different levels (Ordóñez-López, 2006: 70-

71), and it is considered an inherent and crucial component of

every language. Silence shapes each language differently, so that

‘each language is a different equation of statements and silences’

(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 104). It is precisely here that the main

difficulty of translation lies. Nevertheless, in the philosopher’s

dual vision of translation, silence also conveys the possible

splendour of translation which, in Ortega’s humanistic vision,

consists in ‘the revelation of the mutual secrets that peoples and

epochs keep to themselves and which contribute to their separation

and hostility; in short – an audacious integration of

Humanity’(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 104).

Furthermore, Ortega considers language to be the origin and

the embryonic element of all types of knowledge. This ‘first knowledge’

(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 107) originally reflected the truth

about the world and the differentiations established to the ‘limitless

continuum of diversity of reality’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 106) by

different peoples.

The consideration of language and, inevitably, silence as crucial

obstacles to translation is the only way to be able to attain the possible

splendour of translation.

 

 

Заньковська

Зуєва

Translation Theories

Due to technological progress and the development of international

relations, the twentieth century can be considered the era of

translation. In the first half of the century, reflection on translation

received an increasing amount of attention. During this period works

tend to be rooted in a philosophical vision of language, inherited

from German Romanticism. In broad terms, works from the early

twentieth century lack terminological accuracy in their reference

to translation concepts. Only during the second half of the century

did scholars begin to call for a more systematic and descriptive

study of the act of translating.

The interdisciplinary nature of translation, a discipline situated

between languages, cultures and other disciplines such as literature

and linguistics, is reflected in contemporary Translation Studies.

In translation literature, we can find various co-existing approaches,

depending on the different perspectives adopted by scholars

in their reflections and on the element of the translation process

they focus on. Hurtado Albir (2001: 125-132) classifies the main

theoretical approaches into five conceptual blocks (2): ‘Linguistic

theories’, ‘Textual theories’, ‘Cognitive theories’, ‘Communicative

and Socio-cultural theories’, and ‘Philosophical and Hermeneutic

theories’.

‘Linguistic theories’ are based on the application of a specific linguistic

model and the idea that any translation theory should be built on

a certain theory of language. The two languages involved in every act

of translating are described and compared. Within these theories, different

approaches can be distinguished, depending on the linguistic

model applied. Amongst others, authors such as Vinay and Darbelnet,

Catford and Vázquez Áyora can be included within this group.

‘Textual theories’ argue that translation is a textual process and

incorporate into their interpretations of the act of translating aspects

such as macro-structure, micro-structure, intertextuality, etc., depending

on applied taxonomy. Within these theories names such as

Ladmiral, House, Neubert and Hatim and Mason can be highlighted.

‘Cognitive theories’ are those focusing on the analysis of the

mental process made by translators. Within the framework of

psycholinguistics applied to translation, scholars intend to ‘establish

how translators and interpreters process information, both as

distinct from other speakers and writers and as distinct from each

other’ (Bell, 1998: 185). This approach can be found in work by

scholars such as Delisle, Wilss, Kussmaul and Kiraly.

‘Communicative and Socio-cultural theories’ place the emphasis

on the communicative function of translations, taking into consideration

all contextual aspects surrounding a translation and emphasizing

the relevance of cultural elements as well as the role of

the translations’ readers. According to Mason, in communicative

and socio-cultural theories ‘the context of situation is crucial and

must include the participants in speech events, the action taking

place and other relevant features’ (Mason, 1998: 29). The translator

should proceed then to make any required adjustment in order

to achieve appropriateness in the different contexts and uses involved.

Scholars such as Nida and Taber, Toury, Reiß and

Vermeer, and Nord can be included in the list of those embracing

this approach.

‘Philosophical and Hermeneutic theories’ are those that focus

on the hermeneutic nature of translation and the philosophical aspects

therein. According to Robinson, these theories involve ‘an

empathic projection of the interpreter’s desire to understand into

the activity s/he is attempting to understand’ (Robinson, 1998: 97).

Hermeneuts, therefore, ‘imagine themselves inside the activity […]

and attempt to describe what they find from within’ (Robinson, 1998,

97). This approach is adopted by Berman, Steiner, Gadamer, Venuti

and Ortega Arjonilla.

 

Комаринець

Петрочко

Ortega in Textual Theories

Textual approaches are derived from an empirical perspective

applied to linguistics. In these approaches a practical application of

linguistics to translation has given rise to different categorisations

and taxonomies which are used to describe the process of translation

and the procedures followed by translators, on the basis of the

notion of equivalence.

Scholars working within these approaches intend to demonstrate

the relevance of a componential analysis of translation. More integrative

perspectives have progressively been incorporated: word

and phrase level taxonomies have been broadened in order to take

into consideration other relevant and essential aspects such as register,

discourse or function, i.e. Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997)

and Baker (1992).

As an example of textual approaches, we have selected Ladmiral’s

work, Traduire: Theorèmes pour la traduction (1979). Despite his

textual approach to translation and the chronological gap between

Ladmiral and Ortega’s work, foundational similarities can be found

between them. Ladmiral defines translation as a universal and human

activity, thus adopting a similar starting point as Ortega. With a

more specialised jargon, due to the incorporation of theoretical findings

and the consolidation of translation studies as a discipline sui

generis, Ladmiral adopts an unequivocally human perspective. Consequently,

his global conception of translation bears a great degree of

analogy to that provided by Ortega in 1937:

Non seulement il peut-être difficile d’abstraire la parole de

l’auteur de la langue-source au sein de laquelle elle a trouvé sa

formulation, mais surtout la solidarité de chaque langue avec

tout un contexte culturel fait apparaître la nécessité d’intégrer

à la théorie de la traduction la perspective extra-linguistique

[…]. Dans la pratique la traduction sera bien sûr toujours

partielle. Comme toute acte de communication, elle comportera

un certain degré d’entropie, autrement dit une certaine

déperdition d’information. (Ladmiral, 1979: 17-19) (4)

Furthermore, Ladmiral reflects on the possibility or impossibility

of translation in this work, analysing the ideas of du Bellay,

Mounin and Meschonnic amongst others. According to Ladmiral,

however, the antagonistic character of translation can be explained

by the deep cleavage between the theoretical and practical sides of

this activity:

Ce ne sont pas les memes personages qui theórisent

(l’impossibilité) et qui traduissent […] Ce clivage est

particulièrement net en traduction […] le prolétariat des

traducteurs «sur le terrain» est maintenu à l’écart de la contemplation

théorique. Cette dernière est l’apanage d’une

aristocratie de linguistes qui philosophent sur la traduction,

dont ils n’ont pas la pratique. (Ladmiral, 1979: 90) (5)

With these statements in mind, Ladmiral carries out an analysis

of the act of translating, built upon the classical opposition between

denotation and connotation, focusing on the different dimensions of

the latter:

Les connotations constituent un fait linguistique collectif, ni

purement individuel ni non plus totalement général ou universel,

à vrai dire intermédiaire entre la parole et la langue, mais

plus proche de cette dernière. (Ladmiral, 1979: 145) (6)

Though Ladmiral’s style of writing is more specialized, these

dimensions are already latently present in Ortega’s discussion on

the non-existence of exact synonyms, illustrated by his example of

the German word ‘Wald’ and the Spanish ‘bosque’ (see 2.1.).

A clear divergence, however, can be observed in regard to the

recommended translation procedures proposed by these two authors,

in spite of their shared recognition of the relevance of source

language and culture. On the one hand, we have Ortega’s categorical

translation proposal, which can be classified as pure

foreignisation; on the other hand, Ladmiral’s attitude reveals a more

flexible and empirical perspective.

[…] le traducteur est conduit à explorer, de proche en proche,

tout un paradigme paraphrastique d’équivalents quasi ou parasynonymiques,

mais c’est pour prendre la mesure des

différences ou des nuances qui les distinguent. En ce cas, les

choix de traductions sont dictés par le sens même du textesource

et non plus seulement par les contraintes plus ou moins

aléatoires de l’ajustement contextuel coextensive à l’écriture

d’un texte-cible. (Ladmiral, 1979: 169-170) (7)

Слободян

Стельмах

Туз

Боднарюк

1. Introduction

José Ortega y Gasset (Madrid, 1883-1955) is considered one of

the most outstanding and influential figures in 20th century Spanish

philosophy. His name is strongly associated with philosophy and

politics. Nevertheless, a vast amount of references and reflection

about language is scattered throughout his works. These recurrent

references to language constitute what could be defined as Ortega’s

philosophical ‘theory of language’. Translation occupies a significant

position within this theory of language, and Ortega dedicated

an essay to developing his ideas on translation. In 1937, he wrote

‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’, an essay that, as stated in

previous works (Ordóñez-López, 2006), has attained the status of a

“classic” of translation theory. However, it would be interesting to

find out whether Ortega’s ideas play an operative and active role in

contemporary Translation Studies.

‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ was first published in the

Argentinian journal La Nación, in a series of five weekly articles,

between June 13th and July 11th, 1937. Taking into account the date

of its publication, ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ can be

included among early twentieth century translation theories. However,

if the approach and tone of the essay are taken into consideration,

one could undoubtedly classify it as a clear example of nineteenth

century German Romanticism. In this sense, Ortega’s approach

to translation could be considered to be a mere continuation

of the paradigms of German Romanticism. Notwithstanding, it is

essential to acknowledge the innovative character of the essay within

the Spanish context. It was Ortega’s firm purpose, as he manifested/

expressed himself on several occasions, to europeanise

Spain, and the transfer of the ideas of German Romanticism to the

Spanish context can be regarded as a way of influencing the country

with European theories.

Despite the current trends, which are more empirical and practice-

oriented, it is of vital importance to undertake the study of the

history of translation, in order to provide the discipline with a humanistic

dimension which, these days, is fundamental given the

increasing orientation towards technical approaches in Translation

Studies. An integrative and dynamic analysis of the historical dimension

of the discipline will contribute to the development and

consistency of Translation Studies.

2. ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’: Ortega’s vision

The essay ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ is structured

as a fictitious dialogue held by academics and students of the Collège

de France, in Paris. The essay is divided into five chapters: Chapter

I, ‘The Misery’; Chapter II: ‘The Two Utopianisms’; Chapter

III: ‘About Talking and Keeping Silent’; Chapter IV: ‘We Don’t

Speak Seriously’; and Chapter V: ‘The Splendour’(1). Ortega’s

comprehensive exposition covers a considerable number of issues

from a philosophical approach which is based, as previously mentioned,

on figures from German Romanticism such as Goethe,

Humboldt and Schleiermacher.

The Miseries of Translation

Ortega begins the discussion by explaining the ‘miseries’ of translation,

as in his opinion admitting these miseries constitutes the necessary

first step towards attaining the possible splendour of translation.

On the path to splendour, Ortega tackles various aspects of

language, which he conceives as the origin and source of knowledge

and which takes a different shape according to each people’s

interpretation of reality.

Ortega begins by defining translation as a utopian activity, ‘Isn’t

the act of translating necessarily a utopian task?’ (Ortega y Gasset,

1992: 93). This utopian dimension is inherent, in Ortega’s view, to

every human endeavour. In the case of translation, the utopianism

is due to the ‘cowardice’ of the translator who, according to the

Spanish philosopher, would find him/herself incapable of rebelling

against established language usage, inevitably betraying the original

writer.

To write well is to make continual incursions into grammar,

into established usage, and into accepted linguistic norms. It

is an act of permanent rebellion against the social environs, a

subversion. To write well is to employ a certain radical courage.

Fine, but the translator is usually a shy character. […]

He finds himself facing an enormous controlling apparatus,

composed of grammar and common usage. What will he do

with the rebellious text? Isn’t it too much to ask that he also

be rebellious, particularly since the text is someone else’s?

He will be ruled by cowardice […] he will betray him.

Traduttore, traditore. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 94)

The utopianism of Ortega’s vision of translation is mainly based

on writers’ personal style, formed by every author’s personal deviations

from habitual usage, as well as on what Humboldt called

the ‘internal form’ of every language, which makes the complete

correspondence of meanings between two languages impossible.

[…] it is utopian to believe that two words belonging to different

languages, and which the dictionary gives us as translations

of each other refer to exactly the same objects. Since

languages are formed in different landscapes, through different

experience, their incongruity is natural. It is false, for

example, to suppose that the thing the Spaniard calls a bosque

[forest] the German calls a Wald, yet the dictionary tells us

that Wald means bosque. […] an enormous difference exists

between the two realities. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 96)

In this vein, Ortega also considers different degrees of difficulty

in the possibility/impossibility of translating different types of texts;

this he attributes –especially in the case of mathematics and the

natural sciences – to the use of a specific terminology, considered

by Ortega to be a ‘pseudolanguage’.

A language is a system of verbal signs through which individuals

may understand each other without a previous accord, while

a terminology is only intelligible if the one who is writing or

speaking and the one who is reading or listening have previUgly

translations: Ortega y Gasset’s ideas... 45

ously and individually come to an agreement as to the meaning

of signs. […] That is why these books are easier to translate

from one language to another. Actually, in every country

these are written almost entirely in the same language. (Ortega

y Gasset, 1992: 95)

 

 

Годованюк

Attaining the Splendour

It was most important that I emphasize the miseries of translating;

it was especially important that I define its difficulty,

its improbability, but not so as to remain there. On the contrary,

it was important so that this might act as a ballistic

spring to impel us toward the possible splendour of the art of

translation. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 97)

In the three middle chapters of the essay, Ortega deals with

several aspects related to the phenomenon of language, beginning

by distinguishing two utopianisms, personalised in the good and the

bad utopian:

Both the bad and the good utopians consider it desirable to correct

the natural reality that places men within the confines of

diverse languages and impedes communication between them.

The bad utopian thinks that because it is desirable, it is possible.

[…]The good utopian, on the other hand, thinks that because

it would be desirable to free men from the divisions imposed

by languages, there is little probability that it can be

attained; therefore, it can only be achieved to an approximate

measure. But this approximation can be greater or lesser, to an

infinite degree, and the efforts at execution are not limited, for

there always exists the possibility of bettering, refining, perfecting:

“progress”, in short. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 98-99)

As already suggested by the previous quotation, ‘talking’ is also

a utopian action, as language constitutes an ‘unsurmountable obstacle’

(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 101) to the expression of our thoughts

which, besides, are already ‘in great measure attributable to the

tongue’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 102). Therefore, we are doubly

limited by our own language.

[…] when speaking or writing we refrain constantly from saying

many things because language doesn’t allow them to be

said. The effectiveness of speech does not simply lie in speaking,

in making statements, but, at the same time and of necessity

, in a relinquishing of speech, a keeping quiet, a being

silent!. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 103)

Silence is an essential element in Ortega’s conception of language,

which actively participates in the act of translating. Silence

consists of two different levels (Ordóñez-López, 2006: 70-

71), and it is considered an inherent and crucial component of

every language. Silence shapes each language differently, so that

‘each language is a different equation of statements and silences’

(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 104). It is precisely here that the main

difficulty of translation lies. Nevertheless, in the philosopher’s

dual vision of translation, silence also conveys the possible

splendour of translation which, in Ortega’s humanistic vision,

consists in ‘the revelation of the mutual secrets that peoples and

epochs keep to themselves and which contribute to their separation

and hostility; in short – an audacious integration of

Humanity’(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 104).

Furthermore, Ortega considers language to be the origin and

the embryonic element of all types of knowledge. This ‘first knowledge’

(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 107) originally reflected the truth

about the world and the differentiations established to the ‘limitless

continuum of diversity of reality’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 106) by

different peoples.

The consideration of language and, inevitably, silence as crucial

obstacles to translation is the only way to be able to attain the possible

splendour of translation.

 

 

Заньковська

The Splendour of Translation

Ortega concludes his essay with a discussion about the splendour

of translating. In this chapter he describes what he understands by

translation and how translators should proceed. Ortega acknowledges

that ‘what is essential concerning the matter has been said

more than a century ago by the dear theologian Schleiermacher’ in

his work Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens (1813).

Ortega contemplates the two possible methods of translation proposed

therein: ‘Either the translator leaves the writer alone as much

as possible and moves the reader toward the writer, or he leaves

the reader alone as much as possible and moves the writer toward

the reader’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 108). However, Ortega’s position

is categorical: only when we tear the reader away from his

native linguistic conventions and force him to throw himself into

the mind of the original author can we speak of ‘translation proper’

(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 108). This is the procedure to be followed

by the ‘shy’ translator.

Ortega then proceeds to establish some principles that should

govern the ‘the new enterprise of translating’ (Ortega y Gasset,

1992: 108) and define what a translation should be:

Translation is not a duplicate of the original text […] translation

doesn’t even belong to the same literary genre as the text

that was translated […] translation is a literary genre apart

[…] with its own norms and own ends […] a translation is not

the work, but a path toward the work […] I imagine a form of

translation that is ugly, as science has always been; that does

not intend to wear literary garb; that is not easy to read, but is

very clear indeed. (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 109, 111)

In order to achieve this form of translation, Ortega claims, it

would be necessary to make ‘divergent translations of the same

work’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 111), as it would not be possible to

approximate all the facts of the original text at the same time.

Having presented his conception of translation, Ortega points

out the need to restore the prestige of this activity, and he proposes

that it should be enhanced by recommending its practice to writers.

In general, no writer should denigrate the occupation of translating,

and he should complement his own work with some

version of an ancient, medieval, or contemporary texts. It is

necessary to restore the prestige of this labor and value it as

an intellectual work of the first order. Doing this would convert

translating into a discipline sui generis which, cultivated

with continuity would devise its own techniques and would

augment our network of intellectual approaches considerably.

(Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 111-112)

This is an undeniably positive prospect for translation, but it is

only attainable if ‘in translating, we try to leave our language and

go to the other’ (Ortega y Gasset, 1992: 112), which is what has

been done in the German translation of his works. This way, the

reader finds him/herself making mental turns that occur naturally

in the source language.

 

 

Зуєва

Translation Theories

Due to technological progress and the development of international

relations, the twentieth century can be considered the era of

translation. In the first half of the century, reflection on translation

received an increasing amount of attention. During this period works

tend to be rooted in a philosophical vision of language, inherited

from German Romanticism. In broad terms, works from the early

twentieth century lack terminological accuracy in their reference

to translation concepts. Only during the second half of the century

did scholars begin to call for a more systematic and descriptive

study of the act of translating.

The interdisciplinary nature of translation, a discipline situated

between languages, cultures and other disciplines such as literature

and linguistics, is reflected in contemporary Translation Studies.

In translation literature, we can find various co-existing approaches,

depending on the different perspectives adopted by scholars

in their reflections and on the element of the translation process

they focus on. Hurtado Albir (2001: 125-132) classifies the main

theoretical approaches into five conceptual blocks (2): ‘Linguistic

theories’, ‘Textual theories’, ‘Cognitive theories’, ‘Communicative

and Socio-cultural theories’, and ‘Philosophical and Hermeneutic

theories’.

‘Linguistic theories’ are based on the application of a specific linguistic

model and the idea that any translation theory should be built on

a certain theory of language. The two languages involved in every act

of translating are described and compared. Within these theories, different

approaches can be distinguished, depending on the linguistic

model applied. Amongst others, authors such as Vinay and Darbelnet,

Catford and Vázquez Áyora can be included within this group.

‘Textual theories’ argue that translation is a textual process and

incorporate into their interpretations of the act of translating aspects

such as macro-structure, micro-structure, intertextuality, etc., depending

on applied taxonomy. Within these theories names such as

Ladmiral, House, Neubert and Hatim and Mason can be highlighted.

‘Cognitive theories’ are those focusing on the analysis of the

mental process made by translators. Within the framework of

psycholinguistics applied to translation, scholars intend to ‘establish

how translators and interpreters process information, both as

distinct from other speakers and writers and as distinct from each

other’ (Bell, 1998: 185). This approach can be found in work by

scholars such as Delisle, Wilss, Kussmaul and Kiraly.

‘Communicative and Socio-cultural theories’ place the emphasis

on the communicative function of translations, taking into consideration

all contextual aspects surrounding a translation and emphasizing

the relevance of cultural elements as well as the role of

the translations’ readers. According to Mason, in communicative

and socio-cultural theories ‘the context of situation is crucial and

must include the participants in speech events, the action taking

place and other relevant features’ (Mason, 1998: 29). The translator

should proceed then to make any required adjustment in order

to achieve appropriateness in the different contexts and uses involved.

Scholars such as Nida and Taber, Toury, Reiß and

Vermeer, and Nord can be included in the list of those embracing

this approach.

‘Philosophical and Hermeneutic theories’ are those that focus

on the hermeneutic nature of translation and the philosophical aspects

therein. According to Robinson, these theories involve ‘an

empathic projection of the interpreter’s desire to understand into

the activity s/he is attempting to understand’ (Robinson, 1998: 97).

Hermeneuts, therefore, ‘imagine themselves inside the activity […]

and attempt to describe what they find from within’ (Robinson, 1998,

97). This approach is adopted by Berman, Steiner, Gadamer, Venuti

and Ortega Arjonilla.

 

Комаринець