Ortega in Contemporary Translation Theories

The results obtained in an earlier work (Ordóñez-López, 2006)

provide some background information for this analysis. Ortega’s

essay ‘Misery and Splendour of Translation’ has been considered

by some of the most outstanding scholars to be one of the most

representative examples of reflection on the topic within its period.

At the same time, in the various chronological divisions of the history

of translation theory established by different scholars (Ordóñez-

López, 2006: 196-197, 241-243), Ortega’s work has been described

as a philosophical reflection, characterised by its speculative nature

and lack of empirical evidence and specialised terminology.

Taking these results into account, it is only logical to anticipate a

closer connection between Ortega’s views and philosophical and

hermeneutic approaches, while a considerable distance between

his ideas and those developed in linguistic and textual approaches

can be expected. However, it is interesting to explore the impact of

the essay on the main theoretical approaches individually, from the

second half of the twentieth century to the present day.

Ortega in Linguistic Theories

According to Fawcett (1998: 120), ‘the relationship of linguistics

to translation can be twofold: one can apply the findings of

linguistics to the practice of translation, and one can have a linguistic

theory of translation’. The second approach is found in Catford,

who in A Linguistic Theory of Translation, An Essay in Applied Translation

(1965) intends to define translation in terms of a linguistic

theory. In order to provide a fair and accurate interpretation of

Catford’s theory, we must take into consideration the date his work

was published, which was prior to the consolidation of Applied Linguistics.

Catford’s work lacks an integrative vision of language,

remaining on the sentence level and thus leaving aside any further

elements embedded in a text, viewed as a unit, in the framework of

communication.

Translation is an operation performed on languages: a process

of substituting a text in one language for a text in another.

(Catford, 1965: 1)

With this definition in mind, Catford’s linguistic theory of translation

is formulated by means of several categorisations in which

he reflects on the different types of translation and the main aspects

therein: full vs. partial translation (1965: 21), total vs. restricted

translation (1965: 22), rank-bound vs. unbounded translation (1965:

24-25), textual equivalence (1965: 27) vs. formal correspondence

(1965: 27), and substitution vs. transference (1965: 48).

Catford’s theory of translation is based on the abovementioned

categories and concepts, and is characterised by a predominantly

empirical perspective that remains at the sentence level. Furthermore,

Catford’s vision of translation is extremely fragmented, as

shown by the detailed divisions applied to the act of translation,

distinguishing between phonological translation (1965: 52), graphological

translation (1965: 63), transliteration (1965: 66) and grammatical

and lexical translation (1965: 71). All these categories stand

in contrast to the so-called ‘total translation’, which is the most

relevant category regarding our purpose here:

In total translation, the question of “sameness” of situationsubstance

is a difficult one, and is linked to the question of

“sameness” or otherwise of the cultures (in the widest and

loosest sense) to which SL and TL belong. (Catford, 1965: 52)

Catford does, however, acknowledge the limits of total translation.

Notwithstanding, these appear to be fairly flexible and inevitably

bounded to other non-necessarily linguistic elements, such as

situation or function:

Translation fails – or unstranslatability occurs – when it is

impossible to build functionally relevant features of the situation

into the contextual meaning of the TL text. Broadly speaking,

the cases where his happens fall into two categories. Those

where the difficulty is linguistic, and those where it is cultural.

(Catford, 1965: 94)

It is obvious that Catford’s views differ considerably from

Ortega’s, especially due to the lack of empirical perspective which

characterises his essay. Nevertheless, despite the totally divergent

perspectives adopted by these two authors, a convergence can be

observed with regard to the aspects they consider to be involved in

the translation process, such as correspondence, equivalence, transfer,

translatability, etc. It is also interesting to point out that almost

forty years later, Catford’s work still lacks a specialised jargon,

though a shift towards a more empirical and descriptive approach –

which would be taken up increasingly from the next decade onwards

– can already be observed.

 

 

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