Hermeneutics and Translation Theory
Translation theory was once strictly confined within the scope
of linguistics for translation was merely referred to as a
conversion of languages, from the source language into the target
language. Nevertheless, when research is carried further and
deeper, meaning is found not only associated with the language or
the text but also with the author and the reader, which form the
tripartite in understanding of the appropriate meaning of any text.
This paper starts with the discussion of the relationship of
hermeneutics and literary translation and then goes on to propose
that a perfect theory of translation should be an overall concern
of all the three aforementioned factors.
Key words: hermeneutics; translation; meaning; semiotics;
reception theory.
Why is hermeneutics relevant to translation? Because there is no
translation without understanding and interpreting texts, which is
the initial step in any kinds of translation including literary
translation of course. Inappropriate interpretation inevitably
results in inadequate translations, if not absolutely wrong
translations. But how do we understand?
Hermeneutics
Hermeneutics, briefly, can be defined as the science and
methodology of interpreting texts. The philosophical background on
which hermeneutics is based is demonstrated by the forerunners in
this area such as Gadamer. According to Gadamer, words, that is,
talk, conversation, dialogue, question and answer, produce worlds.
In contrast to a traditional, Aristotelian view of language where
spoken words represent mental images and written words are symbols
for spoken words, Gadamerian perspective on linguistics emphasizes
a fundamental unity between language and human existence.
Interpretation can never be divorced from language or objectified.
Because language comes to humans with meaning, interpretations and
understandings of the world can never be prejudice-free. As human
beings, one cannot step outside of language and look at language or
the world from some objective standpoint. Language is not a tool
which human beings manipulate to represent a meaning-full world;
rather, language forms human reality. (quoted from Bullock,
1997)
Another important figure in this sphere is Schleiermacher whose
concept of understanding includes empathy as well as intuitive
linguistic analysis. He believed that understanding is not merely
the decoding of encoded information, interpretation is built upon
understanding, and it has a grammatical, as well as a psychological
moment. The grammatical thrust places the text within a particular
literature (or language) and reciprocally uses the text to redefine
the character of that literature. The psychological thrust is more
naive and linear. In it, the interpreter reconstructs and
explicates the subject's motives and implicit assumptions. Thus
Schleiermacher claimed that a successful interpreter could
understand the author as well, as or even better than, the author
understood himself because the interpretation highlights hidden
motives and strategies. (quoted from the web: www.ai.mit.edu)
Dilthey, initially a follower of Schleiermacher, went further.
He began to emphasize that texts and actions were as much products
of their times as expressions of individuals, and their meanings
were consequently constrained by both an orientation to values of
their period and a place in the web of their authors' plans and
experiences. Therefore meanings are delineated by the author's
world-view reflecting a historical period and social context.
Understanding (verstehen), the basis for methodological
hermeneutics, involves tracing a circle from text to the author's
biography and immediate historical circumstances and back again.
Interpretation, or the systematic application of understanding to
the text, reconstructs the world in which the text was produced and
places the text in that world. (ibid)
Modern ideas on hermeneutics hold that the writer may be an
editor or a redactor and that he may have used sources. In
considering this aspect of discourse one must take into account the
writer's purpose in writing as well as his cultural milieu.
Secondly, one must consider the narrator in the writing who is
usually different from the writer. Sometimes he is a real person,
sometimes fictional. One must determine his purpose in speaking and
his cultural milieu, taking into consideration the fact that he may
be omnipresent and omniscient. One must also take into
consideration the narratee within the story and how he hears. But
even then one is not finished. One must reckon with the person or
persons to whom the writing is addressed; the reader, not always
the same as the one to whom the writing is addressed; and later
readers. Thirdly, one must consider the setting of writing, the
genre (whether poetry, narrative, prophecy, etc.), the figures of
speech; the devices used, and, finally, the plot. (Hanko, 1991)
Following the above ideas, we realize that understanding and
interpreting the meaning of a discourse involves actually three
factors: the author (writer), the text (or speech) and the
reader.
My Understanding of Translation
Translation, according to Nida (1984) consists in reproducing in
the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source
language massage, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms
of style. The Chinese cihai (unabridged dictionary) defines
translation as: expressing in another language the meaning carried
in the original language (my translation from Chinese). Here
meaning is apparently in the limelight of translation, which is why
adequate understanding and interpretation is always an iron
criterion in judging whether a piece of translation succeeds or
fails. Style is another indispensable factor involved in
translation but cannot be treated in this paper for it is not
directly relevant to the present topic.
I believe however meaning is never concrete and tangible as many
may claim and translation of meaning can only achieve a sort of
approximation instead of exactness as is believed by some scholars
working in the field. I reckon that when the translated meaning
produces the same or a similar response in the target reader or
listener as it does the original reader, the translation is
successful by my standard. Newmark (1982) says that it is
preferable to handle the issue in terms of equivalence of intended
effects, thus linking judgments about what the translator seeks to
achieve to judgments about the intended meaning of the ST
speaker/writer. In other words I do not seek to reproduce the
exactness of the original but always bear in my mind the rule of
having the same effect on the target reader. This assertion is
grounded on the fact that it is believed by many that translation
is itself an end, serving a certain purpose. When it comes to a
different point of view-translation is also a medium, or a process,
I have something different to say. Simply put, translation involves
decoding of the original discourse and encoding of the target
discourse, both done by the translator or interpreter. During this
process, absolute faithfulness or accuracy is but an illusion, or
best, an impossible idealistic pursuit. To achieve the maximum
effect or impact of the original discourse and to avoid failure of
communication, accommodations are made for a variety of reasons.
(See my paper Accommodations in Translation for reference, at
www.accurapid.com)
In a word, translation in my opinion is both a process and a
product. Research therefore ought to include all factors and
elements concerned about them both.
The Three Factors All Considered
In the following discussion I will concentrate on the
development of translation theory on the hermeneutic basis.
The Author
Centering on the author, there has been a lot of followers who
preach that in literary translation a thorough study of the
author's life experience, historical and social background is of
paramount necessity for any translator to ensure interpretation of
the author's meaning or intention is most adequate. There have been
many articles and theses on evaluation of a literary work, digging
quite in depth those factors about the author to make sure the
interpretation of the work is the closest. For example, in
translating Shakespeare into Chinese many would draw heavily from
history. "The 16th century in England was a period of the breaking
up of feudal relations and the establishing of the foundations of
capitalism."(Wu, 1996: p71) "Together with the development of
bourgeois relationships and formation of the English national state
this period is marked by a flourishing of national culture known as
the Renaissance" which originally indicated "a revival of classical
arts and sciences after the dark ages of medieval obscurantism."
Shakespeare as a humanist held his chief interest not in
ecclesiastical knowledge, but in man, his environment and doings
and "bravely fought for the emancipation of man from the tyranny of
the church and religious dogmas." (ibid, p72-73) He was a
dramatist, poet, actor and proprietor and he produced 37 plays, two
narrative poems and 154 sonnets. All these peripheral facts hinted
meaning penned by Shakespeare and under his pen the medieval story
assumed new meaning and significance.
This trend of determining meaning in a certain work or of the a
certain author was of high popularity in China and still is, to
some extent. In judging translation, therefore, the more abundant
materials one has, the more say he has and the more he is
convincing.
Such an approach of course is quite valuable and truthful, but
only partially truthful for there is another factor to be
considered---the text.
The Text
The stress on text results in the supreme status of the
structuralism and later deconstruction in translation theory. This
school accuses the abovementioned group of staying far away from
the essential element and foundation of interpreting the meaning of
the original. They hold that as soon as the author has finished the
writing the meaning is fixed in the text and any 'guess' away from
the text should be abandoned completely. Thus when two translations
are compared the grammar, diction and sentence structures are
valued above anything else. To support themselves, semiotics is
loaned to argue against the 'author regime'. Academically Semiotics
can be defined broadly as a domain of investigation that explores
the nature and function of signs as well as the systems and
processes underlying signification, expression, representation, and
communication. (Perron, 1997) Literary semiotics can be seen as a
branch of the general science of signs that studies a particular
group of texts within verbal texts in general. Starting with the
definition of "semiosis" as a process in which signs function as
vehicles, interpretants, and interpreters, Morris determines three
areas of complementary investigation: syntactics, which studies the
relation of sign-vehicles within sign systems; semantics, the
relation of signs to objects they represent; and pragmatics, the
relation of signs to interpreters. Hence, if one considers literary
texts in terms of semiosis, they can be defined as syncretic sign
systems encompassing a syntactic dimension that can be analyzed on
the phonological level (e.g., the specific sound patterns
organizing the text) and on the level of narrative syntax; the
semantic level (the content elements of the text); and the
pragmatic or communicative context (addresser and addressee). In
short, the first two dimensions stress the structural features of
texts and are concerned with their expression and content forms,
whereas the other dimension stresses the signifying process and
concentrates on analyzing their generative processes and
interrelations with other texts. (ibid) Armed with this theory, the
'text regime' holds their battleground rather strongly.
Here the process of interpretation seems to end satisfactorily,
yet the last step is indispensable, the involvement of the reader.
Text ought not be treated as a closed formal network. Without the
reader the meaning is not communicated. And if communication fails
what follows naturally is the failure of translation.
The Reader
This aspect does not attract attention until quite recently.
Owing to the above schools the interpretation of a certain work
used to be looked on as fixed and established by authority who have
done thorough research about the author and the detailed analysis
of the text at hand. So any different interpretation tends to be
strongly attacked, denying the fact that naturally different
readers may well have different interpretations. To argue with
persuasiveness, reception theory is introduced in translation
theory which is defined as the "approach to literature that
concerns itself first and foremost with one or more readers'
actualization of the text." (Lernout, 1994) The most significant
figure concerning this theory is Hans Robert Jauss and he is
heavily quoted. The 'reader regime' comes into prominence.
Jauss's work in the late seventies, gathered in his Asthetische
Erfahrung und literarische Hermeneutik in 1982 (the first part was
issued in 1977 and translated into English as Aesthetic Experience
and Literary Hermeneutics in 1982), moved toward a more
hermeneutical interest in the aesthetic experience itself. Jauss
distinguishes three basic experiences: a productive aesthetic
praxis (poiesis), a receptive praxis (aisthesis), and a
communicative praxis (katharsis), and he claims that a detailed
study of these three elements can help literary history steer a
course between an exclusively aesthetic and an exclusively
sociological perspective. Central in this new phase of Jauss's
thinking is the third, communicative aesthetic praxis, which is
defined as "the enjoyment of the affects as stirred by speech or
poetry which can bring about both a change in belief and the
liberation of his mind in the listener or the spectator" (92).
Important here is both the active part of the recipient of the
aesthetic object and the two opposites this definition avoids: the
unmediated losing oneself in the object and the sentimental
self-indulgence by the subject in itself. The aesthetic experience
can have three functions in society: it can create norms, simply
pass on existing norms, or refuse to conform to the existing norms.
(ibid) With this as a point of departure, Chinese translation
circles, especially those of the middle-age generation, set out a
campaign of retranslation of the classical works which used to be
considered too steep and high a mountain to climb.
Re-translation of the same work is now being done by quite a few
translators, who boldly do the translation in accordance with their
own interpretation and with originality and creativity without fear
of being ferociously attacked by the so-called authority. In
addition, literary translation itself I firmly believe is more an
artistic endeavor than a mechanic linguistic conversion as art is
always individual and immune to the so-called 'scientific
deconstruction'.
The three factors each have its followers and advocates in the
Chinese translation circles today and the disputes and arguments
still go on. I, a Taoist philosophical follower, believe the
'oneness' which in this present case means the organic combination
of the three aspects, complementary to one another.
Conclusion
From the above discussion, it is hoped to manifest that proper
understanding of a literary discourse is the first and foremost
step of any translation and to understand it correctly the three
factors, namely, the author, the text and the reader must all be
counted in so that meaning is best determined and a perfect piece
of translation is produced.
Notes: As I am blind to German, I am not sure if my quotations
are correctly spelt. I apologize for any mistakes, though the
German terms are but copied exactly from the sources I have
cited.
Reference
1. Bullock, Jeffrey F. 1997. "Preaching in a Postmodern World:
Gadamer's Philosophical Hermeneutics as Homiletical
Conversation".
2. www.ai.mit.edu/people/jcma/papers/1986-ai-memo-871
3. Hanko, Herman C. Issues in Hermeneutics Protestant Reformed
Theological Journals of April and November, 1990, and April and
November, 1991.
4. Eugene Nida, On Translation, Translation Publishing Corp.
Beijing,China.1984.
5. Newmark, p.p. 1982. Approaches to Translation, Pearson
Education Limited, London.
6. Wu, Weiren. 1996. History and Anthology of English Literature.
Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. Beijing.
7. Perron, Paul. 1997. Semiotics: As a Bridge Between the
Humanities and the Sciences. Trade Paper, Legas Publishing.
8. Lernout's source is cited from the web.
www.press.jhu.edu/books
9. Shi, Aiwei. 2004. Accommodations in Translation.
www.accurapid.com.
By Aiwei Shi