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