MangerelC@ufs.ac.za

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine power dynamics as manifested through the absence of translation, or translation silence. Power dynamics in postcolonial contexts have been the subject of remarkable research by Lefevere, Cronin and Tymoczko, to name only a few translation theorists. There is no doubt that silence is an intricate part of power in translation, both in practice and in theory, both in actual acts of translation and in the context in which they take place.

 The power of silence in translation, and absence of translation, appears at many levels, from translation’s role to its potential and responsibility, and in all categories of translation – pragmatic and literary as well as translation theory. This paper draws from the semiotic and semantic theories of Jakobson, Peirce and Lakoff to examine silence in intralinguistic, interlinguistic and intersemiotic translation as well as the concept of invariants, those basic elements of meaning. The concept of interdisciplinary systems will be introduced.

1. Untranslatability: an overview

The absence of translation’s longest standing application in translation theory is the notion of untranslatability.

Many thinkers from various horizons and times in the fields of linguistics and translation studies have wrestled with the notion of untranslatability. Humboldt, Jakobson, and Antoine Berman, for instance, all concluded at some point in their body of work that some elements, either at the cultural or contextual level, at the linguistic level, or because of the very essence of human languages, cannot be translated.

Untranslatability has also long been a topic of debate from various perspectives because of the many disciplines to which it is connected and the many epistemological issues involved, such as meaning, language, and translation proper. Untranslatability finds its origin in prejudicial objection, the basis of which is the sacralisation of texts bringing about the sacralisation of languages, and in turn causing translation to become an act of desecration (Ladmiral, 1990). Untranslatability can also be explained in practical terms, such as the German Romantics’ very modern idea that “no word from one language is the exact equivalent to a word in another language” (Humboldt, 2000: 33. My translation.), an idea also put forth by Roman Jakobson who points to the necessity of using “creative transpositions... or interlingual transpositions... or finally intersemiotic transpositions” (Jakobson, 2000: 115), according to the type of translation to be performed.

Other thinkers in the field of translation studies have specifically marked their opposition to the concept of untranslatability. The arguments made in favour of it tend to rest on a theoretical approach rather than a practical one, and texts that really cannot be translated often need simply to be moved from a context (historical, social, economic) to another for the translation to happen. Henri Meschonnic considers untranslatability to be an essentialist notion that is proven wrong by actual translation, and points out that “the untranslatable is social and historical, not metaphysical” (Meschonnic, 1972: 51).

This observation is precisely what this study on translation silence seeks to investigate, that is, a semiotic analysis of the manifestations of the untranslated, while pinning the untranslatable and the untranslated one against the other.

2. Absence of translation in specific contexts

The absence of translation in pragmatic contexts is indicative of power issues between translator and target audience – namely, in this specific context, the paying customer or employer. It brings forth questions of deontology, loyalty, visibility, and framing or re-framing the message, as is the case, for instance, in news translation.

2.1. Pragmatic translation

The issue of power is certainly present in pragmatic translation: “everyday” translation, whether scientific, specialised (such as legal or financial) or general. The concept of non-translation is tied to power dynamics between languages, translation ethics and visibility issues, in this field as in other, more “noble” – at least more theorized – contexts. Among topics of interest is the way that silence intersects with deontology in a pragmatic context. From a reception standpoint, non-translation in pragmatic contexts leads mostly to problems arising from matters of communication, for instance in a software setting, or to legal issues in a corporate or government setting.

In terms of deontology, most regulatory organisations have a main principle along the lines of “Translation consists in rendering a text written in one language into another language and conveying the message as faithfully as possible.” (OTTIAQ, 2014) Faithfulness is thus the most important component of the translator-client relationship, and silence, or absence, must be measured in the frame of said faithfulness, which is also sometimes described as loyalty. For instance, the profession has also been described as based on

four loyalty relationships: (1) loyalty to the commissioner, (2) loyalty to the target-text reader, (3) loyalty to the source-text author, and (4) the translator’s loyalty to herself or himself. As an example of this last type of loyalty, he mentions the case in which translators refuse a translation job if they fear that it might jeopardise their integrity for moral-ethical reasons. (Künzli, 2007:43)

Absence of translation is therefore officially excused, in a pragmatic setting, if it violates the loyalty prescribed as the very basis of the translator-client relationship. This point does not, however, take into account the economic relationship that a translator has with his clients. Refusing translation can mean the end of a professional relationship, and the translator is thus a potential victim of her own integrity – and always the weaker party in the professional power dynamic.

Another excellent example of translation silence is its use in news translation. In fact, non translation has been described as a characteristic of news translation, specifically in the context of selection and de-selection principles, which are “considerably influenced by language knowledge and (non-) translation” (Van Doorslaer, 2010: 182). The translator decides what the target audience will get to read or hear, what information they will have access to; however, she works along editorial lines as each press agency and news outlet have specific rules pertaining to target audiences, news contents and media coverage.

2.2. Non translation in cultural contexts

In terms of cultural contexts – historically often prone to censorship – the absence of interlinguistic translation is especially observable in film translation and/or adaptation.

Some of the best, and most vivid, examples, can be found in dictatorships, such as Franco’s Spain (1939–1977), where those few foreign films that made it through the censorship committee were adapted to fit specific standards of morality. Dogma, morality and the regime were not to be offended or criticised in any way, and “any production not corresponding to those criteria was prevented from being published, or the offending passages were suppressed, no matter their size” (Petit, 2014. My translation.). Through cutting passages and moral-framing dubbing, lovers became husbands and wives, brothers and sisters or cousins, which in itself brought on other types of problems. With some key scenes cut out, storylines became completely different and often incomprehensible, which could be attributed to bad translation but was in fact a product of non-translation via censorship.

3. Intersemiotic translation

All illustrations discussed so far belong to the area of interlinguistic translation. Before exploring silence in intersemiotic translation, it may be appropriate to review Jakobson’s categories of translation, all of which are relevant in the study of translation silence.

3.1. Jakobson’s categories of translation

The first of Jakobson’s categories, intralinguistic translation “or rewording, is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language” (Jakobson, 2000: 127). An example of this is spin. For instance, in some instances of present political discourse, global warming is referred to as climate change; death penalty as capital punishment; civilian victims as collateral damage. In all three cases, the threatening term is eliminated and replaced with a neutral word that not only avoids evoking real-life issues, but also frames the discourse as stemming from a certain political orientation.

The second category, interlinguistic translation “or translation proper, is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language” (Jakobson, 2000: 127). The most commonly theorised, this category is in itself rich with sub-categories.

The third category, intersemiotic translation “or transmutation, is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems” (Jakobson, 2000: 127). This category is the largest, and the most difficult to circumscribe as it not only involves the translation of codes between very different semiotic systems, but also demands an understanding of both (or all) codes involved. Said understanding must also be sufficiently deep to isolate the elements to be translated. These elements will be known as invariants.

Non-translation in film: A blend of interlinguistic and intersemiotic translation

One common characteristic of intersemiotic translation is its blending with other categories. In film, it’s not uncommon to have both categories at once, and the absence of translation therefore multiplies the semiosic effects. Specifically, a film in a given language can have some dialogues in another language which are either subtitled or translated by one of the characters. In the following example, such dialogues have been, deliberately or not, mistranslated or completely obliterated.

Numerous American films shot either in foreign locations or with foreign-language extras have added layers of humour or meaning when background language doesn’t get translated. Subtitles – or the absence thereof – can also be used as part of the film. In A fish called Wanda (1988), the main character Wanda, played by Jamie Lee Curtis, is an American conwoman who is driven wild by the sound of foreign languages, even though she only understands English. Two men seduce her by speaking Italian: Otto the American thug and Archie the British barrister.

Otto (Kevin Kline) speaks “guidebook Italian”, with phrases like: “Osso bucco milanese con piselli!… formaggio, spinaci!”; “è molto pericoloso signorina, molto pericoloso”; “Dov’é la farmacia”; “Dov’é la fontana di Trevi?”; “Per cominciare due insalate verde”; “Due cupole grande della cattedrale di Milano”; “Dov’é il Vaticano?” (Crichton, 1988). These are all either names of foods or standard tourist phrases in Italian. Archie (John Cleese), on the other hand, replies to her inquisitive “Do you speak Italian?” with a long monologue in perfect Italian, which remains untranslated, either with subtitles or in-character translation. His reply “I’m Italian in spirit! But I married a woman who’d rather work in the garden than make passionate love. A big mistake!” The absence of translation creates humour by adding an extra layer of meaning, as well as a discrepancy between the members of the audience who pick up on the difference and those who don’t.

3.2. Eco’s categories

According to Antoine Berman, translation enriches the original work, and the more translations there are, the richer the work becomes (Berman, 1999). In this perspective, then, the main focus of translation is not about reception but rather about reflecting on the translated work. Going against the communication function of translation, this interpretation also goes beyond most foreignizing stances in translation theory. Umberto Eco put it very efficiently, quoting precisely Jakobson himself: “Jakobson demonstrates that to interpret a semiotic item means ‘to translate it’ into another item (maybe an entire discourse) and that this translation is always creatively enriching the first item” (Eco, 2001: 71).

Eco also has a classification of his own, with more categories than Jakobson’s, which introduces a notion of degrees in the types of translation:

"Eco’s classification is, like that of Jakobson’s, tripartite. Firstly, there is interpretation by transcription. This involves simple substitution of codes as, for example, in case of the Morse alphabet. Secondly, there is intrasystemic interpretation. This, in its turn, can be divided into three subcategories: intrasystemic interpretation within the same natural language (as, for instance, synonymy, definition, paraphrase, inference, comment etc.); intrasystemic interpretation within other semiotic systems (for instance, changing a piece of music from major to minor); and performance (for example, the performance of a musical score or the staging of a ballet). Thirdly, Eco introduces intersystemic interpretation that includes two types, one with marked variation in the substance, and the other with mutation of continuum. Intersystemic interpretation with marked variation in the substance includes three subtypes: interlinguistic interpretation or translation between natural languages; rewriting (e.g., reworked versions of the same piece by the same composer, parody); translation between other semiotic systems or intersystemic interpretation with very marked differences in substance among non-linguistic systems (for instance, transforming a colourful oil painting into a black and white reproduction). Mutation of continuum includes parasynonymy and adaptation or transmutation. Parasynonymy can be illustrated by amplifying the phrase “that one over there” by pointing at the object with a finger. Adapting literature to film or to theatre belongs to adaptation or transmutation [...]." (Torop, 2002: 597)

Eco’s categories will be especially useful in highlighting the interpretative subtleties in describing the semiosis that goes on in re-creating a work of art. However, it may not be as helpful to define the dynamics of intersemiotic translation between interdisciplinary systems, which will be discussed later on.

3.3. Semiosis and the intersemiotic translation of a work of art

The “enrichment” that Berman and Eco mention is one of the characteristics of intersemiotic translation: it creates a semiosis which contributes to the original. The examples are numerous, but one that comes to mind is the artistic and cultural semiosis around Prosper Mérimée’ novella Carmen (1847). Over the years, it has been the subject of uncountable translations, adaptations, rewritings, intersystemic interpretations, and transmutations. Its most famous adaptation is without a doubt Bizet’s opera, Carmen (1875). Film versions include several silent versions such as Arthur Gilbert’s (1907), Cecil B. DeMille’s (1915), and Charlie Chaplin’s Burlesque on Carmen (1915). Other film adaptations include Otto Preminger’s Carmen Jones (1954), a flamenco adaptation by Carlos Saura (1983), Jean-Luc Godard’s Prénom Carmen, and more recently two African versions: Karmen-Geï by Senegalese director Joseph Gaï Ramaka, and U-Carmen eKhayelitsa by South African director Mark Dornford-May. This is only the tip of the iceberg that is the hundreds of works of art and various productions inspired by Carmen, including comic books, hip-hop musicals, paintings (Picasso, among others), as well as merchandise such as china, umbrellas and hair accessories. From a literary work, Carmen has become a cultural phenomenon, whose semiosis is still on a exponential curve, one that enriches the original work. The translation silences from one interpretation or version to the next can be hard to point out, especially when the systems are very different from one another. I will discuss later the notion of invariants.

The faithfulness paradigm is historically part of interlinguistic translation theory. This recurring theme is theorised about using a semantic network which encompasses all notions pertaining to treason, betrayal, deception and infidelity casting the translator as a traitor – either to her native language, to the author’s text or intentions, or to any other element of the translator-author-reader relation. The discourse about fidelity makes abundant use of metaphors, some of which are well known in popular culture such as les Belles infidèles (coined by Gilles Ménage in the 18^th century) and the infamous aphorism traduttore traditore.

At the basis of this concept is the idea of original work. In the example of Carmen, the comic book – one wonders what’s left of the “original”, in other words: what are the basic themes and elements, such as storyline, characters, and set of values, that constituted the original, finite œuvre, and do you find them in the translated work? When the original narrative is no longer represented or recognisable, the basic question as regards the original is: where can the semiosic line be drawn, and when does a translation become rather an inspiration? Translation silence is a very significant matter in approaching this question, as ascertaining what has not been translated allows to assess what those silences mean, making silence into a object of interpretation.

In attributing value to the semiosic process, two approaches can be identified: one centred on the “work” – the œuvre – and one focusing on the dynamic. The œuvre-centred approach places the original work at the highest place in the creative hierarchy, and thus carries with it a potential of unfaithfulness – a value judgement attributed to any adaptations lacking elements determined to be essential to the integrity of the œuvre and its semiosis. Any translation, whether interlinguistic or intersemiotic, is deemed a copy and therefore held to certain standards of fidelity. It is also based on the creator, and holds him or her to the highest regard.

On the other hand, the dynamic-centred approach is open and focuses on the semiosis rather than on the static sign. In the semiosis-centred approach, the original can be modified tremendously, including its basic features, and the fact that other creators are inspired by it is a testament to its semiosic capabilities. There is no end result to this semiosis, and it finds itself propelled by traces of the original – or one of its versions – emerging from the cultural landscape in unexpected places. This approach in fact does away with the notion of the original.

4. Silence in intersemiotic translation

In intersemiotic translation, silence is not as easy to circumscribe. There are a number of factors to consider when describing it, as well as when attempting to perform it.

4.1. Censorship and taboo

At first glance, there is no political agenda behind not transforming a poem into a play, or a photo into a sculpture. Absence or silence in translation are first attributed to shifts in technology – for instance, there’s been a bit of a silence in morse code lately, However, some translational silences are significant: the absence of parody in a given culture, for instance, can be a sign of regime interventionism, just like, on the interlinguistic side, not translating certain novels or forbidding their publication or their importation can be as efficient as burning books, though it may lack the dramatic flair. And of course, the form of representation must also be taken into account when evaluating the silence of intersemiotic translation. In a number of countries, it is perfectly accepted and even encouraged to display representations of a monarch or leader; not so, however, to display a caricature of the same.

Not translating intersemiotically is also indicative of a whole system of values. It might indicate a cult or a taboo of the original; an obvious example would be the forbidden representation of God in a number of religions. Similarly, some cultural events must not be talked about or represented outside a select group, such as the details of men’s circumcision initiation in Xhosa culture. Some names cannot be named. Some representational conventions are forms of silence: in most Western countries, for instance, commercials for menstrual products always feature blue liquid, which one could say is the intersemiotic equivalent of spin – removing the threatening or taboo element while still managing to talk about the topic, and in turn introducing into it a neutralising factor. In short: a specific category of silence in intersemiotic translation is in and of itself a sign, and silence in intersemiotic translation is a system.

4.2. Interpretant and invariance

The other important factor is that the sheer mass of elements of meaning about which one must decide: translate or not translate? is intimidating, and the task at hand daunting. In interlinguistic translation, or in translation between two systems whose codes are the same or similar, such as visual arts, the elements to translate are generally fairly obvious. Meaning in the target system is determined by factors such as equivalence in relation to meaning in the source system. In the Peircean perspective, the intersemiotic translation semiosis is apposed onto the triadic meaning relationship in a way whereby “the sign is the target, the object of the sign is the translated work, and the interpretant is the interpreter” (Aguiar and Queiroz, 2013: 286). They are also assessed by the translator, who handles those codes with a somewhat expert, or at least knowledgeable, hand. However, in sensibly different code systems, meaning-making elements must be rendered intact, and the operation is performed by re-creators who, as part of the interpretant, decide what essential elements must be isolated. Different codes can be illustrated by the adaptation of an architectural piece into music, for example, or a novel (Mário de Andrade’s Macunaíma) into a dance choreography (Paula Carneiro Dias’s work, “Para o herói: experimentos sem nenhum caráter – corpo s/ papel”) (Aguiar and Queiroz, 2013).

Identifying essential and irreducible meaning-making elements can be achieved by using Peirce’s mathematical concept of invariance (Peirce 1931: 1407). This notion of reducing meaning to its essential relationship also rests on another essential Peircean notion: “According to Peirce’s model, any description of semiosis involves a relational complex constituted by three terms irreducibly connected – Sign, Object, and Interpretant (S-O-I). The irreducibility indicates a logical property of this complex” (Aguiar and Queiroz, 2013: 284).

Similar to the relation between points on a graph, which can be “translated” from one axis to another or moved in another way, while still retaining its essential functional relationship, “the invariant rule determines both the relationship among the part and the parts themselves” (Andrews, 1990: 113). In the example of architecture to music, for instance, some invariants are based on the relationships between different parts of the work: harmony, dissonance, cultural contexts and references, and even rhythm. In artistic endeavours, the effect on the target audience is also part of these invariants and must be part of both semiosic systems’ interpretants.

4.3. Interdisciplinary systems

Even though architecture and music, or novel and dance, are very different means of expression, they all remain in the realm of art and performance as re-creation, whereby the artist and the translator are (usually) one and the same, and where equivalence is decidedly subjective. In both intersemiotic translations, the effect on the interpreter (the audience) is the interpretant. However, intersemiotic translation is not only a transfer between artistic categories, which are bound by technique as well as narrative and worldview.

Intersemiotic translation is also the adaptation of elements into interdisciplinary systems, which are influenced by skills sets such as knowledge, theoretical frameworks and methodologies, target audience needs and of course experts in the discipline(s). This type of intersemiotic translation can be illustrated by the adaptation of documents, study findings or law enforcement processes between legal contexts and scientific contexts, for instance. The absence of translation in these contexts – either gaps in parts of the original or entire items left untranslated – can be indicative of the significance of the non-translation’s would-be target audience and its relationship to the source system. It reflects the power dynamics at play. This type of intersemiotic translation is also interesting due to the fact that it lends itself to blending with intralinguistic translation, inserting more layers of meaning in the equation.

The study of translation silence offers a rich potential for research at several epistemological levels. For interlinguistic translation – whether pragmatic or cultural – as well as for intersemiotic translation, it offers an original way to highlight power dynamics and their constituing elements in translated texts and objects. Exploring silences in a semiosic system also allows to identify invariance, and use it as a basis to analyse intersemiotic and intersystemic translation, its objects, its dynamics, its protagonists, and its challenges.

The Peircean concept of invariance will be examined and developed in further research in order to better work with intersemiotic translation. Interdisciplinary systems will be a specific focus of research.

References

AGUIAR, Daniella and Joao Queiroz. 2013. “Semiosis and intersemiotic translation”. Semiotica, no 196, p. 283–292.

ANDREWS, Edna. 1990. “Markedness Theory as Mathematical Principle”. In Markedness Theory: The Union of Asymmetry and Semiosis in Language. Durham, Duke University Press, p. 81–135.

BERMAN, Antoine. 1999. La traduction et la lettre ou l’auberge du lointain. Paris, Seuil.

CRICHTON, Charles (dir.). 1988. A fish called Wanda, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. DVD.

CHESTERMAN, Andrew. 1997. Memes of Translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

ECO, Umberto. 2001. Experiences in Translation. Toronto; Buffalo. University of Toronto Press.

DUARTE, João Ferreira. 2000. “The Politics of Non-Translation: A Case Study in Anglo-Portuguese Relations”, TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction, vol. 13, n° 1, p. 95–112.

HUMBOLDT, W. von. 2000. “Sur la traduction. Introduction à l’Agamemnon”. In Sur le caractère national des langues et autres écrits sur le langage. Transl. by D. Thouard. Paris, Seuil.

JAKOBSON, Roman. 2000 [1959]. “On linguistic aspects of translation”. In L. Venuti (ed.), The translation studies reader. London & New York: Routledge, p. 113–118.

KÜNZLI, Alexander. 2007. “The ethical dimension of translation revision. An empirical study”. JoSTrans, no 8, p. 42–56.

LADMIRAL, René. 1990. “La traduction proligère? – Sur le statut des textes qu’on traduit”. Meta, v. XXXV, n 1, p. 102–118

LAKOFF, George. 1988. The invariance hypothesis: Do metaphors preserve cognitive topology?. University of Duisburg, Linguistic Agency.

LOTMAN, Juri. 1990. Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington, Indiana University Press.

MESCHONNIC, Henri. 1972. “Propositions pour une poétique de la traduction”. Langages, vol. 7, no 28, p. 49–54.

ORDRE DES TRADUCTEURS, terminologues et interprètes agréés du Québec (OTTIAQ). 2013. “The Language Professions: Translation”. http://ottiaq.org/en/about-ottiaq/the-language-professions (last accessed: 2 August 2014).

PEIRCE, Charles S.; Hartshorne, C.; Weiss, P. 1931. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

PETIT, Vivianne. 2014. “La censure sous le franquisme”. http://cle.ens-lyon.fr/espagnol/la-censure-sous-le-franquisme-1940-1960-229613.kjsp (last accessed: 10 January 2015).

STEINER, George. 1975. After Babel: aspects of language and translation. New York: Oxford University Press.

TOROP, Peeter. 2002. “Translation as translating as culture”, Sign Systems Studies, 30.2, p. 593–605.

VAN DOORSLAER, Luc. 2010. “Journalism and translation”. In Y. Gambier and L. Van Doorslaer (eds.), Handbook of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, p. 180–184.