HISTORICAL IDENTITY OF TRANSLATION:FROM DESCRIBABILITY TO TRANSLATABILITY OF TIME; pp. 383–393Full article in PDF format
| DOI: 10.3176/tr.2010.4.06
Abstract The main problem of the historical understanding of translation lies in finding the appropriate metalanguages. Revisiting time in translation studies means finding complementarity between historical metalanguage for description of translational activity and semiotic metalanguage for understanding different sides of translatability. We have distinguished the achronic theoretical component in the unified discussion of translation history, the component concentrating on the analysis of the translator and the translation method. Next comes the synchronic receptive component, i.e., the analysis of the translator, translation and the target language culture thus concentrating on the status of translation in the given culture, the functions of translations, and the ways of rendering meaning to them. The third, evolutionary component is connected with the so-called minor diachrony, the analysis of the technical and psychological features of the translation process. The fourth, cultural history component is based on the so-called grand diachrony and focuses on the development of the translation practice with reference to the varying cycles in cultural history and the styles of specific periods.
Delabastita, Delabastita (1993) There’s a double tongue: an investigation of Shakespeare’s wordplay, with special reference to ‘Hamlet’. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Rodopi.
Holmes, James S.(1988) Translated! Papers on literary translation and translation studies. (Approaches to Translation Studies, 7.) Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Jakobson, Roman (1971 ) “Language in relation to other communication systems”. In Roman Jakobson, Selected writings II: Word and language, 697–708. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Jakobson, Roman (1985 ) “Verbal communication”. In Roman Jakobson, Selected writings,VII: 81–92. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Jakobson, Roman (1985 ) “A glance at the development of semiotics”. In Roman Jakobson, Selected writings,VII: 199–218. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.
Lotman, Yuri (1990) Universe of mind: a semiotic theory of culture. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Osimo, Bruno (2002) Storia della traduzione. Riflessioni sul linguaggio traduttivo dall‘antichità ai contemporanei.Milano: Editore Ulrico Hoepli.
Peirce, Charles S. (1931–1935, 1958 [1866–1913]) The collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss, eds. (vols. 1–6) and Arthur W. Burks, ed. (vols. 7–8). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Tobin, Yishai (1992) “Translatability: an index of cross system linguistic, textual and historical comparatibility”. In: Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung, 307–322. H. Kittel, Hrsg. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Torop, Peeter (2007) “Methodological remarks on the study of translation and translating”. Semiotica 163: 1–4: 347–364.
Torop, Peeter (2009) “Social aspects of translation history or forced translation”. In Kielen ja kulttuurin saloja, 239–248. (Acta Semiotica Fennica, 35.) Ritva Hartama-Heinonen, Irma Sorvali, Eero Tarasti, and Eila Tarasti, eds. Imatra, Helsinki: International Semiotics Institute. Vygotsky, Lev S. (1965 ) Thought and language. Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar, eds. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Back to Issue