Lefeveres Concept of Translation - Essay Example

Lefevere’s Concept of Translation Discuss Lefevere’s concept of translation as it appears on the text below. Justify your position with examples of your own choice. “Translation is, of course, a rewriting of an original text. All rewritings, whatever their intention reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way. Rewriting is manipulation undertaken in the service of power, and in its positive aspect can help in the evolution of literature and a society.” (Lefevere, 1992, Translation, Rewriting and Manipulation of Literary Fame, p. xi) The work of André Lefevere in translation studies is based on some very strongly held views about the nature of writing and rewriting as these activities have been conceived throughout all of human history. The quotation mentioned above summarizes one particular key theory of his, which is concerned with the relationship which exists between translation and power. This paper will examine Lefevere’s concept of translation by breaking the statement quoted above into four distinct segments, each of which will be discussed in turn: 1. translation is rewriting of the original text 2. rewritings (including translations) reflect an ideology and a poetics 3. rewritings (including translations) manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way 4. translation is undertaken in the service of power and can help in the evolution of literature and a society. After this initial piece by piece analysis the importance and implications of Lefevere’s position will be assessed. The first of the four segments of Lefevere’s quotation is quite straightforward and seems simple enough at first reading. Lefevere classifies translation as “a rewriting of an original text.” It is true that translations are “rewritings” or re-formulations of other texts, but it is questionable whether translations are always rewritings of an original text. Many post-structuralists would maintain that no text is ever truly original, since every text stands in some relation to texts which have gone before. The concept of “intertextuality” indeed assumes a long chain of connections reaching back in time and across cultures so that every text that exists could be said to be a “rewriting”, or a de-coding and re-encoding of other texts. Other scholars would argue that the very concept of “text” is fraught with problems because that “text” changes its nature every single time it is read by another person. What a reader puts into a text is therefore, from this point of view, just as important as what the writer puts in, what the translator puts in, and what the text gathers to itself through multiple other unintended connections. Looking back over world literature it is very striking that stories which authors have written over the centuries have depended on other stories, legends and “texts” that have come before. From Gilgamesh to the Bible and through medieval epics and romances to Shakespeare, Milton and down to modern times, so many works of great literature tell the same stories over and over again. It can be said therefore that Lefevere is not correct when he describes a translation as being a rewriting of an original text, because the term “text” always implies that there is some relation of dependence on what has gone before. Translation is, in this spectrum, more dependent than other types of “rewriting” that Lefevere considers, including criticism and scholarship, for example, but it at least has the merits of creating a piece of text which can stand alone and be enjoyed by readers in its own right. Some translations, for example, lyrical passages of the King James Bible, achieve literary greatness in English which enhances the more prosaic Latin version of St Jerome’s vulgate. Translations, then, are part of a long chain of connections reaching back in time, and rewriting is an absolutely normal and usual occurrence. The second of Lefevere’s segments states that rewritings, which include translations of course, reflect an ideology and a poetics. This point is a little more contentious because many translators would say that one of their key aims is fidelity to the text they are working on, and translators make every effort to reproduce all possible aspects of the original, including its ideology and poetics. It is also an over-simplification to say that a text reflects just one ideology or just one poetics. The experience of East German authors, for example, shows that writers who work within totalitarian regimes, and are even, to some extent, in sympathy with those ideologies, are quite capable of reflecting a mixture of different ideologies. Christa Wolf, for example, wrote very convincing novels about her Nazi childhood, about life under a Communist regime, and about parallels between her own role as an author and the classical Greek character of Cassandra, who warns her people that disaster is coming. It could be argued that Christa Wolf reflected Nazi, Communist and Classical Greek ideologies in her books, not just in the subject matter, but in the deeper level concepts of how her books are constructed and what meanings and connotations they are intended to carry. Literary authors are often very adept at playing with different ideologies, comparing them and contrasting them to bring out interesting points of similarity and difference. To say that a translator, dealing with such a complex source text, then produces a target language text within only one ideology is to undervalue both the original author and the translator’s skill. Ideologies are often mixed, and attitudes towards them are often ambivalent which makes simple tracing of ideology in literature very difficult. Poetics, in the sense of the way that a culture or society likes to package its literary production in familiar forms, is also a fluid and flexible concept, allowing for continuous redefinitions, borrowings and contrasts. Lefevere has a particular view of translation which implies that the act of translation distorts the original: “Lefevere first developed his idea of translation as a refraction rather than reflection, offering a more complex model than the old idea of translation as a mirror of the original” (Bassnett, 1988, p. 8) The image here is of light coming through a prism and appearing broken or different on the other side, which suggests that the translating event does not replicate the original faithfully, but changes it in some fundamental way. The process involves not only the translator himself or herself, but the whole translating and publishing context which is applied to the work. When a book is brought from one ideological context into another, as Christa Wolf’s earlier works were, it is very difficult to say whether the Communist regime under which Christa Wolf operated, or the Capitalist Western publishers in France and England who commissioned translators, were the forces that determined which ideology would predominate in the finished translations. The truth is, as the French press noted recently, that Christa Wolf struggled all her life with pressures from both east and west: “But Christa Wolf refused the submission of art and culture to political power. As a result, she lost her status and was put under surveillance by the State security.” (Mathieu, 2009) In many ways this refusal to align with any one ideology is what marks out a significant literary author: “Her later works also found their way into French after short intervals. Although it will be noted that these translations were published by six different publishers - proof that French publishers felt ill at ease with her writings and above all East-Germany’s contemporary literature.” (Mathieu, 2009) Good literature and good translations can sit in between ideologies, and this creative discomfort can reflect, or in Lefevere’s terms, refract multiple ideologies at the same time. To continue with Lefevere’s second segment regarding poetics and translation, a very different example is of interest: Swedish crime novelist Stig Larsson. At the moment there is a fashion in the UK for his rather long and sombre novels. These are consumed as entertainment fiction by hundreds of thousands of native speakers of English. There are relatively few speakers of Swedish in the world, and comparatively many more English speakers. The “rewriting” of the Swedish novel into an English language novel is entirely successful, since Larson tops the best seller lists in both the UK and the US. This proves that translations can be fully functioning entities which meet all the functional requirements of a British or American novel at least as well as the original Swedish texts can do that in their own context. Using Lefevere’s terminology, then, the “poetics” of Larsson’s work appears to be transferable from Swedish to English: aspects like narrative style, plot, characterization, etc follow conventions that are common in many Western European languages, and so translation between Swedish and English, need not move outside its overarching “Western European crime novel” poetics. Centuries of shared culture and translation of novels across many languages have created a situation where, within this set of linked languages, there is one single poetics. These examples suggest that Levefere’s statement is partially true: a translation can reflect the same ideology and poetics as the original, as in the case of Larsson’s novels translated from Swedish to English, or alternatively, a translation can reflect two different ideologies and poetics, as for example the King James translation of the Bible from Jerome’s Latin to English. The third segment of Lefevere’s statement deals with the idea that rewritings “manipulate” literature and that this “manipulation” occurs within a set context and with a set purpose. The word “manipulate” in English has two main connotations, one positive, and one negative. The literal meaning suggests that someone handles an object in a particular way in order to get some desired result, as for example when a physiotherapist manipulates a limb in order to get the muscles moving smoothly and in the correct way. The more common figurative meaning, however, suggests that someone takes and uses an object or a person for devious or hidden purposes. This second meaning has quite negative connotations and it is interesting that Lefevere seems to encourage both layers of interpretation in his statement. In his book “Translation, Writing and the Manipulation of Literary Fame” (1992a) Lefevere expands on this idea at great length, and throughout the book there is a decidedly negative connotation to his analysis of translating and other forms of “rewriting” and a positive connotation to his discussions about “literature.” This bias can be seen in his opening statement “This book deals with those in the middle, the men and women who do not write literature but rewrite it” (Lefevere, 1992a, p. 1). The point Lefevere is making is that activities like editing, criticizing, anthologizing and the writing of reference books are concentrated in a small part of society, namely the universities and academic publishing houses, and that this stamps all “rewriting” activities with a particular world view and a particular motive. The argument is that these isolated “ivory tower” people are motivated by a desire to manipulate society in a particular way. The way they choose which texts to publish, and which to translate, is in itself an act of purposeful influence on public taste and he seems to be suggesting that this is a potentially harmful or negative activity. Every cultural group with a written culture has its “canon” of classical works which are venerated and studied in educational settings, and a different “canon” of books and texts which may be of dubious literary value when judged in academic terms but which are nevertheless much loved and widely read. In literature, as in all the arts, there are also fashions and movements which reflect changing ideas in the societies of the time. Many factors influence what is popular and what is revered, and so it is an over-simplification to state that the academies control what people are given to read. In the present day landscape of British bookshops, it seems that television celebrities and their publicists have a far larger influence on the British public’s reading habits than any academic. It is not only the way texts are “manipulated” that matters, but the very choice of which texts to work with, and which texts to ignore. One example which Lafevere cites to make this point is the translation of one of Iran’s greatest scholars and writers, Omar Khayyam’s, whose Rubaiyat was translated and adapted from Persian into English during Victorian times by Edward Fitzgerald. The resulting collection of aphorisms and little poetic thoughts was extremely popular because it fitted in with the Victorian poetic taste but Lefevere notes that the translator took huge liberties with the original text because he made an automatic assumption that the English language and culture were superior to the Persian ones: it was a matter of the dominance of one context over another. (Lefevere, 1992b, p. 8-10) Examples like this are often used to demonstrate that “translation has served in many ways as a channel of empire” (Robinson, 1997, p. 88) This is, however, a rather extreme example, and it is harsh to imply that Fitzgerald deliberately did this for some hidden purpose. It is more likely that techniques of translation of poetry were less well developed in Fitzgerald’s lifetime, and the intention was to re-create the emotional and philosophical tone of the work, giving pleasure and food for thought to polite Victorian society, rather than a deliberate desire to dominate and exploit Persian culture and values. It was a free translation, intending to produce a freestanding text which could be enjoyed on its own terms, without the pages of scholarly notes and explanation that a more faithful translation would no doubt have required if it were to be presented to a largely ignorant Victorian public. It seems that both of these alternatives, whether free and readable or faithful and scholarly, would qualify as “manipulations” in Lefevere’s view, and would retain for him the negative implications that this word holds. Fitzgerald no doubt did unconsciously represent the prejudices and limitations of his time and place, but it must not be forgotten that he also awakened considerable interest in the Middle East and provided through his work a much needed antidote to the repressive and strict protestant Christian values of the period. Venuti gives a more nuanced analysis when he observes that there is always a certain amount of “shift” when a literary text is translated and that “even the identification of a “source” text involves the usually implicit application of a domestic norm” (Venuti, 1998, p. 27). He gives the example of the way that Japanese literature was introduced to the West after World War 2: “American publishers, Fowler argued, established a canon of Japanese fiction in English that was not only unrepresentative, but based on a well-defined stereotype that has determined reader expectations for roughly forty years” (Venuti, 1998, p. 72). He too, notes that academics in association with publishing firms largely control what is published, and their highbrow taste then becomes what the general public is offered. In this case a view of Japan as tradition-focused, aesthetically refined and distanced from other cultures is the result of this filter that is applied. Other genres and tastes (for example comic novels, or representations of a more modern, westernized Japan) are not so often represented in establishment circles and this creates a particular image of Japan in the minds of the educated Western reading public. Using Lefevere’s perspective, this then becomes problematic because it once again is an example of dominance being exercised in both the choice of subject matter, and the poetic styles. The implication here is that a conscious political influence is being exercised, in order to change public opinion about the respective positions and roles of America and Japan in the post war world, for example suggesting that Japanese culture is a conservative antithesis of American progressiveness. The final segment of Lefevere’s statement links the activities of “rewriting” with notions of “power” and “evolution” in literature and in society at large. These are very large claims, and they betray a distinctly positivist philosophy underlying Lefevere’s view of human history. Many modern critics would not accept that human endeavours and human societies “evolve”, or at least not in the Darwinian sense of survival of the fittest and a continually improving line of progression. The way that Lefevere approaches these culture collisions is to look at them with the help of systems theory. This is an all-encompassing approach which takes into account as many factors as possible when analysing a problem. So, for example, the context in which translation takes place becomes a part of the activity itself, and in this way of seeing things, different aspects become important. A good explanation of this dimension is given by Katan, who explains how the Americans became aware of the subtleties of intercultural communication through their experiences of government interaction with Native Americans when they noted “silent, hidden or unconscious yet patterned factors” (Katan, 2009, p. 74). Because of the very unequal power relations between the Native Americans and the government officials, and the distance between Native American culture and urbanized white American culture, the context actually impacted much more on the communication than the actual words that were being spoken. This gap explains many misunderstandings that occur in translations which may be linguistically faithful and accurate, but still not function well as intercultural texts: “meaning is not ‘carried’ by the language but is negociated between readers from within their own contexts of culture. Each readership is hence bound to receive the text according to their own expectations…” (Katan, 2009, p. 74). In contrast to Lefevere, Katan even goes so far as to suggest that a faithful, or “conduit” type of communication is precisely not required when there are great differences in expectation between two parties. Citing the example of a business letter which in Pakistan needs to be forthright and personal, yet in Europe needs to be polite and impersonal, he states that “texts with a persuasive function, as above, must be manipulated if they are to function persuasively in the target culture” (Katan, 2009, p. 85) The importance of discourse methods in aiding understanding of these subtle elements in the translation process have been much studied (Hatim, 1997) and it is clear that some accommodation needs to be made on both sides if a text is to be able to function within the norms of two very different societies and contexts. Manipulation is a skill, and a necessary one, because literal, or “conduit” translation cannot bridge some of the subtle culture gaps between groups. The translator must step in to offer bridging strategies, explanations, and a times even provide hybrid conceptualizations, if the two sides are to engage in meaningful communication. Returning to the example of Stig Larsson’s unprecedented success in translation, it is interesting to note that the exponential rise in sales of his books took place soon after his death. It is clear, then, that forces beyond the author himself were driving the projection of his books into the English speaking world. There has also been a change in the translation of the titles of his books, and one which may shed light on Lefevere’s theories about power and ideology in the hands of the “people in the middle” such as publishers and translators. A list of Larsson’s series of three linked novels shows this: Book 1: Swedish Män som hatar kvinnor (literally: “men who hate women”) English The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Book 2: Swedish Flickan som lekte med eldan (literally: “the girl who played with fire”) English The Girl Who Played with Fire Book 3: Swedish Luftslottet som sprengdes (literally: “the air-castle which was blown up”) English The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest. It is immediately apparent that only book two is translated with a direct equivalent in English. The English language series stresses the continuity of the three books with the repeated mention of “The Girl.” By describing what her role is in the novel, the emphasis is on the story element, with the first title showing emphasis on the appearance of the said girl, and the second two stressing what she actually does. This contrasts with the much heavier and more moralizing tone of the first title in Swedish, which focuses on the man, and a controversial statement referring to gender issues, and the figurative and neutral description of the “air castle” in the third book, which refers to a flight of fantasy that is destroyed in the book. The Swedish titles are more intellectually demanding than the English ones. It would be wrong, however, to suggest that this is a dumbing-down or cultural dominance exercise on the part of the translator, similar to Fitzgerald’s doctoring of Khaiyam. It is more likely to be an interference from the desire of the publishing house, for whom the translator works, to ensure market visibility and high recognition factor in all three books, in order to maximise sales. This commercial “ideology” is superimposed on the novel series, giving it at once a “bestseller” cachet, and an appeal far wider than the more obscure set of three apparently unrelated and relatively obscure Swedish titles. The change, or cultural “shift”, that occurs here is a superficial overlay, serving only to smooth the transition from provincial to world-class popular literature. In Lefevere’s terms, therefore, the power of commercialism directs the way that Larsson is marketed, which in turn transforms the Swedish literary landscape and boosts its cultural significance in the world. In conclusion, then, the four-part statement of Lefevere which was quoted at the outset of this paper presents a particularly political and judgemental view of the role of translators and publishers in the modern world. In his books Lefevere himself anthologizes, criticises and translates many texts, all with a highly didactic professorial gloss, thus exemplifying his own statement in segment two of the quotation by giving a particularly French intellectual slant on the texts he mentions. His extensive anthology of texts important in the history of translation starts with a very definite statement regarding the nature of the act of translation: “Translation has to do with authority and legitimacy, and ultimately, with power, which is precisely why it has been and continues to be the subject of so many acrimonious debates.” (Lefevere, 1992b) Part of the reason for these acrimonious debates, however, may be found in the tendency of some academics to state their views in exactly this sort of hard-hitting and uncompromising fashion. No doubt the intention is to provoke arguments and counter arguments in order to advance knowledge through a dialectic method, but unfortunately in the process there can be a tendency to overstate the case in order to make an impact. Lefevere’s views now sound rather outdated, particularly when one considers the democratising influence of the internet where information, including cultural information and literature of all sorts, both high brow and low brow, commercial and non-commercial is widely available without the input of publishing houses and academics. There is still, of course, a huge divide between societies which have relatively widespread internet availability, and those who do not, but apart from that there is potential to access professional and amateur translations, or use elementary translation software, to access an ever increasing range of materials from all over the world. It would be interesting to examine the “manipulations” of literature which occur here, and see whether, in Lefevere’s terms, there is reflection or refraction, and how well his notion of “evolving” literature and society hold up against this new environment. This exploration would be a topic for further study, but judging by the analysis presented here, it is likely that Lefavere’s four part quotation would provide a useful starting point, but by no means a definitive statement on the nature and purpose of translation in the modern world. References Bassnett, S. (1980. Translation Studies, London: Routledge. Hatim, B. (1997) Communication Across Cultures. Exeter: The University of Exeter Press. Katan, D, (2009 ) “Translation as Intercultural Communication” in J. Munday, (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 74-92. Lefevere, A. (1992a) Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London and New York: Routledge. Lefevere, A. (1992b) Translation - History, Culture: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge. Mathieu. F. (2009) translated by I. Metral. “Christa Wolff or Freedom or the Risk of Being Misunderstood” Humanité in English. Retrieved from: http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article1198 Robinson, D. (1997) Translation and Empire. Manchester: St. Jerome. Venuti, L. (1998) Scandals of Translation: Towards and Ethics of Difference. London: Routledge. Summary. This paper reflects on a statement by Lefevere regarding the way that texts are manipulated through various forms of rewriting, including translation. Lefevere argues that this is done in service to power, but this paper takes issue with each of the four parts of his statement, arguing that while manipulation does take place, issues of ideology and poetics are more complex and mixed than Lefevere suggests. Some manipulation is done in the interests of bridging culture gaps, and it may be that Lefevere overstates the influence exercised by elite establishments. Read More