Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 08:37:05 +0800
From: chliao@farmer.cc-sun.fcu.edu.tw (Chao-Chih Liao) Subject: Publication data
I would appreciate if you could give me the publishing year, company, and isbn number for the following entries:
1. Doug Robinson. The translator’s turn. 2. Doug Robinson. Translation and taboo. 3. Anthony Pym. Translation and text transfer. 4. Anthony Pym. Epistemological problems in translation and its teaching. 5. Michael Cronin. Translating Ireland: Translation, languages, cultures.
I would like the school library to buy the books for my research.
Laura Chao-chih Liao
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 19:52:55 +0200
From: ap@astor.urv.es (Anthony Pym)
Subject: Biblio.Information – Pym
Bibliographical information:
>>3. Anthony Pym. Translation and Text Transfer. An Essay on the Principles
of Intercultural Communication. Frankfurt/Main etc.: Lang, 1992. OUT OF PRINT (but I’ll put it on my WebSite as soon as Lang gives me permission).
>>4. Anthony Pym. Epistemological Problems in Translation and its Teaching.
Calaceite: Caminade, 1993. Can be ordered from: St Jerome Publishing. 2 Maple Road West. Brroklands. Manchester M23 9HH. United Kingdom. Fax: +44 161 973 9856. E-mail: 100550.477@compuserve.com.
Best,
Anthony Pym
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 17:03:30 -0600
From: Doug Robinson <djr@olemiss.edu>
Subject: Publication data
>>I would appreciate if you could give me the publishing year, company, and isbn number for the following entries:
>1. Doug Robinson. The translator’s turn.
Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991
0-8018-4046-5 (cloth) and 0-8018-4047-3 (paper)
>2. Doug Robinson. Translation and taboo.
Northern Illinois University Press, 1996 0-87580-209-5 (cloth) and 0-87580-571-X (paper)
Doug
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 18:59:57 +0000
Date-warning: Date header was inserted by cc.uab.es From: sgolden@cc.uab.es (Sean Golden)
Subject: Geographical representation
The following countires are currently represented on TRANSFER-L: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, UK, USA, Yugoslavia. In addition, the following countries that I cannot identify offhand are also represented: <.am>, <.my>, <.tr>, <.us>, <.za>; and there are many addresses that end in <.net> or <.com>, whose geographical origin I cannot identify.
Sean Golden, Dean, Facultat de Traduccio Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 19:09:16 +0100 (MET) From: Helge.Niska@tolk.su.se
Subject: Re: Geographical representation X-Sender: niska@mail.datakom.su.se
To: Sean Golden <sgolden@cc.uab.es>
On Mon, 3 Mar 1997, Sean Golden wrote:
>the following countries that I cannot identify offhand are also represented: <.am>, <.my>, <.tr>, <.us>, <.za>; and there are many
my Malaysia
tr Turkey
us USA (I don’t know why some US addresses end with .us instead of edu. com etc.)
.za South Africa
.am I don’t know
Regards,
Helge Niska .se
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 06:31:28 +0800
From: chliao@farmer.cc-sun.fcu.edu.tw (Chao-Chih Liao) Subject: Re: Geographical representation To: sgolden@cc.uab.es
My guess is that all those ending in .net or .com are from the United States.
Laura
Chao-chih Liao from Taiwan
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 09:21:06 +0400
From: ATKEN ARMENIAN <AARMENIA@aua.am>
Subject: Re: Geographical representation To: sgolden@cc.uab.es (Sean Golden)
<.am> is ARMENIA.
Atken Armenian, Director Email: aarmenia@aua.am
Room 40A, Extension English Programs Fax: (3742) 151.048 40 Marshal Baghramian Avenue Tel: (3742) 274.533
American University of Armenia – 375019, Yerevan, ARMENIA
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 08:32:25 -0500
From: “Juan Manuel Garcia Salcin
1” <106564.1035@compuserve.com>
Subject: Geographical representation
>In addition,
>the following countries that I cannot identify offhand are also represented: <.am>, <.my>, <.tr>, <.us>, <.za>; and there are many addresses that end in <.net> or <.com>, whose geographical origin I
cannot
>identify.
According to ISO 3166, the codes above represent the following countries:
AM Armenia
MY Malaysia
TR Turkey
US United States
ZA South Africa
BTW, my .com stands for Spain — Ciudad Real to be precise.
Regards,
Juan Salcines
Freelance Translator
English & Arabic -> Spanish
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 13:27:22 -1000
From: Marcella Alohalani Boido <mboido@hawaii.edu> Subject: definitions: types of interpreting X-Sender: mboido@uhunix5
To: transfer-l@cc.uab.es
In the USA, until recently, interpreters were pretty much divided into conference interpreters and community interpreters (everyone else).
With the recognition of the necessity for a very high standard of performance, court interpreting is now no longer subsumed under community interpreting.
As the recognition of the need for standards has grown, medical interpreting is now gaining recognition as a speciality in its own right.
There is a certificattion process in place for some languages in at least 10 major jurisdictions (the federal courts, plus 10 states) for court interpreting.
A smaller number of states have a certification exam for medical interpreting.
Using a phrase like “liaison interpreting” would probably make most people think of “escort interpreting.” “Escort” is the lowest level exam given by the U.S. Department of State.
There is a sense in which all interpreting is “liaison.” That is, the interpreter is the liaison between at least two others.
Other matters: the announcement of this forum was forwarded to the list courtinterp-l.
Best,
Alohalani
Marcella Alohalani Boido
Spanish/English Interpreter & Translator M.A., 1977; B.A., 1971; Political Science 807 Hausten St. #1
Honolulu, HI 96826-3035
808/946-2558
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 17:32:22 -0600
From: Doug Robinson <djr@olemiss.edu>
Subject: more on Michael Cronin’s response X-Sender: djr@130.74.1.71
I wanted to add a few comments–actually, questions–to the “official” response I posted on the website.
Michael: in what sense are the “real, long-term needs of the citizens of the EU in the area of literary and cultural translation”? Is this a humanist position, literature (and culture in general) is good for you? Or are you thinking of something else altogether, or something related but much more well thought out? In what sense is this assertion not (and I assume it is not, because I’m very impressed by the tenor of your remarks both here and in your book) just a kneejerk conservative (say, Arnoldian) riposte to Tony’s jazzy hardheaded economic rationalism? I’m hoping, at any rate, that the debate on this front does not become one between conservative humanism and fiscal realism. I’m finding myself at a loss to retheorize the issue in terms of a more complex middle ground–Michael? Tony? Anybody?
The connection between translators-as-spirit-channels and translators-as-fakes is fascinating. It’s one I hadn’t thought about, and clearly will have to. The big discovery for me is that there IS a way of looking closely at this phenomenon without just dismissing it with a sneer, the way I’ve done for years; the exploration of fakery in both fields is clearly a way of opening up another intriguing excluded middle.
Symbolic vs. shambolic – did you make that up, or borrow it from somewhere? Great coinage, whoever made it. Can you elaborate on the distinction? Is it the “shambolic” value of languages that Tony is attacking? And–the $64,000 question–once you open that particular floodgate, once you thematize one particular symbolism as a sham, how do you prevent all symbolisms from collapsing into shambolism? What is the symbolic vs. shambolic value of Irish, say, to take an example from close to home? They obviously cannot be distinguished in absolute terms (or can they?)–so does the distinction become purely political and pragmatic? Does the only question become then “who will control the distinction between symbolism and shambolism?”?
One last thing: I haven’t seen Michel Serres book on angels, and will now get it (especially as it is available in English translation–my French is strictly for tourist purposes): Angels, A Modern Myth (Paris: Flammarion, 1995). (Did Serres translate it into English himself? No translator was listed on the WorldCat/FirstSearch record, but then that’s nothing new. The fact that it was published in Paris suggests that Serres might have been behind it, though.)
Doug
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 1997 22:02:32 -0500
From: Robert Bononno <rb28@is4.nyu.edu>
Subject: Some first thoughts on Doug’s piece To: transfer-l%cc.uab.es@is4.nyu.edu
I see that everyone is racing to get started with this discussion, although it was my understanding things wouldn’t actually get into gear until 5 March. I haven’t had time to read all the articles yet (not sure I will) but wanted to make a few cautious comments about those I did.
With respect to Doug Robinson’s Invisible Hands… piece. I wasn’t quite sure when I finished the article if Doug was promoting channeling or simply presenting an analysis based on historical precedent. It would seem, based on “modern” translation theory at least, that the idea of the translator as passive conduit or vessel has been largely–although not entirely–discredited, at least in the secular arm of the profession. Certainly some degree of agency and intention must be ascribed to the translator, for there are a number of situations in which the translator is both the prime mover of the translation (promoting a favorite author, for example) and a responsible actor in the exchange between cultures (the translator is *responsible* for the translation and must assume liability for its failure as a translation).
There also seems to be a strong element of overdetermination in Doug’s reliance on ideology as a controlling factor or “invisible hand.” Specifically, with reference to translation pedagogy, he notes that translators are recipients, conduits, and transmitters for the teachings and comments of professors, older translators, readers, users, etc. In allowing their thoughts to pass through us, we produce them, ideological lock, stock, and barrel. Obviously, this model applies to other professions, other trades as well. This passive process of ideological transmission seems to overlook the individual’s ability to modify information, manipulate information, build on it, or even _reject_. I don’t see any mention of a heuristic process at work here and, while there may be no escaping ideology in general, this is not to say that we merely parrot what we hear or pass it on untouched to our descendants.
While I would agree with Doug and his sources about the subtle ways in which ideology seeps into all aspects of life, such a process doesn’t eliminate the individual’s ability to act or even think for that matter. If Doug wants to use the “channel” model, I would suggest instead that, while translators could be considered conduits of a sort (between cultures), they also decisively mark the material that passes through them. Think of it as an extrusion process if you like, with the text being the liquid mix that passes through the die, ultimately assuming the form of the die once it has congealed. Different translators would mark the text in different ways, and there is clearly no limit (other than physical) to the shape of the final product. I don’t believe that this adequately explains the translation process, but it’s a different way, I believe a more accurate way, of interpreting Doug’s model.
I’m also not comfortable with the notion that there is no “rational control” to the translation process. In general translation occurs within fairly carefully controlled circumstances, with both sides of the transaction having specific expectations about the outcome (a usable text, a manual, an ad, a book) of the process. Control is exerted at a variety of levels, and I think it’s accurate to assume that here the translator internalizes a good deal of that control (ideology?) in tailoring the translation to the requirements of the situation. That is, control (on the translator) need not be overt but often is (job specifications, for example). My feeling, however, is that the translator can, and does, do a lot to imprint the translation with his own *mark. The translation is forced through his own psyche. Is this a “direction-less” act? A passive act? Only if the translator is unable to influence the outcome of the text. The fact that translators make errors, for example, would seem to imply that they can, even if these errors are unconscious. The point is that in so doing, they have subverted (consciously or unconscously) their role as conduit. They can also alter the text in positive ways by making subtle changes, adding notes, clarifying obscurity, “improving” a style. *Whether* they should do this is another matter.
While there may be an ideology at work (or those aspects of various ideologies the translator has absorbed), it is a particularized ideology, one that has been shaped from a number of influences and sources, one that is unique. Again, this is not to say that translation cannot be and is not used for specifically ideological purposes, simply that the notion of the translator as the passive subject of ideological and social forces seems to have as little credibility as the notion of complete individualism devoid of any social forces at all.
/robert
——————————————————-
Robert Bononno rb28@is4.nyu.edu CIS: 73670,1570
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 07:13:25 -0600
From: Doug Robinson <djr@olemiss.edu>
Subject: Re: Some first thoughts on Doug’s piece X-Sender: djr@130.74.1.71
Robert writes:
>I see that everyone is racing to get started with this discussion, although it was my understanding things wouldn’t actually get into gear until 5 March. I haven’t had time to read all the articles yet (not sure I will) but wanted to make a few cautious comments about those I did.
We’re all so excited to have this thing going on, we can’t wait to start!
>With respect to Doug Robinson’s Invisible Hands… piece. I wasn’t quite sure when I finished the article if Doug was promoting channeling or simply presenting an analysis based on historical precedent.
And I deliberately left that open, undecided, “aporetic” in the current jargon. I’ve been finding Derrida’s essay “Telepathy” and book Specters of Marx to be enormously fruitful in this work–just when I was beginning to think that Derrida was old hat, no longer productive for critical theory. Staying open to both the possibility that spirits exist and can be channeled and the likelihood that it’s all a hoax, a fake, seems heuristically more powerful to me than taking a stand–especially, say, a dismissive or contemptuous one, which is the direction I’m most inclined to go with it.
>It would
>seem, based on “modern” translation theory at least, that the idea of the translator as passive conduit or vessel has been largely–although not entirely–discredited, at least in the secular arm of the profession. Certainly some degree of agency and intention must be ascribed to the translator, for there are a number of situations in which the translator is both the prime mover of the translation (promoting a favorite author, for example) and a responsible actor in the exchange between cultures (the translator is *responsible* for the translation and must assume liability for its failure as a translation).
Absolutely. And I’m certainly not saying that spirit-channeling, as metaphor or reality or historical precedent or whatever, accounts for the full experience of translation. I’m not, in other words, setting this up as a general model or theory of translation. I’ve written about translation in a lot of different ways, a lot of different contexts; this is just one of them. And in any case I went into this project HATING the notion of spirit-channeling as a metaphor or model for translation, hating the idea that the translator is made the instrument or vehicle of another’s will. I’m forcing myself to EXPLORE a perceived experience or phenomenon that on principle I find distasteful. I’m certainly not advocating it.
>There also seems to be a strong element of overdetermination in Doug’s reliance on ideology as a controlling factor or “invisible hand.” Specifically, with reference to translation pedagogy, he notes that translators are recipients, conduits, and transmitters for the teachings and comments of professors, older translators, readers, users, etc. In allowing their thoughts to pass through us, we produce them, ideological lock, stock, and barrel. Obviously, this model applies to other professions, other trades as well. This passive process of ideological transmission seems to overlook the individual’s ability to modify information, manipulate information, build on it, or even _reject_. I don’t see any mention of a heuristic process at work here and, while there may be no escaping ideology in general, this is not to say that we merely parrot what we hear or pass it on untouched to our descendants.
>While I would agree with Doug and his sources about the subtle ways in which ideology seeps into all aspects of life, such a process doesn’t eliminate the individual’s ability to act or even think for that matter. If Doug wants to use the “channel” model, I would suggest instead that, while translators could be considered conduits of a sort (between cultures), they also decisively mark the material that passes through them. Think of it as an extrusion process if you like, with the text being the liquid mix that passes through the die, ultimately assuming the form of the die once it has congealed. Different translators would mark the text in different ways, and there is clearly no limit (other than physical) to the shape of the final product. I don’t believe that this adequately explains the translation process, but it’s a different way, I believe a more accurate way, of interpreting Doug’s model.
This is an issue addressed in Michael Cronin’s response to Pym and me–
http://cc.uab.es/~iuts0/response.html
–and mine to him–
http://cc.uab.es/~iuts0/response-cronin.html
>I’m also not comfortable with the notion that there is no “rational control” to the translation process.
How so, “no ‘rational control'”? Did I say that? I said there is no PERFECT rational control; no “rationalist control,” if you like, in the sense that rationalists posit a single “governor” or regulator for the self, reason. I think reason is a very potent force; it just isn’t the only one, and I don’t think it should be idealized as the best one in every circumstance.
>In general translation occurs within
>fairly carefully controlled circumstances, with both sides of the transaction having specific expectations about the outcome (a usable text, a manual, an ad, a book) of the process. Control is exerted at a variety of levels, and I think it’s accurate to assume that here the translator internalizes a good deal of that control (ideology?) in tailoring the translation to the requirements of the situation. That is, control (on the translator) need not be overt but often is (job specifications, for example). My feeling, however, is that the translator can, and does, do a lot to imprint the translation with his own *mark. The translation is forced through his own psyche. Is this a “direction-less” act? A passive act? Only if the translator is unable to influence the outcome of the text. The fact that translators make errors, for example, would seem to imply that they can, even if these errors are unconscious. The point is that in so doing, they have subverted (consciously or unconscously) their role as conduit. They can also alter the text in positive ways by making subtle changes, adding notes, clarifying obscurity, “improving” a style. *Whether* they should do this is another matter.
I agree with all of this, and am working hard to incorporate just that sense into my argument. As I noted in my response to Cronin, the spirit-channeling literature gives EXACTLY this impression: that spirit-channeling is not entirely passive; it involves a lot of control from the “outside” (which is experiences from the “inside”), but the channel also shapes the speaking of the spirit in powerful ways. It’s more a matter of two selves merging and mingling than of the channel being taken over lock stock and barrel.
It looks like I’m going to have to work harder in the book to overcome people’s assumptions and expectations about spirit-channeling. This passivity issue seems to be incredibly tenacious.
>While there may be an ideology at work (or those aspects of various ideologies the translator has absorbed), it is a particularized ideology, one that has been shaped from a number of influences and sources, one that is unique. Again, this is not to say that translation cannot be and is not used for specifically ideological purposes, simply that the notion of the translator as the passive subject of ideological and social forces seems to have as little credibility as the notion of complete individualism devoid of any social forces at all.
Again, I agree completely. This “particularized ideology, one that has been shaped from a number of influences and sources” idea is precisely why I’m insisting on the disaggregated model of the self. I don’t believe either that a single ideology or economic invisible hand takes over a single individual and robotizes him or her.
What I’m interested in knowing, though, is why it is so attractive to read my ideas along these lines. Maybe it’s me; maybe I just haven’t expressed myself clearly enough. That’s always possible. But from my own point of view the robotic conception of translation that Tony, Michael, and Robert all read into my paper is something that I’ve been fighting against in everything I’ve written. I just don’t like either of the dualized positions that are typically offered: the translator is completely under the sway of external forces; the translator is captain of his or her own soul. Even in The Translator’s Turn, when I leaned most strongly toward that latter position, I insisted on the ideosomatic regulation of the translator’s creativity–and many reviewers read that book as saying that the translator is subject to no law but inner necessity, desire, whim. Now I’m leaning the other way, while still trying to maintain that complex balance, and readers are pushing me into the opposite camp and recommending something very like the middle ground I’m striving to occupy. Interesting.
Doug
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 1997 13:34:40 -0300
From: Peter Lenny <lenny@ax.apc.org>
Subject: Re: Plain text
Now that’s what I call pro-active list non-moderation!
Thanks.