Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Key Takeaways
Introduction and Definitions
Related Topics
References

Derrida and Translation (Pre-publication Draft)

Profile image of Deborah GoldgaberDeborah Goldgaber

2018, 2018 (Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy)

Abstract

Derrida powerfully critiques a certain philosophical view of language—logocentrism—and the ideal of translation it implies. According to this ideal, the function of language is to express meaning while the task of translation is to find an equivalent expression for this meaning in the target language. Derrida’s critique consists, first, in showing that logocentrism entails thinking of meaning as radically transcendent to language and, secondly, that such transcendental meanings are impossible. Meaning is necessarily language-like; therefore it cannot anchor language, nor assure the possibility of successful linguistic equivalence between languages. The philosopher John Searle has argued that if we accept Derrida’s claim about meaning, we must also accept the nonsensical view that language is a meaningless game of reference between signifiers without resolution. According to Derrida, this interpretation of the claim that meaning is textual assumes what it ought to contest: the absolute difference between signifier and the signified. In fact, the signified element is not “outside” the text, depending on language users to give and restore meaning—it is inscribed on the “inside.” Derrida argues that language is “parasitically” structured—or iterable, one set of differential elements encode another, texts are nested in other texts. The difference between signifier and signified, then, is something like the difference between negative and positive space, latent and manifest content, or again, as Derrida suggests between a parasite and host. “Meaning” is the inter-modal effect of differences resonating in other differences. Deconstructively speaking, translation is not a derivative linguistic practice with respect to establishing meaning but essential and primary. Indeed, texts are defined by their capacity to “translate” heterogeneous texts. More narrowly, deconstructive theories of translation help us to see how the ideal of inter-linguistic equivalence masks the productive role of translation and the power of translational practices to enrich and shape language.

Key takeaways
sparkles

AI

  1. Derrida critiques logocentrism, asserting meaning cannot transcend language or guarantee successful translation.
  2. Translation is fundamental and productive, not merely a derivative practice of expressing meaning.
  3. Philosophical accounts often assume transcendental signifieds, which Derrida argues are non-existent.
  4. Derrida's concept of iterability emphasizes the parasitic relationship between signifier and signified.
  5. Meaning in translation arises from regulated transformation, enhancing both source and target texts.

Related papers

Translation as Interpretation
Seda Gasparyan

Journal of Cultural and Religious Studies, 2021

This article is devoted to the study of one of the most important questions of philology-translation which throughout its centuries-long and rich history has been considered a sphere of philological activity of utmost significance providing an exceptional possibility for recoding and bringing philological and cultural traditions within the reach of people at large. Through the application of a variety of methods (linguo-stylistic, linguo-poetic, and comparative), the author attempts to study the process of translation, the clash of difficulties inevitably arising in that process, and offers solutions that will help recreate the vitality of the original and the uniqueness of linguistic thinking. Emphasis on the importance of the consideration of intra-and inter-linguistic correlations of language units in the original work of literature drives the author to the conclusion that the most reliable approach to literary translation is to be guided by the principle of "metaphoric displacement".

View PDFchevron_right
Translating traces: deconstruction and the practice of translation
Jan-Louis Kruger

Literator, 2004

In this article I attempt to show that deconstruction and its practices should not be read as intimations towards plurality or relativism in translation, but should rather be utilised as a powerful analytical tool, a way of reading and writing with heightened awareness. In order to arrive at this conclusion, I discuss différance and the play of the trace in the context of the cont(r)act between two texts that are in a relationship of translation. I further argue that plurality as contained in Derrida’s différance is not a directive, but that the translator has to be aware of the existence of plurality and to take into account that the reader also participates in and contributes to this plurality. The key to an application of Derrida’s theory is shown to be situated in the process rather than in the product of translation, and this process has to move beyond a hierarchical opposition of “original” and translation. I conclude that différance becomes not an obstacle or barrier to translation, but specifically that which, in making something untranslatable, creates the need for translation.

View PDFchevron_right
Reconsidering Translation as Interpretation
Somya Tyagi

The Criterion : An International Journal in English , 2021

The act of translation as a literary phenomenon lends itself to varied critical and theoretical approaches and one such approach perceives it as an act of interpretation that can be strongly linked to twentieth century German philosopher Hans Georg Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. While conceiving and putting forward the act of translation as a specific hermeneutical experience, Gadamer, in his writings states that translation is itself a linguistic act and that language is inextricably tied with man's being in the world. His analysis of the process of translation has deeply influenced the critics and theoreticians of translation studies. My paper is an attempt to grapple with the aforesaid conception of the process of translation as interpretation.

View PDFchevron_right
Toward a Philosophy of Translation (2018)
Salah Basalamah

Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy, 2018

Early in its development, translation studies quickly abandoned a quest for a general theory. Rather, approaches to translation have evolved toward fragmentary theorisations. There was first the ‘linguistic turn’ about fifty years ago; the ‘cultural turn’ some twenty years later; and, most recently, there has been a ‘sociological turn’. Throughout this evolution, translation as an object of study has increasingly moved from being viewed as a linguistic transfer ‘process’ to being seen as a final ‘product’, sometimes to be compared to its source text, sometimes to other (re)translations. However, the study of translation as a process has continued, and in more recent translation studies scholarship such study typically occurs within sociological investigations that seek to uncover how the social production of translations unfolds. In parallel to these developments in translation studies, translation has been used metaphorically in portraying, for example, genetic decoding (molecular biology), dream interpretation (psychoanalysis), transfer and exchange of knowledge (medical research), and property transfer (law). And translation is used figuratively in conversation, as in, ‘this idea must be translated into concrete action’. But these translational metaphors have only played a marginal role in translational theorising. A ‘philosophy of translation’, I argue, should incorporate not only the various perspectives on translation as an object of study, but also its metaphorical uses. Indeed, translation can be seen as a philosophical paradigm in itself, and can be studied and applied outside the bounds of language, culture, and metaphor. Hermeneutics serves as a starting point, but any philosophy of translation needs to be conceptualised within translation studies, which may require a new epistemological sub-discipline. Once we have a suitably conceptualised philosophy within the frame of translation studies, further issues can then be explored – for instance, could it deepen the understanding of translation as an heuristic tool in not only the humanities, but also in the natural and social sciences?

View PDFchevron_right
Toward a so-called narrow redefinition of translation in Translation Studies
Etienne Lehoux-Jobin

Cadernos De Tradução, 2025

With this paper, I aim to show that the central concept of Translation Studies (TS), i.e., “translation”, should be (re)defined “narrowly” as “the process or result of transferring a text interlinguistically”. First, I examine three noteworthy conceptualizations of translation found in TS literature (i.e., Jakobson’s, Toury’s, and Meylaerts & Marais’s). Second, I problematize the notion of “intrasemiotic translation” together with other relevant concepts and thereby highlight terminological as well as conceptual issues surrounding the idea of “translation” in TS. Third, invoking various arguments, I build a case for a so-called narrow and a priori definition of “translation”. Fourth, I give an example of such a definition and further develop my position. Fifth, broadening the scope of the study, I propose that we should keep looking for an overarching concept and discipline that would encompass “translation” as well as other similar objects and phenomena. Last, before wrapping up with concluding remarks, I indicate possible avenues to explore in future studies.

View PDFchevron_right
Translation as a Rhetoric of Meaning
Jose (Josep) Dávila-Montes

Poroi, 2017

From early romanticism to more recent post-structuralist and postcolonial studies, all the possibilities and impossibilities that are inherent in translation have fueled debate about authorship, intent, readership, functional equivalence, worldview, the building of national literatures, power differentials, ethics, and gender issuesamong many other topics-and, of course, about the nature of "meaning" as the alleged sole legal tender of "all things translation." However, translation has less often been scrutinized as a form of rhetorical transaction; fundamentally, all translations are attempts, in and of themselves, to persuade their readership of some degree of correspondence with their source. They have also been seen as covertly phatic texts; they call the audience's attention to the existence of another text that translation identifies, mimics, annihilates, and resurrects. Translations advertise the existence of a text by, paradoxically, causing it to "disappear" in its original form and then by taking over its identity; a translation is the very illusion of reading Dostoyevsky or Borges while actually not doing so. However, the relationship between translation and rhetoric surpasses this ontological threshold of persuasion, by which readers of translations are prone to be persuaded of clean equivalence between texts.

View PDFchevron_right
Constructing meaning in translation: The role of constructions in translation problems
Javier Valenzuela

Advances in Some Theoretical Models and Applications, 2013

View PDFchevron_right
Editorial: Acts of Translation
Joanne Morra

Journal of Visual Culture, 2007

View PDFchevron_right
The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Globalization
natasa durovicova

2020

View PDFchevron_right
Translation as a process of linguistic a
Zahra D
View PDFchevron_right

References (17)

  1. Arbel, R., Maidenbaum, S., Amedi A., et al. (2014) 'Vision through Other Senses: Practical Use of Sensory Substitution Devices as Assistive Technology for Visual Rehabilitation', MED 2014. doi: 10.1109/MED.2014.6961368.
  2. Benjamin, W. [1923] (2012) 'The Translator's Task', trans. S. Rendall, in L. Venuti (ed.) The Trans- lation Studies Reader [third edition], London and New York: Routledge, 75-83.
  3. Derrida, J. (1972) 'The Ends of Man', trans. A. Bass, Margins of Philosophy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  4. Derrida, J. [1976] (1998) Of Grammatology, trans. G. Spivak, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer- sity Press.
  5. Derrida, J. (1978) 'Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences', trans. A. Bass, Writing and Difference, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 278-94.
  6. Derrida, J. (1981) Positions, trans. A. Bass, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press (1988, Limited Inc., ed. G. Graff, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press).
  7. Derrida, J. (1982) Margins of Philosophy, trans. A. Bass, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  8. Derrida, J. (1985) 'Des Tours de Babel', trans. J. F. Graham, in J. F. Graham (ed.) Difference in Translation, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 165-207.
  9. Derrida, J. (1988) 'Signature Event Context', in Limited Inc., trans. S. Weber and J. Mehlman, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 9.
  10. Derrida, J. (2001) 'What Is a "Relevant" Translation?' trans. L. Venuti, Critical Inquiry 27: 174-200.
  11. Gleick, J. (2012) The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood, New York: Vintage Books.
  12. Jakobson, R. [1959] (2012) 'On Linguistic Aspects of Translation', in L. Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader [third edition], London and New York: Routledge, 126-31.
  13. Liu, L. (1995) Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture, and Translated Modernity, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  14. Pavel, T. (2001) The Spell of Language: Poststructuralism and Speculation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Searle, J. (1982) 'The Chinese Room Revisited', Behavioral and Brain Sciences 5 (2): 345.
  16. Searle, J. (1994) 'Literary Theory and Its Discontents', New Literary History 25th Anniversary Issue (Part 1) 25 (3): 637-67.
  17. Steiner, G. (1975) After Babel, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Related papers

The evanescence of meaning – on 'translations' in and out of 'deconstruction'
Luce deLire

This text is going to investigate how what came to be known as 'deconstruction'2 is intricately linked to a certain kind of 'translation' on the one hand and how this plays out in practices of translation on the other hand. For this purpose, I am going to outline some historical and systematic entanglements of 'deconstruction' with something that might be called 'translation' at first sight in the first chapter. In the following chapter, I am going to discuss some examples of 'deconstructive translation' in the texts of Derrida and Ronell. Finally, I am glimpsing at the conceptual foundations of 'un/translatability' with special emphasis on how it dislocates any notion of 'translation' over against any notion of 'hermeneutics' whatsoever. In the course of this little adventure, I will argue that I) Deconstruction can be read as a kind of 'translation.' II) The kind of 'translation' deconstruction favors and employs can be called 're-performance' or 'manifestation' (with minimal differences between the two). III) Another kind of 'translation' enabled by 'deconstruction' is a re-appropriative usage of 'source material.' IV) Another kind of 'translation' uncovered by 'deconstruction' is a quasi-hermeneutic discourse on the specific appearance of a given term in a given delineated area of time/space/whatever else. V) As for the foundations of 'translation' we remain torn between two necessities: The auto-aggressive evanescence of 'translatability' vis a vis the necessary possibility of 'untranslatability.' Consequently, translators remains ghost busters.

View PDFchevron_right
Deconstruction and Translation , by Kathleen Davis Deconstruction and Translation . By Kathleen Davis . Pp. 120 (Translation Theories Explained). Manchester: St Jerome, 2001. Pb. $19.50
Ruth Evans

Translation and Literature, 2003

Deconstruction, as Kathleen Davis reminds us in the introduction to this excellent short book, is not a translation theory. As the mantra has it, texts deconstruct themselves. So why should practising translators and translation scholars concern themselves with deconstruction at all? Davis' central argument is that translation and deconstruction (for 'deconstruction' here read 'Derrida') are deeply implicated in one another. Both wrestle with language at its limits, with 'untranslatability', with how to do justice to another's words. They often work with the same texts (Saussure, J. L. Austin, Walter Benjamin's 'The Task of the Translator'). But although Derrida may have become, in Rachel Bowlby's amusing realignment , a 'household' name (Hoover? Dettol?), his work, Davis writes, is still 'strange territory to many translation scholars'. 1 Of course several already engage with deconstruction (Lawrence Venuti, Barbara Godard, Luise von Flotow, Rosemary Arrojo), and Davis refers extensively, if not uncritically, to their work. Yet she does not use Derrida as a way of correcting the past errors of Translation Studies. Her achievement is to uncover the close relations between the fields of deconstruction and translation, patiently and undogmatically clarifying what is at stake for translation in Derrida's critique of logocentrism, and demonstrating the shared bids of both fields for the same territory. But her purpose is also to take readers unfamiliar with Derrida through a series of textual moments that first critique the traditional western understanding of translation as linguistic transfer, and then reorient the field of Translation Studies in relation to how texts 'perform', and to questions of justice. Given the huge range of Derrida's work that touches on translation, Davis has had to practise for herself the kinds of difficult decisions that she discusses in her concluding chapter. For example, she explicitly does not consider (for reasons of space) the far-reaching political ramifications of Derrida's exposure of the 'border' as a constructed limit for feminist, queer, and

View PDFchevron_right
International Journal of English and Education Translating Translation: Deconstructionist Approach Towards Translation
MARZIEH IZADI

This study contends for the development of the deconstructionist approach towards translation studies, grounded primarily in the contributions of Jacques Derrida. In order to achieve this goal, this paper first tries to problematize the notions underlying the traditional translation theory; namely, the idea of the semiotic transfer of meaning, the supremacy of the source over the target text, and the author over the translator, which are so often taken for granted. It then goes on to draw on Derrida's idea of indeterminacy of text meaning, and his neologisms, différance, iterability, and the limit as a way to open up new perspectives in translation studies. In the end, this paper concludes with the discussion that by challenging the traditional translation theory and incorporating the deconstructionist perspectives towards translation, the status of both the translation and translator will surpass the original text and the author which will lead to breathing a new life into the dead theories of translation studies and providing the chance to look at translation studies from a different prism.

View PDFchevron_right
Translation and other acts of meaning
Göran Sonesson

If translation is an act of meaning transaction, semiotics should be able to define its specificity in relation to other semiotic acts. Instead, following upon suggestions by Roman Jakobson, the Tartu school, and, more implicitly, Charles Sanders Peirce, the notion of translation has been generalized to cover more or less everything that can be done within and between semiotic resources. In this paper, we start out from a definition of communication elaborated by the author in an earlier text, characterizing translation as a double act of meaning. This characterization takes into account the instances of sending and receiving of both acts involved: the first one at the level of cognition and the second one at the level of communication. Given this definition, we show that Jakobson's "intralinguistic translation" is, in a sense, the opposite of translation and that his "intersemiotic translation" has important differences and well as similarities to real translation. We also suggest that "cultural translation" has very little to do with translation proper except, in some cases, at the end of its operation. Peirce's idea of exchanging signs for other signs is better understood as a characterization of tradition.

View PDFchevron_right
Deconstructionist Translation Theory: Visibility of Différance
Victoria Lipina

2020

The paper focuses on the challenge deconstructivist theory constitutes for translation via an analysis of Derrida’s theory that revised not only the «violent hierarchy» of the ‘original – translation’ but also the keystones of translatability: equivalency, adequacy, formal correlation, etc., arguing that translation, in the conventional use of the term, is impossible. From the perspective of deconstruction it is viewed only as a powerful tool in unveiling the plurality of the text’s meaning that makes invisible differance visible. Untranslatability in Derrida’s use of the term does not imply that translators should not translate. It simply implies that it is impossible to produce the plurality of the source text in a translation. Derrrida, Paul de Man, Foucault, Jonathan Culler, J. Hillis Miller et al. criticize the traditional views of translation by eliminating equivalence from the purpose of the translation. The focus is on the complex set of relations between the two texts. The ...

View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Translation Studies
  • Ferdinand de Saussure
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved