Reading against the Grain: Transcodifying Stimulus Meaning

The paper shows that on transferring sense from the SL to the TL, the translator’s reading against the grain determines the creation of a faulty pattern of rendering the original meaning in the receiving culture which reflects the use of misleading transformative codes. In this case, the translator is a writer per se who decides what goes in and out of the book, how the style is to be ciphered and what elements of ideology are to be highlighted. The paper also proves that figurative language must not be flattened for the sake of clarity or naturalness. The missing figurative elements make the translated text less interesting, less challenging and less vivid which reflects poorly on the writer. There is a close connection between style and the writer’s person. If the writer’s style is very much altered in a translation, the translation is useless as the original writer and his / her imaginative world can no longer be discovered. The purpose of the paper is to prove that adaptation is a dangerous tool which leads to variants that sometimes reflect the original less than the reader would wish to. It contradicts the very essence of the process of translation which is that of making an original work available in a foreign language. If the adaptive transformative codes are so flexible that they encourage the translator to repeatedly leave out parts of the original work, then a subversive pattern emerges which changes the entire book. In conclusion, as a result of using adaptation, manipulative or subversive effects are created in the translated work. This is generally achieved by adding new words or connotations, creating new figures of speech or using explicitations. The additional meanings of the original work are neglected and the translator creates new meanings, implications, emphases and contexts. Again s/he turns into a new author who enjoys the freedom of expressing his / her own ideas without the constraints of the original text. Reading against the grain is unadvisable during the process of translation and consequently, following personal common sense becomes essential in the field of translation as well as everywhere else, so that translation should not become a source of fantasy.

Authors:

• Aba-Carina Pârlog

Keywords:

• Speculative aesthetics
• substance of expression
• transformative code
• translation.

References:

[1] M. Tymoczko, “Post-Colonial Writing and Literary Translation”, in
Post-Colonial Translation. Theory and Practice, S. Bassnett and H.
Trivedi, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 33, 2002 (1999).
[2] U. Eco, Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. Indiana University
Press: Bloomington, Indiana, 1986 (1984), p. 27.
[3] W. van Orman Quine, Word and Object. USA: Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, 1960, p. 31-32.
[4] R. Posner, “Believing, Causing, Intending: The Basis for a Hierarchy of
Sign Concepts in the Reconstruction of Communication”, in Signs,
Search and Communication: Semiotics Aspects of Artificial Intelligence,
R. J. Jorna, B. van Heusden and R. Posner, Berlin and New York:
Walter de Gruyter, pp. 220-222, 1993.
[5] M. Baker, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. M. Baker and
K. Malmkjaer, London and New York: Routledge, 2005 (1998), p. 170,
107.
[6] L. T. Hjelmslev, Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press, 1961, p. 60.
[7] R. Farsi, E. D. Sharifabad and G. S. S. Al-Douri, “Literary Translation
through the Lens of Poststructuralism”, in Journal of Language
Teaching and Research, vol. 5, no. 1, Academy Publisher. pp. 239-244,
Jan. 2014.
[8] G. Orwell, Burmese Days. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, M. Secker
and Warburg, 1984 (1934), p. 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16, 18, 34, 42, 65.
[9] G. Orwell, Zile birmaneze. Iaşi: Polirom, 2003, p.7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 20, 22,
24, 45, 55, 83.
[10] S. Bassnett, Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge,
1994 (1980), p. 115, 116.
[11] P. Lewis, “The Measure of Translation Effects”, in The Translation
Studies Reader. L. Venutti and M. Baker. London and New York:
Routledge, 2004 (2000), p. 266.
[12] A.-C. Pârlog, Translation and Literature: An Interdisciplinary
Approach. Timişoara: Editura Universităţii de Vest, 2014, p. 73-75.
[13] The Concise Oxford Dictionary. Tenth Edition. J. Pearsall. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 1411.
[14] F. Rossi-Landi, “On Some Post-Morrisian Problems”, in Ars semeiotic,
no. 3, L. Romeo, L. Frank, H. Hamilton-Faria et al., pp. 8, 1978.