Deconstructive Reconsideration of Translation

劉艷清

【Abstact】This paper is on the deconstructive reconsideration of the definition of translation， the relation of source text and translation， as well as the relation of translator and author. It also points out the differences between tranditioanal concepts of translation and deconstructive reconsideration of translation.

【Key words】deconstructive translation theory author translator

1 Redefinition of Translation

Constructed upon the idea that meanings of words and texts are certain and there is only one authorized version of meaning of the text， traditional translation theories propose that translation should be based on the original meaning and try to be equivalent to the “l(fā)egal” meaning and form of the original ones. However， many translation scholars like Nida， Newmark and Neubert have confessed that translation hasn't quite reached to the level of being identical with the original work. Derrida calls into question any definition of translation using the terms such as “transporting”， “reproducing”， “duplicating” or “representing” the “meaning” of the original work. Instead he argues that there are no absolute identical meanings transported from one language to another：

Difference is never pure， no more so is translation， and for the notion of translation we would have to substitute a notion of transformation： a regulated transformation of one language by another， of one text by another. We will never have， and in fact have never had， to do with some “transport”of pure signifieds from one language to another， or within one and the same language， that the signifying instrument would leave virgin and untouched. （Derrida， 1972：20）

Just as the signs are relational， the meaning of the translation and that of the original is also in a certain relation but they cannot be identical with each other.

Regarding the relational signs， Derrida once put that “every concept is inscribed in a chain or in a system within which it refers to the other， to other concepts， by means of the systematic play of difference”. （Davis， 2004：13） In a similar fashion， the differences between languages just like the differences between signs allow the interlingual translation to be a process in which language as the endless circulation of signifiers is always “modifying the original text， ...deferring and displacing for ever any possibility of grasping that which the original text desired to name”. （Gentzler， 2004：161） In this sense， translation functions as “the operator of différance”which enables the interlingual communication to be possible.

Derrida also suggests that apart from the original work， translation， to some extent， helps the whole system of languages. As he once put it translation “modifies the original even as it modifies the translating language”. （Derrida， 1982/1985：122） This is because no matter how bad a translation work is， the process of working on it， through the interaction of the source language and the target language， changes more or less the languages concerned. This kind of “change”， to put in Benjamin's terms， makes language “grow”， indeed survive. In this way， translation can be defined as certain kind of soft binding material working on different language debris to make a complete， whole and satisfying piece of puzzle.

2 The Original Work and The Translation

The deeply rooted binary oppositions have crept into every field. Even in translation there are several dichotomies which require deconstructing： for example， word for word translation versus free translation， theory versus practice and original work versus translation work. These binary elements are neither simply oppositions. Rather they are in a hierarchy.

In traditional translation theory， original text is always in a superior positon. And it is always the center， around which translated text is built. Just like the binary opposition of speech and writing， original text is put on a upper level while translated text is on a lower level in the hierarchy. While original text is natural， translated text is derivative. Original text is the legal version， translated text is simply a reduplication. Everything of the translation work should strictly resemble that of original work. Therefore， the survival as well as the value of translation text is dependent upon original text. No original text， no translated text.

In contrast， Derrida sees and tries to prove that things are the other way around. Traditional translation theory compare the relation between man and woman to the relation between the “original” text and the translation. Like man is wanted by woman and woman has to be dependent upon man， the same is true for the untranslated text and the translation. However， Derrida argues that it is translation that is needed and the untranslated work is dependent upon the translation instead rather than the other way around. Nowadays， as the globalization has spread nearly to every corner of the world， the dissemination of every culture is dependent upon translation. As a result， the original-to-be-translated is also dependent upon translation. In comparison with man and woman， the translation， as Derrida claims， behaves like a“child”inventing as a result of the promise of a “contract of marriage”between different languages. However， this “child” has “the power of speak on its own” （Derrida， 1985a：191）. It does not mean that instead of resembling the untranslated text， the translation text goes to the other extreme end of totally departing from the untranslated text. Rather， it means that the translation should aim to supplement and complete the untranslated text so as to ensure its growth and survival.

Conclusion

If we view translation from the perspective of deconstruction， important issues such as those discussed above--the redefinition of translation， the relations of source text and translation come to the fore and attract our attention. These issues are not specially following the advent of deconstruction， without which they would also exist and present themselves. Yet， deconstructive translation theory provides an innovative viewpoint to deal with them.

References：

[1]Davis，Kathleen.2004.Deconstruction and Translation[M]. Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

[2]Derrida，Jaques.1972.Positions[M].trans. Alan Bass as “Positions”.Chicago： University of Chicago Press.

[3]Derrida，Jaques.1982/1985. L'oreille de l'autre.Montreal：V1 b Editeur； trans peggy Kamuf as The Ear of the Other. Lincoln & London： University of Nebraska Press.

[4]Derrida，Jaques.1985. Des Tours de Babel[M].J.Graham （Tr.） In J.Graham （Ed.） Difference in Translation. Ithaca， London： Cornell UP.

[5]Gentzler，Edwin.2004.Contemporary Translation Theories. 2nd edition[M].Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.