هذا العمل عبارة عن مؤلف جماعي دولي حول فعاليات المؤتمر العلمي الدولي الموسوم بـ : دور الترجمة في التواصل بين الشعوب. مؤتمر خاص بأسبوع الترجمة احتفاء باليوم العالمي للترجمة شارك فيه ثلة من الباحثين عبر الزووم من مختلف الجامعات العربية والغربية للتحدث عن الترجمة، ودورها في التواصل بين الشعوب على اختلاف لغاتها وثقافاتها. -/- .

Using Catford’s shifts (1965), this study is an attempt to investigate four English translations by Clarke (1879), Davie (1882), Edwards (1911) and Wickens (1984) of selected poems from the Bustan of Saadi, the eminent Persian poet and writer. Five poems were randomly selected from the Bustan. Every line of the selected poems was investigated by the raters and placed in the related shift type specified by Catford (1965), namely level shift and category shift which in turn includes class shift, unit (...) shift, structural shift, and intrasystem shift. Some lines were placed under more than one shift type as more than one change could be identified in them. The results revealed that the structural shift was the most frequently used shift by the four translators of the poems in the Bustan. Level shift followed by unit shift were the next most frequently used shifts. It was found that the four translators had a somewhat similar trend in terms of using shifts towards translating the selected poems of the Bustan of Saadi. Also, it can be concluded that structural and level shifts were inevitable in some places during the translation process. (shrink)

The present paper opens this topical issue on translation techniques by drawing a theoretical basis for the discussion of translational issues in a linguistic perspective. In order to forward an audience- oriented definition of translation, I will describe different forms of linguistic variability, highlighting how they present different difficulties to translators, with an emphasis on the semantic and communicative complexity that a source text can exhibit. The problem is then further discussed through a comparison between Quine's radically holistic position and (...) the translatability principle supported by such semanticists as Katz. General translatability — at the expense of additional complexity — is eventually proposed as a possible synthesis of this debate. In describing the meaningfulness levels of source texts through Hjelmslevian semiotics, and his semiotic hierarchy in particular, the paper attempts to go beyond denotative semiotic, and reframe some translational issues in a connotative semiotic and metasemiotic perspective. (shrink)

Syntax has to do with rules that constrain how words can combine to make acceptable sentences. Semantics (Frege and Russell) concerns the meaning of words and sentences, and pragmatics (Austin and Grice) has to do with the context bound use of meaning. We can hence distinguish between three competing principles of translation: S—translation preserves the syntax of an original text (ST) in the translation (TT); M—translation preserves the meaning of an ST in a TT; and P—translation preserves the pragmatics of (...) an ST in a TT. A prominent form of P is functionalism defended by linguists and translation theorists (J.R. Firth, Eugene Nida, Susan Bassnett and many others) and historically was defended by philosophers (Russell, Ogden and Richard) but abandoned by philosophers and criticized by Wittgenstein. If we adopt M, then a TT will always say exactly what the ST says, and hence all subsequent TTs, even alternative ones produced via M, will be consistent with each other. But if we adopt P, in contrast, we have no reason to believe that the TTs will say what the ST does, and moreover they can contradict each other. If such contradictory translations are produced on the basis of the totality of empirical evidence, it results in what Quine called the indeterminacy of translation. Yet, P is not easy to reject. In many cases, translation in accordance with M where the meaning to be preserved is linguistic results in TTs that are failures. In contrast to a language focused approach to semantics, I close by following a lead in the translation theory literature of identifying text-types (genres) as a tool for identifying translatable content in an ST. To individuate text-types I identify them with disciplines, as elucidated by the 2nd century Patañjali’s Yoga Sūtra. This allows for the definition of textual meaning as the discipline relative pragmatics of an ST and further for translation to proceed by way of M, while taking the intuitions that motivate P seriously. Translations that preserve textual meaning will not only have the same meaning as each other but will be pragmatically felicitous. (shrink)

Translation theory and the philosophy of language have largely gone their separate ways (the former opting to rebrand itself as “translation studies” to emphasize its empirical and anti-theoretical underpinnings). Yet translation theory and the philosophy of language have predominately shared a common assumption that stands in the way of determinate translation. It is that languages, not texts, are the objects of translation and the subjects of semantics. The way to overcome the theoretical problems surrounding the possibility and determinacy of translation (...) is to marry the philosopher of language's concern for determinacy and semantic accuracy in translation with the notion of a “text-type” from the translation theory literature. The resulting text-type conception of semantics (TTS) is a novel alternative to the salient positions of Contextualism and Semantic Minimalism in the contemporary philosophy of language. (shrink)

Translation has long been viewed as ‘code-switching’ either within or between languages. Hence, most translation discussions center on its linguistic and cultural aspects. However, the fundamental mechanism of ‘translation as interpretative semiosis’ has yet to be studied with appropriate rigor. Susan Petrilli (2008) has identified ‘iconicity’ as the key that enables translative semiosis. Nevertheless, as her model is restricted to a discussion of literary translation activity in verbal sign systems, a fundamental mechanism to explain translation as interpretative semiosis is still (...) needed. By analyzing the interactions between the source sign (the translated) and the target sign (the translatant) in the translating process, it can be discerned that Humberto Maturana’s notion of autopoiesis may provide some crucial insights into translative semiosis. By identifying the autopoietic nature of translation, that is, the interlocked structural coupling between the Translated and Translatant, translation is no longer the ‘one-to-one-correspondence’ between sign systems, but rather a recursive process of interpretation—an interpretive semiosis. Moreover, it is by this autopoietic, self-productive mechanism of translation that I would suggest translation becomes a recursive generation of new inter-connections between semiotics systems. (shrink)

The discipline of translation studies has been recently challenged with powerful incentives from other sciences. This tendency has become visible especially in the context of more and more interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary methodologies, which have changed the profile of translation research to a considerable degree. It has also shifted the perspective with which scholars perceive key concepts of the discipline, many of which have become rather unpopular if not completely outdated. However, it seems true that instead of rejecting old terms translation (...) scholars should try to reconcile the old and new by adopting more general frameworks that would allow them to re-interpret or re-write the existing knowledge. Moving intellectual investigations beyond the level of natural languages, semiotics may offer this framework. The article is an attempt to show the potential of a semiotics-based model of interlingual translation and to support the hypothesis that every act of translation is semiotic by nature. To this end it outlines the most significant ideas of semiotic approaches to translation studies and semiotics, with special attention to translation semiotics and semiotics of culture. This in turn helps to draft a working model of interlingual translation and its constraints. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Semiotica Jahrgang: 2015 Heft: 207 Seiten: 217-231.

The rapid development of natural language processing in the last three decades has drastically changed the way professional translators do their work. Nowadays most of them use computer-assisted translation or translation memory tools whose evolution has been overshadowed by the much more sensational development of machine translation systems, with which TM tools are sometimes confused. These two language technologies now interact in mutually enhancing ways, and their increasing role in human translation has become a subject of behavioral studies. Philosophers and (...) linguists, however, have been slow in coming to grips with these important developments. The present paper seeks to fill in this lacuna. I focus on the semantic aspects of the highly distributed human–computer interaction in the CAT process which presents an interesting case of an extended cognitive system involving a human translator, a TM tool, an MT engine, and sometimes other human translators or editors. Considered as a whole, such a system is engaged in representing the linguistic meaning of the source document in the target language. But the roles played by its various components, natural as well as artificial, are far from trivial, and the division of linguistic labor between them throws new light on the familiar notions that were initially inspired by rather different phenomena in the philosophy of language, mind, and cognitive science. (shrink)

La traduction apparaît comme un domaine majeur de recherche dans les sciences humaines et sociales depuis deux ou trois décennies, suscitant une abondante production scientifique. A la fois technique linguistique et outil potentiellement puissant de médiation culturelle, elle constitue le type de transfert culturel par excellence, et à ce titre a attiré l’attention des chercheurs en études culturelles. Cet article passe en revue quelques-uns des travaux-clés dans ce domaine, leurs apports, et la manière dont ils ont sorti les études traductologiques (...) de leur tour d’ivoire linguistique et philologique pour en faire un objet d’étude pleinement en prise avec des questions sociétales plus larges de production et de circulation non seulement de textes mais d’idées, de discours et de modèles, dans lesquelles le traducteur est invité dorénavant à assumer sa responsabilité de « passeur » pas forcément neutre. Cette nouvelle interdisciplinarité a incontestablement apporté un dynamisme et des perspectives nouvelles à la traductologie (et vice-versa) ; cependant, elle soulève la question des compétences requises pour aborder ces thématiques, et celle des limites disciplinaires. Si l’ouverture de la traduction en tant qu’objet d’étude apparaît comme un enrichissement, l’apport de la notion de traduction comme méthode et comme modèle d’échanges culturels doit encore faire ses preuves, malgré l’existence de plusieurs tentatives stimulantes allant dans ce sens. (shrink)