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which scholars perceive key concepts of the discipline, many of which have become rather unpopular if not completely outdated.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)

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)