Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
based approach
Abstract
Continental philosophy often seems obscure to Anglo-Saxon readers used to a more
analytical approach. In the case of Spanish philosophy, the digressive, literary style
of many academic texts and their distinctly ‘foreign’ assumptions about perception,
cognition and values cannot simply be transferred into English without upsetting the
reader’s basic reception strategy.
Introduction
For the translator of European Continental philosophy, the main problem is to bridge
two very different traditions. Not only is Continental philosophy preoccupied with
political, cultural and existential issues that are ‘foreign’ to Anglo-Saxon readers,
but it is also less analytical and more literary than the philosophy taught in Britain
and America. Given these differences and the current disagreement in different
semantic/pragmatic accounts of the underdeterminacy of language (Carson, 2002),
1
my basic position in this article is that attempts by translation theorists such as
Newmark to solve the problem of ‘textual equivalence’ in terms of the dominant
language functions of the ST are useful but over-simplified. In particular,
Newmark’s (1981, 1988) distinction between ‘authoritative’ or ‘expressive’ texts,
for which he advocates a more writer-centred, semantic approach, and ‘informative’
texts, for which he allows a more reader-centred, communicative approach, are often
difficult to apply in practice because of SL and TL readers’ different expectations
about what constitutes ‘good’ philosophy.
By grounding this discussion in one fairly long passage and my own rendering of it
from Spanish into English (see Appendix), I hope to clarify some of these wider
issues as well as the problems arising from a particular text without, myself,
becoming too ‘philosophical’. The text that I have chosen is the first paragraph of a
thirteen-page article, “Escenas de la Desaparición”, which explores the work of
Spanish photographer Angel Marcos and, in particular, his photographic narrative of
the same name portraying the Calderón Theatre in Valladolid, Spain, after it closed
for extensive alterations in 1995 (hence the subtitle “Luto teatral en una narración
fotográfica”). The author, Fernando Castro Flórez, who lectures in Aesthetics and
Art Theory at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, is a respected art critic and an
authority in his field. The translation was commissioned for an exhibition of
Marcos’ photographs to mark the re-opening of the Calderón Theatre in April 1999
and was thus intended for readers with a general interest in culture as well as for
specialists.
2
also poses two problems for the TL reader accustomed to the conventions of
academic writing in English: firstly, the lack of any introduction stating the purpose
and scope of the article or signposting the sequence of material (instead, the text is
prefaced by a highly metaphorical quotation from Michel Serres, which the reader
must interpret in the light of what follows); and secondly, the lack of topic sentences
in the first paragraph (the part of the text discussed here), to facilitate what is a
distinctly complex approach to the aesthetics of photography and the interpretation
of photographic images. The lack of advanced organisers and topic sentences (and
also of an overall conclusion) suggest a much more writer-based approach than
would be acceptable in an Anglo-Saxon academic article, where the reader expects
form and function to be explicit both at the macro level - e.g. thesis, support and
conclusion - and at the micro level - e.g. situation, problem, response, evaluation
(see Hoey, 1983).
Flower (1979) states: “in its structure, writer-based prose reflects the associative,
narrative path of the writer's own confrontation with his subject. In reader-based
prose, its structure reflects the purpose of the writer's thoughts”. A closer reading of
Castro Flórez’s text reveals that, despite its situation (“una situación estética de
postpaisaje”), problem (“Esas imágenes demandan, incansablemente, un imposibible”)
and response (“una narración estética …que responde”) structure, the text seems, partly,
to reflect the process of aesthetic exploration itself. Firstly, key concepts are
introduced ‘out of the blue’, so to speak – for example, the writer’s assumption that
art is primarily about form and that it should be prophetic. Secondly, key stages in
arguments are sometimes missing. Why, for example, should planning lead to
instability? (‘La oscilación es constitutiva de la experiencia artística, surgida en un
mundo técnico donde se siente la exigencia de planificación de todas las cosas’).
Thirdly, the topic/comment structure is often unclear: “surgida” could refer to
“oscilación” or to “experiencia”. More disconcerting is the abrupt transition from art
in general to photography in particular (“Tal vez sea Benjamin el pensador que
3
mejor ha comprendido la problematicidad de la obra de arte …: la fotografía
mantiene el culto al recuerdo …”), which is only confirmed in the following
sentence (“En la fotografía...”) and a similarly abrupt transition to the topic of technology
(“La técnica...”) two sentences later. Finally, the functional value of some sentences is
unclear: for example, in the first sentence (“Régis Debray ha hablado de …”)
Debray’s statement seems – at least, to an Anglo-Saxon reader – more like a piece of
news than a reference. The mixture of direct quotation (in translation) and
paraphrase from the same work – both in the same sentence - is also unusual in
English.
The first decision that must be taken, then, is to what extent the rhetorical and
syntactic forms of the text should be adapted to the TL reader’s expectations. This
decision will depend on the extent to which the formal features of the text are
mandatory in the SL, or are choices on the author’s part. On the one hand, Spanish
academic writing has tended, until recently, to be much less “reader-based” than its
Anglo-Saxon counterpart, especially in philosophy and the arts. There are several
possible explanations for this. At a general level, Kaplan’s (1966) theory of
contrastive rhetoric argues that argumentative texts are more digressive and less
linear in Spanish and other Romance languages than in English although Kaplan
(1987; 1988) also claims that “rhetorical differences do not necessarily reflect
different patterns of thinking Instead, differences may reflect different writing
conventions that are learned in a culture” (cited in Connor 1996:16). At a more
concrete level, there is less emphasis in Spain on argumentative writing at
undergraduate level and less pressure to publish in academic journals at post-
graduate level. Whatever the explanation, this article is typical both of Castro
Flórez’s published writing and that of many Spanish art critics. On the other hand,
Castro Flórez’s manifest interest in formal innovations (“Y es también en este
momento cuando se precisa de gran energía para reavivar los contornos…”)
suggests that at least some of the formal elements of his text - e.g. the accumulation
4
of relative clauses in the final sentence before the colon and the final summary
sentence (“la mirada se apiada de la ruina”) - have a deliberate, aesthetic intention.
“Philosophy is obsessed with words; but the words that interest it are not the
fancy aristocrats of language, nor yet its specialized technicians: they are its
swarming universal proletarians - terms like "time" and "unfairness", "good"
and "ugly", "truth" and "lies". And it is these dog-ordinary terms, in their
ordinary elusive precision, that set philosophical translators their hardest
tasks”.
5
The reason for this preoccupation with language is that, unlike religious dogmas,
philosophical arguments - at least, in the analytical tradition - ask for rational assent,
not for faith or obedience (Magee, 1998). Consequently, an Anglo-Saxon reader’s
basic reception strategy is likely to be analytical, rather than associative, and the
literary features typical of Continental philosophy, elements such as personification,
symbols or metaphor, may require modification if a semantic translation detracts
from the overall flow of thought. For example, although Castro Flórez writes in the
final line: ‘la mirada se apiada de la ruina’, this personification is illogical in English
and simply makes the writing obscure, so destroying the intended effect. Similarly,
where the introductory quotation from Michel Serres speaks of climbing (Dante’s?)
symbolic stairs to look for a light, the Anglo-Saxon reader might legitimately argue
that light is already visible; otherwise, there would be no shadows. What is needed is
not a light but a new light. Accordingly, my translation of the word “puerta” in this
image (as transparent “gate” rather than opaque “door”) is based on the assumption
that it is the light at the top of the stairs that casts the shadows. The sustained
atmospheric metaphor in the second half of the passage (‘torbellino’,
‘condensación’, ‘nieblas’, ‘temperatura fría’), though less prominent, is also
potentially confusing and needs adapting.
“Theme words denoting the subject and the significant concepts of the SL
text must be identified by the translator, and if they have no precise
equivalents in the TL, they should be componentially analyzed at the first
citation and then identified by a translation label”.
6
When translating Continental philosophy, this procedure would seem to be
particularly important since Continental philosophy assumes fewer shared
presuppositions, problems, methods and approaches than analytical philosophy
(Levy, 2003). However, in “Escenas de la Desaparición”, most of the words
italicised in the first paragraph (postpaisaje, oscilación, etc.) do not reappear again
and seem to be italicised for local emphasis only. By contrast, one term that is
repeated throughout the article and which might constitute a theme word, “la
mirada", not only appears embedded within a literary device (see above), making it
difficult to apply a translation label, but suggests an impersonal and disembodied
form of perception that has no equivalent in English. To translate it with Lacan’s
technical term “the Gaze” (see “Translator’s note on p.14) probably makes too great
a demand on an Anglo-Saxon reader visiting an art exhibition. Another possible
keyword is “espectador”, which I translate as “observer” because his (or her?) active
role is implied in the text (“active observer” vs. “passive spectator”). However, the
generalised singular has been replaced by “we” (“we, as observers”). I shall return to
both these problems in the next section.
7
within the photographs instead of within the observers (‘… una narración estética ...
responde a esa temperatura fría de la ausencia con el calor cordial de la ternura’) and
substitutes the notion of time for space in the word ‘ausencia’, similarly requires
normalisation in terms of how these cognitive processes are conceived in English.
Conclusion
In this article I have assumed that academic writing, philosophy and aesthetics form
a hierarchy and that, in English, lower levels inherit the features of those above. Of
course, Collins and Quillian’s (1969) study of concept hierarchies has shown that
not all members of a hierarchy are equal in typicality. Certainly, many philosophers
regard aesthetics as a marginal field (Deveraux, 2004) and there is still a lot of half-
baked psychological analysis in Anglo-Saxon aesthetics (Duncan, 2004) although,
for the translator, this is unlikely to affect text structure. Similarly, I have assumed
8
that the rhetorical underdeterminacy of the ST in comparison to Anglo-Saxon
academic writing is a result either of ‘digressive’ writing conventions or a lack of
emphasis on issue-centred writing within Spanish universities. However, the fact
that the Anglo-Saxon model is gaining ground in Spanish universities - and is all but
mandatory for scientific papers – does not mean that it is ‘superior’ but simply
reflects the predominance of English in the modern world. Many non-Anglo-Saxon
academics are now forced to publish in English or perish.
More generally, I am aware that my distinction between form, function, content and
style and my mapping of these onto a hierarchy of genres (academic writing –
philosophy – aesthetics) is a convenience. In particular, my decision to consider the
problems posed by literary devices and perception/cognition as problems of content
and style, respectively, might be very different if I were translating a novel or a
newspaper article. However, I believe that this approach is valid for most forms of
academic writing and, in particular, philosophy where – in the Anglo-Saxon world –
an author’s authority derives from the quality of his or her analysis rather than from
peculiarities of style. Flórez and other European Continental philosophers have
much to say; TL readers should not have to work harder to understand them than SL
readers. Attempts to polarise SL texts into “authoritative/expressive” vs.
“informative” need to be balanced against a more fundamental distinction between
the cultural assumptions of the ST and those of the TL reader. Editors’ constraints
(e.g. the demand for a “parallel” text) and the fact that, nowadays, TL readers are
not necessarily native speakers of the TL do not fundamentally invalidate this
approach.
9
References
Collins A.M. and Quillian M.R. (1969) ‘Retrieval Time From Semantic
Memory’, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour, 8, 240-248.
Levy, N. (2003). Analytic and Continental Philosophy: Explaining the Differences. Volume
34, Issue 3, Page 284 - April 2003
10
Newmark, P. (1988). A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.
11
Appendix 1
ESCENAS DE LA DESAPARICIÓN.
Luto teatral en una narración fotográfica.
Fernando
Castro
Flórez
“Un día habrá que abrir la puerta de las sombras, subir los últimos escalones, buscar una luz
para reconocerse en sombras tan antiguas que la carne humillada ya está acostumbrada a
ellas” (Michel Serres)
12
racionalización sino que parece rodear a algunos de sus productos de valor mágico. La
reproducción da testimonio del tiempo con una intensidad desconocida para la imagen
tradicional. La interrupción que arrastraba la intención en un torbellino irresistible, se
transforma en una condensación azarosa; el espectador se siente irresistiblemente forzado a
buscar en la fotografía la chispita minúscula de azar, de aquí y ahora, “con que la realidad
ha chamuscado, por así decirlo, su carácter de imagen, a encontrar el lugar inaparente en el
cual, en una determinada manera de ser de ese minuto que pasó ya hace tiempo, anida hoy
el futuro y tan elocuentemente que, mirando hacia atrás, podremos descubrirlo”2. Esas
nieblas que surgen en el origen de la fotografía se encarnan en una lucidez limítrofe, una
narración estética que da cuenta de la tristeza más aún, que responde a esa temperatura fría
de la ausencia con el calor cordial de la ternura: la mirada se apiada de la ruina.
(Página 1 de 13)
13
SCENES OF DISAPPEARANCE
Fernando
Castro
Flórez
“One day we shall have to cross the gateway of shadows, climb the last few steps, and try
to see our own flesh, so long mortified by these shadows, in a new light.” (Michel Serres)
Technology, however, does not simply move in straight lines towards totally rational
control. It also seems to bestow a magical quality on some of its products. Indeed, mass
reproduction bears testimony to the passing of time in a way that traditional image-making
14
never could. The frozen images that once had an overwhelming sense of purpose are now
thrown at us at random. When confronted with a photograph we, as witnesses*, feel driven
to search for that tiny spark of the here and now, captured by chance, “with which reality
has, so to speak, left its brand on the picture, and to identify those parts of the picture where
the future lies hidden so eloquently and which can only be discovered in retrospect”2. Those
photographs, rising out of the mists of time, force us to think with the utmost clarity, to
create an aesthetic narrative with which to explain the sadness we feel, the warmth in our
hearts, when faced with cold images of what has ceased to be: we are gazing in pity at our
own ruins 1.
(Page 1 of 13)
1
Translator’s note: The author seems to be referring to Lacan’s concept of “le regard” (the Gaze).
Lacan claims that subject ("we") is "illuminated by the light emitted by the object of its own look,
and thereby [we are] registered simultaneously as object of representation" (Four Fundamentals of
Psychoanalysis, 191). The translation alludes more “clearly” to the introductory citation from
Michel Serres (“see our own flesh...in a new light”)
15