22
Translation in Systems
The place of translation in a given literature shows the same duality: translations constitute independent texts while simultaneously reproducing already existing foreign works. Which of these aspects is dominant, and hence in a position to elicit the style of translating most suitable to each particular case, depends on the relations between the cultures involved and on various factors pertaining to the receiving culture. As a result, individual translations, and translation as a genre, may fulfil different functions within the receiving literature. They may supplement or support entire sections of a literature, for example if there is deemed to be insufficient local production in a particular genre, or they may enter into competition with the indigenous production. They may open up possibilities for new developments by introducing novel forms and themes, and in this way foster greater diversity within a literature. During periods when translation is mistrusted or perceived as a negative value, we may see translations being published as if they were original works; when it represents a positive value, original works may be brought out under the guise of translations. But Levý emphasizes that the value attached to translation in certain periods, and the corresponding methods of translating chosen by individual translators, spring from and are determined by “the cultural needs of the time” (1969:76). He quotes Georges Mounin to make his point: when after centuries of polished, classicizing renderings, Leconte de Lisle’s 1866 translation of the Iliad put into relief Homer’s vast distance from us, there were social and political as well as aesthetic reasons for this, as the vigorous post- Revolution French bourgeoisie had learned to celebrate history as a potent weapon against the old order. In view of McFarlane’s call for more analysis and a multidisciplinary approach, it is striking to see Levý, in an English-language contribution to a conference of literary translators in Hamburg in 1965, stating explicitly that he wanted to promote ... rational analysis – as opposed to subjective impressions – dealing with the problems [of translation] not only by means of linguistics and of aesthetics, as we have been used to doing, but by a compound analytical methodology including psycholinguistics, structural anthropology, semantics, and all the disciplines (and ‘interdisciplines’) which today are used in the research into communication processes. (1965:77)
He went on to give examples of how psycholinguistics, anthropology and semantic theory might not only lead to better insights into translation but be of benefit to translators as well, discussing such things as the tendency of translators to choose superordinate terms, i.e. terms with a broader and less specific meaning than those used in the original, and a similar tendency to be more explicit in indicating logical relations and fill out elliptical expressions. The first tendency would be put forward as a tentative ‘law of translation’ by Gideon Toury thirty years later (Toury 1995:267-74; see Chapter 7). The second is
