Since Holmes set forth the idea of translation as an independent discipline (i.e. the establishment of ‗translation studies‘) in his paper ‗The Name and the Nature of Translation Studies‘ (1988/2004), the scope of the term ‗translation‘ has been expanding, and today suggests a composite of related practices and academic descriptions. The fundamental mechanisms and features of translation will be explored in the following section as a basis for further discussion.
In terms of what is regarded as a translation (i.e. a translation product), two features are repeatedly discussed—similarity and difference. For researchers who see similarity, or, ‗equivalence‘, as the indispensable feature of translation (E.g. Nida, 1964; Vinay and Darbelnet, 1958; Molane, 1988; Chesterman 1996; Newmark, 1988;
Nord, 1991), the similarity between the source and target text serves as a basis.
Furthermore, equivalence can be sub-categorized as bi-directional or mono-directional. For researchers who see bi-directional equivalence as a fundamental feature of translation (E.g. Nida, 1964; Vinay and Darbelnet, 1958;
Molane, 1988), the universal structure of language is a given, and renders the equal and equivalent linguistic exchange between any two languages not only possible but also easily achievable. In adopting their viewpoint, we must assume that translating from English to Chinese would be the same as the other way around. This argument, however, is challenged by researchers who assert mono-directional similarity (Chesterman 1996; Newmark 1988; Nord, 1991). For Chesterman (2005), for example, the similarity between the source and target text is asymmetrical. That is, the target text has to resemble the source text, but not the other way around. He terms this phenomenon as ‗divergent similarity‘. Two implications can be drawn from this asymmetrical equivalence: 1) the similarity between the source and target text is deemed as a fundamental feature of translation, and the asymmetry relation suggests
46
the source sign exerts a certain influence/restriction on the target sign; and 2) this partial ‗resemblance‘ of the source sign suggests that an unlimited number of target signs could be induced as long as they share some traits of resemblance with the source sign.
For researchers who see difference as the key element of translation (E.g. Quine, 1969; Benjamin, 1923/2004; Berman 1984/1992; Venuti, 1995; Derrida, 1985, 2001), however, the difference between language/culture systems is insurmountable. For these researchers, translation does not to reach the ‗sameness‘ across sign systems, but rather reveals the difference between systems. The difference, in Derrida‘s words, is a particular relation between the source and target text—they are ‗indebted‘ to each other. This indebtedness caused by difference in translation functions as an important feature of translative semiosis. That is, since the source and target signs are indebted to each other, one can hardly exist without the other. In this case, tr anslation forms a mechanism that is at the same time transformative and mutual relying.
From the discussions above, I suggest that similarity and the difference in translation should not be seen as an ‗either-or‘ option, but instead, as a ‗both-and‘
situation. For it is this kind of ‗similar and yet dissimilar‘ character that makes translation neither a copy (a mechanism only based on similarity) nor an irrelevant text (a mechanism only based on dissimilarity) of the source text. Based on the dialectical relation between the source and target text, the distinctive features of translation are summarized as:
1) The source text can potentially induce unlimited number of target texts.
2) The target text should be similar to the source text in certain ways.
3) The target text should be different from the source text in certain ways.
4) The source and target texts may form a mutual relying relation in the process of meaning forming.
47
From these features, it is clear that the source and target sign would form a generative and mutual informing relation. This relation suggests certain strong implications regarding the semiotic function of translation. Situating the translation process within Peirce‘s (1931) triad of sign-interpretant-mind, the target text forms a triadic relation with the source text as well as the mediator, and starts the process of semiosis. Hence, I suggest that in the translation process, the translated32 and the translatant form an interpretative relation analogous to that of the sign and inter pretant, which induces the generation of new interpretants ad infinitum. This translative semiosis, as Stecconi (2004; 2009) suggests, is a conditional semiosis which hinges on the similarity, difference and mediation involved in translation, and therefore translative semiosis is different from general semiosis. Based on the features of translation mentioned above, translative semiosis can be distinguished from general semiosis in two ways:
(1) The translatant, or the interpretant of the translated, is inclined to be similar to its translated; hence, the potential range of interpretant in the translative semiosis is smaller, or, less flexible than that in the interpretative semiosis of a language system. (E.g. Short 2003; Goethals et al.,2003)
(2) To see the relation between translated and translatant as that of semiosis suggests that there is a causality between the two. For instance, the translated A serves to be the inducing factor of the translatant A1. A1
32 From here, as this thesis focuses particularly on the semiotic dimension of translation, I would like to borrow Susan Petrilli‘s (2008) terms of ‗translated‘ and ‗translatant‘ in my discussion. In the present section, ‗translated‘ and ‗translatant‘ refer to ‗what is to be translated‘ and ‗what is translated‘
respectively. However, in the third section of this chapter, with the inclusion of Maturana‘s viewpoint of language, these two terms refer to the interpretants that are constituted by the interaction between the observer and the linguistic acts involved in translation. To distinguish the different usage of terms, the initials of both terms in the latter case would be written with capital letter.
48
can certainly function as a new translated to generate the new translatant A2. This seriation, however, cannot exist in the reverse order, despite a certain similarity between the translated and the translatant and their potential to mutually inform each other. But in the semiosis of language, the seriation can be reversed (i.e. A can be the interpretant of B and vice versa).
In this sense, translative semiosis is a conditional semiosis of the language system, which is achieved through the ad infinitum mutual-informing and generating interactions between the translated and translatant. And this kind of potential, I would suggest, is strongly rooted in the biological mechanism of translation33, rather than in iconicity, as suggested by Petrilli in her work.