Chapter 1:2

Maria Tymoczko

IDEOLOGY AND THE POSITION OF THE

TRANSLATOR: IN WHAT SENSE IS A

TRANSLATOR \IN BETWEEN1?

EDITOR'S INTRODucnON

TM probkm with tronsjdto-n; lor dOOiinunl centres of POWff is oot toot Ur.lIJ5IQwn: art ,b(lwetn culrure QJjd cu.!LlImI J~tj[S., but thor tho/ kame oil!! too jJl'pohr..d in diK'IJOIt idrololJj~ Pro9Ill1ll1JKS of (00ngr:, OJ agendClS of mh~·tn-lun tb.ol dUd~ Jominmu (.01]tmJ.

INA S EM] N A L A RTI C LET HAT [5 W] DEL V Q~Qte-d in the literature, Iyrnoczko sets out to irrtefrogate the trope- of 'in betweenness' arrd t-o ~p~C1re the I'"EaSOm, far its current popularity. She argues that ideological aspects of a translation are ine:x:tricabl-e from the 'p I ace (If enu n C i.;l:l iO(J' of the translator; and th at tfl i!i place is !"lot s.i mpl)' .g.e(l.g raphic:: aj aut aiso temporal iU1d ideolo-gical. The ideology of or. t-anstation ls not located in the translated ted alone, but also in the vclce arlO ~-o~iti-onillg of the translator, ami our l.ll1der~tandil'lg of this positio('Jing has beer"l influenced I:J.y the tendency to speak of translation itself as an in between soace, nul idea of betweenness has led some to t ... y and fi-gure all elsewnere that a trOln!;,IOItor may speak from, an elsewhere that is sepa-ate from both source and to)1'g!l'l cultures arrd that 'is often s.e~minQI)' Mt Simply a metaphorical way of speakinq about idMlogic:a1 positioning, but . _ . ipso tsao affords a transl ator a vale ri i!~(1 ideo I ogi cal stan ce'.

Tyrnoczko dismantles tne trope of ln-betweenness by first offering a number of explanii1 lens tor the popularity af this metaphor, whicn tnclude the actual physi[al position that the interpreter occupies in mmmi.Jnit:.- ir'itt'rpr-etirlg and the etymolDgy of tr';IfI$I~ti(J arrd lts widespread use in We5-tern translatlon theory, One- af tne flc'plar"'latiOl"l'S she off€l's is the influence ~h<lt poststructuratlsrn has exercised on trarrslatlon schctars: the concept of betweer: pet se is central to poststructurallst thcuqht, The romant!c sensibility that underpins the mel<lp~or of in-betweenness is rejected 01.5 both rnisleadinq and ~Iitis~: 'If ttJe place of enunciation of the b'an:s,lato-r i'5 a spate- outs i ne both tile sou rce iilrld t~e receptc r cu lture, the trans I ato r becomes CI figure like romantic poets, al.~natE'd from allegiances to. any culture, isolated b~ genius'. The suggest ion that trans I ate rs so rnehow O[c.UPy" a scace betwe-err is not supp orted try h lstorical studies, which demonstrate that t~arl~lator:s do affiliate, and do pursue specific ager1das. Mmeover; scholars who use tne tro~ o-f betweenness LmcriHcally, who taLk about hybrid spaces

214 MARIA TYM oc z KO

l:ieiflg located between the certainties of national cl,dtlJres, assume that nanonal cultures ar€ monojlthlt an-cl homogeliOu5 and fail to r-ecogl'loize the hybl"'idity and d),namism of all cuttures.

From all ideologkal point Cof 'l;'i!?'A', Iyrnoczko insists. that one of the most serrous weaknesses of the- di sc ourse cd in bet~mreS5 is that it fa II s to understand the nature of engagemeflt, to acknowledqe that 'transletlon as a successful means of ellgagemertt and social cn,m:]e - I.ke most politrCilil actions - reqtJif'e~ affiliation and collective actlcn'. She concluces that <[ tJP'ie id80tO-gy of translation is. indeed a result of the translator's position, but that posltlon is [lot a space oct Wl:'er~',

Follow-up questions for djscu5sion

• Dra ..... i ng 01'1 G eon} S im mel's. ana Iy~ i'S of m one}" wn.er-e hE :suggests that the rae l that rYI-Ol18y can be IJS.Ed fot a va.riety of ends 'pla~e[s] it somehow between 0111 qualities and thereby depri ... e[5] it of emy specific P5ythological eel o rat iol'l" Cronin (2000b: B9l .a1"91.Je:5 tile- followinq: 'th~l,.jgh they are Important agel'lt~ of clrcutation and openness and renewal in society, translators {whQ occupy in-between spaces, and art' therefore no-t "one-sided", and who, in addition, tend to work in mally dlfferent areas, patliciJlady in :!;r"r'Ialle-r markets) do not hal/e till':' distinctive "colcratlon" of those whO are less nomadic and multifarious in their act.vltles'. While Cronln's comment is offe~d in the context-of accountinq for the in'olisibility of tr'anslatOi"5 and distrust for their 'hybrid' nosttion, it is ne ... ertheless formulated as a. general statement, To what extent, and in what respects, does this gener'{3.lization confiict with Tymoczko's analysls of ttle posltlcnatlty Df the t ransl sto r?

• Bacl1mann-Meclick (201]09; 34) arques th<lt '[nne [lotion of culture needs to be pushed towards more openness arld dynamism, fur the "tI1it11 space" ls by no me;;lllS simply a plac~ Or condition bf't~/'l different cultures, OlJt i~ also CI ~trategy af prolifefatlng 110nhorncqeneous layers withi{'T a particular cultura', Adopting this understandlnq of third space means that '[o]ur habituated notion of culture as a locati-on of solid belonging and coherence would lherl ce-de to a nation of culture as translation, transltlon and development". To what extent do th-ese idl':'as differ from or OO'erlap with Tymoczko's pO'S i tiM, as outl i ne d- ner!)'? .

• Here and elsewhara (Tymcczko 2001), .2007), Tyrnoczko payS. more att-ention than most to the metap h ()r~ used to ta I k about transtatl on and argues that 'Ih Jecause metapho r~ h.!I'I"€ ideolfr9ical powe-r and also structure QUI" lhOUght and our li'lles, it is important to investiqate their' implications and to ascertain th<lt they have inlell!]-ctual lnteqrlty'. Apatt from io-betweenness, wh.;lt other metaphors ha .... e been used to describe translation, and wilal are the ide(l~ogical lmplicatlcns of tliese metaphors? You mi.ght like to consult, in particular Chsmberlajn (1992), Stahuljak (2004) and CtletJrlg (200S),

R ecommended f u rth er read i ng

Bactlmann-Medil;:l(, Doris (2:00c)) '1 + 1 =. 3? Intercultural Relatl{)ns as a Third Space', trans. Kate Sturqe. in Mona Baker (e-dJ Critical Concepts: TMn5Jation StJ,lrjie5, VOl, Il, Landon &. New York: Routledge_

Bate he 100r,. Kalhryn (200 B) 'Th i rd Spaces, M imic r~ and A twnt 100-1'1 to Amb lva lence: App I)' il'l9 8hatlhi.ul DiscouJ':g,e to Translation Theory', The Trsnsieto« 14{l}: 5J-70,

Ma'Son, ian {2009bl' Role, Positi[)ning and- Disc(llJ,.se ill FaL~ to Face Interpreting', ill Ra.qLlel de

IDEOLOGY AND THE POSlTION OF THE TRANSI.ATOR 215

Pedro Ricoy, Isabelle A. Pe-rez and ChriS-title W. L. Wilson (eds) Tl1terpreril1g ~mi TransIaling in Public Service S~Uing5: PoUey, Practice, P.edagagy, MClJ'Ith~s.te-r; $L Jofrl;ltrle, 52-7~.

Metzger. Melaflie n '99Q} Sign Language Tnterprering; Deconstroctinq the Myth of Neutrality.

Wa:;.hil1gton, DC: Gal~audet U l1i.,.ersit)' Press.

pYn1, Al"lthony nQ'181 \lr1te~llltu ... es', Chapter 11 of Method in Translati{)fl Hjsrof"/, M.ancAestcr: Sl. Je'rtIme, 177-92.

St~h~ljak, Zrinka (2004) 'An Epi5lemoOiogy of Tension: Tr",n::,jaliol"l and MulticultlJrali~m', The Tf'ans/arol" IOn): 33-'57.

SO M E O.F THE M 0 S T ;S E Aile H IN G AND revealing discussrons uf translanou in the last decade- ha v e kx:usro on questions of ideology; indeed, there has been oil productive, ongoing academic dialogue about various facets of the issue, extending for years now. with contrrbuttons from people from all parts of the g1obe_ Ril.i~d principally by those who have an investment ill social tngilgement. questions about the translator as an ethical ... gent of s-ocial change have gone to the heart of born the practice of translation and the theory of translation (see Hermans 1999. Pym 1 "998, Tymoczko 2000). Pan of the ongoing co» .... ersation. this essay is. an attempt to clan fy issues pert.3.ining (0 the posi 110n of the tl'anslamt by teasing out some philosophical implications. of contemporary discourses about translation. Although successful cultural programmes do not necessarily depend on clear and logic.al philosophical premises, in my experience .3. firm cogntnve and theoretical Joundation makes it more pro bahle that ... cukural proj ect will draw together gwups of people and inspire them to work. in concert.

For at least a q uarter century now, i ( has been gene.-alll' agr~M that translation is .3. text about iI. text nr, (0 put it another war. a form of metastarernent (see, for example, Holmes 1994:23-13. Lefevere 1985. I 99l.3.)_ If we put this seemingly innocuous observation i.n an idl_'"Ulogic.al context, {hen we must recognize that th'l: ideology of translation is. qune complex. A translation's ideology Is determined only partially by the cement of the source text - the subject and the represuntation of the subject - even thm1gh (his content may itself be o .... ertly political and enormously complicated as a speech act, \ .. ; rh Ioc uuonary, illocu tlon .... ry and perlocutionary aspects of the source text all conu ibuting to the effeu in IhE!: source context, The ideologica] value of the source text is in turn complemented by the fact that U'a.mJa(ion is a rnetastatement, a statement about tht: source text that constitutes an interpretation of the source text. This is. true even when that rnetast .. arernent is seemingly only a torm of

. reported speech (cf_ J akobson 19 5 9 : 2. 3 3) or q uotation uttered in a new context, for in quoting .a source text, a translator in rum (Kates a text [hat is. a representancn wirh its. 0 ...... ·(1 pwper locutionary, illocunonary, and perlocuuonary forces whi-ch are determined by relevant factors in the receptor CODtexL Thus, even in il simplified model, the ~deology of a translation .... iU be a,n amalgam of the content of the source text and the various speech acrs instantiated in the S01lI'Ce (txt relevant to the source context, I ayered together \'I'ith the representation of the conreut. ~ ts relevance to rhe n.:u==ptor .3. udien ce, and ihe various speech acts of the translation itself addressing the (arge~ context, as well as resonances and discrepancies between these two 'utterances'. I

A concrete example of this layering is found in the well known rl2V.Titing and

216 MARIA. TVMOCZKO

,I'

staging of Sophocles's AnrtQO'Df by Iean Anouilh, produced ill Paris in 1944 during the Nazi occupanon of France, Clearly Sophocles's text had its own ideological significance in i ts nriginal context. Produced fOT the Great Dionysia fesn val held annuall y in Athens, as a soo.ternmt a bou t the dangers. of ryra..nny and the tmportance of heroic resistance to rvranrs, AntigDl'lf' implicitly ukbnno:l Athenian democracy and atterupted to ill5liil indeprnd~f lIOd morol rtSpons.i!J.ility in its audience, iI.S well as frick ill G1ld Ililqj il,IDl;'l! to the ci ty-~ta.h: (If Athens itself, am("mg other things.' When Anouilh transposed Sophocles's pLa~' into French and stil:g~ it for hi 50 own time, however, those early ideological m~anings. VI't:IT' overwritten with (ont'f.mporary meanings: he was implicitly commenting on the Nui occupation of FU.DI.':t, indti.nll' his contemporaries and m~ourostns resistnnee agaimt the Nazis, mllinij fur thnn to eet out agaim.t Nazi usurpauon, Here I've trie-d to emphasiz-e the words. associated with the illccutionary and per locutionary dimensions of Sophocles 's work and Anouilh's refraction. as well as to indicate briefly some of the relevant contextual drmensions that must 'be considered in determining the i.deology of Anouilh' splay.

Ideological effects will differ in ettry case of translanon - even in translations of the same- text - because of (he translator's particular choices on all these various levels - on the levels of representation of the sub] t~H matter, as well as representation of the relevant } ocutionary , tllocutionary and perlocutionary effect'S of the sautee rext, and on (he relevant Iocutionary, illocunonary , and perlocutionary acts in hi'S. 01' her (M'Il name as translator, That is, rhe ideology of a translation res-ides nor simply in the text translared, but in the voicing and stance of (he rranslaror, and in its relevance to (he recet vin g audience. TheSC' latter features are affec.ted by the place of enunciation of the translator: indeed (hey are put of what ..... «:: mean by the 'place' of enunciation. for that . place' is an ideological positioning as well as a geographical or temporal one, These aspects of <10 translation ate motivated and determined by the translator' 50 cultural and id!!!ologital affihanons as much as or e v en more {han b~· the temporal and spatial locauon (hat {he translator speaks from,

Although more extensive and more precise vocabulary p!!!rtairling to (he ideology of translation has been developed in the LIst f~' decades, these i sS'Ue5 of enunciation ha v e been imphcrtlv reco gniz~d fm years in WTlt1 ng about translation, even if not stated explicitly in the terms that I have used above. Thus, tor example, the affiliation and place of the translator were a concern in translation theory as; early as 1 S 1 3 when Friedrich Schlelermacher stated that 'just as a·man must decide to belong to one country, just so [a translator 1 must adhere to one lmgUilge', affilialin,g himself thus. with one particular culture. assumed by Schleiermacner to be the translator's native land (in Lefevere ] 97 '} :8.4; d. discussion in Pym 1998: 1 Ell ff.). The issues behind Schleiermac her's. concerns ha ... e continued to be central in iranslanon scholarship and theory. More than 1 SO years later, for example. in aHempting to delineate a descri ptive approach to translation, Gideon Toury took up questions pertairung to the position of translatlon and translators, stating categorkilly (hal translated texts. are 'facts' of one language and one textual tradition only, namely the tuge:t culture's { 1980 .' g 2 ~8 3), and that translators are 'persons- in -the-culture' of the ~argtt system ( 1995 : 40) ,J Although om: mighr contest Toury' s argument on these potnts, disawe~ment should not obscure [he unpcrtance of his addressing issues; of posmonahty fur the evolution of translation studi-es.

A very nice - al beit brief and circumspect - pragmatic survey of the ".il!:Irty of p!..a.ces. the translator can write from :Is found in an early e:;~ay b}· Norman Simms (J 983). Simms shows how the politics of rranslanon intersects with (he rranslaeor's position. This; i~ true, he mdrcares. no maner whether the translator is. a member of a

IDEOLOGY ANO r n e POSITION Of THE TRANSLATOR 217

pcsrcolouial culture using uanslarion into an rmperial Ianguage as a means of cultura l advocacy or whether the tr anslator hold~ one of the many possible su bjen posi lions within whi-ch tran: ... lalion j_~ produced for members of the t.ar~et culture Itself in a specific ideological complex. Descriptive studies and theoretical arguments b}" many ..... Tlters, mcluding Simms. illustrate that the- translator 0("""11 he posinnned within the receptor culture (the most common c .• ase), within the source culture (01::<;, for example, tn the case of authorized translations QfMao's. \ v ril;tng!l; into English that were undertaken in the People' s Repu bl.ic of China du ring the peri od I 949--79)" or elsew here [as in "" third culture, the case when German philo)ogi~,.rs. translated Irish literature into Englhh and published rhem in German series, or when US Bihle translators; translate the New 'Iestaraent into South American narive languages).

Despite the h.et that the .affi uanon and or ient auon of the tr anslator ha v e been a contmual topic m writing about translation for more than a century. the issues remain an active concern in the field, particularly as they impact 01~ questions of the idf:ology of translation. These .. questions about tile place of enunciation of the translator - both the ideological positioning and the geographical and temporal positioning - are related to tnt recent development within translation studies of a tendency to speak of translarlon itself as a place 01' space somehow disrotned from (or mappable over) the acrual physical and cultural space that the translator occupies, and somehow distinct from the IdeoIogi-caJ pusition of the translator as well. Particularly employed b}· progressive and eng<lged write-rs on translation theory and practice. translauon has been characterized as .q place or a space ilt betwetn other spaces. The locunon o.etwml has become ODe of the most popular means of figuring an clstwhm that a translator may speak from - an elsewhere tha{ lS. somehow drflerent from either theSQW'Ot culture 01' the receptor culture that the translator mediates between - a~ well as the culture the translator hve-s. in - an elsewhere thai is. oiren seemingly not simply a meraphoncal way of spt!aking about id~CtlogJc.U positiom n g" but that ipso ftJ.c1.O affords a translator a valcnzed tdcological stance. An exploration of this discourse ~ including aspects uf its origiu. logi.c, rationale, Ll'i:efuln«$s., and import - takes us to the b eart of the ideulQg y of translation. ~

Let us begm by consrdering specific recent instances of the figuration of tran, .... .jI:(jon as q place irt:CWOOl. Sherry Simon on~rs. convenient exam pies in her excellent and provocative hook entitled Genda in Tl!lru-J.:llioo (19Sl6). Sh~ speaks (ibid,: 162), fur example, of <the blurred edge where origif!ilJ rod copy, fu~t and second Janguagf':s, come to !HeeL The space "between" becomes a powerful and difficult place for the writer to OCl.UPY'. ~he compares the domain uf translauon to The domain of a person with multiple cultural affilii3.riuTIS.; 'the sp.1lu:~ which Bhabha works in is the iirnmary terrain of the nan slanonal , that hybnd. space which stands between rhe certainties of national cultures but rlo~s nut participate ill them' (ibid',; 1 5.3). In her usagop. Simon ioliows Gay.\t..ri Spivak, whose eSo0)3.Y "The Politics of Translauon' (j 9n) b .. _, be-come one of the most tnfiuennal explorauons of {he id€'olugr of rranslauon. Spivak alludes to Translation il~ an activity 'where meaning hops into the SP,KY emptiness between (~"O named h b tori cal languagef) , {i Nd.: I 78) , dearl)" usin g spatial figu r ations. Sim . Jlarl y, in 'Translauon and the Postcolontal Experience". Samia Mehrez asserts, 'these texts written by postrolorual bilmgLliil subjects create J: language "in between" and therefore come to occupy a. ~pKe "in between" , (j 991;! 21). Although examples could he rnuluplled, I these instances ~uffi("t.: to Indicate the type of usage that has prollferated. Wh~· art! scholars and rhcorists inchned [0 use the metaphor of translation as a space - " space 'iI1 between' - ill talking about the hieoJogy of translation and in de-lineating a valorized postnon lor rhe translator W occupy?"

......... -------------

218 MARIA TYM ocz KO

Before addres .. ing this; question directly, we must make il brief detour ro consider what sorts of answers might he considered ad equate . \iVe should note mat a q uestion like 'why do scholars; USe the spatial metaphor of between?' admits. different responses, depending on the different lype~ of causaltry to be considered, There are many lypes of causality. As d starung point on the ~ypes; of answers provided tor the question ·why~·. we can consider the sorts of causes that rntght he glven for natural phenomena, say th e phenomenon of a sneeze, In thi s; case ~ could note. first, the proximate C.3,U5e; In the case of a sneeze, the proximate cause is the rontracrion of the muscles involved in producing a sneeze, Second might be the ultimate cause or the functlonal cause: the ultimate cause of a sru . reze is to expel rnatertal h'om the hl'Ndling passages. Third. could be the ontugenetic cause, the developmental reason fO[ d. phenomenon: In the rase of" sneeze, (he ontogenetic cause js that the organism is exposed to irritants which must he ejected from the organism. Fourth might be rhe phyJo~!:!:netic cause. In biological phenomena, the phylogenelic cause is the causality associ ared .... ith the (" haracte .. istics of the organism' ~ nearest rel anves: th us. in the caseof a human sneeze, the phylogenetic cause is that primates sneeze. hence human hein_g5 sneeze, There would he other wars to respond to such a physiological ques(ion as wen, but these answers suffice for the present context."

A:; is apparent, within rhe domain of this simple biological example, there .3,J"e many different w.ays to ans .... '"f:!" the question 'why?': Mor~oyer. other natural sciences would recognize forrns of causaltty proper to their own domains. with adequate explanation differing from one domain to another {Salmon 1998;323). [11 addition to the t ype~ of causes admitted by the natural sciences. also to be considered are the types of causahties accepted by other disciplines, including the social sciences and the humanities. There are anthropological answers to the qu- . ..'scinn 'why)', philosophical answers, and so forth. These various ways of approaching causality - and the question 'why?' - are nor mutually exclusive. nor do the answers invalidate one anot her (i bid . .' 74-). Thus. in tryin g to answer rhe q II estion before us in the domain of translation studies, wt: shou ld expect anum her of different ways (0 respond that are at ow .. ~ disparat e and yet do not necessarilv undermine 01' contradtcr each other. We- must also implicitly delineate ii. theory of causality for translation studies itself

To turn to rhc main question befor~ us, therefore, one way to ans .... oe .. the question 'why has speakmg of rranslanon a5 a spa~ btlW!rn become popular tn translation studies?' 1:':;, of course, to se~k answers within t!lese estahhshed frames of causality. We might. fur example, tum 10 ph ylogtny and seek a phylogenenc cause, That is, because primates are lrmrators, humans are imitators: as. the Eng1ish proverb puts It. 'monkey see, monkey do' _ Thus, with respect to an academic discourse of the sort We are considering, we See our colleagues usin g a particular figure- of ~pee( h, a trope, or a discourse, and as imitators W~ tend to take up such things ourselves without much reflection. Perhaps the phylogenetic cause in this Instance has to do with the specific behaviour of our nearest relanves and ancestors in an intellectual or en tic ill sense. From an lndividual's pain t of view. the reasoning behind the use of these expressi ens goes something like this: brtwem is il tre-ndy term: if critic X Can use the phrase, so can I; indeed perhaps, so should l, insofar as: r set myself in her lineage - or phylum ~ of thinkers. Clearly in the cast of intellectual pursuits. a phylo~"-!:.Detic came for beha .... iour, while perhaps good for accruing patronage, is not the best tntellectual reason to adopt a mode of tbin1:in g or speaking: we might want to he careful in such circumstances of the impulse to imi me without crltical reflection. Moreo .. ~r. from a phylogenetic perspective. particularly the phylogenetic perspective of creatures who can eject thei r tntellecrual Hne:ages: and choose their critical and theoretical forebears.

IDEOLOGY AND THE POSITION OF THE TG:ANSlATOR 21q

we rnusr ask ourselves whether there an: other hneages, other contemporary thinkers, whom "..,~ as translators and translation theorists might wish to claim .as close 'relatives or 'ancestors', who must he considered as. we approach these questions .regardi.ng translation as being J. sp!kt ~tMm_ Obviously, a phylogenetic reason for spauailzing translation is not the strongest rationale for the me of these tropes,

A second reason for the easy acceptance of the discourse of translation as a space betx .. 'rtlllhay reside in the actual physical location which rhe translator assumes in the archetypa I translation encounter, n amelv the po:t>H ion of the rr anslaior as- i nterprc ter, In many siruations of interpretation, from community interpretation to certain aftJ..i.n. of stare, the interpreter literally stands between two speakers, performing the necess..a:rr vocalizanons of interpretation. turning physicallj' hack and forth as [be work proceeds, occupying a physical 5oPJ.O:: between the principals. This phYSical positionIng v.e miglH identify as the proximate cause for consldenng translation as a spat:~ between and for conceptualizing rhe translator J.S speaking from ill: ["etwwl. a Although this proximate cause deser v ·~~ our consrdcration in assessing the idea of translation as. a space between, we should be war}' of an uncritical ge:nE'!Talization of one physical aspect of the interprerer's role to other domains of the acrivity, particularlv rhe svrnbclic domain of jangu.3.ge transfer Moreover, it is. questionable how lar the phvs~("al location of the interpreter can serve as a hteral or metaphorical gllirle to the i.deolo~lca.J posirioning of a translator of wriuen texts,

Per haps a stron ger reason for COIJet pt ualtzi ng translation in spatial terms has to do with the mi.::,ming and history of the words used lor translarion in certain \oVe~u:!rn languages, Such a reason may he looked un as the ontogenetic - Or developmental - reason for translation being figured in terms of space in Western translarion theory. TIlt'! sou rce of the English word rrarul(Jlioo is. the Latin word wlrulillia, w hi ch means 't:.a.TT}'in,g across' _ Used uriginalJy in the very WIKTete. sense of moving things. through space, includmg both objects iike the rchcs of saint ... and cultural phenomena like learning and power, its meaning .' v .as extended relatively late m ume, during the fourteenth cen rury, and applied to the act ivir}' of inter li n,g ual translation in Eng! i sh (OED s.v.}, This u:';age was pioneered by Bible translators in what seems to be a metaphor i(, extension of more centr al semantic mea run g~ of the word, .... Inch inclu ded the movement from earth to heaven . .as well as the transjerence of thtngs fwm one ~1)C)t to another On earth.

This lexical shift 1:<; in~t:Tf.:stin~ in lite context of earlier usa:ges in the Wes~("rTl tradition. In Old French in the twelfrh century, for example, trio tM.tl:;j(lk In the sense of textual mediation between languages was to put ·rn lOOiClJ1/; this. v: a, standard uSJ.ge all over the Francophone .. vorld, wluch at the time included the British Isles. and such textual mediation could be rather literal. as indicated in certain saints' lives, but more t yp.ically tnvol v ed fai rjl' fret: adapt ari on permi ni n g radical sh i frs of all sorts in vernacular matertals (TYlllucz.k:(") 1 Sl8 6),'" When rhe term tmmlllli.(l.D comes into usc in English in the Iourteenrb rentury. it seems 1.0 be associated with .. new esthetic (}fI ranslarion , one more text based, more orrented to the source text, more literal, and h!5S associated with rhe informal standards of medieval vernacular literature, 00 h(t~: oral interpretation, mel other sorts of refractions: tn short, with translation maregi<:s thar are seen as mort appropriare for the grov..ing movement to translate rhe Blble into the vernacular l.3.n:s~.aRe~. In this regard. the earliest citation of the ..... orrl in the OED is suggesnve: in 1340 in his prologue of his transtation of the Psalms Hampole writes, 'ill the rranslacioun ~ folow the lettere Oils. mykyll as i may'.

Impltctr, [hen, in the .En~lish word translation. and ... s ..... "ell in the words used for tron.ddtir.lrl in the Romance l.a.ngmges deriving from the latin root tmas-duceee, '!O lead

220 MARIA TVMOCZI<O

:1'·

d.CI0$.. s' {e-g- French tiltdUdjoo, Spanish tmluro&t). is the idea of a ~, a spaCf:. that such an act of mediation will cross or bridge. In this historical sense of the word (l'ttnjj(1{iOll, there are similariues with the Greek concept of mttdpb[lrrin, whkh gives the English term metllpnor and which also involves the etymological sense of tllrying across, namely a carrying across of an idea or reladonshtp from one field of ref~l'e:nce to another. Both terms. - rmmtatiOll and met(lphor - Involve extensions of a known concept (specifically the physical act. of cnrying ;u:::ros.-<;.) to new ideas. respecuvely the transposition of texts from one language 1O anomer and the: transposition of an idea or relanonship from one conceptual field to another,

When .... oe explore (he rationale for these words denoting mrerlmgual translation as. mvol ving a ~'«n ina concrete sense, we can hypothesize that these modes of speaking deri V~ from an implici t recognition wt ideas and knowledge. modes of understandmg and Ieanung, are all ultimately local. bound to a specjfic place, a specific cultural framework. and a. specific linguistic mode of construing the world, Indeed, stated this w:ay, such a view seems singuJa.rIy modem, mngment as it is wuh contempor~ry views (hat meaning is Lmgu;tge specific: these argwn.:!nt5 have been developed within translanon studies by scholars such as J- C. Caiford (] '96 S). Such a framework is also stressed by con temporaries writing about the phenomena of _g lohall zarton. Anthony King, fur example, argues (hat (he . autonomy of cultural oompet'f:nce exists at the local level' (1 997 : 1 7 : cf Hannerz 1 99'7 : I "24-) and . meaning onJy e:tisls. wit.h.in ;I language game. a discourse, practices, etc., ne gotialed locally and dtsconnnuously' (King 1997: J 59) .

In earlier times, however, before: {he modern ~ge. the: local nature of knowledge and ideas to be translated was less .. absrract and phiiosophical. Indeed, translanon of such Inca I knowledge rmgbt mvolve a very concrete crossing of space. for it often presupposed physically transporting yoUTht:Lf {tl1I!lsirltin.{j yOl,JT~lf or (Ill'!)' ing )I(lundf ilKlWj) (0 a new place "SO as to learn about the ideas current in that pl.ace, as a precondition of transposing those ideas fcom one Lmguage to another, from. erie Iocal cultural system to another. As. an alternati ve (0 translating yourself across space, of course, you could choose tu translate some source of know le d_g t: a.lTUS5 space to yourse If; such a "SOU£l::~ of m()Wledge might take a variety of fonns -it might be a scroll.x codex, or even a learned p~rson [such as a wise man. captive. me, or other nauve of the source culture), who could then serve as a soun:e an1 mrerprerer of that distant local knowl~dge_ Some mixture of the ('\.\'0 alternati Yes was also posst ble: you might undertake a joutnty to secure a relic and bring it through s.pacE to your own land. so as {O have leisure in your OWn ;S.PdL~ to make the tr an sposuion from one ln1gu.3.ge to another, This idea of translation is graphicallv illustrated in the ancient Chinese l~gend about the ,ourn~y to secure Buddhist scri ptures from India so they could be translated into Chinese; (his tale is at the heart of the legend of Monkey. one of the most popular and productive literary complexes of Chinese culture, but i( intersects with actual histor ical practice a..'\ wel]. In fact me Chinese versions of Buddhi sr scriptures were textually translated in the Great Wild Goose Pagoda. sull standin~ in Xi' an at (he eastern terminus of the ancient Silk Road, after copies of the Buddhist scriptures had. been physically translated along that road to China. The legend of Monkey memorializes for us (lie material conditions of il time when translauon East or Vrlest involved travel and transport across and through sp<lce_

This conceptualtzation of translation, then, derives from a time when the move-ment of religious relics through space was not in fact !>O vt:ry different from the tnnsport<J.tion of the precious ph ysscal and material bases of new knowledge to be transposed into a receiving language. Su-ch 3. source of J.eu-ning - whether a scroll, a

10EOLOGY ANO TH E POS!T]ON OF THE TRANSLATOR 221

codex, or a person - was ltself do relic of another culture, another nme or space, BecaU:'ii~ in Fonner (we. the translator himself might have to undertake or to underwrilt! a dangttom, journey across space in order to secure a precious document or source for translation, to undertake translation was to undertake adventure; the transl.a.tor was a culture hero, one who would brave danger fOT [he sake of knowledge. (The approprjatlOD of this concept of translator as culture hero in lrself mi.ght be an i1.ttra.ctiv~ feature of the current discourse in translation studies elf b.erwttn. especially when used by translators them selves.)

A reason for the appeal of the discourse of translauon as a space between, therefore, is our continued awareness of th e residual sense of these older me.millgs associated with words in Western Jangu..ages pertaining to translation, such as tmasinlion in English or !mdu(:tiOJl in French. as w~1l as OUI historical sense of the difficulty in ancient times. of tra.m.posmg and expanding cultural knowledge everywhere in me world, In this regard, skilled speakers of Eaghsh still know what the translation of a saint is, and most people are .. sn 11 a ..... are that (lWt'l- in unnskUion means • ilCfOSS', a m~a.ning we retain cognHivtl'y in part because of our knowledge of other words with the same: fonna,n t, words such as t.tnnscootlIlmraJ or even the automo bile name Tntns...-4.m_ AJlho'ugh it i~ suggesHve to consider these old meanings. and associations of the Western words for tr anslation, 1M:: must nevertheless be careful of simply and uncritically accepting such old ideas. N 01 only do old concepts sometimes cease to be rilt!vant as. time passes, bur they do not always offer theorencally useful perspectives, lOWe should also be especiall y careful a bout claiming as universal a theoreti cal assertion that is based on the particularities and histunes of a. few We!5tern European languages. lt is not at all certain that such a claim wouJd hold for other languages where the words. fur translarion have dtfferent mean: ng s and hisrorical associations (for example, Arabic Wrjllnm, originally me.ming . biography') _

A more compelling attraction of the notion of translation as a space between - a reason that might be seen as ill functional or fiml L.aUS('" ~ is the rmportance of the concept of !Jltww'l per ~C' in posrstructurahst thought. In chalJe-nging the binary conceptualizations of structuralism which dominated crrrical thought in the mid twentieth century in Europe, postsrructuralists emphasized alternatives to the opposinonal structures and polar opposites of (be structuralism, The concept of hctv.«n epitomizes those .aJternativt!:s - it suggt:sts that nOI only the poles but also all )M positions in bet ween the poles are open for occupanon. Moreover, posrstrucruraltsts were nor alone in mounting S11Ch. crluques and in searching for alternatives to binaries; they were put of'widespread mel generalized developments in lntellectuai history that explored similar issues in Iniilly domains, Perhaps the most notable intellectual development in this regard is an alternative to classical logic that gues by the name of < fuzzy logic': proponents of fuzzy logic advocate alternate ways of viewing basic logical principles, rejocting a fundament-a] principle of classtcal logic ..... hich s;ays chat a proposition cannot be both II. and net -c, a pr inciple called rhe law of the excluded middle, !iU,;l<!:y logic, by contrast, allows tb.3.t a proposition can be both tl and not-a, The standard example: u.. .... u~liy offered of the difference- bel ween fuzzy logic and classical logic is. the glass haJf full of w ater, Is such it glass full or not full? For fuzzy logic such an entity poses no problem, v, r hereas it does for classtcal logic. Along with posrstrucruraltsm and fuzzy logic, developments that reject absolute contrasts can be seen as part of (he intellectual shift associated with rh e breakdown of positi vtsrn in the West.

Although (he views of poststructuraltsts hive: been enormously useful in undermining structuralist binaries, there are lurutations in the concept of ~ as a

222 MARIA TYMOClKO

solution (0 (he problems of strucruralisrn, for not all alternatives to iI. polartty or it binary figuI03.lion Ire on a line between the (W(I contrasted elements . .Fur example, not all the alternatives 10 Claude Levi-Strauss's famous contrast between Ie cru et lr mil ('thlf:' raw and the cooked ') , can be placed 00 a slngle linear scale. ; I Thus, not all polar ities have a single connnuum that we could call in HtwmI. Moreover. it should ot:' remembered that there are some things that do i ndeed operate on binary principles - for example, dtgital computers - and some prupe:J"ties lha( do Jol}ow das.."i:ical logic: 1

Whatever its. logi c al limitations, 03.5 a metaphor bmvmJ ha.s. other values for poststructuralists. Poststructurahst thought has been notable in upposing the idea of iI.Jl absolute O!'igin, the rdea thai values, cultural concepts, or s'l'·sI.-t[lli. of knowledge art grounded on .a bedrock of certainty, ~ha( (hey rest on essentiahst cultural foundations upon which ill else can be built with securrty. Instead cranes in this tradiuon view rdeas, knowledge. thought, language and culture as ",11 being in process. between the uncertainties of the constructions of the pilSoI and the uncertainties of the construct ions of the future. Radler than being founded uFNJn fundamental ur ~ ssential realities, sue II human constructions as langua.ge and cui tun: rest upon il chain of signifiers and in tum gtIltrate a succeeding chain of si gni fiers, This conceptual framework has made the term Dt[wtrn useful, s.ignifyw): the uncertainty that is inevit.1 bly associated wuh cultural consrrucuons.

There is a third value of between as well . related to a more personal and poltncal domain of motivation, that has. made this metaphor appealmg to poststructuralists, The emergence of poststructuralisru is associated ....... nrh the gcn!!!rahon of 1963. and the politics of that generation have coalesced with its critic ill stances. Motivated by a desire to escape collusion with unsatisfactory political :system:;; and rejecting the comprormsed, polarized poli tics of the CuM 'War, some poststructuralists sought an alternative positioning for their ideolo_gic.-.l stance, repudtattng affi.Li.a.tion with euher side in the Cold War. In t he period before rhe dissolution of th e Eastern bloc, this deslre to escape lrorn and to avoid being trapped b}< the polarized dommant political alternatives carne to be symbolized in certain circumstances by the concept of iI spclc.t"! between. This is pa.rt of the reason for the arrracnon of the discourse in translation studies as well.

Then: have he en manto compelling reasons, thus, for crutctsm tu fasten on the expression ~[wttfI and for the term to sugges.t positi .... e ideological connotations. The wncept has been absorbed into translation stuaies. not only became of its use by posts tructur ahst theortsrs of translation but also because of i rs congruence .... ith other aspects (hal make spatial metaphors congental and thai. make g.il.P$ "in nme and sp.ace relevant 10 the ani v it y and process of translation. the physical dimension of interpretarion. the history of U' anslauon in the West and the lu S.IOry of words for translation in certain WesH:rn languil.ges. Although there are no doubt many other causes for the popularity of rhe discourse of translanon as a spac.e betwun. this. brief survey suffices [0 establish jL'i. artractiou to scholars. Let us rurn then to an evaluation and critique of the discourse to assess its implications for the rdeologv of translation.

An tmperanve question ts wherher this concept of translation as a space berween 1S applicable to all facets. of translation, particularly the Hngutsnc dimension of translation. In this regard, we must ask whether poststrucruralism LS, the only intellectual lintag~ to consider in .applying the concept of a spil.1:;:e between to translation and in using the notion in the dtscrpline uf translation SI ud.i I;: s.. Here I think ' .... e must acknow]edge that if lan_iua_g!!: IS seen in pan as <l formal system. <l code. (as ir generally has been i.n modem linguistics), then a spatial concept of 0' anslaaon - the concept of the: tr anslaror as bridging il gap. a tJ.r:1.Wf.fJl, which me translator can be located. within - has

J DEO LOGY A,tIj 0 TH E: POSITION OF TH E TRAN S lATO R 223

iii! very limited utility in translation theory. That h. when rranslanon is conceptualized in terms of transfer between languages as systems, this spatial metaphor of translation biuks down.

In very schernauc terms, here is why. In theories of systems, one is seen as acting or operann g within a system. In the event that one transcends the limits of a gi,,'"eI1 sysrem, One does nor escape system 5- altogether or fall between ~ ystems, but instead one enters another system, ~encr.a1ly a larger sys.totm that encompasses or mcludes the system transcended, This is not simply a view of corm:mporilTy systems theorists (cf Luhmann ] 99.S), H can be traced back LO the work of Kurt Gooel, whose insights and formulations on mathematics have 'Influenced all of rwenrieth-cenrury mrel~ history In the incompleteness theorem Godel demonstrates that q uestions can always. be posed within any formal system (s..ay, artrhmeuc) which cannot be answered in terms of the formal system itself. and that answers to such q uestions are fonnu1ned not outside of systems altogether but within the frame-work of another more encompassing tormal systenj,

Such views Me not restricted to the domains of mathematics and loglc .a...'i- GOOel has articulated them, or to tne domain of systems theory J'f'I 5I!. This is also the direction rut anthropology and ethnography have taken these disciplines have come to acknowledge that an ethnogr.aph~r or anrhropologist em never stand In a neutral or frel<!: Sp;tce between cultures, but 01' necessity operates within some cultural framework, notably the consrraints of his or her own primary cu ltural system. increiSingl y in the social sciences such cultural frameworks within which research is conHu<;:ted are expected to be acknowled ged and specified in the work in some fashion {sec, for example, Clifford and Marcus 1986). tndeed. it is only by rttOgnizing the posiuon that the investigator holds within a svstern that one can understand the ideoJogic.t1 contingenci es and presupposin om of the invesn ganou itself

Clearly these arguments have relevance for both translators and wrtters about translarion, ln extending such arguments and J.pplyin~ such models to translation, we must recognize. for example, rh .. t insofar ilS translators mediate between cultures. the concerns of anthropology and ethnography are relevant to translation, msofar as l;mguages arc formal systems. the findi.ng5- of logic and systems theory should apply to Jingllis;hc activiues like translation, Thus, (me an arguol: that in the act of translation. when a translator imerrogiltE~s a source text on the basis of a target bnguage, me translator transcends the sou rce langwge .3.s. ~ formal system, wi thou! simply switching lO the target la.uguag~ as a formal system. Conversely, ....... hen the larget IMlguage is interrogated USoLng the 50urL~ text ;IS rhe basis of the examination. the rranshror transcends {he target bnguage as fonnal system without srmply reverting to the system of the source langu;tge. The transcendence of both lingUIStic codes in fat.:t puts me translator into a Icrrnal s.ystem tha{ encompasses both Lmguages, rather than being restricted to E!:Hner, How large such an encompassing system will he: has (0 do ·with the closeness of the two languages and two cultures in question, the breadth of the linguisnc PUT\;ew of the rnarertals translated, and so forrh, Whatever the e-xtent of these paramelecs. however, the translator doesn't alrogotlhcr leave the system of Ianguag~ ptr se, nor does the translator str.ictly speaktng leave the domain of euher ur both Janguages. That is. oue must conceptualize the translator not as operating j,e(WMl languages, but as operatmg either m one bnguage Or another, or more properly in a system inclusive of "both SL and TL. a system that encompasses both. I·, Wirh respect to a theory of formal svsrems, there can be no ill bd.WUIl, no fre-e space thai ex::ists ontside systems altogether, separ<lte from a more encompassing system: any inquiry DC statewent or posin on will fill wi thin the f ramework of such a larg er system. Thus, we can

224 MAr:tlA TYM OGZ KO

think of systems as ;I series of Chinese boxes, SO [0 speak, with given systems always nested inside more inclusive ones.

To insist upc>n a ~rwc:t.n existing wnh respect to languages is to a bandon what the modern age has agreed. UPOIl with respeCl to s ystem s. Such a view of a brtwem as occurrmg in translaung from one languagt: to another or from one culture to another 0\1!> sYS[MTI is, therefore, incompattble wi rh a view of .l.mguages as. formal systems thai actually corurruct rneanin g rather than as smictures that merely reflect external, language-free me-aning. This; is. the heart of .. he argumenr I am making here. and the point must be ernpha, ... ized and underscored. Spatial metaphors of translation mly t.e useful and even perhaps natura I in some contexts h,wing to do with translauon, .a...~ the ontogenetic and proximate ca. uses considered above indicate: moreover, the concept of bftwetn mav be useful in certain considerations of Lmguage as a (single) system, as poststructuralisi ugument$ about the bina . ries of structuralism indicate. From theperspe-ctive of translation as movement from one system of language and culture to another, however, the philosophical implications and ltrmtanons of the concept of bmvmI which have been discussed here must be clearly understood. They return I):'; to rt:twgrade PI atonic notions of meaning that were ascendant in the nineteenth century. in which meanings and ideas were thought to exist apart frum and above any Hngutsnc formuliltion:s. L+

In her 19'87 work entitled. Borderlands, focm.iog on Identity questions (If the Spanish-speaklng community that ltves in rhe Southwest of the United States, near the Mexican IUS border, Glori a Anzaldua writes (1 987 ; 20) :

Alienated from her mother culture, alien in the dominant culture, the woman of' color doe.. ... not Jeel safe wrthtn me inner life of her Self Petrified, she can't respond, her fact: caught between los Inkr.srlC'i.o:;, the spaces between the diflerent war Ids she inhabits.

As in the quotes. we began with from Simon, Spivak and Mehrez, AnzaldUa here conceives of ... SjI'OCI!' ~ cult ures, fmm w hich one can (or cannot) speak - or, mutatis mutandis, rranslate. Alth(;ugh Anzald-ua is not. ..... Ti~jng primarily about translation, her writing demonstrates the tendency to use a spatial figuration of between for cultural interface, and her work has in fact been used bt writers. in translation studies as a means of elucidaung the postnotung of the translator, Anzaldua returns us to the central wpic of this essa t·. In view of what has been satd about both the causes for its popular jty and the crtnques that can be levelled il.gilin~t H as a cum:ept, what are the imphcations for the 1JroJOSY of translation in [he use of the discourse of translation as a spate between?

Certainly a first implication is that this discourse grQv.'"S out of \fIIestern views of translation - notably the history of the words. in the Romance Janguag~s and. in i:inglb.h fur the concept (If translati on. Thus. prima facie this if; not a. discourse rhar is eas.ily transferable to other cultural systems - Including cultures with other European Ianguages, The ViL"W of translation as a Spilce between is a model. moreover, that grows out of a particular Western caplrahst paradigm of the translator as an isolated individual worker who independently ,1CLS as me-diator of languages. It does nOI :fit other p.uadig ms of translanon, including the practices used in the People's Republic of China, for example, Of practices in China throughom rime fo .. that matter, where teams of translators have traditionally worked tog~ther, with each member of [he team operating primarily within a. single linguistic and cultural framework. In the latter paradigm of translation practice. me first stage of translation is performed by a

10EOLOGY AND THE POS1TION OF TH'E TRANSLATOR 225

pt:niOD with primary knowledge of and even loyalnes to the source language and culture. followtd by a polishing stage undertaken by someone with clear lrryakies to the receptor language and culture (for example, a nau .... t in the rt:Ltiving ld..nguage often with minimal or no knowledge of the source language), with (he whole process under the eye of an ideological supervisor, ; ~ Such teams and their members are jjlSO b.1O together and severally rooted in a specific cultural context and even an instituuonal framework. OnE: could even argue that the primary rranslanon situation throughout history everywhere and still today in most developing countries - namely oral interpretation - can hardly be modelled as occurring in a space bet we en, where $pil.Ce is understood in terms of culture rather than the physical location of (he interpreter, Thus. it is. pro ble m atic to gWWld an ideo~ogicaJ theory of translation in the historical linguistics and pracrices of a specific group of VV-tstt:rn languages and cultures: ~ is a q uestionable premi se for those see lin g ethical geopolincal change. for il is a. model based on a [rarnework prirnarily grounded in a rather limited range of'Nestern experiences.

Equally problematic are {h~ traces of romannc sensi bility lurking behtnd this discourse, Rather than promuting d view of d translator <l:S embedded in and committed to specifie-d cui t ural aneY'social frameworks and agcndi., ho ... 't. .... 'Cc broad, the discourse of translation as a s;pa.ce. between em bodies a rathe-r romantic and even ~litist notion of thl!..:" translator as poet. If the place of enunciation of the rra .. nslator is a space outside both the WUl'Ce and {he receptor culture. the iranslaror becomes. a :figw~ like romantic poets, alienated fmm a Ileg"i.jl.nce~ to any culture, isolated by genius. This view of the translator is obviously CO[)_ge:ni.li and perhaps even welcome to models of translanon (hat efface the difference between lr.an:slalinl: and (original) WTiting, between translator and writer, [t also coalesces with (he model of the translaior as a dtdllS~ and alienated mtclleceual cut loose from specific. limiting cultural moorings and nanonal affi.li",hollS, suggesting in turn comparison with the political meanings of ~~ to poststructuralisrs who rejected rhe pol iti (".a 1 polarizauons of the CoM WM, I L Again. ho ..... '"1... ..... '"1:.[, we may question whether such ideas about the translator are in fact tvptcal of translators and translatlou practices "WOrld W rde, and whether they are likely to result "in the use of translation for progressive ideological pur~t:1!i,

Moreover. the concept of {he translator as. occupying a space btl .. veen is. hardly one that fits. with historical research in translation studies, nor does it fit with mererialist analyses of translarion. OY£[ and over agilin descriptive studies of translation have demonsrrared rhe connecnon of all facers of translation - from \':':<1 choice to translation s.tnt~gy to publication - ..... ith ideolog}', and they ha .. -e established how translations are grounded in the politics of particular places and times. Rather than being outside cultural systems. descripuve and historical research 00 translation indicares that translarion lS p:nti pris and that rranslarors are engaged, actively mvolved, and affi1ia.ted with ( .. .ulrural movements. (see, fOT example, Lefevere 199 !.a.en .. ~, Tymocz.ko lOO{). Htstorical research rarely supports the vie ....... WU translators ate characterized by romantic ahenanon and freedom from culture, whatever their place of enunciauon,

In part the [intentional) alienation implicu in the model of translation as 11. space between reflects dissansfacnon 'With dominant discourses in dominant cultures, a. feeling one Gill sympathize with. However, to suggest that the only alternative to dissatisfaction with donunam dlscourses b. departure from a culture is, ironically. to affirm implicitly or exphcrtly the view that culture i.<:.. d homogeneous. construct. Here SheIT}, Simon's definirion of 'the translanonal' as 'that hybrid sp.ace which

226 MARIA r ..... MOCZKO

stands between the a11.ailltit5 of national cukures but does n01 parncipare in them' (1996: l 53. my emphasis) stands a :0; an example of the dubious unphcatlons of tr anslation as a space bel ween: We must note that Simon' 50 trope depends on national cultures being monolithic. homogenous, and characrerized by 'certainties' _ These implications of a cultural f:.ttwml contrast markedly with contemporary ideas about culture thal stress the heterogeneity or culture and that assert thou any culture is composed of varied and diverse - e .... en contradictory and inconsistent - competing viewpoints, discourses, and textures (ste H.3.11 1997), which, paradoxic .. lIy. Simon herself elsewhere espouses and enj oms in translation studies (Simon 1996: l 37) . Recent scholarship in many fields has delineated the coexistence and maintenance of minori ty and drvergen: views witht rt cultures, Clearly, from a log leal point of view, the Introduction of or adherence to ideas and values from another culture does nOC ptr se elimmate a iransl a tor - or anyone else, foe that matter - from being put nf her own cuirurc. The suggestiol1 [hat such influence - or even commitment (0 . fOJ"e1 go' idNS - moves a person to a position outside her culture (without even granting the suhj ect a position in the other culture, as the use of bew.·un sugg~SlS) I s a very peculiar notion that contravenes "WOrk about heierogeneicy and hybridity (hat has emer~~d in recent explorations of th~ conditions of the diasporic modern world and that can beprojected backward in time ;IS. well. One can, of course, choose to reject such views and assert that the only discourses of a cul ture that mum are dominant diSA..XlW"SeS, but to do :1;0 would pm one very much our uf the mainline of current explorations of culture as <I varied JDd heterogeneous. construct. Such a position would clearly nor be a step forward for translation theory. It rs important therefore to look at the lugic.3,1 implications of vocahularv before it ts adopted, interrug.3.ting in this regard the ideologiu! discourse of translation as a SP,KI2 between,

Finally. horn (he point of view of the i.d~ology of translation, the discourse of translarion as a sp<lce bet-ween ts problemauc became it is misleading about the nature of engagement {ltr se. Whether translation is initiated for political purposes from a SOllee€: culture. from a receptor culture, or from some other third cult me, rr anslation as a successful means of tngage-mtnt and social ch.ul~e -like most political .. cnons - req uires affihanon and colleen ve action. The discourse of a space between ObSC11 res the nece~ilY of such collective work - even If tr is the minimalist collective action of attending to the: practical needs of getting a translation pu blished and distn bu led. Effecti ve calls for translators tf...l acr af; ethi ca I ag-en:t<; of social change must intersect with models of engagement and collecti ve action. This the discourse of translation <IS .3. space between abandons.

As. Anthony Py m has c hromcled (J 9"92 ; chapter 7), the loyally of translators is a lei. trnoti f in translation hi srory. Questions do bout the loyalty of a transla tor arise not because (he translator inha bi ts a space between. with affiliations to that space between, but because the translator is m f.a-cr all too committed to a cultural framework. whether that lramework is the SOurce culture, the receptor culture. it third culture. or an international cultural framework (hat includes both source and receptor societies. Loyal to dissident ideclogtes internal to a culture, or to affiliauons and agendas external to a culture, the rra .. nslaror can easily become [he traitor from w nthln or the agent from 'Without. The problem with translators for dominant centres of po .... 'e! Is not that translators are bet .... ~en cultures and cultural loyalties, but that they. become all too involved in divergent ideologies, programmes of change, or agendas of subversion that elude dominant control. The ideology of translation is indeed a result of th e translator' s positton, but that position is not a space between.

[OEQLOGY AND THE POSlT10N OF THE TRANSLATOR 227

Notes

On speech ac:~ theory see: Ausdu (t 97.5), St:;u11: (1969} and Sprrocr and Wilson (1995.), The: ideobglt:a.l a~pt=t:~ of reported speech h..l'l"('" beec dtscussed by volciinov (197 U 4'9. IT.) and Parmentier (1993). A (:Clompn: herisi .... e study of translanon as reponed speech I:" fuund in folhrt (1 ~91). 5~ also Gutt (2{lOO). Hermans (LOGO: l69} and Mm~{)p (199'8).

'2 MtitJm is the first of the Theban pl.ll~ written by Sophocle», perk)nTlcd in Athens probably in «1 or -til s.c, AL thr:: time the democratic :>)':'t!:'1Tl was firmly entrenched in Athens and the pr-t='llailing idwl{)!!:)· cmphastzcd 1'r~1(' speech, free associadon, and open access to pUVf~r, [irnited hy h,.·altr tel rhe laws 01" the ptHil. These ideals were being acu vel 'I nt=g(JItiat~d wuh the ~Ii~n Le~g:l.le and Sames, ill particular, h,mn!!,': been established in Sarnos tnittally t.~ ... camp~ign of 40 .. hips frum .... thens, Al the period [If Sopboclrs's play, however, the ohg~rch& of Sa.I:t"lr.:J.S were seerrungl 'I fnm'l':nting scccsstoe hom pro· Athenian rule. I.n ++ l--'!-O, .l.f[et' the ~ta.ging (If t hr- p1 a}i , Mhem responded wtth a second expedulon to Santos. tbi..!; time a b~ )~lin.l:: of 60 ships under the leadership of Pericles and Sophocles h~m:i-f:lf, -rl1:::l.Lgmd ro rt::m(W(" tl1('" rebels and restore ,jemucrdlk, prn-Athenlan rule ro rhr i:l.l3,fJci. ThU5 me plLlY ...... as :s.tolged ~g';l . .iI~:"L a. highl)' pohucized hi:>lCtT~".-.l background and irs discourses were probably Ideokl:gical in w-ry specific ways, in addition to [he general ones emphasized h~T1:. See Sophocles (1 '99'9: 1-4, l'n:n-4).

l These notions h~ ..... e beeo nULh' debated. Se1:. f{)r example, 11'U1 (L ':>'9 a: 1 t» ff) and Hermans (1999: 4 a IT) _ as w1:~1 a~ sources d ted, Thor· imJlo3("t (If rranslarion OL1 m;I,[)~· conremporarv writers - fmm Bmgr.s to Kuridera - whnse status '<It home' was immediately enhanced I»"· the eranslaticn I1f their works into Enghsh or French Is d lri ... Ial refutation nf Toury's .it~', despite the importance of his in~igll[~ about descripti .. ·t= apprnaches to translation in :gCTI<:'1"d

-+ This is ~ topic that [J LUn:- people than my~c I r have set their rn mds to J aru particularly indebted to Annk I:lri~:«':t ..... ill ... whorn Y\·"(' had conversanons on this LOpJ(: and ....... 1.(.1 has herself published Q[1 this topic (19'H). Although ..... "of: come Lu strrular conclustons, "''1:' approach the issues from somev .... h<il ddT1:rew directions. The irnportancr of 1Lnckr:<;t,;,nc'iing the imphcations of discourses and ml::laphor.;. ahour translation fOT both the history of lr'iulSl.a[iu!l and the ~h~( )ry [)f translanon has been i ncreastngly recognized. Gro undbreaking studlcs, w ith lrnpllcarions fm th~ i<i.~ol(lg}' of [Y4 . nslanon are [ound IIJ Hermans (19B5b) arid (Chamberlain 1992}, On In", general f.ignlfLc.l.Ilt.:t= of metaphors filr the srrucrurarton of thought, see Lakoff and [ohnsun (19&1J). Becaur ... t= mctapbors have i.:-l(':l)log~c~l power LInd also structure our tl Luu:;ht and nu r lin~~, it i:<. imrortaot to tnvesrigare their implications and [0 ascertain that thrjhavr intellecrual integrnv.

'> E;)r example. rhe trope is ime~rd.1 ro [he a.rgu[h~nt in lser (l9H). Bri:l..<;r.t {199'i) ()ni-"r~ an excellent cntiq ue of lser' s .P0~llJ"-'Il, a.r~LJi[lg lllat his view i:;. 1Lhi.m<ll~dr utopian rather chan prug.r.:u~uniuit.: fur translauon pa 51:.

I'i Translation srudles is nnt .1100('" in lI50inJ_l spatial metaphors. The}' ha ..... e become popular in other domains of contrrnporary culrure .. md are perhaps most remarkable In 1angua!:e pr.l"t:;\ining: to computer acri vines. as e.:.;elllpIHi~ b'l such terms as cyberspece, ehcr room~, W~b ~!(e:s, Mid SO forth. Koppel] (200{l) :sug.l::1:~t.~ that spatial ¥O(:.iI"h\ll3,I)' 11;l~ been adopted in the dnrnalu of L.:I}mpLu~r.<. to g:i v c it "'t~I1..I$, notably ro avoid comparisons wiili television. to avoid drlwngrol.:-ling i~ to the status of a mere medium, and lU avnid the :;.ug:!i:e~ti{ln trot 'i,.Veb denizens axe passive reCJP.elLl~ of electrnnlc ~igrlah. MI'"t.3rnm~ -of Spolce rnake the lnternet seem more intriglling and n:citin~, hdping f(I sell {"ompu~er& and related products. ~uJ"e'[)'·~r, ~patJ.aJ rnetaphor« arr r3,rt (If ..... flJi. n~s J.~lowed rhe .l10~'ernme:m w cum!:;[J deci~i{ln~ ahour tbl'" lriKITI(!t 1("1 profu seeking companies and commercial Interests, s..I.:r:willg it~ .:-l{" ... .eloprnenr to f<l~'olU the corporauon rather than the indtvtdua] or :>odcty a!i- a whole".

7 Abo rrou bled tt:.-. issues of causalu j , Py ill rests a similar discussion (}TI lh.(" t~·~~ Clf.;- a\.~~ li ti ~~ di~lh~:& l.J]!;be-J b). l\..ri..!;t.oli1:: tbe matr-ri..ll c: a. 1]:1.[" , rh€:' fin d C ~\I ~e, th€ form~ ('.l.me_ J.Ho:f lbli: dfici~m camr- (19'9"8: L44-r,.~) Y .. m ~dop'l:ing .a. some ...... )w bruaae.r fra.mot=WUrl Lhan Pym .:-lOl:~, ;n(orpor~Itng ClJrrem thinkmg abOLll (:.iu:s.ility iLL th~ t:ontt':mporary sLi["nc~!>. I'm .3 gener.a.1 dhcu.s~UJl t)f Cdll!ia.ill)· anti explanatJOrI, :<.(:(' S-.llm-on {199-8); I ~m also indebted to ]lJllallll.l. Tym0c;d.;.{) for a~per.:t~ [)f th(" argl..lm("rlT, a5 Wl!'!ll .\5 to [f\'en DeVore.

3 TIJ..i~ i~ pr=rba~ om" h£:tm in"'piring the title B.ttwem for Ch.rhut:le Brooke-Ru~e'!i llu ... el dlH..lUl a ~i mLlltuJ('"flm in t('Tpr~~("r, who li~erill)' med~~le~ III Ihe SI) uod dldnlld tlel wet=n the "'Pi;'~ kt"r' ~ voic~ .. md the alJdieno::e' s e<il". III wr Itll!ll :!;tudie~ about tran:!;bhnn, it i ~ al~0 rebtNl to

228 MAiRJA TYM OCZ KO

the graphological representation of the lriUl~I;j,~or (and the translator's rnediaunn] as po:s.i.tloned betv .. een the source language and ~j{[ on the one hand, and the target W"lgmg~ ol..lld text On the other, realized "'.Hiousry in diagrams, sue h as. the 10 !.I ow =s : Sf .,. Sl. ---'0 TT;ll'Is1l.[ti'I" -4 IT + Tl

SI VerllaCIil.:lr translarion procedures in the Mi.ddle Ag~ show certain amgruel'lU':5 with !.hr: processes of translation in oral tT.a.clltion (Tymocno T990).

10 For example, DesL.:artE"50·S ..... i~ rh ... l .mimilio (but not humans] are machines L~ one that f-E'W ...... "OlIM ~ inclined to accept in a pust-D.lt'Wi.uia'['l period, in light of the v.a..o;t evidence bulh up b~ the Life sctrnces In tile last crruury, ittl1S[f.tting the essenual continuitles be ..... reen

human belngs and other animals, .

1 ~ The structuralists' dJdJO~om'l of'rhe r.a.w and the u)t.'}ked no longer convinces In put because experience 'In OIJ:r {~ kitchens shows other opri ons. The nov.. the rooked, and the rotten. The ra' .... , the cooked, and lh(' burnt. The r.lw, the marmated, and the (:u.okd. The r .. w. (he feruknt",d. the salted.the pickled, the dried, and the cooked, Or, when ~hings are ~ f!l1tJu. It'i(' perked)' raw-and-cooked, Whik I [all:: sldes with the postsrructuralists here, ~t the same ti me. it' S also dea.r rh .. t these .illterruli ves do lUlt I~ll On 1 single 5.C.1le between the raw and the cooked. Is tile dried mnre or le5.S cooked than the !;a!r~d. for example? Anel how does each of tho:!>!" relate In rhe rotten? Impossible 10 say, because there is n(> single criterion tn,u wuuld guvc:rll such .I.~ignmr;:nt:'\. See my tre.HmNlr of these issues as the}' IT:l.m~ eo rranslauon irj TyrnO<'Zku ( 1 9 99 -chaprer .. ) _

1'2 logiciau:\. often offrr as .Ul example thr- proputy . p:re!!:n a nt": a person is t=lt~1I!1' pregnant Or nor pregnant - yon c.rn· L ho= ha.lf-)irc:i!:llID1, ur a little pregnam. (J[' on me eontinuum berween p.rt:gn,uu and not pregnant.

1 j Thi:'i. is w ha! lies. behlnd Pytn' ~ concept (]f an lnterculture (! 998: chapter l l ) _ Hi.~ dia:l!lram of the translator's po~jtion (il>i".: 1 77) Iridic ... tes thar tile translator inhabtrs the [unction (J[' union of 1 ..... 0 lin~umic and ('L1lwT.,11 SYSll::m5, represented as the space- shared hy fWO {n"("Tb.ppln:!o: circles, but one could perhaps more aocurarely dugrIDl the siruation as {Wo small drOes enclosed wi tlli n .l ~~T one. a scherna more compati ble with some conreptions of b1li.ngu;llj ism E':l:.plorr.q In translation studies [see, for example. Oksaar 1978). Acrually both represenrations au: very schcrnatized and ultimately in a dequaie representations ufthe complexity of hum.1n cultures alld la..agu.ages which are open 5ys.l~m:o;. rather than closed ones, as rbe d..rd(':'; ui ~ucl, di.l.!:Tams would :)ug:l!lot::~l.

14 Thr implrcanons fUT UJ assessment of Spi .... ak. f-nr example, are thus clear: although she is at rhe t:Utting ttl~r. of bdn,ging French _prJ!>r:<.tTucruraIht the<Jry intc an J.'nglhh-bllguage context, her views of translation a...~ ;II movement bt=t';. ... "I1"en fOIm~1 £.)',!;I.ot::m:s are palOldoxicaUy fa.lrly ~gre~lvc phrlosophi c.illy met at tile same time somewhat )l.al ve, irollic.ally impJyiog ol. Pb~onic view oflang\'-ASe.

I 5- !n the il:arly dar!. 01' rranslanon in China, therr were often even more ~tag~~. with oral recitation 01' :readin:l;: of the 50UKt: texr 'by a srej,tet" of the source Illigl.lage conjomed with ad hoc oral transl .. non [)f the ~t:.xt p;lliSd,,Rt= by passage by a 'iJ.lIingnu. The material W,4S then transcribed into '\ .... ruten l~gualle 'by a Ihlrd learn member . and polished and finiliud by }"t':~ 01 fourth, the laucr C'WC nf whom mi ght not know UlC:: source rang uagt: iit .a.1I.

l6 I'o;ot lO menriou thr drop-out meutalrtv of\llot:: generallol'l of 't,.8 in the UnitE'd States,