On Translation
A Response to Michelle Fram-Cohen
by Tom Radcliffe
Date: 2000-11-04
Forum: Enlightenment
Copyright: Tom Radcliffe
Introduction
Michelle Fram-Cohen's enquiry into translation includes three separate theses:
- A defense of what translation is and what makes it possible
- A review of claims that translation is impossible
- Some philosophical background on what motivates people to say translation is impossible
This is a lot of ground to cover for a short essay, and not all of Fram-Cohen's arguments are equally persuasive. I argue here that her positive case for the possibility of translation is more powerful than her analysis of the opposing view, and deserves a more central place in her essay. I further argue that her argument can be augmented by consideration of J.L. Austin's theory of illocutionary acts, as described by Searle. This augmentation brings poetry within the scope of Fram-Cohen's approach, whereas naively it would seem to lie outside it.
Rather than the existing structure of the essay, I would have rather seen it open with the question: "To what in reality does TRANSLATION refer?" Fram-Cohen answers this question in the closing paragraphs:
Translation
"the transfer of conceptual knowledge from one language into another"
I think there are problems with this definition -- knowledge exists in minds, not in languages -- but it is certainly a reasonable starting point. Opening the essay with this definition, and using it to analyze the claims being made against the possibility of translation, would clarify and strengthen Fram-Cohen's case.
In this essay, I first consider Fram-Cohen's presentation of ideas that suggest translation is impossible, and then focus on how to extend her theory beyond conceptual knowledge by considering the role of the subject and the theory of illocutionary acts.
I am not a translator, and in fact am currently almost mono-lingual, having not used German -- the only language I've ever translated anything from -- in many years, and having recently used French only to read newspaper articles. As such, I am in the uncomfortable position of an ignorant amateur arguing with a professional in her own domain, but have chosen to throw caution to the winds and state my case as forcefully as possible, with the awareness that this may make me look foolish to more knowledgeable eyes.
CONTINUED 1 2 Next »