8.789, Disc: review of Translating by factors

[linguist at linguistlist.org]

LINGUIST List:  Vol-8-789. Mon May 26 1997. ISSN: 1068-4875.

Subject: 8.789, Disc: review of Translating by factors

Moderators: Anthony Rodrigues Aristar: Texas A&M U. <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Dry: Eastern Michigan U. <hdry at linguistlist.org>
            T. Daniel Seely: Eastern Michigan U. <seely at linguistlist.org>

Review Editor:     Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

Associate Editors: Ljuba Veselinova <ljuba at linguistlist.org>
                   Ann Dizdar <ann at linguistlist.org>
Assistant Editor:  Sue Robinson <sue at linguistlist.org>

Software development: John H. Remmers <remmers at emunix.emich.edu>
                      Zhiping Zheng <zzheng at online.emich.edu>

Home Page:  http://linguistlist.org/


Editor for this issue: Andrew Carnie <carnie at linguistlist.org>

=================================Directory=================================

1)
Date:  Sun, 25 May 1997 11:11:21 -0400
From:  Larry Rosenwald <lrosenwald at WELLESLEY.EDU>
Subject:  Sean Golden's review of _Translating by Factors_

-------------------------------- Message 1 -------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 25 May 1997 11:11:21 -0400
From:  Larry Rosenwald <lrosenwald at WELLESLEY.EDU>
Subject:  Sean Golden's review of _Translating by Factors_

I read Sean Golden's review of Gutknecht & Rolle's _Translating by
Factors_ with great interest;  when finished, though, I found myself
wishing the review had been longer, and wanted to ask Mr. Golden
whether he'd consider saying a little more.
	Specifically:  towards the end of the review, Mr. Golden writes, "I
think that field of text linguistics in general should be fitted into
a more panoramic view of the role of language as a social phenomenon.
I do not think that questions involving semiotics and ideology, for
instance, can be divorced from the linguistic analysis of a text.
Rule-based text linguistics runs the danger of being too
positivistic."  This seems to me a very important issue; also, it's
connected to something I've observed.  I am myself a translator, and
have written about literary and biblical translation, and know fairly
well some of the texts that count as translation theory among literary
translators: Walter Benjamin, "The Task of the Translator";  Martin
Buber and Franz Rosenzweig, _Scripture and Translation_; Henri
Meschonnic's work; Robert Bly, _Eight Stages of Translation_; Valery
Larbaud, _Sous l'invocation de Saint Jerome_;  Rosanna Warren ed.,
_The Art of the Translator_;  Edwin Honig ed., _The Poet's Other
Voice_. It's my impression that almost none of these texts counts as
translation theory among linguists and non-literary translators.  And
the texts that count among these latter groups don't count for the
literary translators I know and read.  So clearly there exists,
empirically, exactly the sort of "divorce" Mr. Golden warns us
against.
	And that's why I'd like to hear him talk more about it (or would like
to hear others talk about it, if these issues interest them).  From
his review, it wasn't quite possible for me to see clearly or in
detail exactly what sort of "rule-based text linguistics" Mr. Golden
was worrying about, or just how it risked "being too positivistic."
Probably he was honorably keeping to a word-limit;  but the issue he
raises is important, and I'd love to see some further discussion of
it.
	Best, Larry Rosenwald, Department of English, Wellesley College

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-8-789