Click here to return to publications page
Intercultural
Empathy and Egocentric/Other-Centred Translating
Patrick
Boylan, University of Rome III (Italy) <
>
Extended
abstract of the paper
presented at the 2nd
annual
IALIC
conference,
Living
in Translated Worlds: Languages and Intercultural Communication,
Leeds Metropolitan University, December 1-2, 2001
"All communication is
translation," as Steiner reminds us (in Katan 1999). For even
when we explain an event to someone using our native language, we end
up translating what we mean: we
transpose
one order of representation into another by turning
our mental imagery into verbal concepts in function of our
interlocutor's presumed capacity to understand.
If
this is so, then interlingual translation may be termed the
systematic practice of intercultural communication. The present paper
adopts just such a view and uses it to answer four key questions
raised in the Conference announcement:
1. "How
are we to understand and theorise the experiential role of
translation in Language and Intercultural Communication (henceforth,
LAIC)?"
2. "How should our pedagogic practices develop
so as to reflect new theories?"
3. "To what extent
does our new theorising impact on notions of the nature, quality and
accuracy of a translation as traditionally dealt with?"
4.
"Should translation be a core feature of a LAIC curriculum? What
form should it take?"
Briefly put:
1.
The act of translation is not simply the transposition of lexical
items or pragmatic units (speech acts). It is essentially the
transposition of existential states. Good translators "live"
a source text as a communicative event by first introjecting the
cultural values of the epoch or milieu in which the text was framed.
Like actors, they acquire a new identity with every text they live.
Translating, then, is, for them, the search for functionally
homologous "roles" (existential states) in the target
culture -- after, of course, having first introjected the cultural
background and expectancies of the (presumed) target public. In
rendering this second existential state in the target language,
translators create a "translation", i.e., a
target
language
text capable of producing effects functionally homologous to the ones
that the source
language
text produced on its readers or listeners
(Boylan 1999).
It is clear then that, at its core, the act
of translating is not centered on a search for "words"
so much as on a search for functionally homologous existential
states within the target culture. Once translators have found
such states, they then become authors, not word-transposers. In
expressing those states in the target language, their activity
closely parallels the creative writing process that the author of the
original text undertook within the framework of the source culture –
although, of course, to guide them in their recreation, translators
have before them the original text which they may (indeed, must)
plagiarize to the fullest extent possible.
2. The
pedagogical consequences of this view of the translation process are
two: 1. translators must learn languages, not just as formal
systems of representation, but, in particular, as modes of being; 2.
translators must learn to be creative writers in the target language
they intend to use (generally their native tongue). Both kinds of
knowledge may be termed empathetic. For translation -- as all
intercultural communication -- is founded on a displacement of the
self through empathy.
Traditional university programs for
translators generally fail to teach either kind of knowledge: they
teach L2 linguistics and the pragmatic interpretation of speech acts
(treated as “texts”) but ignore L2
ethnolinguistics and the participant observation of speech acts lived
as events; moreover, they take for granted that students are
naturally competent as creative writers in their native tongue and
need no special training (rarely the case). For more on this, see
Byram & Fleming, 1998.
3. The specific kind
of education received tends to produce a specific kind of translator.
Traditional programs, emphasizing language-as-a-conceptual-system
and neglecting creative writing, tend to produce egocentric
translators, i.e., translators unable to displace themselves into
the cultures of the source text and the target public. Egocentric
translators reproduce their own experience of a text from within
their native cultural framework; moreover, they use words the way
they (and not necessarily their presumed readership) react to them.
Little wonder that they communicate mostly to themselves.
Instead,
the pedagogy indicated in point 2. can help students become
other-centred translators, capable of the double
transformation of consciousness described in point 1. This enables
students to communicate the otherness of a text to readers who have
cultural/existential backgrounds different from theirs and from that
of the author of the text.
4. Learning to translate
professionally constitutes a specialty discipline and should NOT be a
core feature of a LAIC curriculum: it simply requires too much
time to become creative in one's L1 and to acquire the tools of the
trade (how to create and use glossaries, how to define clients'
needs, etc.). On the other hand, a course focused on the core of the
translation process -- the equating of existential states -- could be
quite useful in a LAIC program. One such course, conducted at the
University of Rome III, is described in this paper. Students narrate
(in an L2) culturally-connotated real-life events. This means
translating their "Italian" experiences into words and
imagery that create a homologous effect on a native speaker of
English. Success is measured by testing, in real-life encounters
organized outside the class, if the observed reactions of native
speakers of English, upon hearing or reading the target text, are
similar to those of Italians when hearing or reading the original
culturally-marked event narrated in the source text.
Bibliography
P. Boylan. 1999. "La traduzione in un
corso di laurea in Lingue" [Translation in a University
Language Degree Course]. In: P. Pierini (Ed.), L'atto
del Tradurre, Rome: Bulzoni, pp.
129-151.
M. Byram & M. Fleming. 1998. Language
Learning in an Intercultural Perspective: Approaches through drama
and ethnography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
D.
Katan. 1999. Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators,
Interpreters and Mediators. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Click here to return to publications page