Translation Translation (review)

This sizable volume contains thirty-eight contributions by thirty-seven scholars from a dozen countries on five continents. The range of approaches taken to the problems of translation is just as broad: beside the expected coverage, the reader finds sections on ‘Biotranslation’ and ‘Translation between organic and inorganic’, with two papers each. The organizers of this collection encouraged an interdisciplinary perspective by asking participants ‘to focus on intersemiosic translative processes beyond human languages’ (16).

In her introductory essay, ‘Translation and semiosis’ (17–37), the editor proposes a typology of translations and coins an elaborate terminology: in the biosemiosphere, she distinguishes between intersemiosic (across sign systems) and endosemiosic translations (within a single sign system); in the anthroposemiosphere, she lists ten types of translation, among them intersemiotic (where a language occurs), interlinguistic (across languages), endolinguistic (within a single language), and diamesic (between written language and speech) (19).

The papers are subdivided into nine sections. The statement in the preface that ‘reflection on translation … necessarily involves semiotics’ is stressed throughout the book, two sections of which reference Charles S. Peirce in their titles: ‘Peircean semiotics from the viewpoint of translation’ (163–231) and ‘Translation from the viewpoint of Peircean semiotics’ (233–67); Peirce and his work are referred to in over one third of the articles.

To comment on the extensions of the concept of translation to nonhuman and other contexts: according to Kalevi Kull and Peeter Torop, ‘biotranslation … occurs as a general process in message transfer between the Umwelten of organisms, including both intraspecific and in some cases also interspecific translation’ (315). Studies of interspecific communication are not new and certainly are of interest to scholars in several fields, but this reviewer fails to see how introducing the concept of translation would advance such studies. Douglas Robinson uses cyborg theory to suggest new ways of thinking about translation and to redirect computer-aided translation research and its applications.

The sociocultural anthropologist—more specifically the ethnographer—would enjoy several articles in the section ‘Translation and cultural transfer’ (387–474). Myrdene Anderson makes the point that ‘translation comes into play with respect to speech habits and linguistic codes, but equally essential to the endeavor [of the ethnographer] is translation in the realm of social behavior and cultural codes’ (394). Eugene Nida, who probably has had more experience in the practice and theory of translation than anyone else, has contributed to the collection by discussing, in clear language, some of the similarities between language and culture as they relate to the problems of translating.

Many of the contributions are very technical and some of the rather extravagant terminology used in them is not easily transparent (a sample: corporeal semantics, eutranslation, semihypercyborgs, semiotranslation, and transsignness). The reader will be surprised to learn from how many different angles a scholarly discussion of translation can proceed. Unfortunately—in this reviewer’s opinion—translators of poetry and art prose will not be much enlightened; good translations—just like inspired cooking—are at least as much art as they are scholarship.