INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION - PART I AND INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION - PART I AND IIII

BY FLORENTINA BATISTA

I.D. 9-70-90

UNIVERSIDA LATINA DE PANAMA

HOW THE TRANSLATION FALL INTO THE FIELD OF HOW THE TRANSLATION FALL INTO THE FIELD OF STUDIESSTUDIES

HOW THE TRANSLATION FALL INTO THE FIELD OF HOW THE TRANSLATION FALL INTO THE FIELD OF STUDIESSTUDIES

ACCORDING TO JAKOBSON, TRANSLATION

FROM ONE SYSTEM OF SIGNS, SUCH AS VERBAL

SYSTEM INTO ANOTHER SYSTEM OF SIGNS, AS

NON VERBAL SYSTEM DEFENITLY FALLS INTO THE

FIELD OF TRANSLATION STUDIES.

JAKOBSON, FOR SOME REASON, DRAGGED INTO CLASSIC

ESSAY ON THE LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF TRASLATION, PROBABLY

THE MOST QUOTED TRADUCTOLOGICAL ESSAY EVER, IT WOULD BE

BETTER, FOR THIS REASON TO CONSIDER IT AN ACTIVITY THAT

ENABLES US TO REDESIGN THE TRANSLATION PROCESS FROM

NEW (THEREFORE, VERY INTERSTING) POINT OF VIEW.

WHY THE INTERSEMIOTIC WHY THE INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IS CONSIDERED AS TRANSLATION IS CONSIDERED AS A CLASSY ESSAY INSTEAD OF A A CLASSY ESSAY INSTEAD OF A

BORDERLINEBORDERLINE

SEGRE SUGGESTION FOR REDESING A TRANSLATION

TO REDESIGN A TRANSLATION NEED TO EXPAND CONCEPT OF TEXT. DEVELOPING A METAPHOR IN WHICH THE WORDS FORMING A WORK. THIS METAPHOR ANTICIPATE THE OBSERVATION ABOUT THE COHESION OF THE TEXT, HINTS, IN PARTICULAR, AT THE CONTENT OF THE TEXT, WHAT IS WRITTEN WITHIN WORK.

IF WE INTERPRET THIS IN ITS BROADEST SENSE, WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT SEGRE IS REFERRING TO “WORDS” AND “WRITTEN”, WE CAN TRANSFER THE CONCEPT OF TEXT TO ANY WORK, EVEN MUSICAL, PICTORIAL, FILMC WORKS.

STEINER ALSO AGREES WITH THOSE WHO INVOLVE INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IN THE BROADER SCINCE OF TRANSLATION.

NOW WE WILL TRY TO PROVE THAT IT IS USEFUL, FROM THE METHODOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW, TO INCLUDE INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IN THE SERCH FOR A GENERIC DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSLATION PROCESS.

FIRST, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES BETWEEN VERBAL LANGUAGES – THAT ARE DISCRET, AND ICONIC LANGUAGES; SUCH AS A PAINTING AND FIGURATIVE ARTS IN GENERAL THAT ARE CONTINUOUS. THAT MEAN, THAT IN DISCRETE LANGUAGES WE CAN TELL ONE SIGN FROM ANOTHER, WHEREAS, IN CONTINUOUS LANAGUAGE THE TEXT IS NOT DIVISIBLE INTO DISCRETE SIGNS.

PROVE USEFUL OF PROVE USEFUL OF TRANSLATION TRANSLATION

EXPLANATION OF LOTMAN

• LOTMAN EXPLAINED THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE AN EXACT

TRANSLATION OF TEXTS FROM DISCRET LANGUAGE

INTO NON-DISCRET AND VICE VERSA, IT DEPENDS ON

THEIR PRINCIPALLY DIFFERENT NATURE. DISCRET

LINGUSITIC SYSTEMS, TEXT IS SECONDARY IN REALTION

TO SIGN, CAN BE DIVIDED DISTINCTLY INTO SIGNS.

HOWEVER, CONTINUOUS LANGUAGE TEXT CAN`T BE

DIVIDED INTO SIGNS, BUT IT IS SELF A SIGN.

• THEREFORE, ANY KIND OF COMMUNICATIVE ACT,

INCLUDING ANY KIND OF TRANSLATION PROCESS, IS

NEVER COMPLETE, WE ALWAY HAVE A LOSS.

INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATIONIN GENERAL

IN INTERSEMIOTIC TRASLATION, LIKE IN ANY KIND OF

TRANSLATION IN GNENERAL, INSTEAD OF PRETEND THAT IT IS

POSSIBLE TO TRANSLETE/COMMUNICATE EVERYTHING, AGAISNT THE

EVIDENCE, IT IS ADVISABLE TO TAKE THE LOSS INTO ACCOAUNT

FROM THE START.

CLUVER SAY THAT A TRANSLATED TEXT IS INEVITABLE NOT

EQUIVALENT TO THE PROTOTEXT, AND AT THE SAME TIME, IT

CONTAINS SOMETHING MORE OR SOMETHING LESS WITH RESPECT

TO THE PROTOTEXT. IN SUBTANCE, WHAT HE SAYS CAN BE LINKED

TO WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID ABOUT THE DOMINANT OF THE

TEXT. BEFORE APPROACHING A TEXT, THE TRANLATOR MUST MAKE

A SERIRES OF DECISIONS AIMED AT PINPOINTING THE DOMINANT OF

THE TEXT.

WHEN WE TRANSLATE ONE TEXT INTO ANOTHER, THE SERIES OF

DECISIONS MADE MAY NOT BE COMPLETELY APPARENT TO THE READER OF

THE TRANSLATION IF; FOR EXAMPLE, THERE IS NOT A TRANSLATOR´S

AFTERWORD OF ANOTHER SORT OF METATEXT EXPLANING THE REASON OF

HER CHOICES.

IF WE DO NOT ANALIZE THOROUGHLY ITS DIFFERENCES, WHAT WAS LOST

IN THE PASSGE FROM THE ORIGINAL MAY ESCAPE OUR NOTICE,

DENOTATIVE, CONNOTAVIE ASPECTS, IMAGES, SOUND, RHYTHMS,

SYNTACTIC STRUCTERED, LEXICAL, COHERENCE, INTRATEXTUAL

REFERENCE; SOME OF THESE COMPONENT MAY NOT BE FOUND IN THE

TRASLATED TEXT.

WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO TRANSLATE A TEXT INTO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO TRANSLATE A TEXT INTO ANOTHERANOTHER

CONVERSELY, WHEN ONE OF THE TWO TEXT IN AN INTERTEXTUAL

TRANSLATION IS NOT VERBAL, THE CHOICE MUST BE SACRIFICED IS FAR

MORE APPARENT. INDEED, THE INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATOR, WILLING

OR NOT, IS FORCED TO DIVIDED THE ORIGINAL TEXT INTO PARTS, IT

DOES NOT MATTER HOW: DENOTATION/CONNOTATION,

EXPRESSION/CONTENT, DIALOGUES/DESCRIPTIONS,

INTERTEXTUAL/INTRATEXTUAL.

THEN HE/SHE MUST DESASSEMBLE THE PROTOTEXT INTO THESE

PARTS, FIND A TRANSLATING ELEMENT FOR EACH OF THEM.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FILM AND LITERARY WORK LIES

IN THE FACT THAT LITERATURE IS FIXED IN A WRITTEN FORM,

WHILE IN A FILM THE IMAGE, IS SUPPORTED BY THE SOUND IN

FORM OF THE MUSIC.

WE HAVE SAID THAT INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION IMPLIES A

SORT OF SUBDIVISION OF THE ORIGINAL INTO VARIOUS

ELEMENTS AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF COMPONENTS ABLE TO

TRANSLATE SAID ELEMENTS WITHIN THE COHERENCE OF THE

TRANSLATED TEXT.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FILM AND LITERARY WORK

A FILM COMPOSITION CAN BE DIVIDED

INTO DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, SUCH AS:

DIALOGUE BETWEEN CHARACTERS, THE

PHISICAL SETTING, POSSIBLE VOICEOVERS,

THE MUSICAL SCORE, THE EDITTING, THE

FRAMING, LIGHTING, COLORATION, CLOSE-

UP OR NOT, PERSPECTIVE, THE

COMPOSITION OF THE FRAME AND, IN CASE

OF HUMAN VOICE, AND INTONATION

WE HAVE SAID THAT INERSEMIOTIC

TRANSLATION IMPLIES A SORT OF

SUBDIVISION OF THE ORIGINAL INTO

VARIOUS ELEMENTS, AND

IDENTIFICATION OF COMPONENETS

ABLE TO TRANSLATE SAID ELEMENTS

WITHIN THE COHERENCE OF THE

TRANSLATED TEX.

THE SAME IS EQUALLY VALID FOR TEXTUAL

AND INTERTEXTUAL TRANSLATION.

THE LAST ASPECTS OF INTERSEMIOTIC

TRANSLATION THAT WE WOULD

LIKE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION

IS THAT OF TRANSLATABILITY.

SINCE THE ORIGINAL TEXT, OR

METATEXT, ARE NOT EASILY

COMPARABLE IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC

CRITERIA, THE CONCEPTS OF

“TRANSLATABILITY AND “ACCURACY”

CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED IN

CONVENTIONAL TERMS.