Historical Identity of Translation:from Describability to Translatability of Time

Abstract

The main problem of the historical understanding of translation lies in finding the appropriate metalanguages. Revisiting time in translation studies means finding complementarity between historical metalanguage for description of translational activity and semiotic metalanguage for understanding different sides of translatability. We have distinguished the achronic theoretical component in the unified discussion of translation history, the component concentrating on the analysis of the translator and the translation method. Next comes the synchronic receptive component, i.e., the analysis of the translator, translation and the target language culture thus concentrating on the status of translation in the given culture, the functions of translations, and the ways of rendering meaning to them. The third, evolutionary component is connected with the so-called minor diachrony, the analysis of the technical and psychological features of the translation process. The fourth, cultural history component is based on the so-called grand diachrony and focuses on the development of the translation practice with reference to the varying cycles in cultural history and the styles of specific periods.

What Could We Understand by Translation?

“…We could also draw a distinction between translation and translatability, which entails the following aspects: translation requires a set of techniques, meant to ensure a faithful translation, regardless of medium, genre, and culture, while translatability refers to the relation between linguistics and culture [24]. We could claim that translation refers to "the creation of a language of mediation between various cultures" [25]. In the case of haiku poem, this language of mediation is English.…”

Ankstyvieji Johno Miltono„Prarastojo rojaus“(Paradise Lost) vertimai į italų kalbą: nesėkmingi bandymai ir Dantės įtaka

“…Obviously, this is in accordance with the general aim of his study: while presenting and analysing the contributions of more than one hundred thinkers and scholars with different backgrounds, Osimo claims he intends to focus on 'reflection upon the language of communication, and the evolution of the concept of translation during the centuries' (Osimo 2002). A similar interest in the diachronic evolution of semiotic or linguistic thought is evident in a number of recent studies dealing with the 'historical understanding of translation' and the possibility to revisit 'time in translation studies' (Torop, Osimo 2010).…”