Translation in the context of digital anthropology and the limits of interpretation

Abstract

Information and cultural globalization as fundamental characteristics of the development of modern communication have revealed the need to move to a new strategy for determining what kind of cultural competence is required under the changed conditions. The digitalization of translation activities has not only challenged traditional models but has also largely transformed the traditional perception of translator’s work. In the present paper translation is analyzed from the perspective of Umberto Eco’s theory that proposes the limits of interpretation. This theory has not lost its relevance even in the context of the digital age. The place of translation can be developed into a situational geometry of the translator, potential readers, a source-text analysis, alternative target-text strategies, etc. The place becomes a discursive locus in itself, apt for the production and discussion of what Antony Pym termed “internal knowledge about translation.” Aim and purpose: carrying out an analysis of the strategies of literary translation from the perspective of Umberto Eco’s interpretive theory. Methods: the present paper was written in the mainstream of an interdisciplinary approach that combines socio-philosophical and cross-cultural studies of the dialogue of different cultures. Results: the unlimited semiosis in reality takes the form of those interpretations that are sanctioned by society; therefore, translation strategies always depend on the characteristics of the source text; on the nature of the “empirical reader” and on the general state of the original and host cultures. Conclusions. Literary translation as a professional activity and the translator as an in-between and messenger is located in a specific intercultural space. In this imaginary space new intercultural meanings arise. Translation as a part and parcel of cross-cultural communication is always a search for mutual understanding and at the same time one of the main sources of preserving cultural diversity. Nowadays, the problem of how to preserve the peculiarities of a national culture when transferring one’s own cultural values to a foreign-language cultural environment comes to the fore.

References

Bachtin М.М. (1996) Problema teksta = Text problem. Moscow: “Russkie slovari”, vol. 5, pp. 306–327 (In Russian).

Barthes R. (1970) S/Z. Paris: Seuil.

Chaleeva I.I. (1989) Osnovy teorii obucheniya ponimaniju inoyazychnoj rechi = Fundamentals of the Theory of Teaching to understand Foreign Language Speech. Мoscow: “Vysshaya shkola” (In Russian).

Gadamer H.-G. (1991) Jazyk i ponimanie. Aktual’nost’ prekrasnogo = Language and Understanding. Relevance of the Beautiful. Мoscow: “Iskusstvo” (In Russian).

Galeeva N.L. (1997) Osnovy deyanel’nostnoj teorii perevoda = Fundamentals of the Theory of Translation. Тver’: Tver’ St. Univ. Publ. (In Russian).

Garbovskiy N.К., Kostikova O.I. (2019) Intellekt v cifrovom perevode: iskusstvennyj ili iskusnyj? = Intelligence in Digital Translation: artificial or skillful? Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya. 22. Teoriya perevoda. No 4, pp. 3–23 (In Russian).

Garzonio S. (1988) Russkie stikhotvotnye perevody i peredelki ital’janskikh opernykh libretto (XVIII v.) = Russian Verse Translations of Italian Opera Librettos (XVII cen.). Europa Orientalis, No. 7, pp. 307–320 (In Russian).

Garzonio S. (2006) Dmitrievskiy — perevodchik ital’janskikh p’es = Dmitrievsky as translator of Italian plays. Chteniya otdela russkoy literatury XVIII в. No. 4, pp. 84–90 (In Russian).

Gasparov М.L. (1997) Brjusov — perevodchik = Brjusov as a traslator. Izbrannye trudy, vol. II, pp. 121–129 (In Russian).

Gricanov А.А. (2001) Postmodernizm = Postmodernism. Minsk: “Knizhnyj dom” (In Russian).

Denisova G.V. (2018) Intertekstual’nye perevodnye ekvivalencii kak kul’turologicheskij vopros bilingval’nogo soznaniya = Intertextual Translation Equivalents as a Cultural Issue of Bilingual Consciousness. Vestnik MGLU. No. 2 (791), pp. 45–57 (In Russian).

Dubin B.V. (2001) Slovo-pis’mo-literatura = Word-Letter-Literature. Мoscow: “Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie” (In Russian).

Eco U. (1995) Interpretazione e sovrainterpretazione. Milano: Bompiani.

Eco U. (1995) Riflessioni teorico-pratiche sulla traduzione. In: Nergaard S. (ed.) Teorie contemporanee della traduzione. Milano: Bompiani, pp. 121–146.

Eco U. (1999) I limiti dell’interpretazione. Milano: Bompiani.

Eco U. (2003) Dire quasi la stessa cosa. Milano: Bompiani.

Fateeva N.А. (2000) Kontrapunkt intertekstual’nosti, ili intertekst v mire tekstov = The Counterpoint of Intertextuality, or Intertext in the World of Texts. Moscow: “Agar” (In Russian).

Jampol’skij М.B. (1993) Pamjat’ Tiresija: intertekstual’nost’ i kinematograf = Memory of Tiresias: Intertextuality and Cinematography. Moscow: “Kul’tura” (In Russian).

Karcevaа Е.Ju. (2016) Razvitie mashinnogo perevoda i ego mesto v professional’noj mezhkul’turnoj kommunikacii = Development of Machine Translation and its Place in Professional Intercultural Communication. Vestnik RUDN. No. 2, pp. 155–164 (In Russian).

Kljukanov I.E. (1998) Dinamika mezhkul’turnoj kommunikacii = The Dynamics of Intercultural Communication. Тver’: Tver’ St. Univ. Publ. (In Russian). 

Кuzmina N.А. (1999) Intertekst i ego rol’ v processakh funkcionirovaniya poeticheskogo yazyka = Intertext in the Poetic Language. Ekaterinburg: Ural St. Univ. Publ. (In Russian).

Leont’ev А.А. (1997) Osnovy psikholingvistiki = Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics. Мoscow: “Smysl” (In Russian).

Leont’ev А. А. (2003) Yazyk, rech’, rechevaya deyatel’nost’ = Language, Speech, Speech Activity. Moscow: “Еditorial” (In Russian).

Lotman Ju.М. (2000) Semiosfera. Kul’tura i vzryv = Semiosphere. Culture and Explosion. St. Petersburg: “Iskusstvi-SPb” (In Russian).

Pym A. (1997) Pour une Ethique du Traducteur. Ottawa: Artois Presses Université.

Riffaterre М. (1978) Semiotics of Poetry. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Riffaterre M. (1994) Intertextuality vs. hypertextuality. New Literary History. No. 4 (25), pp. 779–788.

Shvejcer А.D. (1989) Ekvivalentnost’ i adekvatnost’ = Equivalence and Adequacy. Kommenukativnyj variant perevoda v tekstakh raznykh zhanrov. No. 243. pp. 54–55 (In Russian).

Steiner G. (1999) After Babel. Aspects of Language and Translation. London Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.

Torop P. (2000) Towards the semiotics of translation. Semiotica. No. 3–4, pp. 597–610.

Usmanova А.R. (2000) Umberto Eco: paradoksy interpretacii = Umberto Eco: paradoksy interpretacii. Minsk (In Russian).

Vattimo G. (2001) Le avventure della differenza. Che cosa significa pensare dopo Nietzsche e Heidegger. Milano: Garzanti.

Venuti L. (1998) The Scandals of Translation. London and New York: Routledge.

Venuti L. (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.

Zvereva N.S. (2008) Aktual’nost’ ispol’zovaniya avtomatizirovannykh sistem perevoda = Relevance of machine translation systems. Vestnik RUDN. No. 2, pp. 89–92 (In Russian).