Cover not available
Article published In:
The Metalanguage of Translation
Edited by Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer
[Target 19:2] 2007
► pp. 295–312

A literary work – Translation and original

A conceptual analysis within the philosophy of art and Translation Studies

| University of Turku, Finland
The focus of this paper lies on the translatability of a literary work of art. The phenomenon is approached as a conceptual challenge subsumed under the question Can the identity of a literary work of art be retained when the work is translated? Since the question of translatability as posed here belongs to the realm of philosophy of art, the problematic nature of ‘original’, ‘translation’ and ‘identity’ is discussed first in the theoretical context of analytic philosophy. I then consider the issue within the framework of Translation Studies. By showing the definitional diversity the necessity of contextual embedding and theoretical explicitness is highlighted. A genuine exchange of ideas and views, between and within disciplines, presupposes conceptual transparency.
Keywords: literary translation, identity of a literary work of art, translatability, analytic philosophy of art, “Pierre Menard”
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Different notions of ‘literary work of art’ and ‘identity’ in the philosophy of art
    • 2.1Ontology and the identity of literary works
    • 2.2One work but two authors: A paradoxical way of defining identity
    • 2.3.Two different interpretations, two different works: A more ordinary view of identity
    • 2.4To be ‘identical’ with a mental entity, with a work of art proper
    • 2.5A synthesis of views of identity
  • 3.‘Translatability’ from the perspective of art philosophy
  • 4.‘Translatability’ of literary works in the light of translation theories
    • 4.1Irrelevance of identity: Translation and original, sets of textual practices
    • 4.2Identity—literariness from original to translation in binary oppositions
    • 4.3Translatability as one possible skopos
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 18 January 2008
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19.2.08lai
References (49)
References
Amman, Margret. 1990. “Anmerkungen zu einer Theorie der Übersetzungskritik und ihrer praktischer Anwendung”. TextConText 5. 209–250.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona, ed. 1998. Routledge encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassnett, Susan. 1998a. “When is a translation not a translation?” Bassnett and Lefevere 1998 . 25–40.Google Scholar
. 1998b. “The translation turn in Cultural Studies”. Bassnett and Lefevere 1998 . 123–140.Google Scholar
. 2002. Translation Studies. 3rd London and New York: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Bassnett, Susan and André Lefevere. 1998. Constructing cultures: Essays on literary translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Borges, Jorge Luis. 2000 [1964]. “Pierre Menard, author of the Quixote”, tr. James E. Irby. Yates and Irby 2000 . 62–71.Google Scholar
. 2003 [1944, 1974]. “Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote”. Ficciones. Madrid: Allianza Editorial, 2003. 41–55.Google Scholar
van den Broeck, Raymond. 1978. “The concept of equivalence in translation theory: Some critical reflections”. Holmes et al. 1978. 29–47.Google Scholar
. 1985. “Second thoughts of translation criticism: A model of its analytic function”. Hermans 1985 . 54–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, David E., ed. 2003. A companion to aesthetics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Croce, Benedetto. 1997 [1948/1902]. The Aesthetic as the science of expression and of the linguistic in general, tr. Colin Lyas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Danto, Arthur C. 2001 [1981]. The transfiguration of the commonplace: A philosophy of art. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gaut, Berys and Dominic McIver Lopes, eds. 2005. The Routledge companion to aesthetics, ed. Berys Gaut, 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2005. 241–253.Google Scholar
Gentzler, Edwin. 2001. Contemporary translation theories. 2nd ed. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson. 1976. Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. 2nd ed. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Goodman, Nelson and Catherine Z. Elgin. 1988. Reconceptions in philosophy and other arts and sciences. Indianapolis and Cambridge: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Gracia, Jorge J.E. 2001. “Borges’s ‘Pierre Menard’: Philosophy or literature?” The journal of aesthetics and art criticism 59:1. 45–57.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haapala, Arto. 1989. What is a work of literature? Helsinki: The Philosophical Society of Helsinki. [Acta Philosophica Fennica, 46.]Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 1997. “The concept of equivalence in Translation Studies: Much ado about something”. Target 9:2. 207–233.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theoed. 1985. The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation. New York: St Martins Press.Google Scholar
Holmes, James S, José Lambert and Raymond van den Broeck, eds. 1978. Literature and translation: New perspectives in literary studies with a basic bibliography of books on Translation Studies. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
Kristal, Efraín. 2002. Invisible work: Borges and translation. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laiho, Leena. 1999. Journalistische Übersetzungskritik: Modell und Analyse von Übersetzungskritik in journalistischer Literaturkritik. University of Turku. [Licentiate Thesis.]Google Scholar
. 2000. “Journalistisen käännöskritiikin kuva”. Kritiikin uutiset 2000:1. 11–13.Google Scholar
. 2004. “Schweigen über die Identität oder Nicht-Identität: Literarische Kunst”. Asko Timonen, Wolfgang Greisenegger and Raoul Kneucker, eds. The language of silence II. Turku: University of Turku, 2004. 223–239. [Annales Universitatis Turkuensis B, 271.]Google Scholar
. 2006. “The identity and translation of a literary work of art”. Tommola and Gambier 2006 . 39–50.Google Scholar
Levinson, Jerrold. 1980. “What a musical work is”. The journal of philosophy 77:1. 5–28.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levý, Jiří. 1969. Die literarische Übersetzung: Theorie einer Kunstgattung, tr. Walter Schamschula. Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum.Google Scholar
. 2000 [1967]. “Translation as a decision process”. Venuti 2000 . 148–159.Google Scholar
Margolis, Joseph. 1987a. “The ontological peculiarity of works of art”. Margolis 1987 . 253–260.Google Scholar
. 1987b. “Robust relativism”. Margolis 1987 . 484–498.Google Scholar
ed. 1987. Philosophy looks at the arts: Contemporary readings in aesthetics. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. What, after all, is a work of art?: Lectures in the philosophy of art. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Mikkonen, Jukka. 2004. “Tekstien ja merkitysten suhde Nelson Goodmanin kirjallisuuden filosofiassa”. niin&näin—f ilosofinen aikakausilehti. 2004:4. 67–72.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katarina and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohrbaugh, Guy. 2005. “Ontology of art”. Gaut and McIver Lopes 2005 . 241–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina. 1998. “Skopos theory”. Baker 1998 . 235–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, Anne. 1987. Aesthetics: An introduction to the philosophy of art. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stolze, Radegundis. 1994. Übersetzungstheorien: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Tommola, Jorma and Yves Gambier, eds. 2006. Translation and interpreting—Training and research. Turku: University of Turku, Department of English Studies.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1997 [1995]. The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
ed. 2000. The Translation Studies reader. London and New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J. 1996. Übersetzen als Utopie: Die Übersetzungstheorie des Walter Bendix Schoenflies Benjamin. Heidelberg: TextConText-Verlag.Google Scholar
2000 [1989]. “Skopos and commission in translational action”, tr. Andrew Chesterman. Venuti, 2000 . 221–232.Google Scholar
Wollheim, Richard. 1982. Objekte der Kunst, tr. Max Looser. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
. 1987 [1968]. “Art and its objects“. Margolis 1987 . 208–228.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2003. “Ontology of artworks”. Cooper 2003 . 310–314.Google Scholar
Yates, Donald A. and James E. Irby, eds. 2000 [1964]. Labyrinths: Selected stories and other writings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Laiho, Leena
2013. Original and translation. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 4], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.