Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL AND TEXTUAL BACKGROUND 1.0 Introduction This chapter has

CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL AND TEXTUAL BACKGROUND 1.0 Introduction This chapter has a twofold aim: first to provide the reader with the theoretical background to the textual analysis proposed in Chapters 2 and 3, and second to give some background on Exercices de style and its author. The principle underlying all of my thinking on translation and Exercices de style is Jakobson's "equivalence in difference." I discuss this concept, then respond to a critique of the essay which introduced it and other theoretical notions pertaining to translation. The remainder of this theoretical section concerns itself with the fundamental notions of Peircean semiotics and their relevance to translation. The second part of the chapter provides background on the author and the text. The genesis of the text, the significance of the number of exercices, and the literature on Exercices de style all come under discussion in this portion of the chapter. I end with a consideration of the role played by critical reception in analyzing the relationship between the source text and its translation(s). 1.1 Equivalence in Difference The concept of equivalence in difference rightfully belongs in any discussion of Queneau's Exercices de style, as it is the structuring principle of the entire work. Queneau tells a brief story of an encounter on a bus, but he tells it ninetynine times in ninetynine different ways. Here is how he tells it the first time: 10 Notations [Queneau, 1947] Dans l'S, à une heure d'affluence. Un type dans les vingtsix ans, chapeau mou avec cordon remplaçant le ruban, cou trop long comme si on lui avait tiré dessus. Les gens descendent. Le type en question s'irrite contre un voisin. Il lui reproche de le bousculer chaque fois qu'il passe quelqu'un, ton pleurnichard qui se veut méchant. Comme il voit une place libre se précipite dessus. Deux heures plus tard je le rencontre dans la cour de Rome, devant la gare SaintLazare. Il est avec un camarade qui lui dit: «Tu devrais faire mettre un bouton supplémentaire à ton pardessus». Il lui montre où (à l'échancrure) et pourquoi. And here is the second text: En partie double [Queneau, 1947] Vers le milieu de la journée et à midi, je me trouvai et montai sur la plateforme et la terrasse arrière d’un autobus et d’un véhicule des transports en commun bondé et quasiment complet de la liagne S et qui va de la Contrescarpe à Champerret. Je vis et remarquai un jeune homme et un vieil adolescent assez ridicule et pas mal grotesque: cou maigre et tuyau décharné, ficelle et cordelière autour du chapeau et couvrechef. Après une bousculade et confusion, il dit et profère d’une voix et d’un ton larmoyants et pleurnichards que son voisin et covoyageur fait exprès et s’efforce de le pousser et de l’importuner chaque fois qu’on descend et sort. Cela déclaré et après avoir ouvert la bouche, il se précipite et se dirige vers une place et un siège vides et libres. Deux heures après et cent vingt minutes plus tard, je le rencontre et le revois Cour de Rome et devant la gare SaintLazare. Il est et se trouve avec un ami et copain que lui conseille de et l’incite à faire ajouter et coudre un bouton et un rond de corozo à son pardessus et manteau. 11 A list of the titles of the exercices, which immediately precedes the Appendices, will give the reader an idea of how Queneau adapted this text ninetyseven more times. Thus, while every one of the exercices recounts more or less the same event, each one remains distinct from the other ninetyeight. And just as the Bach listener perceives a constant, recurring theme in each variation, so the reader of Queneau's book understands that there is something undeniably the same (invariant) about each of the different exercices (variants). Given that we are discussing not only Exercices de style but also its translations into English and Italian, the idea of equivalence in difference becomes even more germane, for what is the relation between a source text and its translations if not one of equivalence in difference? Indeed, as J.C. Catford, one of the pioneers of linguistic theories of translation, wrote: "The central problem of translationpractice is that of finding targetlanguage translation equivalents. A central task of translationtheory is that of defining the nature of conditions of translation equivalence" (Catford, 1965:21). Subsequent theorists have added the terms functional equivalence, stylistic equivalence, formal equivalence, textual equivalence, communicative equivalence, linguistic equivalence, pragmatic equivalence, semantic equivalence, dynamic equivalence, ontological equivalence, and others (Gorlée, 1994:170). This plethora of different types of equivalence would seem to suggest that translation theorists have come to the sensible, though usually tacit, conclusion that a translation may be equivalent to the source text in one way and not equivalent in another. In other words, a source text and its translation(s) are inevitably both equivalent and different. As Jakobson wrote in his famous essay "On linguistic aspects of translation": "...translation 12 involves two equivalent messages in two different codes. Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics" (Jakobson, 1959:233). It is also the pivotal concern of translation in all senses of the word. Equivalence in difference, or invariance in variation was, according to Jakobson, the common thread in his work from 1911 onward (Jakobson, 1990:61). Although Jakobson was primarily concerned with interlingual translation in his essay, he also characterized two other types of translation: intralingual and intersemiotic. Interestingly, Queneau's Exercices de style provides an almost prototypical example of the former, and hence its translations are (interlingual) translations of (intralingual) translations and involve one level of equivalence in difference, i.e. the equivalence between the various exercices, within a larger system of equivalence in difference, that of the original and its translation. 1.1.1 On Sturrock on Jakobson on Translation Jakobson's essay is often mentioned in the field of translation studies but rarely examined in depth. The only fulllength scholarly treatment that I know of is J. Sturrock's 1991 contribution. Since Jakobson's essay and the Peircean concepts it refers to provide the basis for my approach to Exercices de style, I will spend some time discussing the essay and a few of Sturrock's most relevant objections. These objections, I believe, are quite simply the result of Sturrock's misreading of Jakobson. In the opening paragraph of his essay, "On Jakobson on translation", Sturrock correctly observes that "...where there is meaning there is also translatability, or the possibility of interpretation, the act by which new signs are asked to do duty for old" (Sturrock, 1991:307). One might add that these new signs relate semiotically to the old signs as interpretants (in the Peircean 13 sense) of the latter. The relationship between a sign and its interpretant sign is one of equivalence in difference. Different signs never mean the same thing, and even identical signs can never mean the same thing, as a sign signifies within a spatiotemporal, sociocultural context which is by definition in a state of flux. Sturrock at first agrees with Jakobson's characterization of translation as interpretation or semiosis, but then qualifies this by adding that "...in contemporary English usage, a distinction would normally be made between the translation and an interpretation of an original texttranslation being looked upon as a more rigorous semantic exercise than interpretation, whose practitioners enjoy a greater license in determining the meaning of the signs they are working on..." (Sturrock, 1991:309). Jakobson chose the word "interpretation" in reference to Peircean semiotics, with which he had been acquainted since the early 1950's, and in this context, Jakobson's use of the term is entirely correct (see Jakobson, 1990:19). Jakobson's distinction between intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic translation provides an excellent framework for the various editions and versions of Exercices de style All three types of translation involve an interpretation of signs by other signs. In the case of intralingual translation, verbal signs interpret verbal signs within a single language. In interlingual translation the verbal signs come from two different systems. Finally, intersemiotic translation involves verbal and nonverbal sign systems. Each edition or version of Exercices de style represents an example of intralingual translation, or more precisely, ninetyeight examples. The English and Italian versions are interlingual translations of, respectively, the original and modern French editions. Finally, there exist intersemiotic translations of Exercices de style into both musical and pictorial forms (Bens, 1962:240249). 14 Sturrock (1991:312) reproaches Jakobson for blurring the distinction between synonymy and equivalence. I believe Jakobson was quite clear and shall attempt to explain my reading in what follows. Jakobson did not believe that translations are synonymous with the original, but rather interpretations of it which might be perceived as more or less equivalent depending on the translation. The disjunction he creates between synonymy and circumlocution (1959:233), or more precisely, between synonymous word (synonym) and circumlocution, seems clear enough: "grub" is a synonym of "food", whereas "animal or vegetable matter consumed for sustenance" is a circumlocution. Synonymy has to do with two code units of the highest level uploads/s3/ chapter-1.pdf