STUDIES
Bernd Stefanink*
U“iversität Bie’efe’d/U“iversitatea Babe B”’iay di“ C’uj
I”a“a Bă’ăcescu**
U“iversitatea di“ Crai”va
Abstract: Our aim is t” c”“vi“ce the reader ”f the va’idity ”f the herme“eutica’ appr”ach i“ tra“s’ati”“ studies. I“ a first part, we wi’’ sh”w that this va’idity is based ”“ the fact that the herme“eutica’ appr”ach i“tegrates fact”rs ’i‘e subjectivity, i“tuiti”“, c”rp”rea’ity a“d creativity i“ its the”retica’ ref’ecti”“, bei“g thus c’”se t” the rea’ity ”f the tra“s’ati”“ pr”cess. I“ a sec”“d part, we wi’’ situate this appr”ach i“ the c”“text ”f the deve’”pme“t ”f m”der“ tra“s’ati”“ studies si“ce the 1950s, a“d sh”w that this deve’”pme“t was characterized by a d”mi“ati“g te“de“cy that ’ed fr”m a“ at”mistic t” a m”re a“d m”re h”’istic view ”f the tra“s’ati”“ u“it, ’egitimati“g the h”’istic appr”ach, which is fu“dame“ta’ i“ tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics. Our third part re’ates the hist”ry ”f phi’”s”phica’ herme“eutics as the ’egitimate f”u“dati”“ ”f tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics. I“ a f”urth part, dev”ted t” the ”utc”mi“g perspectives , we wi’’ try t” rei“f”rce the ’egitimacy ”f the herme“eutica’ appr”ach by sh”wi“g h”w
* Pr”fess”r at U“iversity ”f Bie’efe’d. Si“ce 2007 research a“d teachi“g fe’’”w ”f the Herder Ş”u“dati”“/DAAD. Şr”m Aug. 2015 – Ju’y 2016: visiti“g Pr”fess”r at U“iver sidade Şedera’ de Sa“ta Catari“a/Brazi’. E-mai’: bstefa“i“‘@h”tmai’.c”m ** PhD i“ Traducti”“: didactique et créativité (U“iversity ”f Crai”va; 2005).
it is supp”rted by rece“t resu’ts ”f research i“ c”g“itive scie“ce. I“ ”rder t” f”ster further research i“ tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics we a’s” ”ffer a meth”d”’”gy based ”“ herme“eutic pri“cip’es t” study the tra“s’ati”“ pr”cess. Şi“a’’y, we give a“ examp’e ”f ’egitimati”“ ”f a creative pr”b’em-s”’vi“g based ”“ a herme“eutica’ appr”ach ”f a tra“s’ati”“ pr”b’em which fi“ds its va’idati”“ i“ the resu’ts ”f c”g“itive research.
Keywords: Tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics. Subjectivity i“ tra“s’ati”“. Creativity i“ tra“s’ati”“. Tra“s’at”’”gy. C”g“itive scie“ce.
A ABORDAGEM HERMENÊUTICA EM ESTUDOS DE TRADUÇÃO
Resumo: N”ss” ”bjetiv” é c”“ve“cer ” ’eit”r da va’idade da ab”rdagem herme“êutica em estud”s de traduçã”. Na primeira parte, dem”“strare-m”s esta va’idade, basead”s “” fat” de que a ab”rdagem herme“êutica i“tegra fat”res c”m” a subjetividade, a i“tuiçã”, a c”rp”ra’idade e a cria-tividade em sua ref’exã” teórica, apr”xima“d”-se, p”rta“t”, da rea’idade d” pr”cess” tradut”r. Na segu“da parte, situarem”s esta ab”rdagem “” c”“text” d” dese“v”’vime“t” d”s estud”s m”der“”s de traduçã” desde ”s a“”s 1950, e m”strarem”s que este dese“v”’vime“t” f”i caracterizad” p”r uma te“dê“cia d”mi“a“te, que ’ev”u de uma visã” at”mista da u“idade de traduçã” a uma visã” mais h”’ística, ’egitima“d”-a, ” que é fu“dame“ta’ para a herme“êutica tradutória. A terceira parte re’ata a história da herme-“êutica fi’”sófica c”m” a fu“daçã” ’egítima da hermeherme-“êutica tradutória. Na quarta parte, dev”tada às perspectivas futuras , te“tará ref”rçar a ’egitimidade da ab”rdagem herme“êutica, dem”“stra“d” c”m” é ab”“ada p”r resu’tad”s de pesquisa em ciê“cia c”g“itiva. Para m”tivar a c”“ti“ui-dade d”s traba’h”s em herme“êutica fi’”sófica, também ”ferecem”s uma met”d”’”gia para ” estud” d” pr”cess” tradutóri” baseada “”s pri“cípi”s herme“êutic”s. Şi“a’me“te, ”ferecem”s um exemp’” de ’egitimaçã” d” a s”’uçã” criativa de pr”b’emas, basead” “a ab”rdagem herme“êutica de um pr”b’ema de traduçã”, va’idada “”s resu’tad”s da pesquisa c”g“itiva.
La perti“e“ce d u“e thé”rie de ’a traducti”“ se mesure à ’a fa甓 d”“t e’’e gère ’a créativité Stefa“i“‘ a“d Bă’ăcescu, 2015, p. 600
1. Why do we need the hermeneutical approach in translation studies?
Thesis: Because it is the c’”sest thi“g t” a“ idea’ tra“s’ati”“a’ practice which f”cuses ”“ tra“s’ati“g mea“i“gs, “”t w”rds.
Characteristics: What fu“dame“ta’’y characterizes herme“eutics is the fact that it i“tegrates subjectivity, c”rp”rea’ity a“d creativity i“ its the”retica’ ref’ecti”“.
1.1. Subjectivity
Tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics has i“tegrated the subjectivity ”f the tra“s’at”r i“ its the”retica’ appr”ach, because it is u“av”idab’e. Rece“t resu’ts i“ c”g“itive research have pr”ved this u“de“iab’y. Ş”r i“sta“ce, the “eur”phi’”s”pher Ha“s Le“‘ (2014) has sh”w“ that, whe“ we perceive a“ ”bject, ”ur brai“ dec”mp”ses it bef”re it sy“thesizes it i“ ”rder t” bri“g it t” ”ur u“dersta“di“g. S”me areas ”f ”ur brai“ register the size ”f the ”bject, ”thers the c”’”ur etc. If I see a g”’de“ de’ici”us, which is a very c”mm”“ app’e i“ Eur”pe, I register its f”rm, its c”’”ur, eve“tua’’y its sme’’, its weight, i“ differe“t areas ”f my brai“, a“d my brai“ ass”ciates it with the categ”ry apple, a“d saves it i“ this categ”ry. This is a pr”cess ”f categ”rizati”“:
I“ ”ur brai“, this path is the “eura’ pathway by which the “eur”“es bri“g i“f”rmati”“ t” the brai“. The m”re y”u use the same “eura’ pathway the str”“ger it bec”mes a“d tra“sf”rms itse’f
into an engram, that mea“s a mem”ry trace [Gedächtnisspur]. As connexionism (SCHADE, 1992) teaches us: it is the frequency ”f the repetiti”“s that stre“gthe“s the pathway. These differe“t pathways f”rm a neural network, based ”“ ”ur pers”“a’ experie“ces, thr”ugh which we perceive the i“c”mi“g i“f”rmati”“. S”, this “eura’ “etw”r‘ biases a“d i“f’ue“ces ”ur percepti”“ by ass”ciati”“s with ”ur déjà vécu. This ca“ be ”bserved i“ a very simp’e experime“t, re’ated by Şi’’m”re (1976, p. 62) . A teacher re’ates such a“ experime“t. She came i“t” the c’assr”m with a grapefruit, a“d started pee’i“g it by detachi“g fi“e s’ices ”f the pee’. Whe“ she had fi“ished this ”perati”“ she as‘ed the stude“ts what the fruit she had pee’ed was. The a“swer was that it was a“ ”ra“ge. This mea“s that the stude“ts had interpreted her acti”“ thr”ugh what ‘“”w’edge they had ”f ha“d’i“g fruits. Ş”r them, ”bvi”us’y, a grapefruit was s”methi“g that y”u cut i“ ha’f with a ‘“ife a“d eat with a sp””“. A“d Şi’’m”re (1976, p. 62) c”“c’udes: The categ”rizi“g fu“cti”“ ”f the w”rds had “”t yet bee“ ’iberated fr”m the sce“e ”f pe”p’e i“ their experie“ce eati“g the fruit .
Eve“ this simp’e examp’e sh”ws that we are i“terpreti“g whe“ we try t” u“dersta“d, a“d that this i“terpretati”“ is subjective, i“ this case ’i“‘ed t” cu’tura’ habits, B”urdieu s (1980) habitus.
This examp’e a’s” supp”rts the herme“eutica’ idea ”f the way we are acquiri“g mea“i“g: by categ”rizi“g (BĂLĂCESCU and
STEŞANINK, 2006).
Ş”r tra“s’at”rs, this mea“s that, whe“ they try t” u“dersta“d the text, they u“av”idab’y pr”ject a’ready s”me f”re-u“dersta“di“g ”“ the text. Heidegger ca’’s this fore-understanding a Vorverständnis, the c”g“itivists use the term script. Tra“s’at”rs u“av”idab’y appr”ach the text with such a f”re-u“dersta“di“g i“ their mi“ds. This f”re-u“dersta“di“g is, ”f c”urse, u“av”idab’y ’iab’e t” cha“ge i“ the c”urse ”f readi“g. The m”re the tra“s’at”rs pr”gress i“ the text, the m”re this prec”“ceived mea“i“g bec”mes complete, that mea“s i“ harmony with what the text rea’’y mea“s t” them. şerma“ tra“s’at”’”gist Radegu“dis St”’ze (2015) i“tr”duces the term Stimmigkeit t” describe this harm”“y. Ş”r the herme“eutic tra“s’at”r, the tra“s’ati”“ is complete or stimmig whe“ the target text c”rresp”“ds t” the me“ta’ represe“tati”“ ”f the mea“i“g i“ the tra“s’at”r s brai“.
This herme“eutica’ c”“cepti”“ is supp”rted by c”g“itivistic research as, f”r i“sta“ce, Şi’’m”re s (1976, p. 61) descripti”“ ”f the pr”cess ”f u“dersta“di“g sh”ws:
The first part ”f the text activates a“ image ”r sce“e ”f s”me situati”“ i“ the mi“d ”f the i“terpreter; ’ater parts ”f the text fi’’ i“ m”re a“d m”re i“f”rmati”“ ab”ut that situati”“, give it a hist”ry, give it a m”tivati”“, embed it i“ ”ther sce“es ”r situati”“s, a“d s” ”“. I“ ”ther w”rds what happe“s whe“ ”“e c”mprehe“ds a text is that ”“e me“ta’’y creates a ‘i“d ”f w”r’d; the pr”perties ”f this w”r’d may depe“d quite a bit ”“ the i“dividua’ i“terpreter s private experie“ces a rea’ -ity which sh”u’d acc”u“t f”r part ”f the fact that differe“t pe”p’e c”“struct differe“t i“terpretati”“s ”f the same text
i“ ”ur e“deav”urs t” u“dersta“d creativity i“ the tra“s’ati”“ pr”cess, as sh”w“ be’”w.
1.2. Creativity
A“”ther aspect ”f the tra“s’at”r s everyday ’ife, which is ”fte“ ’eft aside by tra“s’ati”“ the”rists is creativity. Herme“eutics sh”w that creativity is “”thi“g mysteri”us, but a pr”b’em-s”’vi“g activity t” ”verc”me cu’tura’ barriers. If a the”ry exc’udes this creativity fr”m its c”“siderati”“s because it is “”t systematizab’e, as s”me the”reticia“s d” (şERZYMISCH ARBOşAST AND MUDERSBACH, 1998, p. 16), they i“duce the i“securized tra“s’at”r t” aba“d”“ bri’’ia“t metaph”rica’ creative s”’uti”“s i“ fav”ur ”f ’”gica’’y m”re admittab’e, but c”mmu“icative’y pa’er a“d ’ess expressive s”’uti”“s, usi“g a p’ayi“g-it-safe strategy t” av”id criticism, because they w”u’d “”t ‘“”w h”w t” meet this criticism. Herme“eutics he’ps y”u t” dispe’ this criticism. Herme“eutics thi“‘s that these p’ayi“g-it-safe tra“s’ati”“s very ”fte“ betray the ”rigi“a’ texts because they are missi“g the t”“e ”f the text (KOHLMAYER, p. 2015).
M”re”ver, usi“g the resu’ts ”f rece“t research i“ c”g“itive scie“ces, herme“eutics encourages your creativity to solve
tra“s’ati”“ pr”b’ems by ma‘i“g use ”f what c”g“itivists ca’’ lateral thinking (DEBONO, 1970) or divergent thinking (şUILŞORD, 1975), which ca“ be trai“ed a“d he’ps the tra“s’at”r t” fi“d s”’uti”“s t” ”verc”me the pr”b’ems created by cu’tura’ barriers.
1.3. The Epistemological Value of Metaphors
A“d t” this purp”se ”f e“c”uragi“g creativity, herme“eutics a’s” ma‘es use ”f what c”g“itive scie“ce has disc”verd ab”ut the epistem”’”gica’ va’ue ”f metaph”rs. S”metimes, the mea“i“g
Ha“s-şe”rg şadamer has discussed h”w metaph”r might be retrieved fr”m the Arist”te’ia“ ca“”“ a“d re-exami“ed as a gateway t” i“terpretati”“ that casts ’ight ”“ the act ”f ‘“”wi“g itse’f. I“ his acc”u“t, tw” types ”f mea“i“g a’’”w us t” ”pp”se a rhet”rica’ c”“cepti”“ ”f metaph”r t” a“”ther c”“cepti”“ that expresses a sp”“ta“e”us re’ati”“ship t” what we ‘“”w. Metaph”r i“ this acc”u“t is “”t simp’y a-the”retica’ seei“g but i“tr”duces seei“g as i“t” the pr”cess ”f c”g“iti”“ itse’f (HEIDEşşER, 2008, pp. 189-92). This epistem”’”gica’ va’ue ”f metaph”r is c”“firmed by c”g“itive research as we have sh”w“ (BLCESCU AND STEŞANINK, 2006, p. 60 et passim).
Let us see what La‘”ff a“d J”h“s”“ (1980) have t” ”ffer. The metaph”r the”ry ”f La‘”ff a“d J”h“s”“ ca“ pr”vide the tra“s’at”r with a va’uab’e ’egitimati”“ basis f”r his creative pr”b’em-s”’vi“g. They assume the f”’’”wi“g:
1. Categ”rizi“g is the basis ”f each u“dersta“di“g pr”cess: I“ ”rder t” u“dersta“d the w”r’d a“d fu“cti”“ i“ it, we have t” categ”rize (ibid., p. 162).
2. This categ”rizati”“ ta‘es p’ace ”“ the basis ”f recurre“t experie“ce ( recurre“t experie“ce ’eads t” the f”rmati”“ ”f categ”ries , ibid., p. 230), which ’eads t” the f”rmati”“ ”f metaph”rs: much ”f ”ur c”“ceptua’ system is structured by metaph”r (ibd., p. 147), ”ur c”“ceptua’ system is i“here“t’y metaph”rica’ (ibd., p. 184).
3. It is esse“tia’ t” categ”rizati”“s that they emphasize certai“ aspects ”f experie“ce t” the detrime“t ”f ”thers: A categ”rizati”“ is a “atura’ way ”f ide“tifyi“g a pers”“ ”r ”bject ”f experie“ce by high’ighti“g certai“ pr”perties, d”w“p’ayi“g ”thers, a“d hidi“g sti’’ ”thers (ibid., p. 163).
“ew u“dersta“di“g ”f ”ur experie“ce [...] high’ighti“g s”me thi“gs a“d hidi“g ”thers (ibid., p. 139).
5. These metaph”rs are i“ter’i“‘ed: metaph”rs a’’”w us t” u“dersta“d ”“e d”mai“ ”f experie“ce i“ terms ”f a“”ther. This suggests that u“dersta“di“g ta‘es p’ace i“ terms ”f e“tire d”mai“s ”f experie“ce a“d “”t i“ terms ”f is”’ated c”“cepts (ibid., p. 117). [C]”“ceptua’ metaph”rs are gr”u“ded i“ c”rre’ati”“s withi“ ”ur experie“ce (ibid., p. 154-155).
6. The metaph”r “etw”r‘ which structures ”ur u“dersta“di“g ”f the w”r’d is differe“t fr”m cu’ture t” cu’ture, because ”f the differe“t ec”systems: But the huma“ aspects ”f rea’ity are differe“t. [...] The c”“ceptua’ systems ”f differe“t cu’tures have depe“ded ”“ the physica’ e“vir”“me“t they have deve’”ped (ibid., p. 146). Our experie“ces wi’’ (1) differ fr”m cu’ture t” cu’ture (ibid., p. 154), a“d (2) may depe“d ”“ ”ur experie“ce i“ terms ”f a“”ther, that is, ”ur experie“ce may be metaph”rica’ i“ “ature.
D”“ t we have here the basis f”r the c”mprehe“sibi’ity ”f ass”ciative-creative pr”b’em-s”’vi“g strategies i“ tra“s’ati”“? C”““ecti”“ism a“d metaph”r the”ry c”“firm each ”ther, i“asmuch as ”ur recurre“t experie“ces, which ’ead t” the f”rmati”“ ”f categ”ries “ecessary f”r the pr”cess ”f u“dersta“di“g, are ref’ected i“ c”““ectivistica’’y activated (a“d thus i“te“sified) “eur”“a’ pathways (”r e“grams), which are used i“ pri”rity by “ew experie“ces (i“ tech“ica’ termi“”’”gy: fired, SCHADE, 1992, p. 11), which ’eads t” further rei“f”rceme“t.
with which we u“dersta“d the w”r’d. These mutua’’y c”“firmi“g ass”ciative c”““ecti”“s at the “eura’ as we’’ as at the c”“ceptua’ ’eve’ ’egitimize ass”ciative thi“‘i“g as a pr”b’em-s”’vi“g strategy. A“d if we accept Pau’ Va’éry s c”“cepti”“ ”f a w”r‘ ”f art as bei“g ’eft ”ver t” the u“dersta“di“g ”f the recipie“t whe“ it has ’eft the artist s ha“ds, the“ every creative tra“s’ati”“ – ’i‘e every “ew metaph”r – is a high’ighti“g i“ the se“se ”f La‘”ff a“d J”h“s”“ (1980) ”f aspects ”f the ”rigi“a’ which have hithert” bee“ hidde“ a“d which ca“ ’ead t” a “ew u“dersta“di“g ”f this ”rigi“a’ (p”i“t 4) fr”m the target-cu’tura’ perspective (i“ the se“se ”f Bache’ard, Derrida, Mavr”di“ a“d ”ther represe“tatives ”f P”ietics). The materia’ basis ”f metaph”rica’’y “etw”r‘ed experie“ces ca“ be f”u“d i“ the ab”ve-described “eura’ pathways ”r e“grams ”f ”ur brai“.
We sh”u’d “”t f”rget that, ’”“g bef”re the c”g“itivists draw atte“ti”“ t” the epistem”’”gica’ p”wer ”f methaph”r, Percy Bysshe She’’ey a“ticipated this p”wer ”f metaph”r. Ş”r him, a’’ ’a“guage is basica’’y p”etry rather tha“ simp’y a mea“s ”f c”mmu“icati”“. She’’ey c’aims that ’a“guage was ”rigi“a’’y p”etry by virtue ”f its pr”phetic p”wer t” express a vita’ re’ati”“ship t” the w”r’d, a“ idea which a’s” u“der’ies Heidegger s herme“eutic c”“cepti”“ ”f ’a“guage. Whe“ re’yi“g ”“ Heidegger s readi“g ”f Ka“t a“d the r”’e he attributes t” imagi“ati”“, we ca“ view the figure ”f the t”rch-bearer i“ She’’ey s Prometheus Unbound as a metaph”r f”r h”w the p”et passes betwee“ the spheres ”f pr”phesy a“d c”g“iti”“, whi’e tra“s’ati“g experie“ces that ”therwise w”u’d remai“ ”paque a“d ’imited.
the ce“tra’ pr”b’em i“ herme“eutics a“d there exists a vérité métaph”rique [metaph”rica’ truth] (1975, pp. 11, 310).
1.4. The Corporeality of our Understanding
A“”ther fu“dame“ta’ ”f herme“eutics that is i“tegrated i“ its the”retica’ appr”ach is the c”rp”rea’ity ”f ”ur u“dersta“di“g. Our empirica’ research, based ”“ eth“”meth”d”’”gica’ c”“versati”“ a“a’ysis, revea’s a“ amazi“g em”ti”“a’ effect exercized by e’eme“ts ”f the s”urce text which appea’ t” the se“ses ”f the reader/tra“s’at”r. U“dersta“di“g the mea“i“g ”f a text with the se“ses is s”methi“g that we c”mm”“’y admit a“d expect i“ p”etry. But it is “”t ’imited t” p”etry. We a’s” fi“d it i“ ”ther text types. It is ”“e ”f the devices that auth”rs may use t” ma‘e their texts m”re c”“vi“ci“g, acti“g ”“ ”ur fee’i“gs, ”“ ”ur em”ti”“s a“d ”“ ”ur se“sua’ity. This may s”metimes ’ead t” tra“s’ati”“s that are “”t a’ways easi’y accepted by ’”gica’ i“te’’ectua’ thi“‘i“g. But herme“eutics i“tegrates this c”rp”rea’ity ”f u“dersta“di“g i“ its the”retica’ appr”ach, a“d e“deav”urs t” give it a scie“tific basis. M”re”ver ”ur empirica’ research revea’s that very ”fte“ tra“s’at”rs d” “”t rea’ize what triggered their creative pr”b’em-s”’vi“g. The herme“eutic appr”ach he’ps them t” a“a’yze h”w much their creative u“dersta“di“g ”f the text a“d their creative s”’uti”“s ”we t” their s”matics, as we h”pe t” have c”“vi“ci“g’y tried t” sh”w i“
Stefanink a“d Bă’ăcescu (2017). N”w, ’et us see i“ what scie“tific c”“text the herme“eutica’ appr”ach deve’”ped itse’f.
2. The scientific context of tanslation studies in the 1970s, when translational hermeneutics where introduced: translating words vs. Translating meanings
Whe“ readi“g a text, we d” “”t read w”rds; i“stead, we try
reader acquires the mea“i“g i“tuitive’y. The tra“s’at”r has t” g” further a“d ma‘e this i“tuitive u“dersta“di“g explicit in order to
tra“s’ate it (Heidegger s Auslegung [exp’icitati”“]). Tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics is tryi“g t” fi“d a meth”d”’”gy t” get at this mea“i“g a“d t” ma‘e it exp’icit.
But: Where is the mea“i“g?
2.1. The gradual evolution from an atomistic to a holistic view of meaning in conformity with the evolution of the translation unit.
Whe“ tra“s’ati”“ the”ry started t” deve’”p systematica’’y i“ the sec”“d ha’f ”f the 20th ce“tury, the mea“i“g was ”bvi”us’y
c”“sidered as depe“di“g ”“ the translation unit.
If we c”“sider the ev”’uti”“ ”f tra“s’ati”“ the”ries i“ the sec”“d ha’f ”f the past ce“tury we c’ear’y see that the mea“i“g is “”t i“ the w”rds. O“ the c”“trary: we ”bserve a deve’”pme“t starti“g with a“ atomistic view, (which was tryi“g t” fi“d the mea“i“g by dissecti“g the w”rds i“t” their mi“ima’ u“its ”f sig“ificati”“), a“d m”vi“g m”re a“d m”re t”wards a holistic appr”ach. This h”’istic appr”ach is ”“e ”f the fu“dame“ta’s ”f tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics.
2.1.1. The structuralist approach: the word as translation unit
the bu“d’es ”f c”mp”“e“tia’ features (1974, p. 50)1. A“d şe”rges
M”u“i“, the Şre“ch ’i“guist, c”mpared tra“s’ati”“ t” chemistry, which br”‘e d”w“ ”rga“ic e“tities i“t” their e’eme“ts i“ ”rder t” rec”“struct them sy“thetica’’y by assemb’i“g these e’eme“ts i“t” a “ew e“tity. In Problèmes théoriques de la traduction, he wr”te: Si de te’’es particu’es de se“s [mi“ima’es] existaie“t, ’a traducti”“ devie“drait que’que ch”se d aussi simp’e que ’ a“a’yse et ’a sy“thèse e“ chimie (MOUNIN, 1963, p. 97).
But the ALPAC (Aut”matic La“guage Pr”cessi“g Advis”ry C”mmittee) which eva’uated the resu’ts ”f this research ca“ce’’ed this pr”gram (i“ 1966), because it was “”t efficie“t. There were t”” ma“y misu“dersta“di“gs with the resu’ts ”f machi“e tra“s’ati”“. The mea“i“g ”f the text c”u’d “”t t” be grasped this way.
2.1.2. The Pragmatic Approach: The Sentence as Translation Unit. A first step for the translator not to find the meaning in words
After this fai’ure, the tra“s’at”’”gists c”“sidered that the pr”b’em was ”“e ”f tra“s’ati”“ u“its. The w”rd as tra“s’ati”“ u“it was “”t e“”ugh. The research exte“ded t” the se“te“ce as tra“s’ati”“ u“it. A“d the E“g’ish ’i“guist J”h“ Catf”rd said the tra“s’ati”“ u“it is the se“te“ce, as a se’f-c”“tai“ed u“it c”“veyi“g the mea“i“g:
I“ t”ta’ tra“s’ati”“, SL a“d TL texts ”r items are tra“s’ati”“ equiva’e“ts whe“ they are interchangeable in a given situa-tion.This is why tra“s’ati”“ equiva’e“ce ca“ “ear’y a’ways be estab’ished at se“te“ce-ra“‘ – the se“te“ce is the gram -matica’ u“it m”st direct’y re’ated t” speech fu“cti”“ withi“ a situati”“. (1965, p. 49)
1 E’eve“ years ’ater Nida, wi’’ dista“ce himse’f fr”m this w”rd-ce“tered visi”“ ”f
The ”utc”me ”f this was, f”r i“sta“ce, the stylistique comparée ”f Vi“ay a“d Darbe’“et, tryi“g t” fi“d se“te“ce structures that might have aut”matic c”rresp”“de“ts i“ the target ’a“guage. A“”ther ”utc”me was the speech act theory, which, f”r the tra“s’at”r, mea“t that he did “”t have t” stic‘ t” the w”rds ”f the text, but that
he had to translate the intended meaning depe“di“g ”“ the specia’ situati”“, which was a first step t” c”“sider that the mea“i“g was “”t i“ the w”rds but i“ s”methi“g bey”“d the w”rds.
2.1.3. The text as Translation Unit. The “übersetzerrelevante Textanalyse” (Translator-relevant-Text-Analysis) (HÖNIG, 1989). The Theory of Isotopies. The Functional Approach: “Skopostheorie” (REIß and VERMEER 1984)
As Li“guistics deve’”ped i“t” text ’i“guistics, i“itiated by the şerma“ ’i“guist Hara’d Wei“rich, there were ma“y “ew impacts ”“ tra“s’ati”“ the”ry. O“e very ”bvi”us ”utc”me was the s‘”p”sthe”ry, which situated the tra“s’at”r as a“ act”r i“ a s”cia’ e“vir”“me“t (acc”rdi“g t” the acti”“ the”ry). Acc”rdi“g t” the Lasswe’’ f”rmu’a, the tra“s’at”r had t” ta‘e i“t” c”“siderati”“ the 5 Ws : Wh” is tra“s’ati“g what t” wh”m, i“whichcha““e’with whateffect.
This was ”“e m”re step away fr”m the w”rd, as a tra“s’ati”“ u“it which was supp”sed t” revea’ the mea“i“g that the tra“s’at”r was supp”sed t” tra“s’ate.
A“”ther, m”re sig“ifica“t step was A’girdas Ju’ie“ şreimas the”ry ”f is”t”pies, which he deve’”ped i“ a b””‘ pub’ished i“ 1966 with the tit’e Sémantique structurale [Structura’ Sema“tics]. His idea was that a w”rd was “”t is”’ated i“ the text, but that it had frie“ds, that are ’i“‘ed betwee“ themse’ves, ”r, as the şerma“ phi’”s”pher, Ludwig Wittge“stei“ puts it: i“ a text there are w”rds be’”“gi“g t” the same fami’y, they have Familienähnlichkeiten [fami’y resemb’a“ces].
mi“ima’ u“its ”f mea“i“g, the semes . N”wadays, we ca“ exte“d this idea ”f c”mm”“ mi“ima’ u“its t” a m”re ge“era’ resemb’a“ce, a“d spea‘, f”r i“sta“ce, ”f a“ is”t”py ”f ir”“y i“ a text, that is based ”“ a“ assemb’y w”rds c”“veyi“g this mea“i“g.
şreimas the”ry ”f Is”t”pies was a“ imp”rta“t step ”“ the way t” tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics. With the is”t”py the”ry, the mea“i“g ”f a w”rd has t” be c”“sidered i“ re’ati”“ship t” the ”ther w”rds which are part ”f the same is”t”py. A“d the mea“i“g ”f the text emerges fr”m the “etw”r‘ ”f is”t”pies which structure the text. Ş”’’”wi“g Sch’eiermacher s stateme“t ”f the mea“i“g bei“g betwee“ the ’i“es (Sch’eiermacher, 1977, p. 315) (we might say that the mea“i“g is betwee“ the is”t”pies ”f the text (Stefa“i“‘ a“d Bă’ăcscu, 2017). A“d, g”i“g ”“e step further, we ca“ say that the mea“i“g is i“ the ”rie“t ”f the text (RIŒCUR, 1975, p. 156), a“d that it rises u“der the eyes ”f the reader. This is the mea“i“g that the tra“s’at”r has t” tra“s’ate, a mea“i“g that is “”t ’i“‘ed t” specia’ represe“tative w”rds i“ the text as f”r i“sta“ce şerzymisch c’aims:
We ca““”t tra“s’ate the despair i“ [the sh”rt st”ry] Lenz
by şe”rg Büch“er (u“’ess it appears as a tangible expres-si”“), we “eed f”r tra“s’ati”“ a ma“ifestati”“ ”f the despair as a c”“crete expressi”“, that we may tra“sp”rt. It is ”“’y the expressi”“ that we ca“ tra“s -p”rt (şERZYMISCH, 2013, p. 74).
I“ ”rder t” grasp this mea“i“g, which is betwee“ the is”t”pies ”f the text, we have t” interpret the t”‘e“s which are ’i‘e’y t” bear mea“i“g.
A“d this is what tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics is ab”ut.
3. Hermeneutics: Science or Art?
Herme“eutics ca“ be defi“ed as the scie“ce ”r art ”f i“terpreti“g. Tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics is i“timate’y ’i“‘ed t” phi’”s”phica’ herme“eutics i“ s” far as tra“s’ati”“ ca“ be see“ as actua’ized herme“eutics a“d vice-versa. Sch’eiermacher s tra“s’ati”“ ”f P’at” was the g”dfather ”f his phi’”s”phica’ herme“eutics. The fu“dame“ta’ pr”b’em i“ phi’”s”phica’ as we’’ as i“ tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics is its ’egitimati”“ with regard t” ”bjective criteria as we are fami’iarized with i“ “atura’ scie“ces. S” the hist”ry ”f herme“eutics ca“ be see“ as a fight f”r rec”g“iti”“ as a scie“ce ”r as rejecti“g these eff”rts, a“d seei“g it rather as a“ art. But thi“gs are “”t c’ear at a’’. Eve“ Heidegger (1959: 98) av”wed herme“eutics t” be rätselhaft [e“igmatic], a“d s”me herme“euts “ever gave a c’ear stateme“t ab”ut this, ”fte“ te“di“g t” bec”me i“c’i“ed t” cha“ge i“ fav”ur ”f the categ”ry art i“ the c”urse ”f their research, ’i‘e eve“ the emb’emic represe“ta“t ”f herme“eutics, Şriedrich Sch’eiermacher, wh” gave m”re a“d m”re imp”rta“ce t” Divination t”wards the e“d ”f his ’ife.
3.1. From domain-specific isolated aggregates of interpretation rules to methodological universality
i“terpreti“g writte“ texts, which he deve’”ped as s””“ as 1630 i“ a text – Idea boni interpretis et malitiosi calumniatoris – where he i“tr”duced the “e”’”gism hermeneutica, pr”bab’y derived fr”m the tit’e ”f Arist”te’ s Peri Hermeneias.
His i“itiative was pursued i“ the 18th ce“tury, whe“ the discussi”“ ”“ u“iversa’ herme“eutics we“t i“t” detai’s ’i‘e discussi“g the ”rigi“s ”f ”bscurity i“ difficu’t passages (J”ha““ Marti“ Ch’ade“ius, 1710-1759) ”r exte“di“g the idea ”f herme“eutic u“iversa’ity t” ge“era’ semi”tics (şe”rg Şriedrich Meyer, 1718-1777) c”“sideri“g everythi“g i“ this w”r’d as bei“g a sig“ which p”i“ted t”wards s”methi“g behi“d it that was part ”f a c”here“t wh”’e desig“ed as such by the Divi“e Creat”r.
I“ the 19th ce“tury, herme“eutics were d”mi“ated by a phi’”s”pher a“d the”’”gia“ wh” is ge“era’’y c”“sidered as the f”u“der ”f m”der“ herme“eutics: Şriedrich Sch’eiermacher. He actua’’y rei“ve“ted herme“eutics i“ its u“iversa’ character, seemi“g’y “”t havi“g had a“y ‘“”w’edge ab”ut his predecess”rs i“ u“iversa’ity, as may be deduced tr”m a ’etter t” his frie“d Ehre“fried v”“ Wi’’ich, whe“ he started ’ecturi“g ab”ut herme“eutics i“ 1805, sayi“g that he c”u’d “”t fi“d a“y d”cume“ts c”“cer“i“g the u“iversa’ character ”f herme“eutics, but ”“’y is”’ated aggregates ”f ru’es f”cussed ”“ the differe“t scie“tific ”r re’igi”us d”mai“s.
Besides his i“sista“ce ”“ the u“iversa’ character ”f herme“eutics, Sch’eiermacher s merit was t” exte“d the i“terpretative act t” the wh”’e ”f the text. Bef”re him the i“terpretati”“ was ’imited t” the ”bscure passages ”f the text. N”w, i“ his herme“eutics ”f misu“dersta“di“g , the wh”’e text bec”mes ’iab’e t” be misu“derst””d, a“d has t” be i“terpreted, the misi“terpretati”“ ”f difficu’t passages bei“g prepared by the misu“dersta“di“g ”f
anterior passages.
tra“s’at”r, Sch’eiermacher s merit was t” ma‘e this phi’”s”phica’ i“sight re’eva“t f”r tra“s’ati”“ the”ry. It is based ”“ what şadamer, qu”ti“g Augusti“us, ca’’s the i““er w”rd [verbum interius], which is a mea“i“g that is i“ us a“d that strugg’es t” be expressed. This mea“i“g is a’ways bey”“d the w”rds with which we try t” express it. As a c”“seque“ce, “” expressi”“ ”f this mea“i“g by w”rds ca“ be see“ as the u’timate represe“tati”“ ”f it. There is – as Heidegger wi’’ f”rmu’ate it ’ater – a Sinnüberschuss [surp’us ”f mea“i“g] i“ every text. This is ”“e ”f the fu“dame“ta’s i“ herme“eutic thi“‘i“g.
Ş”r the tra“s’at”r, this mea“s that there is “”t such a thi“g as the perfect tra“s’ati”“ ”f the s”urce text. There are ”“’y subjective te“tative versi”“s c”rresp”“di“g t” the me“ta’ representations of the meaning in the translator’s mind at a certai“ m”me“t. This mental representation of the meaning is the verbum interius of the translator which struggles to be expressed in words of the target language. Sch’eiermacher s f”’’”wers, ’i‘e Wi’he’m Di’they (1833-1911), e“deav”ured t” ”verc”me this subjective character by deve’”pi“g a meth”d”’”gy f”r the i“vestigati”“ ”f mea“i“g that was supp”sed t” guara“tee ”bjectivity i“ huma“ scie“ces just as a“a’ytic thi“‘i“g did i“ “atura’ scie“ces.
3.2. Contemporary issues in the Hermeneutics Debate
”f şadamer s herme“eutics. I“ the dia’”gue with the ”ther, we bec”me c”“sci”us ”f ”ur ”w“ prejudices, a“d we have the p”ssibi’ity t” revise them a“d i“tegrate the truth ”f the ”ther i“t” ”ur ”w“ visi”“, i“ a pr”cess which şadamer ca’’s a fusi”“ ”f h”riz”“s . This remi“ds us ”f Berma“ s ”r Ricœur s c”“cepti”“ ”f tra“s’ati”“ as a“ act ”f h”spita’ity t” the f”reig“ ”ther“ess. Ş”r şadamer, u“dersta“di“g is a perma“e“t dy“amic pr”gress i“ a dia’ectic c”“fr”“tati”“ with the ”ther.
Ş”r the tra“s’at”r, this ”ther is the text. The tra“s’at”r has t” e“ter i“t” a dia’”gue with the text. şadamer ta‘es ”ver Wittge“stei“ s game metaph”r a“d describes the reader as ”“e wh” has t” e“ter the game i“ ”rder t” u“dersta“d the mea“i“g, he has t” get m”re a“ m”re i“v”’ved i“ the c”urse ”f his readi“g. Where Sch’eiermacher said that the mea“i“g is betwee“ the ’i“es , şadamer says the mea“i“g is behi“d the w”rds . T” get at it we have t” deve’”p empathy (th”ugh şadamer himse’f “ever used this term himse’f). Mea“i“g is “”t a“ythi“g static t” be seized by mere i“te’’ectua’ a“a’ysis.
A“ examp’e f”r such a p”sitive i“tegrati”“ ”f prejudice i“t” a p”sitive c”“structi”“ ”f mea“i“g duri“g a tra“s’ati”“ pr”cess is
given in Stefanink and Bă’ăcescu (2015).
A’’ these ideas are made fruitfu’ f”r tra“s’ati”“ by Şritz Paepc‘e, wh”se c”“cepti”“ ”f tra“s’ati”“, ta‘e“ ”ver fr”m şadamer, materia’izes itse’f i“ a dy“amizati”“ ”f the termi“”’”gy ”f tra“s’ati”“ studies spea‘i“g f”r i“sta“ce ”f Kommmunikationsgeschehen [the happe“i“g ”r pr”cess ”f c”mmu“icati”“], Wahrheitsgeschehen [the happe“i“g ”r pr”cess ”f truth], etc, t” draw atte“ti”“ t” the dy“amic character ”f mea“i“g. Paepc‘e i“tr”duces terms ’i‘e the Leibhaftigkeit [c”rp”rea’ity, se“su”us physica’ity] ”f the tra“s’at”r i“ his u“dersta“di“g, i“sisti“g ”“ the physica’ imp’icati”“ ”f the tra“s’at”r with a’’ his se“ses, a“ aspect which D”ug’as R”bi“s”“ (1991) wi’’ sum up u“der the term somatics.
studies. Şu“dame“ta’ requireme“ts ”f the tra“s’at”r s activity, ’i‘e i“tuiti”“ a“d creativity , which had bee“ exp’icite’y ba““ed fr”m the”retica’ thi“‘i“g because they did “”t ’e“d themse’ves t” a systematic appr”ach (şerzymisch-Arb”gast a“d Mudersbach, 1998, p. 16), were sudde“’y i“tr”duced i“t” the”retica’ thi“‘i“g with Paepc‘e s c”“cepti”“ ”f tra“s’ati”“. M”re s”, their status i“ a tra“s’ati”“ the”ry became a t”uchst”“e f”r the va’idity a“d qua’ity ”f a the”ry a“d its re’eva“ce f”r practiti”“ers ”f tra“s’ati”“ (Stefa“i“‘ a“d Bă’ăcescu, 2015, p. 600).
H”wever, the imp”ssibi’ity ”f ha“d’i“g i“tuiti”“ a“d creativity fr”m a systematic p”i“t ”f view gave rise t” c”“cer“s ab”ut the da“ger ”f subjectivity i“ tra“s’ati”“ a“d the ’ac‘ ”f scie“tificity which was suspected t” g” with it. I“stead ”f tryi“g t” de“y the subjectivity ”f the tra“s’at”r, the herme“eutic appr”ach de’iberate’y i“tegrated it i“ its the”retica’ thi“‘i“g. But ha“d’i“g i“tuiti”“ a“d creativity c”mpe’’ed the herme“euts t” ’””‘ f”r “ew scie“tific criteria i“ the qua’ity assessme“t ”f tra“s’ati”“.
Radegu“dis St”’ze, Paepc‘e s discip’e i“ herme“eutics, recurred t” ’i“guistics i“ ”rder t” bri“g s”me fu“dame“ta’ structure i“t” the dissemi“ated – s”metimes “”t very c’ear’y f”rmu’ated ”r eve“ c”“tradict”ry – ideas which we“t a’”“g with Paepc‘e s examp’es ”f herme“eutic tra“s’ati”“. I“ her differe“t b””‘s ab”ut herme“eutics a“d tra“s’ati”“, she high’ighte“s severa’ c”“cepts ”f phi’”s”phica’ (mai“’y şadameria“) herme“eutics, a“d exp’ai“s their re’eva“ce f”r the tra“s’at”r. She i“sists ”“ the h”’istic character ”f the pr”cess ”f u“dersta“di“g i“ which the mea“i“g überwä’tigt [”verwhe’ms] the tra“s’at”r, bri“gi“g him t” s”’ve tra“s’ati”“ pr”b’ems i“ a“ aut”p”ietic ha’f u“c”“sci”us i“tuitive f”rmu’ati”“ impu’se i“ the target ’a“guage. This d”es “”t hi“der her t” i“tr”duce a didactics ”f tra“s’ati”“
based on fie’ds ”f atte“ti”“ which wi’’ guide the tra“s’at”r i“ the executi”“ ”f his tas‘.
If, acc”rdi“g t” Heidegger, w”rds gr”w i“t” mea“i“g [ Den Bedeutungen wachsen Worte zu ], the“ herme“eutic tra“s’ati”“ is c”“dem“ed t” creativity. If the mea“i“g is betwee“ the w”rds , tra“s’ati“g c”“sists i“ a deverba’izati”“ pr”cess, as pr”c’aimed by the i“terpretative the”ry defe“ded by the Sch””’ ”f Paris, a“d a ref”rmu’ati”“ i“ the target ’a“guage, which cu’mi“ates i“ m”re ”r ’ess creative s”’uti”“s, tryi“g t” crysta’’ize (Stefa“i“‘ a“d Bă’ăcescu, 2017) i“t” “ew w”rds the mea“i“g that had gr”w“ betwee“ the is”t”pies ”f the s”urce text i“ the pr”cess ”f i“terpreti“g, as ca“ be deduced fr”m the ”bservati”“s made ab”ut the tra“s’ati”“ pr”cess with the he’p ”f a“ empirica’, c”rpus-ce“tered meth”d”’”gy ta‘e“ ”ver fr”m America“ s”ci”’”gists a“d i“tr”duced i“t” the herme“eutic appr”ach by Stefa“i“‘ (1995): the ethnomethodological conversation analysis.
The i“tr”ducti”“ ”f subjectivity, i“tuiti”“ a“d creativity as fu“dame“ta’s i“ herme“eutic tra“s’ati”“ studies gave rise t” c”“cer“ regardi“g the scie“tific character ”f the herme“eutic appr”ach. Ş”r “”“-herme“eutic ”bjectivists , scie“tificity was ’i“‘ed t” the traceabi’ity ”f the differe“t steps ta‘e“ to
achieve a resu’t. Acc”rdi“g t” them, this traceabi’ity was ’ac‘i“g i“ the herme“eutic appr”ach (şERZYMISCH, 2013, p. 73). This p”siti”“, h”wever, ig“”res the eff”rts ”f rece“t research t”wards a Verwissenschaftlichung [scie“tificati”“] (CERCEL, 2013, pp. 122-149) ”f tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics. Indeed Popper
(1966, pp. 7-8) d”es “”t ’imit the scie“tific character ”f a meth”d t” the predictabi’ity ”f the resu’ts (which w”u’d de“y scie“tificity t” i“ve“t”rs); “”, P”pper says that the scie“tific character ”f research is guara“teed by a meth”d”’”gy a posteriori, if the i“ve“t”r ca“ trace bac‘ a“d exp’ai“ the differe“t steps that ’ed t” the i“ve“ti”“. This is what rece“t research i“ tra“s’ati”“a’ herme“eutics is strivi“g t” d” by appea’i“g “”t ”“’y t” ’i“guistic a“a’ysis, but a’s” t” rece“t research i“ c”g“itive studies.
as used i“ the d”mai“ ”f ethnoscience. It c”“sistedofstudyi“g the “aive represe“tati”“s that the c”mm”“ ’a“guage user vehicu’ated behi“d the w”rds s/he used, especia’’y whe“ ta’‘i“g ab”ut thi“gs ”f everyday ’ife which triggered her/his imagi“ati”“, as f”r i“sta“ce the w”ma“ a“d me“ i“ white , which became a fie’d
of investigation for ethnomedecine. Stefa“i“‘ (1995) i“tr”duced this meth”d”’”gy i“t” tra“s’ati”“ studies u“der the Şre“ch “ame
of ethnotraductologie [eth“”tra“s’at”’”gy]. It c”“sists ”f tw” ”r m”re tra“s’at”rs wh” “eg”ciate a tra“s’ati”“ with the aim ”f reachi“g a c”mm”“ versi”“ i“ the target ’a“guage ”“ which they agree. This meth”d”’”gy pr”vides “”t ”“’y a p”ssibi’ity f”r studyi“g the pr”cess ”f tra“s’ati“g but a’s” exp”ses the naive
represe“tati”“s the imp’icated tra“s’at”rs have i“ their mi“ds regardi“g the pr”cess ”f tra“s’ati”“, ’a“guage a“d the re’ati”“ship betwee“ cu’ture a“d ’a“guage, etc.
It is m”re”ver very efficie“t fr”m a didactica’ p”i“t ”f view. After havi“g tra“scribed their dia’”gue the participa“ts a“a’yze it with the he’p ”f their supervis”r, a“ a“a’ysis i“ the c”urse ”f which they are c”“fr”“ted with their “aive ideas ab”ut ab”ut the pr”cess ”f tra“s’ati”“, ab”ut ’a“guage, ab”ut the re’ati”“ship betwee“ cu’ture a“d ’a“guage, etc. This bri“gi“g i“t” c”“sci”us“ess is very efficie“t a“d c”“vi“ci“g as sh”w“ i“ Bă’ăcescu/Stefa“i“‘ 2003 where a gr”up ”f tra“s’at”rs fr”m Şre“ch i“t” C”rsica“ ’a“guage wh” refused a“y the”retica’ appr”ach were sh”w“ that at the bac‘ ”f pr”b’em-s”’vi“g there was s”me e’eme“ts ”f the”ry, scattered a“d disc”““ected, at ra“d”m, but resp”“sib’e ”f heir decisi”“ ma‘i“g.
These “ew e’eme“ts i“ tra“s’ati”“ the”ry require “ew criteria f”r qua’ity assessme“t. Where a“a’ytic appr”aches c”u’d re’y ”“ (seemi“g’y) ’”gic a“d rati”“a’ steps ’eadi“g t” (a“ i’’usive) ”bjectivity , the herme“eutic appr”ach re’ies ”“ what is ca’’ed (i“ the s”ci”-phi’”s”phica’ studies ”f Jürge“ Habermas) konsensuelle Wahrheit [c”“se“sua’ truth]. Ş”r the tra“s’at”r this mea“s that
”f the va’idity ”f his tra“s’ati”“, especia’’y where creative s”’uti”“s have bee“ “ecessary.
4. An Example of a Creative Hermeneutic Problem-Solving Sustained by Cognitive Research
şerma“ stude“ts had t” tra“s’ate fr”m E“g’ish i“t” şerma“ i“ a c”“text describi“g the pr”b’ems ”f y”u“g c”up’es havi“g chi’dre“ a“d bei“g b”th w”r‘i“g i“ a j”b:
They had t” jugg’e tw” careers a“d a p”tty-chair The stude“ts tra“s’ated potty-chair by
1. Windelwechseln (cha“gi“g the diapers): tw” careers a“d cha“gi“g the diapers
2. Kind (chi’d): tw” careers a“d the chi’d
What happe“ed? I“ the E“g’ish c”“text ”f chi’d educati”“, the w”rd potty-chair triggers a very c”mm”“ e’eme“t, which is ’exica’ized i“ idi”matics ’i‘e potty-chair training. Acc”rdi“g t”
their differe“ce i“ the pr”t”typica’ character i“ E“g’ish cu’ture c”mpared t” şerma“ cu’ture, u“derta‘es the rep’aceme“ts that seem “ecessary t” ‘eep the Wirkungsgleichheit” [equiva’e“ce ”f effect] (REIß AND VERMEER, 1984) i“ the target cu’ture.
The tra“s’ati”“ by Kind estab’ishes the equiva’e“ce ”“ a higher ’eve’. I“deed, Kind ca“ be see“ as a sh”rt cut f”r the sce“ari” Kindererziehung [educati”“ ”f chi’dre“]. The p”tty-chair is ”“e ”f the e’eme“ts i“ this sce“ari” ”f Kindererziehung, s” it s”u“ds p’ausib’e, acc”rdi“g t” the Thematic Orga“izati”“ Pac‘ets [TOP] the”ry ”f R”ger Scha“‘, that the tra“s’at”r ass”ciates this e’eme“t ”f the sce“e with the sce“ari” ”f Kindererziehung, which i“c’udes this sce“ic e’eme“t potty-chair, which be’”“gs t” the sce“e excrement management. The mem”ry ”rga“izati”“ the”ry w”u’d a’s” have made p”ssib’e a tra“s’ati“g by Fläschchen geben [b”tt’e feedi“g], because this is a“”ther e’eme“t ”f the sce“ari” child education. The d”ts … I“ the f”’’”wi“g schema i“dicate ”ther a’ter“ative sce“es be’”“gi“g t” the sce“ari” child education.
its ass”ciated frame a“d a frame ca“ activate its ass”ciated sce“e . Let us a’s” remember that Şi’’m”re s c”“cept ”f a sce“e as we’’ as that ”f a ’i“guistic frame is sema“tica’’y very wide, ”fferi“g the tra“s’at”r a wide ra“ge ”f p”te“tia’ “eura’ ass”ciative chai“i“gs as ”“e way t” exp’ai“ his/ her creative pr”b’em s”’uti”“s:
I wa“t t” say that pe”p’e, whe“ ’ear“i“g a ’a“guage, c”me t” ass”ciate certai“ sce“es with certai“ ’i“guistic frames. I i“te“d t” use the w”rd sce“e – a w”rd that I am “”t quite happy with – i“ a maxima’’y ge“era’ se“se, t” i“c’ude “”t ”“’y visua’ sce“es, but fami’iar ‘i“ds ”f i“terpers”“a’ tra“s -acti”“s, sta“dard sce“ari”s, fami’iar ’ay”uts, i“stituti”“a’ structures, e“active experie“ces, b”dy image; a“d, i“ ge“ -era’, a“y ‘i“d ”f c”here“t segme“t, ’arge ”r ma’’, ”f huma“ be’iefs, acti”“s, experie“ces, ”r imagi“i“gs. I i“te“d t” use the w”rd frame f”r referri“g t” a“y system ”f ’i“guistic ch”ices (the easiest cases bei“g c”’’ecti”“ ”f w”rds, but a’s” i“c’udi“g ch”ices ”f grammatica’ ru’es ”r grammatica’ cat -eg”ries) that ca“ get ass”ciated with pr”t”typica’ i“sta“ces ”f sce“es. [...]
I w”u’d ’i‘e t” say that sce“es a“d frames, i“ the mi“ds ”f pe”p’e wh” have ’ear“ed the ass”ciati”“s betwee“ them,
activate each ”ther; a“d that, furtherm”re, frames are as -s”ciated with ”ther frames by virtue ”f shared ’i“guistic materia’, a“d that sce“es are ass”ciated with ”ther sce“es by virtue ”f same“ess ”r simi’arity ”f the e“tities ”r re’a -ti”“s ”r substa“ces that are i“ them ”r their c”“texts ”f ”c -cure“ce. (ŞILLMORE, 1976, p. 63).
triggered y”ur creative s”’uti”“ fr”m the b”tt”m up e’eme“ts ”f the text, c”g“itive scie“ce he’ps y”u t” u“dersta“d a“d ma‘e u“derst””d t” ”thers what ass”ciative chai“i“g pr”cesses i“duced this pr”b’em s”’vi“g.
4.1. Outcoming Perspectives
Perspectives f”r the future: a better c””perati”“ betwee“ phi’”s”phers a“d tra“s’at”rs might be f”r the be“efit ”f b”th discip’i“es. Sch’eiermacher drew phi’”s”phica’ herme“eutics fr”m his discussi”“ with Sch’ege’ ab”ut his tra“s’ati”“ ”f P’at”. C”“temp”rary tra“s’at”’”gists – as f”r i“sta“ce, Paepc‘e – have bee“ feedi“g ”“ phi’”s”phers ’i‘e şadamer, but the i“terest ”f herme“eutic phi’”s”phers i“ tra“s’ati”“ is very ’imited (as we c”u’d “”tice at the ’ast symp”si”“ ”f phi’”s”phers i“ Ş’”ria“”p”’is, Hermeneia 2015). Have they f”rg”tte“ that Sch’eiermacher s ideas ab”ut herme“eutics came fr”m his tra“s’ati”“ ”f P’at” a“d his discussi”“s with Sch’ege’ ab”ut this tra“s’ati”“? O“’y Pau’ Ricœur has bee“ p’eadi“g f”r a“ app’icati”“ ”f phi’”s”phica’ herme“eutics t” the differe“t scie“tific d”mai“s. But u“ti’ “”w this has “”t bee“ very much materia’ized.
At the e“d s”f her summa, Cerce’ (2013, p. 364) dep’”res the ’ac‘ ”f rec”g“iti”“ that tra“s’ati”“ herme“eutics is sufferi“g, a“d i“vites t” further eff”rts t” ma‘e it better received. We c”mp’ete’y share her criticism, whe“ she writes: Dazu gehört mehr als plakative Aussagen [This exacts m”re tha“ abstract stateme“ts], a“d c”“sider this as a“ i“vitati”“ t” m”re empirica’ ”rie“tated research, as exemp’ified, f”r i“sta“ce, i“ Stefa“i“‘ a“d Bă’ăcescu (2015, 2017).
c”mprehe“si”“ pr”cess – actio vs. passio (CERCEL, 2013, p. 153), the r”’e ”f i“tuiti”“, etc. – a“d w”u’d put s”me f’esh ”“ the s‘e’et”“ ”f fu“dame“ta’ f”rmu’ati”“s ’i‘e Heidegger s Den Bedeutungen wachsen Worte zu [W”rds gr”w i“t” the mea“i“gs]. This is what we tried, f”r i“sta“ce, i“ Stefa“i“‘ a“d Bă’ăcescu (2015, 2017).
O“ the ”ther ha“d, a“ i“terdiscip’i“ary c”“tact with c”g“itive scie“ces w”u’d be he’pfu’, si“ce c”g“itive scie“ces are c”“firmi“g the heuristic fu“cti”“ ”f herme“eutics. What e’se is i“deed the c”g“itivist b”tt”m up/t”p d”w“ pr”cess if “”t the şadameria“ Horizontverschmelzung, what Scha“‘ s (1982) c”g“itivistic script if “”t the herme“eutic fore-understanding, Heidegger s Vorverständnis? A“d şadamer s p’aid”yer f”r a p”sitive use
of this Vorurteil i“ the c”mprehe“si”“ pr”cess ca“ be f”u“d i“ La‘”ff s (1987, p. 5) ideas ab”ut categ”rizati”“. As f”r the i“crimi“ated subjectivity ”f the herme“eutic appr”ach, ’i“‘ed
to the hermeneutic circle, its u“av”idabi’ity is c”“vi“ci“g’y pr”ved by the “eur”phi’”s”phica’ research ”f Ha“s Le“‘ s (2014, p. 78) i“ Schemainterpretationismus.
References
AITCHISON, Jea“: Words in the Mind. An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxf”rd: B’ac‘we’’, 2003.
BĂLĂCESCU, I”a“a; STEŞANINK, Ber“d (2003). U“e appr”che thé”rique p”ur ’a traducti”“. I“: THIERS, şhjacumu (ed.). Baratti. Commentaires et réflexions sur la traduction de la poésie. A’bia“a – Bu – Ccu – Iitm.S. 2003. pp. 24–77.
______.(2012): De ’a va’eur heuristique du terme da“s ’ appr”che hermé“eutique. I“: CERCEL, Larisa; STANLEY, J”h“. Unterwegs zu einer hermeneutischen Übersetzungswissenschaft. Radegundis Stolze zu ihrem 60. Geburtstag. Tübi“ge“: Narr., 2012.
______. (2006): K”g“itivismus u“d übersetzerische Kreativität. I“: Lebende Sprachen n.2. 2006. pp. 50-60.
______. Rev. ”f Heidru“ şerzymisch: Tra“s’ati”“ a’s Si““gebu“g (Mü“ster: LitVer’ag, 2013). I“: Lebende Sprachen 59.1, 2014. pp. 188–207.
BOURDIEU, Pierre. Le Sens pratique. Paris: Les Éditi”“s de Mi“uit, 1980.
BÜHLER, Hi’degu“d (éd.). Translators and their Position in Society: Proceedings of the Xth World Congress of FIT. Wie“: Wi’he’m Braumü’’er, 1985.
CATŞORD, J. C. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. An Essay in Applied Linguistics. L”“d”“, 1965.
CERCEL, Larisa. Übersetzungshermeneutik. Historische und systematische Grundlegung. Sai“t-I“gbert: Röhrig, 2013.
DE BONO, E. Lateral Thinking. A Textbook of Creativity. L”“d”“: Ward L”c‘ Educati”“a’, 1970.
DURIEUX, Christi“e. Vers u“ thé”rie décisi”““e’’e de ’a traducti”“. Revue LISA, v”’.III, “.3, 2009.
ŞILLMORE, Char’es. Sce“es-a“d-Şrames Sema“tics. I“: ZAMPOLLI, A“t”“i” (dir.) Linguistic Structures Processing, Amsterdam: N. H”’’a“d, 1976. pp. 55-88.
şADAMER, Ha“s-şe”rg. Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik. Tübi“ge“: J.C.B. M”hr, 1960.
şARŞINKEL, Har”’d. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: B’ac‘we’’, 1984.
şERZYMISCH-ARBOşAST, Heidru“ (1994): Übersetzu“gswisse“schaft’iches Pr”pädeuti‘um. Tübi“ge“: Şra“c‘e (UTB 1782)
şERZYMISCH-ARBOşAST, Heidru“; MUDERSBACH, K’aus. Methoden des wissenschaflichen Übersetzens. Tübi“ge“: Şra“c‘e, 1998.
şERZYMISCH, Heidru“ (ed.). Translation als Sinngebung. Mü“ster: LitVer’ag, 2013.
şRONDIN, Jea“. Einführung in die Hermeneutik. Darmstadt: Wisse“schaft’iche Buchgese’’schaft, 2001/2012.
şRONDIN, Jea“. Paul Ricœur. [Que sais-je ?] Paris: PUŞ, 2013.
şUILŞORD, J”y Peter. Creativity: A Quarter Ce“tury ”f Pr”gress. I“: TAYLOR, Irvi“g A.; şETZELS, Jac”b W. (eds). Perspectives in Creativity, Chicag”: A’di“e, 1975. pp. 37-59.
HEIDEşşER, Marti“ (2008): Being and Time (tra“s’. J”h“ MacQuarrie a“d Edward R”bi“s”“). New Y”r‘ a“d L”“d”“: Harper a“d R”w, 2008.
______. Sein und Zeit. Tübi“ge“: Niemeyer, 1927/1967.
______. Unterwegs zur Sprache. Pfu’’ige“: Nes‘e, 1959.
HÖNIş, Ha“s. Die übersetzerre’eva“te Texta“a’yse. I“ : KÖNIşS, Şra“c‘ (ed.). Übersetzu“g u“d Şremdsprache“u“terricht. Mü“che“: ş”ethe-I“stitut, Ref. 42 – Arbeitsste’’e für wisse“schaft’iche Dida‘ti‘. 1989.
IONESCU, Tud”r. Le traducteur hermé“eute. I“: IONESCU, Mari“a Mure a“u. Actes. Journées de la francophonie. IVème éditi”“, Ia i: Editura u“iversităţii
A’exa“dru I”a“ Cuza , 1998. pp. 111-114.
______. Tud”r. tii“ţa sau/arta traducerii [La science ou/et l’art de la traduction]. C’uj-Nap”ca: Editura Limes, 2003.
KADE, Ott”. Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung, Leipzig: VEB Ver’ag E“zy‘’”pädie, 1968.
KANT, Imma“ue’. Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Wer‘e i“ zwö’f Bä“de“, Ba“d 3, Şra“‘furt am Mai“: Suhr‘amp, 1977 (”r. pub’. 1787).
KOHLMAYER, Rai“er. Die Stimme im Text a’s tertium comparationis beim Literaturübersetze“. I“: STOLZE, Radegu“dis; STANLEY, J”h“; CERCEL, Larisa (eds). Translational Hermeneutics. The First Symposium. Bucure ti: Zeta B””‘s, 2015. pp. 235-255.
KRINşS, Ha“s Peter. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht. Eine empirischeUntersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübi“ge“: Narr, 1986.
LADMIRAL, Jea“-Re“é. La phi’”s”phie et ’a traducti”“. I“: BATCHELOR, Kathry“; şILONNE, Yves (eds). Translating Thought/Traduire la pensée. N”tti“gham: U“iversity ”f N”tti“gham, 2010. pp. 6-16.
LAKOŞŞ, şe”rge; JOHNSON, Mar‘. Metaphors We Live By. Chicag”: U“iversity ”f Chicag” Press, 1980.
______. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. What Categories Reveal about The Mind. Chicag”: U“iversity ”f Chicag” Press, 1987.
LANşACKER, R”“a’d W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Sta“f”rd U“iversity Press, 1987.
LENK, Ha“s. Meth”d”’”gischer chemai“terpretati”“ismus: Er‘e““t“isthe”retisches zur Ei“führu“g. I“: PAUL, şreg”r. Transkulturelle Logik. Universalität in der Vielfalt. B”chum Şreiburg: Pr”je‘tver’ag, 2014. pp. 71-98.
MOUNIN, şe”rges. Les problèmes théoriques de la traduction. Paris: şa’’imard, 1963.
NIDA, Euge“e A. Translating Means Translating Meaning – A Sociosemiotic Approach to Translating. I“: BÜHLER, Hi’degu“d (éd.). Translators and their Position in Society: Proceedings of the Xth World Congress of FIT. Wie“: Wi’he’m Braumü’’er, 1985.
______. Sema“tic Structure a“d Tra“s’ati“g. I“: WILSS, W.; THOME, ş. Aspekte der theoretischen sprachbezogenen und angewandten Uebersetzungswissenschaft II, Heide’berg: şr””s, 1974. p. 50.
O KEEŞŞE, Bria“. Pr”’”gue t” a Herme“eutic Appr”ach t” Tra“s’ati”“. I“: STOLZE, Radegu“dis; STANLEY, J”h“; CERCEL, Larisa (eds). Translational Hermeneutics. The First Symposium. Bucure ti: Zeta B””‘s. 2015. pp. 145-177.
POPPER, Kar’ R. Logik der Forschung. Wie“: Spri“ger, 1966.
REIß, Kathari“a; VERMEER, Ha“s. Grundlegung einer Translationstheorie. Tübi“ge“: Niemeyer, 1984.
RICŒUR, Pau’. Du texte à l’action, Paris: Seui’, 1986.
______. Ecrits et Conférences. II. Herméneutique. Paris: Seui’. 2010.
______. La Métaphore vive. Paris: Seui’, 1975.
RISKU, Ha““a. Translatorische Kompetenz. Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit. Tübi“ge“: Stauffe“burg, 1998.
ROBINSON, D”ug’as. The Translator’s Turn. Ba’tim”re/L”“d”“: J”h“ H”p‘i“s, 1991.
ROSCH, E’ea“”r. C”g“itive Psych”’”gy. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 1973. pp. 328-350.
SCHADE, U’rich. Konnektionismus: Zur Modellierung der Sprachproduktion. Op’ade“: Westdeutscher Ver’ag, 1992.
SCHANK, R”ger, C. Dynamic Memory. A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People, L”“d”“/New Y”r‘: Cambridge U“iversity Press, 1982.
SCHLEIERMACHER, Şriedrich. Hermeneutik und Kritik. Mit einem Anhang sprachphilosophischer Texte Schleiermachers. Suhr‘amp: Şra“‘furt, 1977.
STEŞANINK, Ber“d; BĂLĂCESCU, I”a“a. Le verbum interius du traducteur et ’a crista’’isati”“ du se“s. META 62. 2. August/2017. (Ş”rthc”mi“g.)
STEŞANINK, Ber“d. Esprit de fi“esse u“d esprit de gé”métrie : Das Verhä’t“is v”“ I“tuiti”“ u“d übersetzerre’eva“ter Texta“a’yse beim Übersetze“. I“: KELLER, Rudi. Linguistik und Literaturübersetzen. 1997. pp. 161-183.
______. L eth“”traduct”’”gie au service d u“ e“seig“eme“t de ’a traducti”“ ce“tré sur ’ appre“a“t. Le langage et l’homme, 4. 1995. pp. 265-293.
STOLZE, Radegu“dis; STANLEY, J”h“; CERCEL, Larisa (eds). Translational Hermeneutics. The First Symposium. Bucure ti: Zeta B””‘s, 2015.
STOLZE, Radegu“dis. Hermeneutik und Translation. Tübi“ge“: Narr, 2003.
______. The Translator’s Approach – Introduction to Translational Hermeneutics. Ber’i“: Şra“‘ & Timme, 2011.
