Abstracts
Abstract
This paper discusses how theories of definition and probabilistic theories of categorization could help distinguish between translation and (literary film) adaptation, and eventually between translation (TS) and (literary film) adaptation studies (LFAS). Part I suggests readopting the common parlance definition of “translation” as the accurate rendition of the meaning of a verbal expression in another natural language, and “adaptation” as change that leads to better fit. Readopting these common parlance definitions entails categorical implications. The author discusses three parameters: whereas “translation” represents an invariance-oriented, semiotically invested, cross-lingual phenomenon, “adaptation” refers to a variance-oriented phenomenon, which is not semiotically invested, and entails better fit. Part II discusses how theories of categorization could help distinguish between TS and LFAS. The study of the disciplinarization of knowledge involves epistemic and socio-political conditioners. This section concludes that medium specificity, i.e., the linguistic versus lit-film paradigm, plays a major role in separating TS from LFAS. Another player that deserves more attention is the Romantic as opposed to the Classicist value system.
Keywords:
- translation,
- adaptation,
- categorization,
- disciplinarization,
- epistemology
Résumé
Le présent article porte sur la façon dont les théories de la définition et certaines théories de catégorisation graduelle pourraient contribuer à distinguer la traduction et l’adaptation (filmique de textes littéraires), ainsi que les disciplines respectives qui étudient ces phénomènes. La première partie propose d’adopter les définitions du langage commun et de définir la traduction comme la reproduction correcte d’une expression verbale dans une autre langue naturelle, et l’adaptation comme un changement qui entraîne une amélioration. Ces définitions entraînent des implications de catégorisation. L’auteur discute de trois paramètres : alors que la définition de « traduction » implique un « non-changement », une « application sémiotique » et un « passage d’une langue naturelle à une autre », celle de l’« adaptation » implique un « changement », une « absence d’application sémiotique » et une « amélioration ». La deuxième partie étudie comment les théories de catégorisation peuvent contribuer à distinguer l’étude de la traduction et celle de l’adaptation filmique de textes littéraires. L’étude de la disciplinarisation concerne des paramètres épistémologiques et sociopolitiques. Parmi ceux-là, la spécificité médiatique, c’est-à-dire le paradigme linguistique versus film littéraire joue un rôle primordial. Parmi ceux-ci, l’auteur traite de la compétition entre les systèmes de valeurs romantique et classiciste.
Mots-clés :
- traduction,
- adaptation,
- catégorisation,
- disciplinarisation,
- épistémologie
Appendices
Bibliography
- Bastin, Georges L. (1993). “La notion d’adaptation en traduction.” Meta, 38, 3, pp. 473-478.
- Becker, Howard S. (2008). Art Worlds. 25th Anniversary ed. Updated and Expanded. Berkeley, University of California Press.
- Blackburn, Simon (2006). Truth. A Guide for the Perplexed. London, Penguin.
- Boyd, Bryan, Joseph Carroll and Jonathan Gottschall, eds. (2010). Evolution, Literature & Film. A Reader. New York, Columbia University Press.
- Briggle, Adam and Clifford G. Christians (2017). “Media and Communication.” In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein and R. C. Dos Santos Pacheco, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 201-213.
- Bruhn, Jørgen (2013). “Dialogizing Adaptation Studies: From One-Way Transport to a Dialogic Two-Way Process.” In J. Bruhn, A. Gjelsvik and E. Frisvold Hanssen, eds. Adaptation Studies. New Challenges, New Directions. London, Bloomsbury, pp. 69-88.
- Cardwell, Sarah (2002). Adaptation Revisited. Television and the Classic Novel. Manchester, Manchester University Press.
- Cardwell, Sarah (2018). “Pause, Rewind, Replay. Adaptation, Intertextuality and (Re)Defining Adaptation Studies.” In D. Cutchins, K. Krebs and E. Voigts, eds. The Routledge Companion to Adaptation. London and New York, Routledge, pp. 7-17.
- Cattrysse, Patrick (1990). L’adaptation filmique de textes littéraires. Le film noir américain. Leuven, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. [http://independent.academia.edu/CattryssePatrick/Books].
- Cattrysse, Patrick (1991). “Vertaling, Adaptatie en Intertekstualiteit.” [Translation, Adaptation and Intertextuality]. Communicatie, 21, 1, pp. 38-47.
- Cattrysse, Patrick (1992a). “Film (Adaptation) as Translation: Some Methodological Proposals.” Target, 4, 1, pp. 53-70.
- Cattrysse, Patrick (1992b). Pour une théorie de l’adaptation filmique. Le film noir américain. Bern, Peter Lang.
- Cattrysse, Patrick (2014). Descriptive Adaptation Studies: Epistemological and Methodological Issues. Antwerpen, Garant Publishers.
- Cattrysse, Patrick (2018). “Adaptation Studies, Translation Studies, and Interdisciplinarity. Reflections on Siblings and Family Resemblance.” Adaptation, 12, 3, pp. 206-221.
- Chesterman, Andrew (1997). Memes of Translation. The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
- Chesterman, Andrew (1998). Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
- Chesterman, Andrew et al. (2003). “Bananas – on Names and Definitions in Translation Studies.” Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, 31, pp. 197-209.
- Chesterman, Andrew and Pál Heltai (2017). “Progress in Translation Studies: Andrew Chesterman Interviewed by Pál Heltai.” Across Languages and Cultures, 8, 2, pp. 305-316.
- Cutchins, Dennis Ray, Katja Krebs and Eckart Voigts, eds. (2018). The Routledge Companion to Adaptation. London and New York, Routledge.
- Delabastita, Dirk (2008). “Status, Origin, Features. Translation and Beyond.” In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and D. Simeoni, eds. Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in Homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 233-246.
- Dennett, Daniel C. (2018). From Bacteria to Bach and Back. The Evolution of Minds. London, Penguin Books.
- Edgerton, Gary, ed. (1988). Film and the Arts in Symbiosis. A Resource Guide. London and New York, Greenwood Press.
- Elliott, Kamilla (2013). “Theorizing Adaptations/Adapting Theories.” In J. Bruhn, A. Gjelsvik and E. Frisvold Hanssen, eds. Adaptation Studies. New Challenges, New Directions. London, Bloomsbury, pp. 19-20.
- Elliott, Kamilla (2017). “Adaptation Theory and Adaptation Scholarship.” In T. Leitch, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 679-697.
- Emig, Rainer (2012). “Adaptation in Theory.” In P. Nicklas and O. Lindner, eds. Adaptation and Cultural Appropriation: Literature, Film and the Arts. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, pp. 14-24.
- Evans, Elizabeth (2020). Understanding Engagement in Transmedia Culture, London and New York, Routledge.
- Frodeman, Robert (2017). “The Future of Interdisciplinarity. An Introduction to the 2nd Edition.” In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein and R. C. Dos Santos Pacheco, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 3-8.
- Frodeman, Robert, Julie Thompson Klein and Roberto Carlos Dos Santos Pacheco, eds. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Gambier, Yves (1992). “Adaptation : une ambiguïté à interroger.” Meta, 37, 3, pp. 421-425.
- Gambier, Yves and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. (2016a). Border Crossings. Translation Studies and Other Disciplines. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
- Gambier, Yves and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. (2016b). “Disciplinary Dialogues with Translation Studies.” In Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, eds. Border Crossings. Translation Studies and Other Disciplines. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 1-21.
- Gieryn, Thomas F. (2001). “Science, Sociology Of.” In N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes, eds. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, vol. 20. Amsterdam, Elsevier, pp. 13692-13698.
- Göpferich, Susanne (2010). “Transfer and Transfer Studies.” In Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, eds. Handbook of Translation Studies, vol. 1. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 374-377.
- Gorlée, Dinda (2007). “Vital Signs of Semio-Translation.” Semiotica, 163, 1, pp. 159-161.
- Gray, Jonathan (2010). “Entertainment and Media/Cultural/Communication etc. Studies.” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 24, 6, pp. 811-817.
- Gupta, Anil (2015). “Definitions.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), n.p. [https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum 2015/entries/definitions/].
- Harrington, Stephen, ed. (2017). Entertainment Values: How Do We Assess Entertainment and Why Does It Matter. London, Palgrave.
- Harris, Sam (2012). Free Will. New York, Free Press.
- Hermans, Theo (2013). “What Is (Not) Translation?” In C. Millán and F. Bartrina, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies. London and New York, Routledge, pp. 75-87.
- Hermansson, Casie (2015). “Flogging Fidelity: In Defense of the (Un)Dead Horse.” Adaptation, 8, 2, pp. 147-160.
- Hutcheon, Linda (2006). A Theory of Adaptation. London and New York, Routledge.
- Jacobs, Jerry A. (2013). In Defense of Disciplines: Interdisciplinarity and Specialization in the Research University. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
- Jacobs, Jerry A. (2017). “The Need for Disciplines in the Modern Research University.” In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein and R. C. Dos Santos Pacheco, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 35-39.
- Jandt, Fred E. (2007). An Introduction to Intercultural Communication. Identities in a Global Community. London, Sage.
- Jasanoff, Sheila (2017). “A Field of Its Own. The Emergence of Science and Technology Studies.” In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein and R. C. Dos Santos Pacheco, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 173-187.
- Jenkins, Henry (2003). “Transmedia Storytelling. Moving Characters from Books to Films to Video Games Can Make Them Stronger and More Compelling.” MIT Technology Review. January 15. [http://www.technologyreview.com/biotech/13052/7].
- Jenkins, Henry (2008). Convergence Culture. Where Old and New Media Collide (Updated Edition). New York, New York University Press.
- Jin, Dal Y. (2013). De-Convergence of Global Media Industries. London and New York, Routledge.
- Johnson, David T. (2017). “Adaptation and Fidelity.” In T. Leitch, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 87-100.
- Juvan, Marko (2008). History and Poetics of Intertextuality. West Lafayette, Purdue University Press.
- Katan, David (2017). “Response by Katan to ‘Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies.’” Translation Studies, 10, 3, pp. 348-352.
- Klein, Julie Thompson (2017). “Typologies of Interdisciplinarity.” In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein and R. C. Dos Santos Pacheco, eds. TheOxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 21-34.
- Kramnick, Jonathan (2011). “Against Literary Darwinism.” Critical Inquiry, 37, 2, pp. 315-347.
- Kress, Gunther (2010). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London and New York, Routledge.
- Krohn, Wolfgang (2017). “Interdisciplinary Cases and Disciplinary Knowledge. Epistemic Challenges of Interdisciplinary Research.” In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein and R. C. Dos Santos Pacheco, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 40-52.
- Leitch, Thomas (2017a). “Against Conclusions. Petit Theories and Adaptation Studies.” In T. Leitch, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 698-709.
- Leitch, Thomas (2017b). “Introduction.” In T. Leitch, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-20.
- Leitch, Thomas, ed. (2017c). The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
- Liu, Shuang, Zala Volčič and Cindy Gallois (2015). Introducing Intercultural Communication. Global Cultures and Contexts. 2nd ed. London, Sage.
- Lotman, Yurij M. (1977). The Structure of the Artistic Text. Trans. Gail Lenhoff and Ronald Vroon. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures.
- Mannheim, Karl (1936). Ideology and Utopia: An Introduction to the Sociology of Knowledge. Trans. Louis Wirth and Edward Shils. New York, Harcourt, Brace and Company.
- Marais, Kobus and Kalevi Kull (2016). “Biosemiotics and Translation Studies. Challenging ‘Translation.’” In Y. Gambier and L. van Doorslaer, eds. Border Crossings. Translation Studies and Other Disciplines. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 169-188.
- Merton, Robert K. (1938). “Science, Technology and Society in Seventeenth Century England.” Osiris: Studies on the History and Philosophy of Science and on the History of Learning and Culture, 4, pp. 360-632.
- Merton, Robert K. (1957). “Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science.” American Sociological Review, 22, 6, pp. 635-659.
- Minda, John Paul (2015). The Psychology of Thinking. Reasoning, Decision-Making & Problem-Solving. London, Sage.
- Morin, Edgar (2003). “Sur l’interdisciplinarité.” L’Autre Forum, 5, 2, pp. 5-10.
- Mossop, Brian (2017a). “Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies.” Translation Studies, 10, 3, pp. 329-338.
- Mossop, Brian (2017b). “Response by Mossop to the Responses to ‘Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies.’” Translation Studies, 10, 3, pp. 352-356.
- Murray, Simone (2012). The Adaptation Industry: The Cultural Economy of Contemporary Literary Adaptation. London and New York, Routledge.
- Orr, Mary (2008). Intertextuality. Debates and Contexts. Cambridge, Polity Press.
- Pym, Anthony (2010). Exploring Translation Theories. London and New York, Routledge.
- Pym, Anthony (2017). “Response by Pym to ‘Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies.’” Translation Studies, 10, 3, pp. 338-343.
- Rey, Georges (2013). “The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition), n.p. [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/].
- Rowe, Rebecca (2018). “‘The More Accuracy the Better?’: Analysing Adaptation Reception in Reaction Videos.” Adaptation, 11, 3, pp. 193-208.
- Saint-Gelais, Richard (2011). Fictions Transfuges. La Transfictionnalité et ses enjeux. Paris, Éditions du Seuil.
- Scarpa, Federica (2017). “Response by Scarpa to ‘Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies.’” Translation Studies, 10, 3, pp. 343-348.
- Scheler, Max, ed. (1924). Versuche Zu Einer Soziologie Des Wissens [To a Sociology of Knowledge]. München and Leipzig, Duncker & Humblot.
- Schober, Regina (2013). “Adaptation as Connection: Transmediality Reconsidered.” In J. Bruhn, A. Gjelsvik and E. Frisvold Hanssen, eds. Adaptation Studies. New Challenges, New Directions. London, Bloomsbury, pp. 89-112.
- Snell-Hornby, Mary (2006). The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
- Straubhaar, Joseph D. (1991). “Beyond Media Imperialism: Assymetrical Interdependence and Cultural Proximity.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 8, 1, pp. 39-59.
- Torop, Peter (2002). “Intersemiosis y Traducción Intersemiótica.” Cuilcuilco Nueva Epoca, 9, 25, pp. 1-31.
- Toury, Gideon (1980). In Search of the Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv, Porter Institute.
- Toury, Gideon (1985). “A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies.” In T. Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature. London, Croom Helm, pp. 16-41.
- Trivedi, Harish (2007). “Translating Culture vs. Cultural Translation.” In P. St-Pierre and P. C. Kar, eds. In Translation – Reflections, Refractions, Transformations. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 277-287.
- Trompenaars, Fons and Charles Hampden-Turner (1998). Riding the Waves of Culture. Understanding Cultural Diversity in Global Business. 2nd ed. New York, McGraw-Hill.
- Turner, Steven (2017). “Knowledge Formations. An Analytic Framework.” In R. Frodeman, J. Thompson Klein and R. C. Dos Santos Pacheco, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity. 2nd ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 9-20.
- Tversky, Amos (1977). “Features of Similarity.” Psychological Review, 84, pp. 327-352.
- Tymoczko, Maria (2014). Enlarging Western Translation Theory: Integrating Non-Western Thought about Translation. London and New York, Routledge.
- Uribe-Jongbloed, Enrique and Hernán David Espinosa-Medina (2014). “A Clearer Picture: Towards a New Framework for the Study of Cultural Transduction in Audiovisual Market Trades.” Observatorio, 8, 1, pp. 23-48.
- Uribe-Jongbloed, Enrique, Hernán David Espinosa-Medina and James Biddle (2016). “Cultural Transduction and Intertextuality in Video Games: An Analysis of Three International Cases.” In C. Duret and C. M. Pons, eds. Contemporary Research on Intertextuality in Video Games. Hershey, PA, Information Science Reference, pp. 143-61.
- van Doorslaer, Luc (2014). “Knowledge Structuring in Translation Studies.” Innovative Infotechnologies for Science, Business and Education, 1, 16, pp. 22-25.
- Venuti, Lawrence (1995). The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York, Routledge.
- Wienold, Götz (1972). Semiotik Der Literatur. Frankfurt am Main, Athenäum.
- Wilson, Edward O. (1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York, Knopf.