Résumés
Abstract
This study takes up the perspective of material book history to revisit the paradox of identity and difference that has always been central to translation. I will argue here that a cognitive effect of identity in translation—which I am calling the “copy effect”—remains to be grappled with theoretically in its own right, and that contemporary theory has generally used the idea of “identity” in translation as a mute antithesis from which to repel with discourse privileging variance and difference. My goal here is to talk about the identity inherent in any translation, and the powerful effect of formal identity that a good number of translations display. First, I will address the paradox itself. Then I will draw attention to the material side of the verbal and linguistic and make a sharp distinction between two types of “form” that textual discourse can take: (1) a “stylistic form” that is qualitative and that translators feel free to vary; and (2) a “Pythagorean form” that is primarily quantitative and derived from textual materiality, and that translators tend to map over with a stricter attention to invariance. Translation scholars, we will see, have been reluctant to distinguish between these two types of form, which has resulted in denials and elisions conflicting with the material evidence of translation. Then I will pursue this material perspective on translation and seek out discourse situating a “copy effect” historically and culturally. This will lead to a discussion of Rita Copeland’s connection between translation and the classical and medieval copia verborum. Finally, I will enter into a new line of reflection opened by Anthony Pym, and propose that through the copia verborum and its historic and contemporary use in construing literalist translations, a compelling analogy can be drawn between medieval translation practices and modern-day digital ones using translation memories.
Keywords:
- copy,
- translation,
- book history,
- material research,
- form
Résumé
Cette étude adopte la perspective de l’histoire matérielle du livre pour revenir sur le paradoxe « identité-différence » qui est au sein de la traduction depuis toujours. Je propose ici qu’un effet d’identité en traduction – que j’appelle « effet de copie » – reste encore à expliciter, et que la théorie contemporaine ne voit dans l’idée de l’identité qu’une antithèse contre lequel des discours valorisant la différence et la variance peuvent être formulés. J’espère mettre en valeur ici l’identité que toute traduction propose ainsi que l’effet d’une identité formelle que bon nombre de traductions produisent. En premier lieu, je ferai le point sur le paradoxe lui-même. Ensuite je mettrai en valeur le côté matériel du verbal et ferai une distinction importante entre deux « formes » présentes dans le discours textuel : une « forme stylistique » (qui est fondamentalement qualitative et constitue pour les traducteurs un lieu de variation) et une « forme pythagoréenne » (qui est quantitative, dérivée entièrement de la matérialité textuelle, et qui contraint plutôt le traducteur à une orientation d’invariance). Les traductologues, comme nous le verrons, ne font souvent pas cette distinction, ce qui donne lieu parfois à des conflits avec les preuves matérielles de la traduction. Viendra ensuite un effort pour situer cet « effet de copie » historiquement et discursivement. Je vais souligner le lien proposé par Rita Copeland entre la traduction et la copia verborum classique et médiévale, puis j’en proposerai un autre, suivant une nouvelle piste de réflexion ouverte par Anthony Pym : les principes de la copia verborum, tels qu’ils ont été exploités et sont exploités encore pour produire des traductions littérales, permettent d’entrevoir un parallèle intéressant entre les pratiques médiévales et les pratiques contemporaines de traduction assistée par ordinateur, qui intègrent la copie directement dans leur fonctionnement.
Mots-clés :
- copie,
- traduction,
- histoire du livre,
- recherche matérielle,
- forme
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Avrin, Leila (1991). Scribes, Script, and Books. Chicago, The American Library Association; London, The British Library.
- Belle, Marie-Alice (2013). “Elizabethan Defences of Translation, From Rhetoric to Poetics. Harington’s and Chapman’s ‘Brief Apologies.’” In G. Schmidt, ed. Elizabethan Translation and Literary Culture. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 43-80.
- Belle, Marie-Alice and Brenda M. Hosington, eds (2019). “Translation as ‘Transformission’ in Early Modern England and France.” Canadian Review of Comparative Literature/Revue canadienne de littérature comparée, 46, 2, pp. 201-205.
- Bellos, David (2011). Is That a Fish in Your Ear? New York, Faber and Faber.
- Borges, Jorge Luis (1974). Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote.Ficciones. Madrid, Alianza.
- Bowker, Lynne and Michael Barlow (2008). “A Comparative Evaluation of Bilingual Concordancers and Translation Memory Systems.” In E. Yuste Rodrigo, ed. Topics in Language Resources for Translation and Localisation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, pp. 1-23.
- Capelli, Roberta (2011). “Le support des textes : peut-on parler d’une phénoménologie matérielle de la traduction?” In C. Galderisi, ed. De la translatio studii à l’étude de la translation. Turnhout, Brepols, pp. 225-243.
- Cave, Terrence (1979). The Cornucopian Text: Problems of Writing in the French Renaissance. Oxford, Clarendon Press.
- Chartier, Roger (1994 [1992]). The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe Between the 14th and 18th Centuries. Trans. Lydia Cochrane. Stanford, Stanford University Press.
- Chartier, Roger (2014). L’Oeuvre, l’atelier, et la scène: Trois études de mobilité textuelle. Paris, Classiques Garner.
- Clod, Random (1991). “Information on Information.” TEXT, 5, pp. 241-281.
- Coldiron, Anne E. B. (2019). “Translation and Transformission; or Early Modernity in Motion.” Canadian Review of Comparative Literature, 46, 2, pp. 205-216.
- Copeland, Rita (1991). Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Translation in the Middle Ages: Academic Traditions and Vernacular Texts. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
- Corbett, Edward and Robert Connors (1999 [1965]). Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. Oxford, Oxford University Presses.
- Derrida, Jacques (2005). Qu’est-ce qu’une traduction ‘relevante’? Paris, Éditions de l’Herne.
- Eco, Umberto (2001). Experiences in Translation. Trans. Alaistair McEwen. Toronto/Buffalo/London, University of Toronto Press.
- Eco, Umberto (2003). Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
- Eco, Umberto (2010). History of Beauty. Trans. Alastair McEwen. U. Eco and G. de Michele, eds. New York, Rizzoli.
- Erasmus, Desiderius (2012 [1512]). On Copia of Words and Ideas. Trans. and ed. D. King and H. David Rix. Milwaukee, Marquette University Press.
- Fideler, David, ed. (1988). The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Grand Rapids, Phanes Press.
- Folkart, Barbara (1991). Le conflit des énonciations: traduction et discours rapporté. Québec, Éditions Balzac.
- Greenblatt, Stephen (2011). The Swerve: How the World Became Modern. New York/London, W.W. Norton & Co.
- Guldin, Rainier (2015). Translation as Metaphor. London/New York, Routledge.
- Halm, Karl, ed. (1964 [1863]). Rhetores latini minores. Frankfurt, Minerva.
- Hofstadter, Douglas, and Emmanuel Sanders (2013). Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking. Pennsylvania, Basic Books.
- Itkonen, Esa (2005). Analogy as structure and process. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
- Jakobson, Roman (1959). “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In R. Brower, ed. On Translation. Cambridge, Harvard UP.
- King, Stephen (1987). Misery. New York, Simon & Schuster.
- King, Stephen (2011). Sie. Trans. Joachim Körber. Narr. David Nathan. K. Pietsch, ed. Webster, Texas, Audible Studios.
- Littau, Karin (2011). “First Steps Toward a Media History of Translation.” Translation Studies, 4, 1, pp. 261-281.
- Littau, Karin (2016). “Translation Studies Forum: Translation and the Materialities of Communication.” Translation Studies, 9, 1, pp. 82-113.
- McLeod, Randall (2009). “In Conversation with Mark Owens.” Dot Dot Dot, 18, 24, pp. 40-57.
- Mossop, Brian (1983). “The Translator as Rapporteur: A Concept for Training and Self-Improvement.” Meta, 28, 3, pp. 244-278.
- Mossop, Brian (2017). “Translation Studies Forum: Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies.” Translation Studies, 10, 3, pp. 329-356.
- Peirce, Charles S. (1931-48). Collected Papers. Cambridge, Harvard UP.
- Plato (1929 [circ. 360 BCE]) Timaeus. Trans. R. G. Bury. J. Henderson, ed. Cambridge, Mass./London, HUP.
- Pym, Anthony (2004). “Propositions on Cross-cultural Communication and Translation.” Target, 16, 1, pp. 1-28.
- Pym, Anthony (2014). The Medieval Postmodern in Translation Studies. [https://usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/translation/2014_medieval_postmodern.pdf].
- Quintilian (Markus Fabius Quintilianus) (2001 [circa 95 CE]). Quintilian IV: The Orator’s Education. Books 9-10. Trans. Donald Russel. J. Henderson, ed. Emeritus. G. P. Goold. Cambridge, Mass./London, HUP.
- Santayana, George (1955 [1896]). The Sense of Beauty: Being the outline of Aesthetic Theory. New York, Dover Publishing.
- Tolkien, J.R.R., ed. and trans. (2014). Beowulf: A Translation and Commentary. Boston/New York, Mariner.
- Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet (1958). Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris, Didier; Beauchemin, Montréal.
- Von Koppenfels, Werner (2013). “A Polyphonic Art: Reconciling the Demands of Letter and Spirit”. In G. Schmidt, ed. Elizabethan Translation and Literary Culture. Berlin, De Gruyter, pp. 21-42.