Semiotics PDF

Preview

Summary

10 Semiotics Evangelos Kourdis Introduction Semiotics is both a cultural theory for the study of communication and an interdiscip- linary field of research. As a theory, it is concerned with meaning and systems of com- munication. As an interdisciplinary field of research, it is related to linguisti...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Semiotics Evangelos Kourdis In F. Zanettin & Ch. Rundle (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Methodology. New York: Routledge, 139-154

Cite this paper

Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Semiot ics of Translat ion: An int erdisciplinary Approach t o Translat ion Evangelos Kourdis

Τ he Semiot ic School of Tart u-Moscow. T he Cult ural ‘Circuit ’ of Translat ion Evangelos Kourdis Colour as Int ersemiot ic Translat ion in Everyday Communicat ion: A sociosemiot ic approach Evangelos Kourdis

10 Semiotics Evangelos Kourdis

Introduction Semiotics is both a cultural theory for the study of communication and an interdisciplinary field of research. As a theory, it is concerned with meaning and systems of communication. As an interdisciplinary field of research, it is related to linguistics, literature, social and cultural anthropology, and cultural studies. For semiotics as a theory, meaning is a cultural product. More precisely, Umberto Eco (1976: 8) argues that ‘semiotics studies all cultural processes as processes of communication’. This position extends the field of semiotics beyond natural language to non-verbal semiotic systems. During the 1960s, when semiotics was emerging as a distinct research field, ‘semiotics was dominated by a dangerous verbo-centric dogmatism whereby the dignity of language was only conferred on systems ruled by a double articulation’ (Eco 1976: 228).1 However, if we accept the claim made by semioticians that non-verbal signs have structure, just like spoken language, then it seems that there is no reason for us not to acknowledge that they can be treated as source or target texts in translation. Semiotics as a field extends beyond language to non-verbal semiotic systems, and studies not only decoding mechanisms, but also those by means of which meaning, denotative and connotative,2 is culturally encoded. Indeed, according to Roman Jakobson (1973: 37), a leading figure of European structuralism and the French School of Semiotics, only communication is a broader research field than semiotics. The main object of communication studies is language, a view also supported by Ferdinand de Saussure (1995/1916: 33) who is considered the founder not only of modern linguistics, but also of modern semiotics (at least of European semiotics, also known as semiology). In translation studies, the way towards the inclusion of non-verbal expression as a research object was first paved by a series of conceptual developments in the sphere of semiotics, which led to the identification of signs as semiotic systems and texts. Most of these developments originated from the Paris School of Semiotics, where Roland Barthes (1964a: 46–7) argued that iconic signs have structure like verbal signs; Julia Kristeva (1969a: 200) that linguistic description does not suffice to elucidate what a text

DOI: 10.4324/9781315158945-12

9781138066922_pi-491.indd 139

139

02-Dec-21 20:51:21

Evangelos Kourdis

is; Algirdas-Julien Greimas (1983/1966: 11) that any signifying ensemble of a different nature from that of natural language can be translated, with more or less precision, into any natural language; and Groupe μ (1992: 118) that visual signs were autonomous. Although in translation studies the concept of text depended on the approach adopted (e.g. descriptive, systemic, postcolonial, feminist), semiotics seems to have gained stable ground from very early on (Gambier 2016b: 19). As argued by Juri Lotman and other eminent scholars of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics, while on the one hand the concept of text is used in a specifically semiotic sense, on the other hand, the term text ‘is applied not only to messages in a natural language but also to any carrier of integral (“textual”) meaning – to a ceremony, a work of the fine arts, or a piece of music’ (Lotman et al. 2013/1973: 58). This position has been further extended to take into account the importance of the five senses in communication. Thus, according to Henrik Gottlieb (2018: 50), a ‘text may be defined as any combination of sensory signs carrying communicative intention’. Concerned as it is with broad phenomena of cultural communication, semiotics has become a tool for all sciences that study human culture. As Alexandros-Phaidon Lagopoulos and Karin Boklund-Lagopoulou (1992: 35) observe, ‘semiotics is a powerful tool – the most powerful tool we possess – for the in-depth analysis of ideology, culture, and the systems of meaning’. They also argue that ‘semiotics offers not only a theory of meaning but has also elaborated methods for operating on meaning and qualitative techniques for detailed analysis’ (Lagopoulos and Boklund-Lagopoulou 1992: 35). It is these elaborated methods and qualitative techniques that today seem to attract translation scholars, who seek in semiotics a theoretical underpinning to enable them to distance themselves from an exclusive focus on verbal language.

Semiotics of translation: Literature overview Today, the research field that studies semiotics and translation is called the semiotics of translation or translation semiotics. The term was introduced by Gideon Toury in the early 1980s to describe translation as a semiotic activity (Toury 1980: 12). Indeed, as Umberto Eco and Siri Nergaard (2001/1998: 221) point out, ‘translation […] involves passing from a text “a”, elaborated according to a semiotic system “A”, into a text “b”, elaborated according to a semiotic system “B” ’. Peeter Torop (2008: 257) states that ‘the ontology of translation semiotics rests on the recognition that culture works in many respects as a translation mechanism, as mediation, and that mediation in culture involves both communication and autocommunication’.3 The interdependency of translation and culture was noted by Eco, according to whom ‘culture continuously translates signs into signs, and definitions into other definitions, words into icons […] [I]n this way it proposes to its members an uninterrupted chain of cultural units, composing other cultural units, and thus translating and explaining them’ (Eco 1976: 71). Semioticians have studied the translation of signs to better understand culture itself, and semiotics has been increasingly adopted ‘as an interdisciplinary approach to the study of translation as inter- and multilingual, intertextual and intercultural transposition’ (Kukkonen 2014: 135). This approach seems to be more easily accepted by semioticians than by translation scholars. As Ritva Hartama-Heinonen (2015: 48) observes, ‘the idea that “translation is translation and beyond” ’ is an all-embracing concept that does not easily convince researchers. Many researchers, in fact, particularly those who are not semiotically oriented, 140

9781138066922_pi-491.indd 140

02-Dec-21 20:51:21

Semiotics

‘consider this type of definition to be too wide and general and, as an all-encompassing approach, exceedingly vague: translating must be studied as a manifestation or representation of something particular and special’ (Hartama-Heinonen 2015: 48). Since the field of translation studies appears too broad, what could be the common ground, at least, for translation semioticians? Hartama-Heinonen considers that a translation-semiotic approach is anchored in semiotic objects that are philosophical (Peirce, Morris), linguistic/sociosemiotic (Saussure), cultural (Lotman), post-structuralist (Barthes, Derrida), and existential or neosemiotic (Tarasti). These and many other approaches to semiotics constitute the shared ground and thus, the common language of translation semioticians. Hartama-Heinonen 2015: 42 While poststructuralist and existentialist theories also address this issue, in what follows I will concentrate on three dominant trends in translation semiotics.

Translation from the perspective of Peircean semiotics (also known as interpretative semiotics) Charles Sanders Peirce (1931–1935: vol. 4, 127), who is considered a founder of modern semiotics, maintained that the sign lends itself to interpretation, and as such is translatable by other signs. Peirce’s fundamental claim is that interpretation precedes translation. Thus, translation becomes a central part of the sign, and the process of semiosis, which is one of ‘meaning-making’, constitutes a translation process. As Peirce (1931–1935: vol. 4, 127) argues, meaning is ‘the translation of a sign into another system of signs’. In line with Peirce, Victoria Lady Welby, the first female semiotician, proposed the notion of significs in her theory of meaning, in which she considers translation as a method of interpretation and understanding, and human mental activities as nothing short of automatic translational processes (see Petrilli 2015: 98). As Welby (1983/1903: 161) writes, the notion of significs ‘involves essentially and typically the philosophy of Interpretation, of Translation, and hereby of a mode of synthesis accepted and worked with by science and philosophy alike’. One of the first detailed studies linking Peircean theory and translation was carried out by Dinda Gorlée (1994). Gorlée (1994: 226–7) introduced the term semiotranslation, arguing that we should consider the logical implications of semiosis as a paradigm for (sign) translation and that translation in its turn exemplifies semiosis. Gorlée (1994: 16– 25) presented a number of scholars who studied translation using a semiotic approach, including Haroldo De Campos, Roman Jakobson, Juri Lotman, Anton Popovič, Gideon Toury, Itamar Even-Zohar, Eugene Nida, and others. Hartama-Heinonen (2008: 31–2) placed these scholars in a general continuum that runs from pure semiotics to pure translation theory, and her contribution was important not only because she analyzed the relationship between interpretative semiotics and translation but also because she introduced the concept of ‘abductive translation’ as a new semiotic paradigm. This concept is based on Peircean abduction, one of the three modes of reasoning next to deductive and inductive reasoning. Abductive translation is approached as a form of possibilistic translation and abduction manifests itself as (scientific) reasoning and as everyday contemplation.

141

9781138066922_pi-491.indd 141

02-Dec-21 20:51:21

Evangelos Kourdis

The views put forward by Peirce and Welby have been extensively studied by Susan Petrilli (2015: 102), for whom ‘a semiotics of interpretation is necessary as a basis for translation theory’. Petrilli also argues that ‘the question of the translation of a text must be connected to the problem of the meaning of a sign’. Regarding semiotics and translation Petrilli (2015: 96) declares that ‘these two different disciplines are intent upon exploring the same process, no doubt, as is the process of semiosis, the process of infinite deferral among signs, but under different aspects’. Interesting studies in this area include those by Aloysius Van Kesteren (1978), who proposed a typology of equivalence relationships between a source text and a target text based on Peirce’s classification of signs; Céline Cosculluela (1996; 2003), who favours the emergence of an interdiscipline, combining translation studies and Peircean semiotics; Ubaldo Stecconi (2004; 2007), who, using the theoretical and methodological framework of Peirce’s theory of signs, claims that translation is a special form of signification or semiosis, which means that all translating is semiosis, but not all semiosis is translating; Bruno Osimo (2009), who examines Vygotsky’s notion of ‘inner speech’ following Peirce’s classification of signs and argues that writing and reading, listening and speaking are intersemiotic translation processes; Daniella Aguiar and João Queiroz (Aguiar and Queiroz 2010; 2013; Queiroz and Aguiar 2015), who use interpretative semiotics to approach intersemiotic translation; Douglas Robinson (2016), who undertakes the task of retheorizing semiotranslation, which for him is a type of translation that aims at ‘bringing clarity to’ understanding; and Kobus Marais (2018), who outlines a complexity theory of translation based on Peircean semiotics which incorporates process philosophy, semiotics, and translation theory.

Translation from the perspective of the Paris School of Semiotics According to Eric Landowski (2009: 73–4), this structuralist school extended the interest of semiotics to encompass the entirety of everyday practices, establishing it as a school of sociosemiotics. Even though the Paris School of Semiotics had no direct links to translation studies, it nevertheless had an impact on them, arguing as it did that translatability is one of the fundamental properties of all semiotic systems and forms the basis of the semantic process (Greimas and Courtés 1993: 398). This is not an arbitrary idea. The notion that a synergy of semiotic systems is required in order to produce meaning and the realization that an image has structure, just as language does (Barthes 1964a), contributed substantially to the concept of intersemiosis (as a fundamental communicative phenomenon) and laid the foundations for the identification of the concept of text with the concept of a semiotic system, a basic position for the study of cultural communication (Kourdis and Kukkonen 2015). Barthes continued along the path opened by Jakobson (1959: 233), who is considered the originator of the semiotic approach to translation and who divided translation into three categories: 1. Intralingual translation or rewording, which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language; 2. Interlingual translation or translation proper, which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language; and 3. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation, which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of non-verbal sign systems. 142

9781138066922_pi-491.indd 142

02-Dec-21 20:51:21

Semiotics

It is through this third category, which appears to be a product of the influence of the Paris School of Semiotics, that Jakobson first linked semiotics and translation. In his seminal article Jakobson argues that only creative transposition is possible: either intralingual transposition – from one poetic shape into another, or interlingual transposition – from one language into another, or finally intersemiotic transposition – from one system of signs into another, e.g., from verbal art into music, dance, cinema, or painting. Jakobson 1959: 238 The concept of intersemiosis as the act of intersemiotic translation was further promoted by Julia Kristeva (1969b), who analyzed not only the notion of intertextuality, an important concept in the study of intersemiosis, but also the notion of transposition (Kristeva 1974). The Paris School of Semiotics greatly influenced the Italian School of Semiotics. Umberto Eco, an iconic figure in Italian semiotics, argues that ‘translation is always a shift, not between two languages, but between two cultures – or two encyclopaedias’ (2001: 17). For Eco (2003; 2004), translation is based on negotiation, a process through which one renounces something to gain something else, and in the end, those involved should end up with a sense of reasonable and mutual satisfaction. Eco also makes two further points that are of particular interest: first, he suggests a new definition for intersemiotic translation, whereby intersemiotic translation is to be understood as adaptation; second, he argues that interpretation is not always synonymous with translation, since the universe of interpretation is much larger than that of translation (Eco 2001: 73, 118, 125). Paolo Fabbri, an equally important figure in Italian semiotics, disagrees with Eco on both these points. Fabbri (2000; 2008/1998: 161) posits that every semiotic system can be translated into another semiotic system. Thus, a written novel can be translated into the audiovisual language of film for television or cinema, and when instances of untranslatability occur, it is a question of changing strategy in order to allow every fundamental element of the source text to come through. Fabbri (2000; 2008/1998: 112) further seems to accept the view that interpretation is a form of translation. Some interesting studies on translation semiotics which are also influenced by the Paris School of Semiotics are those by Göran Sonesson (1996), who classifies as translation the exchange and replacement of an iconic message by another (introducing the notion of interpictorial translation) and approaches translation through the lens of binary oppositions, a basic concept for the Paris School of Semiotics; Magdalena Nowotna (2002), who adopts a semio-linguistic approach to literary translation and argues that such an approach can legitimize the translation process and product; Henrik Gottlieb (2005; 2018), who provides conceptual tools for dealing systematically with any type of translation encountered today by establishing a semiotically based taxonomy of translation; Öztürk Kasar (2009), who proposes that, while the primary concern of semiotics is not confined to translation studies, there is nonetheless an inevitable overlap between the task of the semiotician and that of the translator, in that both strive to reach the meaning of the text and follow certain strategies so as to reproduce the original writer’s signs; François Rastier (2010–2011), who identifies the epistemological contradictions between the semiotic conceptions which govern cognitive and communicative theories of translation; Semir Badir (2013), who makes a distinction between intersemiosis in narrations (récits), deductions, arguments, and descriptions; Nicola Dusi (2015), who shows the 143

9781138066922_pi-491.indd 143

02-Dec-21 20:51:21

Evangelos Kourdis

extent to which the term ‘translation’ is used metaphorically and, based on a socio-semiotic methodology, focuses his analysis on translational continuities from one medium to another, and the differences and discontinuities between transmedia reinterpretations of the source materials (Dusi 2020); Rovena Troqe (2015), who, drawing on a Greimassian semiotic approach, presents a new model for defining the concept of translation; Bruno Osimo (2015), who attempts to synthesize Jakobson’s thought on translation by collecting quotations from a range of different writings; Evangelos Kourdis (2018b), who presents an overview of the influence of the Paris School of Semiotics in translation and examines Roland Barthes’ contribution to the study of intersemiosis (Kourdis 2021); and Rovena Troqe and Irene Strasly (2018), who discuss interlingual and intersemiotic translation in sign language based on Jakobsian and Greimassian notions.

Translation from the perspective of the Tartu-Moscow School of Semiotics (also known as the Tartu School) The Tartu-Moscow School established a theoretical framework for the semiotics of culture under the influence of Russian semioticians, in particular Mikhail Bakhtin. Juri Lotman is considered the most eminent scholar of this school. His work on translation is far less known than the rest of his work, despite his belief that ‘the instrument of semiotic research is translation’ (Lotman 1990: 271). The school broadened the concept of translation based on a series of notions such as cultural act, cultural text, semiotic system, translation, intersemiosis, heterocommunication, and autocommunication. For Lotman translation is connected to human thought. Lotman (1990: 43) claims that ‘an elementary act of thinking is translation’, explaining that ‘the elementary mechanism of translating is dialogue’. Lotman (2009/1992: 6) also adds that ‘even the nature of the intellectual act could be described in terms of being a translation, a definition of meaning as a translation from one language to another, whereas extra-lingual reality may be regarded ...