Translatability

Noam Chomsky ("hómski“) In Chomsky's view, every phrase, before being formulated, is conceived as a deep structure in our mind. A phrase in any of the different natural languages has the same structure at its origins: the differences in each linguistic construction arise only when the phrase comes to the surface level, when, from a psychic phenomenon, it becomes a linguistic utterance In Chomsky's view, every phrase, before being formulated, is conceived as a deep structure in our mind. A phrase in any of the different natural languages has the same structure at its origins: the differences in each linguistic construction arise only when the phrase comes to the surface level, when, from a psychic phenomenon, it becomes a linguistic utterance

The Homskian view implicates the separation of the information level from the style level. Information is what originates from "deep structures", while the way in which that information is conveyed is of secondary importance and belongs to the domain of formal signs The Homskian view implicates the separation of the information level from the style level. Information is what originates from "deep structures", while the way in which that information is conveyed is of secondary importance and belongs to the domain of formal signs Returning to the distinction Hjelmslev makes between expression and content planes, according to Chomsky, it is always possible to translate the content plane, while the expression plane becomes mere appearance. Every type of literary translation - of connotative text - is left out in this point of view. Consequently, this view excludes any kind of translation of texts that, although not literary in nature, do have some connotative characteristics. It is obvious that, in a connotative text, the dominant is linked mostly to what, in Homskian terms, is the surface structure, rather than the deep structure. According to Chomsky, the possibility to translate is unlimited as far as "closed" texts are concerned - texts that can be interpreted in a single way, without connotations, i.e. a minimal part of real texts. Returning to the distinction Hjelmslev makes between expression and content planes, according to Chomsky, it is always possible to translate the content plane, while the expression plane becomes mere appearance. Every type of literary translation - of connotative text - is left out in this point of view. Consequently, this view excludes any kind of translation of texts that, although not literary in nature, do have some connotative characteristics. It is obvious that, in a connotative text, the dominant is linked mostly to what, in Homskian terms, is the surface structure, rather than the deep structure. According to Chomsky, the possibility to translate is unlimited as far as "closed" texts are concerned - texts that can be interpreted in a single way, without connotations, i.e. a minimal part of real texts.

Whorf, Quine, and Chomsky did research in linguistics, but the problem of translatability cannot be faced exhaustively using a purely linguistic approach: a text is a cultural phenomenon that, within its culture, produces and undergoes many influences. In this sense, both the prototext and the metatext are equally important texts. Every translation is to be considered a cultural translation, before it is a linguistic one: Whorf, Quine, and Chomsky did research in linguistics, but the problem of translatability cannot be faced exhaustively using a purely linguistic approach: a text is a cultural phenomenon that, within its culture, produces and undergoes many influences. In this sense, both the prototext and the metatext are equally important texts. Every translation is to be considered a cultural translation, before it is a linguistic one: “language, text, and text function are different reflections of a single culture. For that reason, from the point of view of total translation, it is more convenient to speak of culture translatability. The total translatability concept is complementary, comprising many different parameters within its field.” “language, text, and text function are different reflections of a single culture. For that reason, from the point of view of total translation, it is more convenient to speak of culture translatability. The total translatability concept is complementary, comprising many different parameters within its field.”

Another fundamental aspect of translatability is the need for the translator to sometimes explicate the meaning of the text. The prototext author can afford ambiguities, polysemic words, or expressions, which are unavailable to the translator. The very fact of reading the prototext and trying to write it in the language and for the culture that will receive it involves a process of rational interpretation and, when rewriting, the explication of that rational act. Another fundamental aspect of translatability is the need for the translator to sometimes explicate the meaning of the text. The prototext author can afford ambiguities, polysemic words, or expressions, which are unavailable to the translator. The very fact of reading the prototext and trying to write it in the language and for the culture that will receive it involves a process of rational interpretation and, when rewriting, the explication of that rational act.

Whenever a translator does not understand a passage, an allusion, a reference of the prototext author, that misunderstanding is often revealed and rationalized in the translation. Aspects, that in the prototext are implicit, become explicit in the metatext, and those that are not made explicit form part of the translation loss, owing either to a rational choice of the translator or simply to misunderstanding. The translation act not only transmits the prototext content, it also lays bare its structure Whenever a translator does not understand a passage, an allusion, a reference of the prototext author, that misunderstanding is often revealed and rationalized in the translation. Aspects, that in the prototext are implicit, become explicit in the metatext, and those that are not made explicit form part of the translation loss, owing either to a rational choice of the translator or simply to misunderstanding. The translation act not only transmits the prototext content, it also lays bare its structure “The demonstrative nature of translation as text representation must not be regarded as only subsidiary. On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive features of this subcategory of representatives since it distinguishes translation as a speech act from, for example, interpretation in the form of critical comment, or essay, and similar meta-literary achievements.” “The demonstrative nature of translation as text representation must not be regarded as only subsidiary. On the contrary, it is one of the constitutive features of this subcategory of representatives since it distinguishes translation as a speech act from, for example, interpretation in the form of critical comment, or essay, and similar meta-literary achievements.”

Rationalization in translation undoubtedly plays an important role and has important consequences. Rationalization in translation undoubtedly plays an important role and has important consequences. Once accepted that the translation process is a rationalized interpretation preventing a reader of the metatext to read it with all the ambivalences and different potential interpretations available to the prototext reader, we have to undertake the problem of translation loss. Once accepted that the translation process is a rationalized interpretation preventing a reader of the metatext to read it with all the ambivalences and different potential interpretations available to the prototext reader, we have to undertake the problem of translation loss.

We agree with Torop when he states that one of the duties of translation activities is to support (ideally) the struggle against cultural neutralization, leveling neutralization, the cause, in many societies, on one hand, of indifference toward cultural "clues" of the author or the text (above all in multiethnic nations) and, on the other hand, to stimulate the search for national identity or cultural roots. Even in developed democratic countries, there are examples of totalitarian, rather than total, translation, i.e. of a reideologizing (in the broadest sense of the word) "rewriting" of the translation 2. of translation activities is to support (ideally) the struggle against cultural neutralization, leveling neutralization, the cause, in many societies, on one hand, of indifference toward cultural "clues" of the author or the text (above all in multiethnic nations) and, on the other hand, to stimulate the search for national identity or cultural roots. Even in developed democratic countries, there are examples of totalitarian, rather than total, translation, i.e. of a reideologizing (in the broadest sense of the word) "rewriting" of the translation 2.2

We struggle against what Torop rightly calls "totalitarian translation", i.e. unfounded appropriation of other's cultures, reideologization of the texts. The totalitarian approach tends to minimize the impact of a text in the dominant culture, to facilitate its fruition, to simplify it and offer its products to a public less and less aware of their own cultural identity and that of the other cultures they interact with. We struggle against what Torop rightly calls "totalitarian translation", i.e. unfounded appropriation of other's cultures, reideologization of the texts. The totalitarian approach tends to minimize the impact of a text in the dominant culture, to facilitate its fruition, to simplify it and offer its products to a public less and less aware of their own cultural identity and that of the other cultures they interact with.

In this view the translator's mission is crucial: she can preserve cultural differences and insert them as they are into the receiving culture, or, on the contrary, she can deny the existence of such differences and appropriate what belongs to different cultures in a stealthy way. In this view the translator's mission is crucial: she can preserve cultural differences and insert them as they are into the receiving culture, or, on the contrary, she can deny the existence of such differences and appropriate what belongs to different cultures in a stealthy way.

On the basis of this model, Holmes thinks it possible to describe the attitude of a culture toward translation. The famous researcher holds that, for instance, in the 18th century there was a general trend toward modernizing and naturalizing of the translated texts. On the basis of this model, Holmes thinks it possible to describe the attitude of a culture toward translation. The famous researcher holds that, for instance, in the 18th century there was a general trend toward modernizing and naturalizing of the translated texts.