Varieties of Untranslatability Exploring a potential system of classification for the discussion of untranslatability in literary texts
Citation:
Liath Gleeson, 'Varieties of Untranslatability Exploring a potential system of classification for the discussion of untranslatability in literary texts', Graduate Students’ Union of the University of Dublin, Trinity College, Journal of Postgraduate Research;, 2015Download Item:
Abstract:
This paper outlines a new theoretical framework for the discussion of untranslatability
in translation theory and practice. It reacts to the observation that the concept of
untranslatability within Translation Studies has largely been treated as a homogenous
idea, applicable without modification to any text. It builds upon the work of Emily
Apter, Barbara Cassin, Susan Bassnett, David Bellos and others to show that the
discussion of ‘untranslatables’ may in fact benefit from the recognition of multiple
‘untranslatabilities’ on various textual and non-textual levels. Five such strands of
untranslatability are presented. The first encompasses sound patterns, syntax and
linguistic humour, drawing from Bellos’ Is that a fish in your Ear? (2012) to argue for
a specifically linguistic strand of untranslatability. The second highlights meaning
transmission in the context of culture, examining the unique translation challenges
posed by culturally-embedded texts like Cassin’s philosophical untranslatables and
Stanisław Wyspiánski’s Wesele (1901). Strand three concerns what Walter Benjamin calls
‘the unfathomable’ element in translation, theorising that the loss of this mysterious
element may result specifically from the many minor adjustments that inevitably
occur during translation. Section four uses Carli Coetzee’s analysis of translation
practice in South Africa to argue that social and cultural power relations can render
a text untranslatable from the outside. The fifth section argues for the recognition
of ‘absolute untranslatability’, drawing on Jean-Jacques Lecercle’s discussion of
nonsense literature. Finally, the conclusion recognises both the malleability of the
proposed framework and the dynamism of untranslatability as a concept in itself
Author: Gleeson, Liath
Publisher:
Graduate Students’ Union of the University of Dublin, Trinity CollegeType of material:
Journal ArticleCollections
Series/Report no:
Journal of Postgraduate Research;Availability:
Full text availableISSN:
2009-4787Metadata
Show full item recordLicences: