A Historical Overview On The Consideration of Literary Translation From A Comparative Literature Point of View - AIETI

30/7/2020 A historical overview on the consideration of literary translation from a Comparative Literature point of view – AIETI
A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ON THE CONSIDERATION OF

LITERARY TRANSLATION FROM A COMPARATIVE
LITERATURE POINT OF VIEW
 GEORGE STEINER
Comparative literature is an art of understanding centred in the eventuality

and defeats of translation. […] Every facet of translation […] is absolutely
pivotal to the comparatist.
Steiner (1995: 10)
The ontological concept of translation to which we have alluded has been suffering in
the West from the negative influence of deeply rooted convictions throughout the
centuries, which has had a counterproductive effect on its qualitative consideration.
André Lefevere (1991) pinpointed with special clairvoyance the historical
circumstances that determined this situation. In his opinion, the study of translation
had been hampered by an excessive prescriptivism arising from the way that the
evaluation of the translation exercise was carried out. Thus, from the perspective of
language teaching (in which translation has been practiced for so long), translation
was the tool enabling the teacher to check whether the original text had been well
understood. This is why there was a great insistence on the existence of an extreme
dichotomy between correctness/incorrectness or between loyalty/freedom, without
the possibility of intermediate positions being considered.
It goes without saying that this was due largely to various institutions (church strata,
state, educational institutions, etc…), which have always wanted to ensure that the
major works were translated in the right way to preserve their interests. Broadly
speaking, this double choice between loyalty/freedom (already mentioned by Cicero
in 46 b. C.) is referred to with the expressions “word for word translation” and
“meaning for meaning translation.”
www.aieti.eu/enciclopedia/comparative-literature-translation-ingles/a-historical-overview-on-the-consideration-of-literary-translation-from-a-comparative-liter… 1/16
The debate on whether literalness and full respect for the original text are more
desirable or, conversely, an adaptation to the host culture is to be preferred, had long
th
occupied theorists in fruitless discussions. It was not until the mid-20 century that
the linguistic approaches to translation overcame this extreme dichotomy and a
consensus was reached on the fact that translation must be based on a compromise
between respect for the original and the communicative efficacy of a new text
conceived by means of different linguistic signs in a different cultural context.
On the other hand, the dichotomy between loyalty and freedom came inextricably
linked to another dichotomy, established between correctness and incorrectness. The
delicate task of translation involves a balance between avoiding excessive
domestication, which would be a betrayal to the original text, and excessive
foreignisation, which would be a betrayal to the host language and culture. This
meant that, over the centuries, a strong emphasis was made on the presentation of
rules prescribing which should be the correct way to translate. Obviously, these rules
were continually revised and resulted in different and even contradictory translation
poetics.
This fruitless debate between whether to opt for a free translation or for a literal
translation, was raised many times in exclusive terms and without regard to the
principles governing the translator’s decision-making, such as their own ideological or
aesthetic convictions, the purpose of the translation or the public it was intended for.
A similarly unproductive debate was held on the possibility of translation itself or, in
other words, the dichotomy between translatability and untranslatability, either from a
linguistic point of view (for example, the universalist thesis against cultural relativism)
or stylistic terms (for example, the limits that the existence of motivated signifiers
implies to obtaining equivalence, as in the case of poetry). Currently, these debates
setting out the situation in dichotomous terms have been fortunately overcome, or at
least have ceased to be discussed in a mutually exclusive way.
The way in which the practice of translation and the teaching of this practice were
addressed traditionally has, according to A. Lefevere (1991: 136-137), a second major
effect on the evolution of the thought on translation: the already mentioned huge
discrepancy between the status of the original and that of the translation. The
Romans were convinced of the superiority of Greek over Latin, just as during the
European Renaissance the superiority of classical languages on the vernaculars was
stressed. When classical texts were translated, not only did the translator have to
show a perfect understanding of the original text, but also imitation of the original’s
style was considered to be a strategy that improved the translator’s own style.
Additionally, this improvement was not limited to the personal style of each individual,
but this exercise was supposed to also promote the improvement of the target
language the translator was working with.
Throughout the Renaissance, no language was considered worthy until it

demonstrated its ability to elegantly translate the great classical authors. This
concept of imitation underwent major transformations in the 17th century (a trend
which started in France), when the authors of that period began to consider
themselves able to compete with the classics in the search for literary excellence. This
was very symptomatic of the interest to turn French into a real language of culture,
not to mention the fact that it was practiced at a time when the readership of these
translations could have directly read the originals. Classic and modern works would
cohabitate in the same space and it was not uncommon to find translators capable
of correcting the original authors when they thought that they had not reached the
desirable levels of quality, based on the poetics of the moment.
Later, during the Romanticism, and very markedly in Germany, a deliberate attempt to
incorporate the classics (especially Hellenistic classics) was made in order to show
that the host language was able to make the leading figures of world literature speak
through it. Thus a deliberate cultural planning was carried out, leading to an
enrichment of the literary repertoire. Such prominent authors and translators as
Goethe, Humboldt or Schiller considered translation a tool for achieving universality
(through the German language), while others, like Schlegel and Novalis, considered
that translation (and criticism) helps us understand poetry as an absolute (“After all,
translation is just an instance of poeticizing. Ultimately, all poetry is translation,” would
the latter say). The different translation exercises performed are accompanied by
empirical and speculative considerations about the literary, cultural, metaphysical,
religious and historical implications of this activity, and are part of an attempt to feed
language and culture, especially in its poetic expression, thanks to the import of
classical Greek models, which will expand the repertoire by transmission through
foreignisation.
We have already suggested that Comparative Literature paid scant attention to

translation for a long time. Indeed, it would be more correct to say that it rejected
translation, for it not only considered translation to be an inappropriate field of study
but also did not use it as a tool to access literary works. Its emergence as a discipline
had to find an academic space next to classical philology and the different modern
philologies. If in the first one translation had been practised, it had been as a tool for
learning dead languages or evaluating that learning (this was therefore a didactic
translation). In modern philology the study of the history of the language occupied a
privileged place, leading to not requiring the use of translations and allegedly forced
direct access to texts, despite their being written in a very pronounced diachronic
variety. According to what Lefevere states elsewhere (1995:2), Comparative Literature,
in order to maintain a high degree of academic respectability, kept this tradition.
In fact, it was assumed that one of the main attributes of the comparatist was having
mastered several foreign languages, with the ultimate goal of not having to resort to
the use of translation unless absolutely necessary. For example, Hugo Meltzl, founder
of the first journal on Comparative Literature (Acta Comparationis Litterarum
Universarum), declared in its founding issue in 1877:
The art of translation is, and will remain, one of the most important and attractive
tools for the realization of our high comparative aims. But the means should not be
mistaken for the end. […] True comparison is possible only when we have before us the
objects of our comparison in their original form. Although translations facilitate the
international traffic or distribution of literary products immensely […] nobody will
dispute Schopenhauer’s opinion that even the best translation leaves something to
be desired and can never replace the original. Therefore the principle of translation
has to be not replaced but accompanied by a considerably more important
comparative tool, the principle of polyglotism. The principle of translation is confined
to the indirect commerce of literature in contrast to the principle of polyglotism which
is the direct commerce itself (D’Haen, Domìnguez and Rosendahl 2013: 20).
It is during the last decades of the 19th and early 20th centuries when we witness the
consolidation of Comparative Literature as an academic subject. Among the main
th
studies on this subject published in the 19 century, we find Comparative Literature
(1886), by the New Zealander Possnett Hutcheson Macaulay, expressing unequivocally
his clear scepticism about the feasibility of translation, especially in the poetic
domain:
How far is accuracy of translation possible? It is clear that both in prose and verse
there are difficulties in the way of the translator sometimes unsurmountable. Even in
prose translation objects such as animals or plants nameless in the translator’s
language, or customs and institutions unknown to his group, or ideas -political,
religious, philosophical- similarly nameless, may present such obstacles. But in verse,
besides these difficulties, there is the close connection between sounds and ideas
which in every language is more or less recognisable (Macaulay Possnett 1886: 44).
During those years statements similar to Meltzl’s and Possnett’s were repeated. Thus,
for instance, Danish critic George Brandes, author of the renowned Main Currents in
Nineteenth Century Literature (1872), published in 1899 a short article called “World
Literature” in which he insisted upon the need to read the works in the original
language, thus repudiating the use of translations, at the same time that he mourned
(in appearance paradoxically), the limitations minority literatures, such as Danish,
had to achieve presence in the international sphere:
However many translations are taken up, it is nevertheless without a doubt that the
writers of the various lands and languages differ widely with respect to the likelihood
of acquiring world renown or just a certain measure of acknowledgement. […] It is
impossible to write anything artistic in another language than one’s own. On that we
are all in agreement. But these translations! To these we all object. I confess to the
heresy that I can only view them as a pitiful expedient. They eliminate the literary
artistry precisely by which the author should validate himself, and the greater he is in
his language, the more he loses. […] Lyric poetry is translated with difficulty and in
every case loses much in so doing. Usually the effort to translate it to another
language is not undertaken for the simple reason that nothing will be gained from
such an effort. […] According to the received opinion, prose writing suffers no great
loss in translation. But this is wrong. The loss remains immeasurable, albeit less
striking than in poems. The selection and the sound of the words, the architecture of
the sentences and the harmony, the peculiarity of literary expression; everything
vanishes. Translations are not even replicas (D’Haen, Domìnguez and Rosendahl 2013:
25).
In any case, it is unarguable that we also count with some early statements in favour
of translation, which are surprising nowadays due to their modernity and lack of
hang-ups. For instance, Richard Green Moulton, author of some important works on
classical tragedy, Shakespeare or the Bible from a literary point of view, expressed in
World Literature and Its Place in General Culture (1911), one of his most celebrated
works, the implicit limitations in the exclusive access to literature in its original
language, at the same time as he stressed the intrinsic qualities of literary translation
as an exercise of creation:
One who accepts the use of translations where necessary secures all factors of
literature except language. One who refuses translations by that fact cuts himself off
from the major part of the literary field; his literary scholarship, however polished and
precise, can never rise above the provincial. […] On the other hand, it is noteworthy
how classical scholars of front rank have devoted themselves to translation as the
best form of commentary […], how poets of front rank have made themselves
interpreters between one language and another. […] Again, men of the highest literary
refinement have made strong pronouncements on the side of translated literature
(Green Moulton 1911: 4-5).
Clearly, comparatists were aware that they were facing a dichotomy with no easy
solution: if it was only legitimate to read the works in their original languages, the
comparatists exercise would be limited to those authors and texts expressed in a
language the scholar knew. This necessarily limited the amount of texts and authors
and resulted in a microscopic view. Conversely, if they aimed to understand the direct
and indirect links between the different literatures that form the international literary
order, resorting to translation as an instrumental tool was mandatory. Thus, for
instance, Albert Guérard, author of about thirty books on literary and historical issues,
emphasized this matter in his Preface to World Literature (1940), characterizing
translation as the element enabling the sheer existence of universal literature:
Not even professional scholars can know even all the major culture languages, and
the indispensable instrument of world literature is translation. But translation is still
distrusted, and even despised. It is claimed that art intention and form are
inseparable, and that every translation is bound to destroy this vital unity. […] Every
book, even in our own language and dealing with our own language requires a
translation from the terms of the writer’s experience to those of the reader’s.
Fortunately, man is able to make such an adjustment, and to feel the human element
under the infinite variety of forms. Without such a capacity, there could be no
communication between man and man. It is the extension of such a capacity that
makes communication possible between age and age, nation and nation, language
and language, and accounts for the undeniable, existence of World Literature (D’Haen,
Domìnguez and Rosendahl 2013: 63).
It is especially noteworthy that Guérard considered translation to allow an update of

the text, enabling it to stay always alive and topical, adding that this could not
happen with the original (thus reversing the traditional hierarchy by which the original
was considered to be a supreme model precisely because it remained immutable):
“Translation offers one advantage over original work: it can more readily be corrected,
perfected, brought up to date, by successive generations. Every age has, and should
have, its new translations of Homer or Dante” (D’Haen, Domìnguez and Rosendahl
2013: 62).
It is true that those languages were limited to the main ones in the European area,
which was in line with the following of a canon that was clearly Eurocentric. In the
United States this orientation was greatly due to the arrival of prominent critics from
Europe after the Second World War, such as Erich Auerbach, Leo Spitzer, or René
Wellek. Things started to change with the decentralization of this canon thanks to the
raising of alternative voices that started questioning the issue from a multicultural
perspective.
This is clearly perceived if we examine, for instance, the reports that the American
Comparative Literature Association (ACLA) prepares every ten years, which set the
guidelines of the discipline. Thus, in the first report, written in 1965, Harry Levin
emphasized the need to have some kind of access to the original languages and set
a clear distinction between the didactics of foreign literature in translation and the
proper exercise of comparatism. Comparatists must read the original work, provided
that it was possible, and should only turn to translation when dealing with very remote
languages. In this regard, we are reminded of the words of Werner P. Friederich, who a
few years earlier, in 1959, in a lecture at the University of Wisconsin, had argued that
the teaching of world literature in English translation was disdained by comparatists,
stating: “Foreign Literature in English Translation is a much needed field for
undergraduate instruction, while Comparative Literature should be distinctly for
graduate students only” (D’Haen, Domìnguez and Rosendahl 2013: 63).In the second
report of the ACLA, prepared by Roland Greene in 1975, teachers were still instigated to
work with original works, not only in order to benefit those students who had a good
knowledge of foreign languages but also because this should foster in students the
belief that access to a work through translation was a clearly incomplete reading
exercise. As discussed below, the third report (which should have been ready in 1985,
but was not issued until 1993) showed a clearly symptomatic change of attitude due
to the emergence of alternative voices that meant a challenge to the Eurocentric
canon from a multicultural perspective.
Little attention was paid to literary translation in most models developed under what
has been considered a systematic or scientific study of translation between the 1950s
and the first half of the 1970s. By analysing the strategies of transference or
substitution of the signs of a source language in search of their supposed equivalents
in the target language, translation was understood as an special case of Linguistics
(dependent on Applied Linguistics or Contrastive Linguistics) and focused on the
study of a series of binary relations and the analysis of the structural differences of the
languages involved. The aim was to systematically establish the proceedings to
establish the rules of correspondence between linguistic systems. The study of the
possibilities of transference focused above all on lexical and grammatical levels and
had the word or the sentence as its main subject of study. Furthermore, the
fundamental concept was equivalence, which is hardly surprising if we take into
account the importance given to the word as translation unit, as it was easier to talk
about equivalence when speaking at a microtextual level rather than at a
macrotextual one.
The notion of equivalence in itself opened the way for evaluation, in that it allowed the
formulation of correction parameters. Instead of relying on the mere empirical
description of the product, the trend was to compare translations paying attention to
a concept of equivalence postulated beforehand, thus depriving the comparative
exercise of any historical perspective. Linguists focused their attention exclusively on
non-literary texts, justifying this decision by simply saying that literature was a
“special case”. The truth is that literature raised problems which it was necessary for
them to ignore, since it implied a textual production subjected to extraordinary
encoding. From the 1970s, and following the development of linguistics itself,
translation begins to be studied at a textual level, rather than at the level of word or
sentence, which meant that language stopped being studied as an abstract system
and the focus was on its use instead. In parallel, we perceive a progressive
abandonment of purely linguistic approaches, which favours the subsequent
attention to socio-cultural constraints that determine both the translation act and the
mechanisms of reception of the translated text. This shows the need to provide
Translation Studies with a social theory of language allowing the study of its role in the
communicative interaction as a whole, as well as the mediating role of the translator
in transferring communication between different codes.
It is known that translating means to transfer the meaning proposed by the sender of
the original text to the target receiver. Both are framed in different social contexts, so
the translator is influenced by his or her own social conditioning during the task.
Equivalence, the central notion in linguistic approaches, goes from being considered
at a microtextual level (word, sentence) to a macrotextual level (text), as well as the
supratextual level (context), based on the belief that languages are not what we
translate during the translation process (they in themselves are not translatable) but
texts (specific updates of uses of language in specific cases), which are an integral
part of the world around us, as they are framed in a particular extra-linguistic
situation and are marked by a specific socio-cultural context.
Since the late 1970s we perceive the progressive abandonment of Applied Linguistics
as an exclusive approach to focus on the social and cultural constraints that
determine the translation act and reception mechanisms of the translated text. Thus
we perceive psycholinguistic, sociolinguistic, hermeneutical, anthropological or
philosophical contributions among others. Indeed, also in those years, Comparative
Literature started to establish a new type of relationship with translation,
characterized by the features we will now describe.
First, it caters exclusively to the notion of translation as a product, rather than

understanding it as a process, which is in tune with the fact that it is not interested in
the teaching of translation (translator training), where the fundamental issue is the
translation activity, with the aim of improving the skills of its practitioners.
Second, Comparative Literature aligns itself with the descriptive approach to

translation instead of the prescriptive one: this perspective does not aim any longer to
evaluate the quality of translation, i.e. the traditional comparison exercise between
original text and target text to check how much the latter differs from the former. On
the contrary, the purpose is to study the role played by translation in the evolution of
the different literary systems and thus to analyse, for example, how is translation
performed in each period and culture; why are certain models imported rather than
others; how much is translation practiced in a given context, and what recognition is
given to this activity; what is the reception of the various works translated in relation to
their originals; how can translation be used as an ideological weapon; what is its
ability to subvert, renew or strengthen particular poetics; why do translations become
outdated and are replaced by each other; what is the relationship between
translation and other types of rewriting such as anthologisation, literary criticism,
etc.The whole list would be too long. All these issues have probably more to do with
the history and evolution of literature or literature in general than with any other topic,
but they are also to be located within the domain of Sylistics: the particular features of
a given author are probably exacerbated, or at least become more obvious, when we
perceive the way he or she translates others. In a similar sense, the appreciation of a
writer’s style may be exacerbated by a comparison with the translation his or her work
has been subjected to, considering what aspects have been ignored or magnified
(without any need to introduce a component of qualitative evaluation). At the same
time it is clear that any diachronic analysis of literary translation must be always
linked to a study of translation theory, since theoretical reflections are most often the
cause or effect of the different ways to translate characteristic of each culture and
historical period. This aims to highlight the unquestionable fact that the literary
translator is not a person who works in some sort of no man’s land, alien to any kind of
social bonding. As mediators, translators try to defend certain interests. Their exercise
is by no means a neutral and totally innocent one, since they stand as true deus ex
machina in the whole process. However, this does not necessarily mean that
translators are trying to protect their own interests, as they may be subject to higher
hierarchical instances (for economic reasons, social status, etc.). Furthermore, we
must say that there are many other elements that will determine translators’ work,
either consciously or unconsciously: the times they have had to live, the literary
traditions that they attempt to bring together, the languages themselves, etc. (in
short, the norms of translation, understood from a descriptive perspective).
As we said above, in the 1970s we find a number of scholars, from Comparative

Literature or the literary field, becoming interested in translation. The American James
S. Holmes, located in Amsterdam in the 1960s, is a clear pioneer of this new trend, and
he set in motion a number of contacts with Czech structuralists, such as Jiři Levý or
Anton Popovič, with whom he coincided in the consideration of translation in literary
history and in their stylistic approach to translation. Subsequently, Holmes contacted
researchers from the University of Tel Aviv (such as Itamar Even-Zohar or Gideon
Toury) and other scholars from Belgium and the Netherlands (such as José Lambert,
André Lefevere, etc.), and managed to establish a productive link between the two
groups. Three small conferences were held in Leuven, Antwerp and Tel Aviv, whose
proceedings were published and helped give cohesion to the group: J. S Holmes, J.
Lambert and R. van den Broeck (eds.), Literature and Translation. New Perspectives in
Literary Studies (1978); I. Even-Zohar and G. Toury (eds.), Translation Theory and
Intercultural Relations (1981); A. Lefevere and K. D. Jackson (eds.), The Art and Science
of Translation (1982). Besides these, the following publications also stand out: a
collection of articles by James S. Holmes published in 1988 under the title Translated!
Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, which includes what is held to
be the foundational study of the modern discipline of Translation Studies, “The Name
and Nature of Translation Studies”, first published in 1972; Papers in Historical Poetics
by Even-Zohar (1978), which shapes the polysystemic theory starting from the theses
of the Russian formalists, Czech structuralists, Marxist critics and reception theory;
Translation Studies by Susan Bassnett (1980) in which, in very clear terms, she delves
into some important concepts, explains the general principles of the history of
thought on translation and studies the problem of translating the three main literary
genres; In Search of Theory of Translation by Gideon Toury (1980), a genuine
statement of the most orthodox principles of the descriptive paradigm from an
empirical point of view; also The Manipulation of Literature, edited by Theo Hermans
(1985), whose introduction is a programmatic vision of all texts included in the volume,
defending that from the point of view of the reception pole, any literary translation is a
manipulation of the original text in order to achieve certain objectives, involving a
teleological reorientation of the discipline; and finally, the various articles by José
Lambert, who develops models to compare translations and studies their role in the
development of the literary systems. Many of them were collected in Lambert (2006).
www.aieti.eu/enciclopedia/comparative-literature-translation-ingles/a-historical-overview-on-the-consideration-of-literary-translation-from-a-comparative-lite… 10/16
Generally speaking, all these contributions are a real starting point for the descriptive
paradigm in detriment of the evaluative and prescriptive one. Instead of questioning
the possible (un)translatability or postulating beforehand what is (or is not) a
translation, it is previous translations and how they are integrated in the reception
culture what is under study. Instead of emphasizing the cross-lingual relations, the
focus is on the intertextual ones, placing the text within the norm framework of the
receiving community, studying the relationship between literature and other forms of
social manifestation. The polysystemic approach is useful to understand literature as
a dynamic and complex system, in an attempt to carry out a study in terms of
functions, connections and interrelationships, as well as to relate translated literature
with other subsystems in the receiving literary system. It is clearly oriented towards
the target pole (thus the name of the journal Target, founded in 1989, seems to be
symptomatic) and is functionalist in its nature, involving an attempt to change the
traditional hierarchy that always conditioned translation to the original, now giving its
legitimate importance to the receivers and the reception context. Finally, it expresses
an interest in the norms of collective behaviour from a diachronic perspective, in an
attempt to broaden the context of study and achieve historical projection.
Thus a new paradigm is established focusing on literary translation, as opposed to the

traditional approach to translation (there is no longer a search for the formulation of
rules, norms or standards of behaviour leading to the evaluation of translation
exercises or to didactic implementation in the training of translators), but the main
interest lies in the study of translation as an actual fact, both in the present and in the
past, and its integration into cultural history, focusing therefore on empirical facts. For
an overview on the development of the descriptive paradigm in Translation Studies,
with particular attention to the polysystemic contribution, see Hermans (1999).
In line with B. Lepinette (2007), we suggest that the study of translation can be done
from two complementary perspectives -sociological and comparative- (even though
she actually speaks of three perspectives –sociological-cultural, descriptive-
comparative and descriptive-contrastive–I have chosen to bring the last two together
into one). From the first perspective, the social and cultural context of translation at
the time of its production and its reception are studied, which involves making a
textual description of textual migration through its effects on the history of the
receiving national culture, whether speaking of literary texts or not. The focus of
research is the determination of cause and effect relationships, always with the
receiving pole as the centre of interest.Thus, we propose to formalize these studies as
follows: “History of X translations by Y” (where X = a national literature, a literary genre,
the work of a generation of writers, the work by a writer, a work by a writer, and where
Y = a country, a generation of writers, a writer). Similarly, we can study “Y as translator
of X” (with the same definition of Y and X).Finally, we can also introduce element “Z”
(time frame), with two resulting diagrams: “X translator of Y at Z” or “Y translator of X
at Z.” Obviously, we can expand or restrict the study as much as we want, depending
on the relative amplitude of X, Y and Z. I follow here the traditional scheme used by the
French comparatists for searching presences and influences, like F. Balderspenger,
Paul van Tieghem and J.-M. Carré practised, which then was taken up successively by
M.-F. Guyard, C. Pichois and A.M. Rousseau or P. Brunel. In Spain it was practised by
Menéndez Pelayo. For example, we can study the history of translations of English
literature conducted in Spain throughout history or we can focus on Pedro Salinas as
a translator of the first act of Romeo and Juliet, by Shakespeare.
This type of approach, widely practiced by the French School of Comparative

Literature, either in terms of literary influences or traces or from the particular point of
view of translation, constitutes what is often called “reception studies” (cf. Enríquez
Aranda 2007). From the descriptive-comparative perspective, we focus on the
translation choices made by translators in a given target text or a series of target
texts corresponding to the same original text. When we adopt a diachronic
perspective, we reach a historical projection, which allows us to study the different
norms followed in the translation of a particular author or work over time. Thus, we
can draw a comparison between ST (source text) / TT (target text) or a comparison
ST/TT1 – TT2 – TT3 … TTn comparing the ST with each TT and the TTs with each other.
At the beginning of the 1990s, Translation Studies began what has been called the
“cultural turn”, in which the publication ofTranslation, History and Culture, edited by S.
Bassnett and A. Lefevere (1990) was decisive. There is a change towards a broader
consideration of the cultural and political contexts in which translations and other
kinds of rewriting take place. In this cultural turn we can place several clearly
politicised tendencies, which entered suddenly into Translation Studies and which, at
least in the first two cases, were fostered by the incorporation of Post-structuralist or
Deconstructivist assumptions. I am referring to Feminist theory, Post-colonialist theory
and the theory organized around the concept of the (in)visibility of translation. All of
them are concerned about ethics and identity, and consider the history of translation
as fertile ground for conflict, paying attention both to what is included in translation
and what is left out, both to the explicit manifestations of behaviour and the implicit
ones, as well as to the great power structures underlying individual behaviour. Thus,
issues related to power and its ability to manipulate are given importance, as well as
the factors that condition the establishment of the canon. This follows a line opened
by Cultural Studies, and also by the decentralization of the canon from a multicultural
perspective.
While Translation Studies had begun to be interested in the extra-linguistic and extra-
literary factors of translation, Cultural Studies had expanded its field of analysis on
race, class and gender to start covering also language differences, which had led to
the possibility of approach between the two disciplines. These issues can be
consulted in the collection edited by Ortega Arjonilla (2007).
Nowadays, translation is often used in Cultural Studies as a metaphor to describe the

growing internationalisation of cultural production, the conflict of those who live
between two different languages and worlds. By highlighting that translations work as
carriers of attitudes and ideological assumptions, their ability to create strongholds of
resistance against cultural hegemony is the focus. This allows translations to become
tools to rebuild lost or silenced cultural ways, thus fighting against imperialism, racism
or sexism. The linguistic approach is left aside in order to analyse the interaction
between translation and culture, giving importance to context, history and convention.
In line with this, A. Lefevere (1992), for instance, has dealt with the study of the creation
of the literary image through all kinds of rewriting, be it anthologies, critical
commentaries, film adaptations, or translations, revealing the important role of
institutions in this process. On the other hand, if we understand ideology as a set of
beliefs and values that shape the vision that individuals or institutions have of the
world, translators also have to take part in it. In the introductory chapter to Translation,
History and Culture, Bassnett and Lefevere radically questioned the peripheral or
subsidiary position that the study of translation had had within Comparative
Literature:
Translation, the study of translation, has been relegated to a small corner within the
wider field of the amorphous quasi-discipline known as Comparative Literature. But
with the development of Translation Studies as a discipline in its own right, with a
methodology that draws on comparatistics and cultural history, the time has come to
think again about that marginalization. Translation has been a major shaping force in
the development of world culture, and no study of comparative literature can take
place without regard to translation (Bassnett y Lefevere 1990: 12).
Three years later, Susan Bassnett (1993) took a step further to argue that Comparative
Literature as understood in the traditional way had died, and that the new critical
impulses came from fields such as Cultural Studies, Gender Studies and Postcolonial
Studies, as well as from Translation Studies. This was basically the reason she further
said that, in such a state of things, perhaps Comparative Literature should become
understood as a subdiscipline within Translation Studies. However, this comment may
be unfair or disproportionate, as Comparative Literature deals with many other issues
not covered by translation.
Bassnett (2006) herself later redefined her own proposal by acknowledging that it had
been a provocative statement, motivated by an attempt to give recognition to a new
th
expanding discipline, and by the agonizing crises of another, unable to shed the 19 -
century positivism that had been imbued in its roots since birth, and also unable to
analyse the political implications of intercultural transfer processes. However, her
words on this occasion were no less provocative than in the previous occasion,
because she concluded that “neither comparative literature nor translation studies
should be seen as a discipline: rather both are methods of approaching literature,
ways of reading that are mutually beneficial” (2006: 6). Actually, saying that
Comparative Literature was not a discipline was in accordance with Gayatri Spivak’s
assertion three years earlier, when she criticized in The Death of a Discipline its strong
Eurocentrism and the need to revise its underlying ideology in order to analyse literary
reality in a world that is post-colonized and subject to the effects of globalisation.
Previously we mentioned how the ACLA reports of 1965 and 1975 had stressed the
need to use the original texts, rather than resorting to translations (at least in an
educational context). A significant change of attitude was shown in the report from
1993, prepared by Charles Bernheimer. Then, although the convenience of knowing
foreign languages is reaffirmed, also referring to the teaching field, the traditional
rejection of translation is mitigated. Furthermore, it is suggested that translations can
be a corpus with a potential to become the paradigm from which to seek solutions to
various problems:
While the necessity and unique benefits of a deep knowledge of foreign languages
must continue to be stressed, the old hostilities toward translation should be
mitigated. In fact, translation can well be seen as a paradigm for larger problems of
understanding and interpretation across different discursive traditions. Comparative
literature, it could be said, aims to explain both what is lost and what is gained in
translation between the distinct value system of different cultures, media, disciplines,
and institutions. […] It may be better, for instance, to teach a work in translation, even if
you don’t have access to the original language, than to neglect marginal voices
because of their mediated transmission. […] We would even condone certain courses
on minority languages in which the majority of the works were read in translation
(Bernheimer 1995: 44)
The final report was prepared in 2004 by Haun Saussy. It focused on the situation of
the discipline in the era of globalisation. The issue of translation is not mentioned in it,
but Steven Ungar did mention it in one of the replies to the report, lamenting the
insufficient attention Comparative Literature had given to translation throughout
history:
Translation has remained central to comparative philology as well as to the European

th
and North American models of world literature since the early 19 century. Yet the
centrality of translation within literary studies is at odds with the fact that it often
remains under-analysed and under-theorized. […] The workings of translation are
often dismissed within literary production as a second-order representation, with the
translator accordingly invisible as a– faithful or unfaithful – extension of the original
work attributed to the author (Ungar 2006: 127)
Also in the context of the United States, it is noteworthy that in the presidential
conference of the prestigious Modern Language Association in 2009, under the
name“English Is Not Enough”, Catherine Porter reflected on the values of
multilingualism and multiculturalism and, in close connection with this conviction, she
made sure that the three sessions that made up the presidential forum were devoted
to translation (with the title “The Tasks of Translation in the Global Context”). Eleven
papers were then collected at the annual Profession (2010), including papers by
recognised theorist as S. Bermann, G. Spivak and L. Venuti. It is pertinent to draw
attention to the call launched by Porter herself:
How do we justify teaching literature in translation and deal with the constraints,
losses, and displacements that reading in translation entails? What uses should we
make of translation -from and into the target language- in teaching foreign
languages? Should departments of foreign and comparative literatures use
translations extensively and make comparative translation a cornerstone of the
discipline, or should they defend the use of original texts and pursue a practice of
cultural comparison that stresses linguistic difference? What place should the
nascent field of translation studies and courses in translation theory have in the
teaching of language and literature? What perspectives on translation are offered by
the various subfields of linguistics, and what can the study of problems in translation
contribute to work on language acquisition? In the broad domain of study embraced
by the MLA, what role should we ascribe to programs that train professional
translators? What roles do we play in decisions about what texts are to be translated
and in what direction? In the discussion about our national deficit in knowledge of
foreign languages and cultures and about the need for international or global studies,
should we be concerned about a translation deficit and advocate for more translation
as a means of fostering transcultural awareness?
(<http://www.mla.org/pdf/presforumbrochure.pdf>)
We will mention finally that, similarly, ACLA’s presidential conference from 2009, given
by Sandra Bermann, was dedicated to the relationship between Comparative
Literature and translation. It emphasized the supreme importance that translation has
for the discipline:
With the growing recognition of translation as a visible, separable sphere of practice

and knowledge, comparative literature and translation now encounter one another
more regularly, more closely –and more intriguingly– than ever before, since
translation poses timely questions for our field and, I think, the humanities in general. It
highlights both the linguistic specificity and materiality of texts we study, and opens a
series of new dimensions to explore (Bermann 2009: 438).
According to Bermann, like Comparative Literature, translation is transnational and

interdisciplinary. Both its practice and the theorizing generated around it allow
establishing important textual relationships throughout time, space and language,
calling attention to the very nature of language.

A Historical Overview On The Consideration of Literary Translation From A Comparative Literature Point of View - AIETI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Historical Overview On The Consideration of Literary Translation From A Comparative Literature Point of View - AIETI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

30/7/2020 A historical overview on the consideration of literary translation from a Comparative Literature point of view – AIETI

A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW ON THE CONSIDERATION OF

Comparative literature is an art of understanding centred in the eventuality

Steiner (1995: 10)

Throughout the Renaissance, no language was considered worthy until it

We have already suggested that Comparative Literature paid scant attention to

It is especially noteworthy that Guérard considered translation to allow an update of

First, it caters exclusively to the notion of translation as a product, rather than

Second, Comparative Literature aligns itself with the descriptive approach to

As we said above, in the 1970s we find a number of scholars, from Comparative

Thus a new paradigm is established focusing on literary translation, as opposed to the

This type of approach, widely practiced by the French School of Comparative

Nowadays, translation is often used in Cultural Studies as a metaphor to describe the

Translation has remained central to comparative philology as well as to the European

With the growing recognition of translation as a visible, separable sphere of practice

According to Bermann, like Comparative Literature, translation is transnational and

You might also like