The term translation process is any process, including non-verbal, which leads an initial text to its actualization in the same code or different code (target text). In the chain of communication, it represents the decoding phase and encoding of a message from one language to another, mandatory through an intermediate language. The consequences of the translation process is the encoding of the message in the target text and its reception.
The implications of the “inside” language
In the thirties, Vygotsky explained that the “inside” language we use to think and formulate a verbal text is a non verbal code. This fact gives a lot to think about regarding the translation process, since it seems very likely that the three types of translation thought by Jakobson (intralingual (or reformulation), interlingual (translated literally) and intersemiotic (or transmutation ), 1959) would actually be understood as different aspects of the same process that would be only apparently interlingual . In real translation, there are intersemiotic process both at the deverbalisation the original text, for understanding phase (the “volatilization thought” of Vygotsky) and when it is translated into mental concepts by translator, and at the reverbalisation in the target text, where these concepts are updated.
Although the work of Peirce is not appreciated by the school in Tartu, and although the local semiotics tends to rely more on Morris and its derivations of Youri Lotman (semiotics of culture), and if we consider that the concept of “interpreting” – an idea that is the link between perceived sign and the object to which semiosis (meaning process) returns – we realize that it is made of the same material as the nonverbal “inside” language. Following this assumption, we can put on the same level the concept sign-interpreting-object and the text of start–translation-target text, where “translation” means translating as Peirce. Where translation is not used as a “word of the target text by which a word is translated from the original text,” but rather as an idea that forms in the mind of the translator and that functions as a link between the original text and the translated text.
Adding a “mental” side to the translation process has obvious consequences, so Yuri Lotman (1994) completely excludes the possibility of a reverse translation – that is to say, a retranslation into the original language – and specifically talks about the evolution of translation as signified, and not an equivalence.
The “inside” language, which is like a machine code of the brain, has a dual function: it is the language in which thoughts are expressed, but also the raw material from which are made applications that trigger the operations of verbalization and deverbalisation . The inside language is a translative metalanguage intermediating between the verbal original text and the verbal translated text. This is the code that allows translation, with each
Leave a Reply