Abstract
Although Schleiermacher’s binary opposition has been present in Translation Studies for a long time, in some recent theoretical discussions, critics put emphasis on the way translations either represent or retransform the original rather than on whether they provide the actual access to ‘the foreign”. Translation has been, therefore, described in slightly different terms: of metaphor (substitution) in opposition to metonymy (contiguity) (Douglas 1991, Tymoczko 1999, Yao 2002, Hermans 2007, Brzostowska-Tereszkiewicz 2013). This critical awareness does not reflect the way translations function in the culture, i.e. they are usually made and read as substitutes for their originals. As a consequence of that, a different distinction will be reminded and discussed, i.e. Jiří Levý’s illusionist and anti-illusionist methods of translating, placing Schleiermacher’s and Venuti’s “foreignizations” among the anti-illusionist practices.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
However, the theoretical implications of metonymic notion have been explained by her in more detail in the article Przekład jako metonimia [Translation as Metonymy] (2013b).
Works Cited
Barańczak, Stanisław. 1974. Przekład artystyczny jako ‘samoistny’ i ‘związany’ obiekt interpretacji. In Z teorii i historii przekładu artystycznego: materiały z konferencji naukowej w Szczawnicy, 17–19 marca 1972, ed. Jacek Baluch, 47–74. Cracow: Jagiellonian University.
Barańczak, Stanisław. 1991. Fioletowa krowa. Cracow: a5 Press.
Bergvall, Caroline. 2005. VIA: 48 Dante’s Variations. In Fig, 67–71. Cambridge: Salt.
Berman, Antoine. 1992. The Experience of the Foreign: Culture and Translation in Romantic Germany. Trans. Stefan Heyvaert. Albany: SUNY Press.
Brzostowska-Tereszkiewicz, Tamara. 2012. Parnasistowski model przekładu literackiego (Antoni Lange, Walerij Briusow, Vladimir Nabokov). In Wielcy tłumacze, ed. P. Fast and Wacław Osadnik, 1–23. Katowice: “Śląsk” Academic Press.
Brzostowska-Tereszkiewicz, Tamara. 2013a. Modernist models of literary translation. At the intersection of translation studies and new modernist studies. In Translation im Spannungsfeld der cultural turns/translation among cultural turns, ed. Katarzyna Lukas, Izabela Olszewska, and Marta Turska, 71–82. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Brzostowska-Tereszkiewicz, Tamara. 2013b. Przekład jako metonimia. In Między Oryginałem a Przekładem: Dominanta a przekład, ed. A. Bednarczyk, 84–98. Cracow: Universitas.
Buras, Jacek St., Jakub Ekier, Andrzej Kopacki, and Piotr Sommer. 2012. Ten cały Brecht. Wrocław: Biuro Literackie.
Carson, Anne. 2012. A fragment of Ibykos translated six ways. London Review of Books 34: 42–43.
de Man, Paul. 1979. Allegories of reading. Figural language in Rousseau, Nietzsche, Rilke and Proust. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Hermans, Theo. 1996. The translator’s voice in translated narrative. Target 8(1): 23–48.
Hermans, Theo. 2007. The conference of the tongues. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
Hofstadter, Douglas R. 1997. Le ton beau de Marot: In praise of the music of language. Bloomsbury: Basic Books.
Holmes, James. 1970. Forms of verse translation and the translation of verse forms. In The nature of translation: Essays on the theory and practice of literary translation, ed. James Holmes, 91–105. Mouton: The Hague.
Jakobson, Roman. 1956. Two aspects of language and two types of aphasic disturbances. In Fundamentals of language, ed. Roman Jakobson and Morris Halle, 69–96. The Hague–Paris: Mouton.
Jettmarová, Zuzana. 2008. Czech and Slovak translation theories: The lesser-known tradition. In Tradition versus modernity. From the classic period of the prague school to translation studies at the beginning of the 21st century, ed. Jana Králová and Zuzana Jettmarová, 15–46. Prague: Charles University.
Lefevere, André. 1977. Friedrich Schleiermacher. On the different methods of translating. In: Translating literature: The German tradition from Luther to Rosenzweig, 66–90. Assen: Van Gorcum.
Levý, Jiří. 2011 (1963). The Art of Translation. Trans. Patrick Corness, ed. Zuzana Jettmarová. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Popovič, Anton. 1975. Teoria umeleckego prekladu. Bratislava: Tatran.
Reynolds, Matthew. 2012. The poetry of translation: From Chaucer and Petrarch to Homer and Logue. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, Douglas. 1991. The translator’s turn. Baltimore/London: John Hopkins University Press.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1963. Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens. In Das Problem des Übersetzens, ed. Hans Joachim Störig, 38–70. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Scott, Clive. 2012. Literary translation and the rediscovery of reading. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tymoczko, Maria. 1999. Translation in a postcolonial context. Early Irish literature in English translation. Manchester: St Jerome.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The translator’s invisibility. London/New York: Routledge.
Weinberger, Eliot, and Octavio Paz. 1987. 19 ways of looking at Wang Wei: How a Chinese poem is translated. New York: Moyer Bell.
Yao, Stephen G. 2002. Translation and the languages of modernism: Gender, politics, language. New York: Palgrave.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Szymańska, K. (2016). How Translations Function: Illusion and Disillusion. In: Seruya, T., Justo, J. (eds) Rereading Schleiermacher: Translation, Cognition and Culture. New Frontiers in Translation Studies. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47949-0_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47949-0_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-47948-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-47949-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)