2.1 Nonlinearity
A complex system can apply to bacteria, the brain, political theory, ants, computers, urban life, culture, translation, and transfer, etc. and can be defined in several ways. For computer scientist Melanie Mitchell (2009, 13), also quoted in Manuel De la Cruz Recioâs chapter, it is a âsystem in which large networks of components with no central control and simple rules of operation give rise to complex collective behavior, sophisticated information processing, and adaptation via learning or evolution.â From a cultural-philosophical point of view, a complex system is
a network of rich interactions which change over time. It is not the number of parts interacting which defines complexity but rather the nature of their interactions. These interactions are non-linear, meaning that one cannot add up the interactions in a system in order to measure their effects. In other words, ânonlinearity describes the property of a system whose output is not proportional to its inputâ (Borgo and Goguen, 2005, 2). Small effects can have large consequences and vice versa.
(Human 2016, 427)
Therefore, a complex system is not just a complicated system, as Manuel De la Cruz Recio rightly observes: The latter is reducible, which is not the case for the former. Another useful distinction, made by Maria Tymoczko in her chapter is that between âorganized complexityâ âdealing simultaneously with a sizable number of factors which are interrelated into an organic wholeâ and âdisorganized complexity,â which âon the surfaceâ is characterized by such a large number of parameters that it âcan seem randomâ and therefore needs probability theory and statistical methods to be analyzed. If, still according to Tymoczko, we consider translation as âa form of organized complexity, it is possible to revisit some of the most famous statements about translation and to comprehend them more fully.â The various chapters in this volume, each in their own way, illustrate these new insights about translation.
âComplexity [âŚ] promotes a relational and processual style of thinking, stressing organizational patterns, networked relationships and historical contextâ (Bousquet 2011, 45). As already indicated, nonlinearity means that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. The interaction of parts in a complex system can only be understood in a holistic way, not in linear terms of action and reaction. Sofia Bull refers in this respect to
many theories about nonlinearity that are increasingly being used to explain technological, social, biological and physiological systems. The concept of nonlinearity brings with it the insight that predictions are impossible even in deterministic systems (even under consistent circumstances a specific âcauseâ might result in different âeffectsâ), which points to an inherent uncertainty in complex systems of both the natural and social worlds.
(Bull 2015, 78)
Therefore, a complexity perspective challenges linear methodologies and linear causality. Instead, cause and effect have to be seen as reciprocal: Causes lead to effects, which can again cause effects on the initial causes, on other things, on themselves. Non-linear change or non-linear causality also means that similar causes need not lead to similar results: Small differences in initial conditions may exert major influences on the eventual results, and historical influences on systems may differ so that results differ. This should prevent translation studies scholars from understanding too superficially the function and effect of various translation strategies. Without necessarily containing the terminology of complexity thinking, one can find interesting examples of non-linear thinking in TS. Studying audio description (AD), Aline Remael rightly observes:
The addition of sound is no longer considered to be an afterthought in film production [âŚ] sound is considered to be integral to understanding the images or, in other words, sound shapes the picture sometimes as much as the picture shapes sound.
(Remael 2012, 258)
Therefore, âwhen a scene is really clicking, the visual and aural elements are working together so well that it is nearly impossible to distinguish themâ (Remael 2012, 259). Yet, still according to Remael, AD guidelines suffer from the idea that film is a visual medium, aided by sound. What is more, the distinction between sound effects and music, for instance, is often blurred, which makes it even more difficult for blind audiences to interpret what they hear. How and to what extent blind people can identify and interpret sounds will also be determined by personal factors that will vary from one listener to the next.
The lessons to be learnt for film viewing and AD are therefore far from straightforward. They are determined by the complexities of sound production and reception generally, by what the specific target audience can or cannot handle, and by the way film uses sound.
(Remael 2012, 261)
As already said, nonlinearity also means that very small changes can have very large effects. This is, according to Sue-Ann Harding in this volume, exactly the case for narrative in/and translation.
Narrative need not be simplistic and reductionist. The ways in which narratives are constructed can âintroduce new information in terms of unfamiliar dilemmas, puzzles, and contradictionsâ (Bennett and Edelman 1985, 64), creating stories âthat open up the mind to creative possibilities developed in ways that provoke intellectual struggle, the resolution of contradictions, and the creation of a more workable human orderâ (ibid., 162). Translation is, of course, elemental to this, given its potential to introduce difference, the new, the unfamiliar, puzzles, and contradiction.
Also in films, minor details may have major implications for the development of the (visual and plot) narrative or for the development of a character. This again raises important questions for AD, as echoed in translation-studies literature. âAudio description faces the unavoidable constraint of time, and hence descriptions tend to prioritise crucial and obvious informationâ (Orero and VilarĂł 2012, 302). Should audio description thus omit so-called details? âHow much should be described when there is a strict time restriction is a question to which there is no straight answer.â And thus, âmore research is required into audience expectations with regard to type and amount of information in the descriptionsâ (ibid., 303).
Would eye-tracking then be a useful method to choose what to describe for AD? Orero and VilarĂł (2012) analyze whether the AD of minute details offered in films matches the eye gaze and its intensity. Their experiment, using eye-tracking, measuring fixations and scan paths of participants, shows very similar fixations and scan paths but very different audio-descriptions. Eye-tracking shows where the eye has been looking, not necessarily where the attention has been, and thus eye-tracking does not necessarily give information on cognitive processing and conscious perception. There is no necessary agreement between fixation and perception. We do not simply register pictures, as a camera does. Perception, indeed, is always an interpretation, an active process in which
we interpret from previous knowledge and experiences stored in our memory, as well as from many other factors, such as our emotional state, cultural context, personal expectations, etc. [âŚ] for each case we donât perceive solely what is gathered by the retina, but what the brain establishes according to an interpretative hypothesis.
(Orero and VilarĂł 2012, 298)
Consequently, because perception is driven by a complex interplay of personal factors, subjectivity in audio description seems unavoidable âsince we are in the realm of creative writingâ(Orero and VilarĂł 2012, 314). Hence, âwhile in Translation Studies the term âsubjectiveâ translation has never been an issue, perhaps we could move away from this tendency in the field of research in ADâ (Orero and VilarĂł 2012, 314). This kind of claim illustrates the need for translation studies to supplement the paradigm of reduction with an epistemology of complexity.
2.2 Emergence
Another result of the multiple relationships within a complex system is the notion of emergence.
Emergence is a characteristic of a system which cannot be found or reduced to the properties of the parts which constitute that characteristicâŚ. What emerges cannot be found inside the individual properties of the components but is a result of their interaction.
(Human 2016, 428)
Emergence can help avoiding reductionist views on the concepts of âtranslationâ and âtranslator/interpreter.â In her chapter on the resonances between social narrative theory and complexity theory as methodologies for translation studies, Sue-Ann Harding beautifully summarizes: âElements of a narrative are understood and interpreted in light of the whole narrative, and the whole narrative is understood and interpreted in the light of its constituent elements.â This, as Harding shows, applies as well to translation. Studying interpretersâ identity, Emma Seddon argues that it can be understood as
heterogeneously assembled, emerging from the simultaneous interactions of micro and macro factors. Researchers can therefore explore an assembled identity as emergent and relational, the product of distributed agency, processes and interactions within specific contexts. This can reframe the question of the status and visibility of the translation profession by examining translation identities through the rhizomatic interactions of their component parts.
Nonlinearity and the emergent nature of social reality challenge translation studies to rethink its conceptualization of the relationships between structure and agency, between determinism and freedom. According to Marais, theories of agency in translation assume very simple arguments concerning intentions and actions when they argue for the ways in which translators are agents of change (Marais 2015, 34). As already indicated, from a complexity perspective, structures emerge bottom-up, and these structures, once emerged, have a downward causative effect on the individuals whose interaction caused the structure. Peopleâs (individual or collective) actions are a contingent outcome of âstructural and contextual elements working in interaction with conscious, rational and affective interpretations of meaningâ (Byrne and Callaghan 2014, 111) Actions comprehend âboth the reflexivity of agency and the non-reflexive, reproductive elements that are consistent with the structural contextâ ibid., 111). Reflexive deliberations relate personal identity and social identity and constitute the âmediatory process between structure and agencyâ (ibid., 121). This implies âneither determined behavior nor full agentic freedom but rather that the outcomes of interactions are uncertain, acted out in every social situationâ (ibid., 123). Rules or norms are therefore never the âlaws by which actorsâ behavior can be determined or predicted because regularities are always the achievement of actors, within contexts, including those of time and place so that their actual achieveme...