Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies
eBook - ePub

Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies

Methodological Considerations

Kobus Marais, Reine Meylaerts, Kobus Marais, Reine Meylaerts

Share book
  1. 296 pages
  2. English
  3. ePUB (mobile friendly)
  4. Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub

Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies

Methodological Considerations

Kobus Marais, Reine Meylaerts, Kobus Marais, Reine Meylaerts

Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations

About This Book

This volume highlights a range of perspectives on the ways in which complexity thinking might be applied in translation studies, focusing in particular on methods to achieve this. The book introduces the topic with a brief overview of the history and conceptualization of complexity thinking. The volume then frames complexity theory through a variety of lenses, including translation and society, interpreting studies, and Bible translation, to feature case studies in which complexity thinking has successfully been or might be applied within translation studies. Using complexity thinking in translation studies as a jumping off point from which to consider the broader implications of implementing quantitative approaches in qualitative research in the humanities, this volume is key reading for graduate students and scholars in translation studies, cultural studies, semiotics, and development studies.

Frequently asked questions

How do I cancel my subscription?
Simply head over to the account section in settings and click on “Cancel Subscription” - it’s as simple as that. After you cancel, your membership will stay active for the remainder of the time you’ve paid for. Learn more here.
Can/how do I download books?
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
What is the difference between the pricing plans?
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlego’s features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan you’ll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
What is Perlego?
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, we’ve got you covered! Learn more here.
Do you support text-to-speech?
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Is Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies an online PDF/ePUB?
Yes, you can access Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies by Kobus Marais, Reine Meylaerts, Kobus Marais, Reine Meylaerts in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Lingue e linguistica & Linguistica. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.

Information

Publisher
Routledge
Year
2018
ISBN
9781351332194

1
Introduction

Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts

1. The Paradigm of Simplification

Complexity theory is usually described as a revolutionary break from reductionism and as a way of seeing the world in terms of instability and fluctuations. Complexity theory indeed challenges the notions of disjunction, abstraction, and reduction, which together constitute the “paradigm of simplification” (Morin 2008, 3), also called the paradigm of reductionism. Reductionism has been the dominant approach to science since the 16th century (Mitchell 2009, ix) and has been wrongly associated with the only way to do “good science.” In the words of Edgar Morin (2008, 33), one of the fathers of complexity theory, reduction means “the search for elementary, simple units, the decomposition of a system into its elements, the origination of the complex to the simple.” As a typical Newtonian paradigm, reductionist thinking also wants to predict and control. It believes in order and determinism. It started in the natural sciences and spread from there to the social sciences. It also underlies some of the conceptualizations in Translation Studies. Let us take three examples from the Handbook of translation studies. When discussing “Scientificity and theory in translation studies,” Daniel Gile states that:
None of these theories [Interpretive Theory and Skopos Theory, Relevance Theory and Polysystem Theory, the process model of Simultaneous interpreting, Gile’s Effort Models] is strong in the Popperian sense. They are more explanatory than predictive, and none of them has been tested systematically […]. If the canonical view of science is taken as the single authoritative reference, it is tempting to conclude that few existing theories in Translation Studies are scientific. But when including H[uman] S[ciences] C[ulture], this is no longer the case.
(Gile 2013, 154)
In her chapter on “General translation theory,” Dilek Dizdar describes Toury’s theoretical objectives:
In his search for a general translation theory, Toury (1980) also followed this idea of Translation Studies as an empirical science. To counteract normative and non-systematic approaches to translation which had dominated the discourse for centuries, he argued for a strictly descriptive theory basis and the method of induction which, when enough empirical data was collected and analysed, could enable the scholars to determine general laws.
(Dizdar 2012, 53)
And finally, recalling the early days of descriptive translation studies, Alexandra Assis Rosa characterizes it as
an empirical discipline with the dual purpose of describing “the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience” and, based on such descriptions, of formulating general principles that allow one to both explain and predict translational phenomena (Holmes 1988/2000: 176).
(Assis Rosa 2010, 94)
These examples illustrate how the paradigm of reductionism has shaped translation studies in the 1970s and 1980s. Sure, as can already be inferred from Gile’s reference to human sciences culture, alternative models have since questioned the search for prediction and control. Toury, for example, has also been criticized for his strict empiricism (see Dizdar 2012). Still, it is safe to say that translation studies has remained firmly embedded within the reductionist model, not so much in its search for universal laws but rather in its search for decomposing systems into elementary, simple units and for imposing a “simple conceptualization on a complex reality” (Marais 2015, 19). Thus, when studying audiovisual translation, for example, is it really useful to make rigorous distinctions between diverse translation types, strategies, and processes (dubbing, subtitling, voice-over, surtitling, audio description, translation, adaptation, non-translation, standardization, condensation, deletion, reformulation, normalization, etc.) instead of studying them in relation to each other as they often appear in one and the same product? The same goes for the traditional distinctions between different audiovisual media: How useful are they? According to Fernández Costales,
the true potential of video games and the possibilities they can pose for research in translation-related issues have not been fully approached yet: the relation between audiovisual translation and video games can be further studied, as the introduction of voice over, dubbing, subtitling and lip-sync techniques are still to be analysed; similarly, the question of accessibility in audiovisual translation can also be applied to the case of electronic entertainment.
(FernĂĄndez Costales 2012, 388)
In sum, how useful are our disciplinary subdivisions and our conceptual models to understand what is really going on in translation? How can we account for a collaborative production process? How are we to deal with significant levels of uncertainty and ambiguity in terms of authorship, translatorship, audience, or reception? How are we to deal with a myriad of contextual factors? How should we conceptualize the relation between the local and the central, between agency and structure? To these and other questions that occupy translation studies, there can be no single answer, algorithm or protocol that would work in every circumstance— a point that is well known in translation studies. Still, our traditional theories and models are not able (enough) to conceptualize exceptions, randomness, change. Translation studies’ models can deal with parts and wholes, but they cannot deal with complexity or paradox. However, as Prigogine (1996, 4) said: “the new rationality looks at fluctuations, instability, multiple choices and limited predictability.” This is exactly why Manuel De la Cruz Recio, in this volume, states that a general interpreting theory “must necessarily be a theory of possibility.” Instead of eliminating complexity, we should conceptualize it. Although reduction will remain an important characteristic of science (Morin 2008, 33; Marais 2015, 15) and thus of translation studies, we need to supplement it with an epistemology of complexity.

2. Complexity

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 Recio’s chapter, it is a “system 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.” 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, “nonlinearity describes the property of a system whose output is not proportional to its input” (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 “organized complexity” “dealing simultaneously with a sizable number of factors which are interrelated into an organic whole” and “disorganized complexity,” which “on the surface” is characterized by such a large number of parameters that it “can seem random” and therefore needs probability theory and statistical methods to be analyzed. If, still according to Tymoczko, we consider translation as “a form of organized complexity, it is possible to revisit some of the most famous statements about translation and to comprehend them more fully.” The various chapters in this volume, each in their own way, illustrate these new insights about translation.
“Complexity […] promotes a relational and processual style of thinking, stressing organizational patterns, networked relationships and historical context” (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 “cause” might result in different “effects”), 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 […] 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, “when a scene is really clicking, the visual and aural elements are working together so well that it is nearly impossible to distinguish them” (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 “introduce new information in terms of unfamiliar dilemmas, puzzles, and contradictions” (Bennett and Edelman 1985, 64), creating stories “that 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 order” (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. “Audio description faces the unavoidable constraint of time, and hence descriptions tend to prioritise crucial and obvious information” (Orero and Vilaró 2012, 302). Should audio description thus omit so-called details? “How much should be described when there is a strict time restriction is a question to which there is no straight answer.” And thus, “more research is required into audience expectations with regard to type and amount of information in the descriptions” (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. […] for each case we don’t 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 “since we are in the realm of creative writing”(Orero and Vilaró 2012, 314). Hence, “while in Translation Studies the term ‘subjective’ translation has never been an issue, perhaps we could move away from this tendency in the field of research in AD” (Orero and Vilaró 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 characteristic…. 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 “translation” and “translator/interpreter.” In her chapter on the resonances between social narrative theory and complexity theory as methodologies for translation studies, Sue-Ann Harding beautifully summarizes: “Elements 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.” This, as Harding shows, applies as well to translation. Studying interpreters’ 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. People’s (individual or collective) actions are a contingent outcome of “structural and contextual elements working in interaction with conscious, rational and affective interpretations of meaning” (Byrne and Callaghan 2014, 111) Actions comprehend “both the reflexivity of agency and the non-reflexive, reproductive elements that are consistent with the structural context” ibid., 111). Reflexive deliberations relate personal identity and social identity and constitute the “mediatory process between structure and agency” (ibid., 121). This implies “neither determined behavior nor full agentic freedom but rather that the outcomes of interactions are uncertain, acted out in every social situation” (ibid., 123). Rules or norms are therefore never the “laws by which actors’ 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...

Table of contents