Translation as communication and auto-communication

Abstract

IF ONE WANTS to understand translation, is necessary to look at all its aspects from psychological to ideological. And is necessary to see process of translation, on one hand, as a complex of interlinguistic, intralinguistic, and intersemiotic translations, and on other hand, as a complex of linguistic, cultural, economic, and ideological activity. Translators work at boundaries of languages, cultures, and societies. They position themselves between poles of specificity and adaptation in accordance with strategies of their translational behaviour. They either preserve otherness of other or they transform other into self. By same token, they cease to be simple mediators, because in a semiotic sense they are capable of generating new languages for description of a foreign language, text, or culture, and of renewing a culture or of having an influence on dialogic capacity of a culture with other cultures as well as with itself. In this way, translators work not only with natural languages but also with metalanguages, languages of description. One of missions of translator is to increase receptivity and dialogic capability of a culture, and through these also internal variety of that culture. As mediators between languages, translators are important creators of new metalanguages. The status of and translator have changed from one historical era to next, and at beginning of 21st century we are confronting need for a complex understanding of them both. At core of this complex understanding is universality of translation. The universality of comes from its connections with thought processes. As Yurii Lotman affirms, the elementary act of thinking is translation (Lotman 2000:143). And he stresses in same place that the elementary mechanism of translating is (Lotman 2000:143). The irreducibility of dialogue to mere communication in a language common to dialogue's participants is very important. For Lotman everything begins with need for dialogue: ... need for dialogue, dialogic situation, precedes both real dialogue and even existence of a language in which to conduct it (Lotman 2000:143-144). The need for dialogue can be viewed either at level of a comprehensive theoretical understanding or at level of deep-seated mechanism of individual behavior. The need for dialogue is tied in a complementary way both to needs of an audience, which can be studied in theory of mass communication (McQuail 2000), and to various personal needs (self-understanding, enjoyment, escapism) and social needs (knowledge about world, self-confidence, stability, self-esteem, strengthening of connections with family and friends) in theory of communication (Fiske 2000:20). Any form of identity also depends on need for dialogue. At core of personal, national, or social identity is recognition of boundary between self and other. The boundary not only divides but also unites and thus participates in dialogic processes. To a large extent dialogue within boundaries depends on dialogue at boundaries. Translators work at boundaries of languages, cultures, and societies. They position themselves between poles of specificity and adaptation in accordance with strategies of their translational behaviour. They either preserve otherness of other or they transform other into self. By same token, they cease to be simple mediators, because in a semiotic sense they are capable of generating new languages for description of a foreign language, text, or culture, and of renewing a culture or of having an influence on dialogic capacity of a culture with other cultures as well as with itself. In this way, translators work not only with natural languages but also with metalanguages, languages of description. …