Professional Documents
Culture Documents
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Duke University Press and Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to Poetics Today.
http://www.jstor.org
POLYLINGUALISM
AND TRANSLATION
AS REALITY
AS MIMESIS*
MEIR STERNBERG
Poeticsand ComparativeLiterature,Tel Aviv
I
Translatorsand theoristsof translationnaturallyrecall with gratitudethe
incident of the Tower of Babel - as the felix culpa responsiblefor the
crisscrossof interlingualchasms which theyare constantlyurged to survey
and as far as possible to bridge.The attitudeof writersto thissociolinguistic
is, however,less uniformand certainlymore ambivalent.True,
turning-point
it has widened theirrange of both materialsand devices farbeyondanything
conceivable in a state where "the whole earth was of one language and of
one speech." But fromanother viewpoint,this very asset may be regarded
as a liabilityor at least a mixed blessing.For the disruptionof the state of
world-widelinguistichomogeneityhas made the profusionand confusionof
tonguesnot only a verbal but also an existentialfact,and, in additionto the
basic tasks of referringto extraverbalrealityand reportingverbal messages
withinthe same code, it has laid on each language the burdenof reporting
messages originallyencoded in other languages. This formsof course the
common source of all translationalproblems. But what should be noted is
that the complicationsarising are intratextualas well as intertextualand
representationalas well as communicative.These complicationsmanifest
themselvesto some extentwheneverwe trynot, as in standardtranslation,
to substituteour own discoursefor an utterancemade in anotherlanguage,
but to incorporatethis utteranceintoour own discourse.Such framingand
juxtapositionof differently-encoded
speech are, however,particularlycommon within the fictiveworlds created in literature,with their variegated
referentialcontexts,frequentshiftsfrom milieu to milieu, abundance of
dialogue scenes, and keen interestin the language of realityand the reality
*
222
MEIR STERNBERG
POLYLINGUALISM
AND TRANSLATION
AS MIMESIS
223
224
MEIR STERNBERG
restriction
vehicular
matching
homogenizing
convention
vehicular
promiscuity
object
unilingual
polylingual
polylingual variable,possibly
unilingual
medium
unilingual
polylingual
unilingual
polylingual
225
226
MEIR STERNBERG
POLYLINGUALISM
AND TRANSLATION
AS MIMESIS
227
228
MEIR STERNBERG
229
(Chap.21).
Nabokov's Pninsuperlatively
exemplifiestheravagesofforeignaccent:
230
MEIR STERNBERG
thecrucialdifference
betweenmimetictransposition
montageserveto highlight
and sociolinguisticinterference.
This difference
may be brokendown intothe
structure:two distinct
communicative
factors:
of
(a)
following complex
and
audiencebeingsetinto
that
the
his
between
originalspeaker
speech-events,
the frameworkof the reporterand his addressee, as opposed to a single
codes: distributedbetween the two
speech-event; (b) locus of different
the
one
with
whollyunilingual,as opposed to
possibly
reported
speech-events,
co-existentwithinthebilingualspeaker'smind;(c) sourceofinterlingual
conflict:
of the forms'and
the reporter'sselective(and usuallydeliberate)substitution
featuresof his own code forthose of the originalutterance,as opposed to the
productionofa double-codedutterance,whose
bilingual's(usuallyinvoluntary)
genesisis sometimesdescribedas thespeaker'sfaultymental"translation"ofa
message fromhis native into a foreignlanguage; (d) mode of existenceof
speaker'sutteranceas actuallyenunciated:partlyin absentiaas opposed to fully
inpraesentia.
Sociolinguistic interference,therefore,just like the code-switchingof
equilingualor diglossicspeakers,is notan instancebutan objectoftranslational
mimesis- amenable to all the modes of heterolingualmanipulation,from
vehicular matching to homogenizingconvention. This practice, variously
manifestedin all the worksI have just cited,is overtlypointedout by James's
narrator:"The languagespokenbyM. Niochewas a singularcompound,whichI
since "the result,in the
shrinkfromthe attemptto reproducein itsintegrity,"
be
would
all
in
which
he
in
it,
form
scarcelycomprehensible
presented
humility
to thereader,so thatI have venturedto trimand siftit."
is even furtherremoved than transpositionfromthe
3) Conceptualreflection
concretetextureof the originaldiscourse: what it retainsis not so much the
socio-cultural
norms,semantic
verbalformsoftheforeigncode as theunderlying
referential
and
distinctive
of
range, segmentationsand
reality,
mapping
hierarchies.Conceptual reflectionthus lies at the crossroadsof language and
reality.Qua mimetichypothesis,therefore- and it is importantto note that
and unlikematching,is an hypothesisthatexplains
like transposition
reflection,
verbal idiosyncrasywithin an ostensibly unilingual message in terms of
perspectival diversityand communicativemontage - its discovery and
validation may require various kinds,degrees and combinationsof readingcompetence.
Sometimestheconceptualclash has a preciselinguisticfocusor grammatical
realization.Thus,whentheholyarkoftheconvenantis broughtintothecampof
Philistines:
Israel,theBiblicalnarratorquotes theshoutingofthefrightened
Woe untous! whoshalldeliverus outofthehandofthesemighty
gods[Elohim]?
withall theplaguesinthe
thesearethegods[Elohim]thatsmotetheEgyptians
almostliteral)
ishereaccurate,
version
wilderness.
(II Samuel,4.8:theKingJames
of the originalspeech seems to have been
At firstglance,theheterolingualism
The onlylinguistic
intrusion.
homogenizedout ofexistencebywayofnarratorial
231
MEIR STERNBERG
232
more specifically,
about the standardizationof some heterolingualcomponent
in Pygmalionthat "this desperateattemptto represent
when
notes
Shaw
(as
a phoneticalphabetmustbe abandonedas unintelligible
dialect
without
[Liza's]
outsideLondon"). A typicalresultofitsthoroughgoing
applicationis that,when
thequoted speakerswithintherepresentedrealityare themselvesbilingual(as in
Eric Ambler's A Kind of Anger),the omission of an overt notice makes it
impossibleto determinein whichof thepossiblelanguagesa certaindialogue is
conducted.Anotheris whatmaybe called standardizationat a second remove,
usually due to a double communicativeframing:a narrator'sstandardized
quotation(in his language) of a character'sstandardizedquotation(in his own
language) of anothercharacter'sspeech (in a thirdlanguage).In extremecases,
therefore,attributionmergesinto the pole of homogenizingconventionin all
oftherepresentational
mediumand
thatconcernstheuncontestedunilingualism
fromthispole onlyin the"mimetic"awarenessof the poly-or
is distinguished
heterolingualismof the representedobject, signalledthroughthe occasional
referencesto linguistic
diversity.
II
translation
What is commonto thedifferent
typesor categoriesof intratextual
is, then, that the interferencewith the reportedheterolingualspeech-event
produces a verbally and communicativelymixed quotation, combiningthe
perspectivesof theintrusivenarratorwithintheframeand theoriginalspeaker
withinthe inset. But in view of the differencesin the degree of quotational
interference,it is tempting to range the four categories we have just
cases:
along a scale flankedbythetwolimiting
distinguished
verbal
vehicular selective
conceptual explicit homogenizing
transpositionreflection attribution convention
matching reproduction
233
234
MEIR STERNBERG
formsthatare in facthistorically
inaccessibleor
failingto resortto translational
not
irrelevant
it
to
would
as
be
absurd as the
(if
functionally
detrimental)
commonpracticeofraisingthestickof"realism"againsta workwhosewholesin
actuallyconsistsin leavingout certainareas ofrealitythatare beneathitsnotice,
outside its existentialken or beyondits artisticbounds. On the otherhand,it
would be just as absurdto praisea workas realisticforemployingtranslational
devices that are in fact automaticwithinits traditionor forcedon it by the
mimeticand expressiveinadequacies of its targetlanguage.Each workinherits
and establishesa certainrange of heterolingualor heterodialectalrepresentation; and it is theinterplayof possible and actual,conventionaland innovative
ofthoseformsalong
notthedistribution
formsthatdeterminesitsrealisticeffect,
some externaland eternalscale.
In extremecases, especially that of works adheringto the homogenizing
convention,theremaybe no more thana singledevice at work.But even then,
one mustnotlose sightof
despite theseeminglycommonrepertoriallimitation,
in effectbetween representational
the markeddifferences
restrictedness
(where
is not conceived of as a constitutive
or distinctive
dimensionof
polylingualism
reality, as in many ancient and medieval narratives), communicative
restrictedness
(as when the two languages are far removed in structureor
and
restriction
resources),
self-imposed
(poetic constraints,genericconsideratactics
or
individual
rhetorical
tions,
preference,as in journalisticwritingor
children'sliterature).The same is essentiallytrueof workswithan enlargedor
more densely populated scale. Biblical narrative,for example, though
quantitativelyless developed than modern literatureboth in range of
translationaldevices and in the frequencyof their implementation,often
produces in this respect a sharpersense of realismwhen its performanceis
properlyviewed againstthe backgroundof the homogenizeddiscoursein the
Canaanite tradition.And whencoupled withthefactorsthathave alreadybeen
discussed,like the impliedstandardof bilingualcompetence,thevariabilityof
literaryand communicativecontextsforcefullyestablishes that there is no
necessarycorrespondencebetweenmimeticformand mimeticfunction.
This conclusion is furtherreinforcedby a second parallel between the
microcosmof translationalmimesisand the macrocosmof overall referential
of the elements
strategy,namely,the significanceof the internalstructuring
composingeach system.Thus, in order to determinethe functionor forceor
of
of translationalmimesisit is as importantto tracethe distribution
centrality
their
to
analyze
heterolingual elements along the textual sequence as
representationalforms or their overall statisticaldistributionamong the
differentformal modes. The latter procedures may by themselvesprove
misleading,since thereis oftena notable similaritybetween the tendencyto
evocationof fictivereality,witha view to
open the workwitha circumstantial
of
first
a
impression realism,and thetendencytointroduceat an early
producing
a
and
particularizedconcentrationof translationaldevices (see
stage heavy
1978:
217ff.).Moreover, the importanceof tracingthe internal
Sternberg,
of thesedevices showsitselfin the treatmentof local
orderingand distribution
POLYLINGUALISM
AND TRANSLATION
AS MIMESIS
235
236
MEIR STERNBERG
237
238
MEIR STERNBERG
POLYLINGUALISM
AND TRANSLATION
AS MIMESIS
239
REFERENCES
inLiterature
FORSTER, L., 1970. The Poet's Tongues:Multilingualism
(London).
STERNBERG, M., 1976. "Bound and ProductiveForms in Language and LiteraryLanguage,"
22, 78-141 (Hebrew).
Ha-sifrut
1978 ExpositionalModes and Temporal Orderingin Fiction(Baltimore and London).