1887

n Literator : Journal of Literary Criticism, Comparative Linguistics and Literary Studies - Translating traces : deconstruction and the practice of translation : research article

USD

 

Abstract


In hierdie artikel poog ek om te toon dat dekonstruksie en die gebruike daarvan nie gesien moet word as 'n oproep tot veelvoudige interpretasie of relativisme in vertaling nie, maar dat dit eerder ingespan moet word as 'n kragtige analitiese vaardigheid; 'n manier van lees en skryf met verdiepte aandag. Om tot hierdie gevolgtrekking te kom bespreek ek en die spel van spore in die konteks van die kont(r)ak tussen twee tekste wat in 'n verhouding van vertaling tot mekaar staan. Verder voer ek aan dat veelvoudigheid soos vervat in Derrida se , nie 'n voorskrif is nie, maar dat die vertaler bewus moet wees van die bestaan van veelvuldigheid en in ag behoort te neem dat die leser ook deelneem aan en bydra tot hierdie veelvuldigheid.
Die sleutel tot die toepassing van Derrida se teorie is gesetel in die proses eerder as die produk van vertaling, en hierdie proses moet verder gaan as die hiërargiese teenstelling van "oorspronklike" en vertaling. Ek kom tot die slotsom dat nie 'n struikelblok vir vertaling is nie, maar dat dit eerder die behoefte vir vertaling daarstel deur onvertaalbaarheid te identifiseer.

In this article I attempt to show that deconstruction and its practices should not be read as intimations towards plurality or relativism in translation, but should rather be utilised as a powerful analytical tool, a way of reading and writing with heightened awareness. In order to arrive at this conclusion, I discuss and the play of the trace in the context of the cont(r)act between two texts that are in a relationship of translation. I further argue that plurality as contained in Derrida's is not a directive, but that the translator has to be aware of the existence of plurality and to take into account that the reader also participates in and contributes to this plurality. <br>The key to an application of Derrida's theory is shown to be situated in the process rather than in the product of translation, and this process has to move beyond a hierarchical opposition of "original" and translation. I conclude that becomes not an obstacle or barrier to translation, but specifically that which, in making something untranslatable, creates the need for translation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/literat/25/1/EJC61778
2004-04-01
2016-12-06
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error