Interpretive trajectories in translation semiotics

Abstract

This paper focuses on the essential connection between sign and translation, which implies thematization of the relation between semiotics and translation theory and practice. A theory of translation cannot prescind from semiotics of translation. Vice versa, sign theory can benefit from contributions from translation theory and practice, whether a question of sign in general (which uniquely subsists in relation to the interpretant that translates it), or of specifically human semiosis understood as metasemiosis (that is, reflection through signs on signs), and, therefore, as trans-semiosis. From a semiotic perspective the relation between original text and translated text is a relation between interpreted sign and interpretant sign. This relation is characterized by iconicity — it is a special type of similarity relation. From this viewpoint, a typology of translation like Jakobson's can be related to a sign typology like Peirce's. The question of iconicity is also relevant because verbal language avails itself not only of concepts but also metaphors. A difficulty in translation is that of translating metaphors from the language of others. In Peirce's classification, metaphor is an iconic sign. It is not incidental that an important theorizer in the field of semiotics, Victoria Welby, described signs not only in terms of interpretation but also of translation, and that she devoted special attention to the question of metaphor. The semiotic approach also throws light on a central problem in translation theory — that of translatability. Whether a question of ordinary language, or literary language, in particular the poetic, or of specialized, sectorial languages, the question of translatability cannot be dealt with prescinding from what Sebeok calls ‘primary modeling’ or what Rossi-Landi describes as ‘common speech,’ and subsequently ‘linguistic work.’