An examination of translators’ subjectivity in literary translation MC Cachucho 23152370 Dissertation submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Magister Artium in Language Practice at the Vaal Triangle Campus of the North-West University Supervisor: Dr Ella Wehrmeyer May 2017 DECLARATION Student number 23152370 I declare that AN EXAMINATION OF TRANSLATORS’ SUBJECTIVITY IN LITERARY TRANSLATION is my own work, and that all the sources that I have used or quoted have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. ___________________ ___________________ SIGNATURE DATE (Ms) Celina Cachucho i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the following people who have helped me throughout this arduous, yet incredible journey toward the completion of this study: Dr. Ella Wehrmeyer, my supervisor and mentor – for your constant support, enduring patience, motivation, enthusiasm and wisdom throughout the study. Your guidance and encouragement were my pillar of strength in times of despair; Prof. Bertus Van Rooy – for your insightful comments and suggestions; Prof Jan-Louis Kruger – for your kindness, understanding and vision. Without it, this journey would have not been possible. my husband Manuel, and children Eduardo, André and Fábio – for your invaluable support, patience and love; friends and family – for encouraging me to persevere throughout this endeavour. Your support and understanding was much appreciated. staff and colleagues in The School of Languages NWU – for your interest in this study and for the encouragement to pursue it; my editors Natasha Ravyse and Sarita Antunes for their insightful corrections and suggestions; my dear parents who are no longer with me, but especially my mother – for instilling in me a great love for knowledge; last, but certainly not least, God – for His infinite love and grace. ii ABSTRACT Recent research has pointed to a new paradigm shift in Translation Studies. In this paradigm, the role of translators is being examined not only in terms of who they are but also in terms of how their subjectivity impacts on the translations they render. Despite these recent developments which have reaffirmed the idea that it is extremely difficult to translate a literary work objectively, not much insight has been offered in terms of the degree to which the translator’s subjectivity extends. However, this insight concerning a translator’s subjectivity is important, especially in situations where critics vaguely evaluate literary translations as subjective, without quantifying subjectivity. The aim of this study is to address the aforementioned gap in the literature by proposing and testing a model for quantifying the translator’s subjectivity in literary translation. This empirical study is based on Antoine Berman’s twelve identified deformations in his literary negative analytic, which according to him, occur invariably in translated works of literature. This study follows the principles of Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS). The literary work Livro do Desassossego by Portuguese author Fernando Pessoa, and four different corresponding English translations by different translators were used in this empirical comparative study. Seven excerpts of the source text (ST) and corresponding translations were selected and used in the application of the proposed instrument of quantification. Since the nature of the study required both qualitative and quantitative analyses, a mixed method of research was used, which proved to be optimal. The findings revealed that the final translated versions of a literary work have different degrees of subjectivity, pointing to the fact that their renditions depend greatly on the translators’ individual abilities to understand and interpret the text and ultimately, on their personal choices in the process of translating. Keywords: Translators’ subjectivity; literary translation; Berman’s analytic; Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS); modernism; deconstruction; equivalence. iii ABBREVIATIONS Am: Ambiguity C: Clarification Con: Consonance DEI: Destruction of expressions and idioms DLP: Destruction of linguistic patternings DR: Destruction of rhythm DTS: Descriptive Translation Studies DUNS: Destruction of underlying networks of signification DVN: Destruction/exoticization of vernacular networks En: Ennoblement ESL: Effacement of superimposition of language Ex: Expansion JC: Jull Costa MA: MacAdam Met: Metaphors Op: Opacity Par: Paradox QualI: Qualitative impoverishment QuanI: Quantitative impoverishment R: Rationalisation ST: Source text TC: Tertium Comparationis TL: Target language TT: Target text W: Watson Z: Zenith iv Table of Contents 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 1.1 Context of the research problem ................................................................................. 1 1.2 Problem statement and research questions .................................................................. 5 1.3 Previous empirical work on translators’ subjectivity .................................................. 5 1.4 Aims of the study ........................................................................................................ 7 1.5 Methodology ............................................................................................................... 8 1.5.1 Research framework ............................................................................................ 8 1.5.2 Data collection ..................................................................................................... 9 1.5.3 Data analysis ...................................................................................................... 15 1.6 Contribution of the research ...................................................................................... 16 1.7 Scope and limitations of the study ............................................................................ 16 1.8 Organisation of the research ...................................................................................... 17 2 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..................................................................... 19 2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 19 2.2 Modernism ................................................................................................................ 21 2.2.1 Modernistic features in literary texts ................................................................. 23 2.2.2 The modernist literary work Livro do Desassossego ......................................... 29 2.3 Deconstruction .......................................................................................................... 32 2.4 Translators’ subjectivity in literary translation ......................................................... 37 2.5 Literary translation .................................................................................................... 45 2.6 Theoretical models for literary translation ................................................................ 49 2.6.1 Linguistic equivalence ....................................................................................... 51 2.6.2 Functional equivalence ...................................................................................... 53 2.6.3 Discourse analysis .............................................................................................. 54 v 2.7 Foreignisation versus domestication ......................................................................... 57 2.7.1 Polysystems Theory ........................................................................................... 61 2.7.2 Descriptive Translation Studies ......................................................................... 62 2.8 Berman’s analytic of literary translation ................................................................... 67 2.8.1 Berman’s negative analytic ................................................................................ 68 2.8.2 Berman’s positive analytic (a literal translation?) ............................................. 69 2.9 Conclusion ................................................................................................................. 70 3 CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................ 72 3.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 72 3.2 The theoretical framework ........................................................................................ 73 3.2.1 Descriptive Translation Studies ......................................................................... 73 3.2.2 Berman’s negative analytic of literary translation ............................................. 86 3.2.3 Berman’s deformations (revised) ....................................................................... 92 3.3 The analytical framework.......................................................................................... 99 3.3.1 Deconstruction of the ST ................................................................................. 100 3.3.2 The construct of the study’s tertium comparationis ......................................... 101 3.3.3 Analysis of the target texts ............................................................................... 103