A nonlinear approach to translation

Víctor M. Longa
University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)

Abstract

The main concern of this article is to approach translation from the view of nonlinear dynamics. Thus, it makes use of theories related to such a type of dynamics (chaos theory and complexity science). This concern develops on two levels: firstly, the article argues that the abandonment of the traditional conception of translation and the raising of the current one actually agree with the evolution perceived in a great number of domains, such an evolution pointing to the rejection of deterministic positions. Secondly, it also defends the view that the translation process is entirely typical of the processes of nonlinear dynamics. Accordingly, key notions from nonlinear dynamics (such as sensitivity to initial conditions, phase transition, attractor or edge of chaos) are shown to apply to the nature of translation.

Keywords:
Table of contents

‘Classical’ science, paradigmatically represented by Newton (the dominant paradigm for over three centuries), assumed a nature whose main feature was its predictable (i.e. deterministic) character: a clockwork world, to quote Stewart’s (1989) term. Its method crucially relied on mechanisms such as idealisation and reductionism. Thus, the overall complexity of nature was drastically reduced by appealing to an idealised simplification of non-systematic properties which made possible the treatment of many phenomena.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Bassnett-McGuire, Susan
1980Translation Studies. New York: Methuen. [Revisited ed.: London-New York: Routledge, 1991.]   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de
1991 “Complexity and linguistics in the evolution of three paradigms”. Theoretical linguistics 17:1–3. 43–73.Google Scholar
Bernárdez, Enrique
1995Teoría y epistemología del texto. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
2002 “Semiotic modalities in translation causality”. Across language and cultures 3/2. 145–158.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jack and Ian Stewart
1995The collapse of chaos. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Cooper, David
1999Linguistic attractors: The cognitive dynamics of language acquisition and change. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Folkart, Barbara
1989 “Translation and the arrow of time”. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 2/1. 19–50.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, Murray
1994The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the com¬plex. New York-San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Gleick, James
1987Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Brian
1994How the leopard changed its spots: The evolution of complexity. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil
2001Teaching and researching translation. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
1990Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hayles, Katherine
1990Chaos bound: Orderly disorder in contemporary literature and science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Herdina, Philip and Ulrike Jessner
2002A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, James S.
1972 “The name and nature of Translation Studies”. Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Copenhagen. [Version in Holmes 1988: 67–80.]Google Scholar
Holmes, James
1978 “The future of translation theory: A handful of theses”. International Symposium on Achievements in the Theory of Translation, Moscow and Yerevan. [Quoted from the version in Holmes 1988: 99–102.]Google Scholar
Holmes, James S.
1988Translated!: Papers on literary translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Hurtado Albir, Amparo
2001Traducción y traductología: Introducción a la traductología. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
[ p. 225 ]
Kauffman, Stuart
1995aAt home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
1995b “What is life? Was Schrödinger right?”. Michael Murphy and Luke O’Neill, eds. What is life?: The next fifty years Speculations on the future of biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995 83–114.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, David
2001Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lefevere, André
1992Translating, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewin, Roger
1992Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard
1998Gene, organismo e ambiente. Roma: Guis. Laterza & Figli.Google Scholar
Longa, Víctor M.
2001 “Sciences of complexity and language origins: An alternative to natural selection”. Journal of literary semantics 30:1. 1–17.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. “Traducción, complejidad y dinámica no lineal”. To appear in Verba.
Lorenz, Edward
1963 “Deterministic nonperiodic flow”. Journal of the atmospheric sciences 20. 130–141.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993The essence of chaos. London: University College of London Press.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mainzer, Klaus
1994Thinking in complexity. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mayoral Asensio, Roberto
2001Aspectos epistemológicos de la traducción. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy
2001Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and applications. London-New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964Toward a science of translating, with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2001Contexts in translating. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles Taber
1969The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers
1984Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1998Method in translation history. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Rabadán, Rosa
1991Equivalencia y traducción: problemática de la equivalencia translémica inglés-español. León: Universidad de León.Google Scholar
Riccardi, Alessandra
ed. 2002Translation Studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, Paolo
1997La nascita della scienza moderna in Europa. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude
1949 “The mathematical theory of communication”. Shannon and Weav¬er 1949: 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude and Warren Weaver
1949The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter
1998Explaining chaos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
1988Translation Studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Ian
1989Does God play dice?: The mathematics of chaos. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1999Life’s other secret: The new mathematics of the living world. London: Penguin Books. [first published in the USA by John Wiley & Sons, 1998.]Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004a “Probabilistic explanations in Translation Studies: Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals?”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals—Do they exist? Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2004 15–32.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b “Probabilistic explanations in Translation Studies: Universals—or a challenge to the very concept?”. Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær and Daniel Gile, eds. Claims, changes and challenges in Translation Studies: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2004 15–25.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waldrop, Mitchell
1992Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Weaver, Warren
1949 “Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communication”. Shannon and Weaver 1949 29–125.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward
1998Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram
1996Knowledge and skills in translator behavior. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.[ p. 226 ]CrossrefGoogle Scholar