In Other Words: On the Ethics of Translation

2018 (Routledge Handbook of Translation and Philosophy), 2018

Derrida powerfully critiques a certain philosophical view of language—logocentrism—and the ideal of translation it implies. According to this ideal, the function of language is to express meaning while the task of translation is to find an equivalent expression for this meaning in the target language. Derrida’s critique consists, first, in showing that logocentrism entails thinking of meaning as radically transcendent to language and, secondly, that such transcendental meanings are impossible. Meaning is necessarily language-like; therefore it cannot anchor language, nor assure the possibility of successful linguistic equivalence between languages. The philosopher John Searle has argued that if we accept Derrida’s claim about meaning, we must also accept the nonsensical view that language is a meaningless game of reference between signifiers without resolution. According to Derrida, this interpretation of the claim that meaning is textual assumes what it ought to contest: the absolute difference between signifier and the signified. In fact, the signified element is not “outside” the text, depending on language users to give and restore meaning—it is inscribed on the “inside.” Derrida argues that language is “parasitically” structured—or iterable, one set of differential elements encode another, texts are nested in other texts. The difference between signifier and signified, then, is something like the difference between negative and positive space, latent and manifest content, or again, as Derrida suggests between a parasite and host. “Meaning” is the inter-modal effect of differences resonating in other differences. Deconstructively speaking, translation is not a derivative linguistic practice with respect to establishing meaning but essential and primary. Indeed, texts are defined by their capacity to “translate” heterogeneous texts. More narrowly, deconstructive theories of translation help us to see how the ideal of inter-linguistic equivalence masks the productive role of translation and the power of translational practices to enrich and shape language.

Jacques Derrida's texts pose specific and notoriously complex challenges for the translator. In particular, the performative nature of his writing makes the transfer of meaning and rhetorical effects especially difficult to negotiate. This paper examines Joseph F. Graham's English version of “Des Tours de Babel”, arguably Derrida's most influential text on translation. In a translator's note, Graham acknowledges the limitations of his version and claims – despite these limitations, or precisely because of them – to have succeeded in enacting Derrida's ideas on translation. My paper examines the implications of this claim and asks: first, what are the “principles” derived from the source text that Graham sees as taking shape in his translation and “guiding” it; second, how does the performativity invoked by Graham, if it is at all present, come about in his translation; and third, is Graham's stated approach borne out by his translation choices? It is not my concern to reach an evaluative judgment on Graham's translation, but rather to trace the workings of this peculiar Babelian scene.

Derrida The Subject and the Other, 2016

Ch. 4 of Derrida, The Subject and The Other (Palgrave, 2016). A critical summary of Derrida's writings on translation and their relationship to broader intersubjective ethical concerns. Key Words: Derrida, Translation, Other, Border, Identity

IN Lisa Foran (Ed.) Translation and Philosophy (Peter Lang 2012) pp.75-87 This essay offers a brief summary of the writings of both Jacques Derrida (1930–2004) and Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005) on the theme of translation. Given the importance both thinkers accord language and the text; the theme of translation, while not always explicit in their writings, is certainly a background concern throughout them. We will here, however, focus on their specific dealings with the theme and how these might relate to theories of the Other. What will be revealed is that, although both writers differ on various points, ultimately they both argue for the necessity of translation for the survival and enrichment of a language; and that this positive aspect of translation in linguistic terms might be viewed, analogously or not, as an argument for the necessity of the Other in the constitution, and indeed the very survival of the self. Central to this analysis is the role played by the text, by meaning, and by the dichotomies of faithfulness/betrayal and translatability/untranslatability

Analecta Hermeneutica, 2012

In a sense, nothing is untranslatable; but in another sense, everything is untranslatable; translation is another word for the impossible.

This thesis discusses the explication of the implicit side of language, from the perspective of the self, the social, and text, as situated in the wider context of thinking about language ’beyond post-modernism.’ Language is first discussed as an intricacy, an intricate and changing complex of explicit signs and implicit elements and processes. It is shown that the implicit processes, such the speaking of being (Heidegger), focusing (Gendlin), and the interrelatedness of language and culture (Agar), are ruptured by processes like deconstruction (Derrida) and the semiotic breach of the symbolic (Kristeva). Explication brings a part of the implicit to the surface in the form of creativity (Deleuze) and critique, which is also discussed in the examples of play (Gadamer) and care. The transformations involved are illustrated in reflections on writing (Plato), poetry (Trakl), life as an immigrant, and on translation as a philosophical practice.

2012

The concept of “cultural identity” has gradually replaced such discredited concepts as “race”, “ethnicity”, even “nationality” in the conservative political discourse of recent decades which conceives, represents and performs culture as a closed system with clear-cut boundaries which must be defended from contamination. The article employs the theories of Derrida and Lotman as useful tools for deconstructing this understanding of cultural identity, which has recently become an ideological justification for socio-political conflicts. In fact, their theories spring from a thorough critique of the kind of internalizing self-enclosure which allowed Saussure to delimit and describe langue as the object of linguistics. The article identifies and compares the elements of this critique, focusing on Derrida’s and Lotman’s concepts of “mirror structure”, “binarism”, “numerousness”, “textuality” and “semiosphere”. An understanding of mediation emerges which is not reducible to any kind of definitive acquisition, thereby frustrating the pretences of identity, constantly dislocating and deferring any attempt at semiotic self-enclosure. My comparison suggests that Lotman’s “translation of the untranslatable” (or “dialogue”) and Derrida’s différance can be con- sidered analogous descriptions of this problematic kind of mediation. The (de)construc- tive nature of culture, as described by Lotman and Derrida, challenges any attempt to view cultural formations as sources of rigid and irreducible identities or differences.

TRANS-, 2010