On Intersubjectivity In Translation

The concept of subject in translation is derived from philosophy, andthe philosophical idea of subjectivity owes the origin to Descartes’ saying "Ithink, therefore I am". However, the philosophy of subjectivity based on thetheory of subject-object dichotomy separates the subject from objects. It ismore concerned about the dualistic opposition thinking between the subjectand the object, ignoring the relationship between the subjects.The essence of the three paradigms of the traditional translation studies—the author-oriented paradigm, the text-oriented paradigm, and thetranslator-oriented paradigm—is single-subject paradigm. If emphasizing aparticular subject or object too much in translation process, the translatorwould ignore the communication between the subjects. Therefore, thereexist many problems about research paradigms on translation subjectivity,for an isolated subject can not determine the entire translation process inmeeting the requirements for a harmonious translation. At this point, theidea of intersubjectivity blazes a path for translation and provides a newperspective for the understanding of translation: the studies of translationcan not be focused on the subject and subjectivity from a single perspective,but must take into account the cross-time and cross-space communication ofmulti-subjects with text. Habermas’ theory of communicative action has laidthe philosophical foundation for this new perspective.Habermas’ theory of communicative action advocates that the center ofcommunication should be changed from subjectivity to intersubjectivity, sothat the dominative relationship between the subject and the object can beshifted into the discourse association relationship between subject and subject. Similarly, the communicative action of translation doesn’t mean thesubject’s conquest over the object on the basis of the subject-objectdichotomy. Rather, it signifies the co-existence of subjects, and the dialoguebetween the subject and the object. In this theory, Habermas proposes theuniversal pragmatics, which differs from the traditional pragmatics, toreconstruct the universal validity of speech. Three validity claims—authenticity, sincerity and correctness—are presented to establish asuccessful communication.As a special kind of communicative action, translation has played animportant role in the communication between different nationalities anddifferent cultures. The three validities have guaranteed the equality andcoexistence between subjects, the standards of intersubjectivity intranslation. With the guidance of the three validities, the translator shouldproperly balance the roles of subjects to achieve the “consensus” betweentranslation subjects and make an excellent translation. Translation is not afree activity. Under no circumstances should the translator go beyond thecriterion of the source text, or unconscionably set aside the author’s creativeintention of the source text, or ignore the reader’s expectations on the targettext. If the communication between the subjects of the translation is lost, thetranslator will be at a loose end; the translation activity itself won’t be ableto continue, either. Therefore, a good understanding of translationintersubjectivity will help us to equally treat a variety of factors in thetranslation process, and thus to manipulate the translation process moreobjectively.The qualities of diversity, dialogue, and construction revealed in thestudies on translation intersubjectivity are essential in translation researchand development. The theory of translation intersubjectivity will enable us to further understand that translation activity is not just the culturalexchange of a single subject, but the mutual-subject communication underthe coordination of the translator, like the author, the reader and the text.They are mutually equal, and respect to each other and jointly conductharmonious translation studies.