A Correlative Study On Arbitrariness Of Linguistic Sign And Inventiveness In Translation

At present, by virtue of linguistics and even semiotics, to explore the issues of translation has been called a"truism", and to have introduced other disciplines to translational issues have deserved its own respect; nevertheless, this should not become an obstacle to investigate the relationship between the first principle of language nature (Saussure et al) and inventiveness of translation (as in the Chapter 2), although it is just a try.Also, as for their striking similarities, it may be supposed that it just is something of coincidence between the two principles: arbitrariness and the tantalizing issue of translation with its inventiveness. That is, by arbitrary nature restricted by so-called"convention"in our society in varied forms, the encyclopedia knowledge of our world can be expressed in different linguistic forms; and in translation, the alleged"sameness"can be transferred in different specific linguistic systems, the variation of the so-called"sameness"considered.Yet the coincidence above should not have been more than an image, but it is worthy of an attempt. Hereby, the known to us still is the bridge to the unknown in the future; under the umbrella of Operational Research(魏荣桥,1998) in the thesis, with the methodology"the first principle of language nature"(Saussure, and Zhang Shaojie etc), and analyzing some translational procedures and methods from Newmark et al, the dissertation endeavors suggestions on the relationship between them to further the understanding of translation nature, at least in part, in the hope to facilitate translational researches, especially its practice.Firstly, in fact,the first principle of linguistic sign: arbitrary nature (or arbitrariness of linguistic sign briefly), as the principle proposed, by Ferdinand De Saussure, the founder of modern linguistics, and collected by his putative students (colleagues), although facing not a few severe challenges, it is undoubtedly truth still. In all, someone, by virtue of relativity of arbitrariness (Saussure, 1910-13) being motivation, alleged arbitrariness to disappear"absolutely"on certain levels of language, and even rendered the iconicity of linguistic sign. Radically, if arbitrariness of linguistic sign should be denied in roots, other elements in linguistic sign itself could interpret positively and reasonably"the same or approximate informational entities in different languages"(Eugene Nida, 2004b).Then the question comes out: what nature character of languages cannot change in translation for communication."The first principle of language nature is both theory and methodology"(Saussure and the like), by the view of Saussure's, arbitrariness of linguistic sign is the first nature radically. The relationship, between signifier and signified, is arbitrary, not motivated; as such, between semiotic systems and their world signified by them there is no natural connexion; meanwhile ,in any specific system of linguistic sign, there exist different systems of convention, which are the consequence of arbitrariness; and convention always restricts the arbitrariness, while the former commands the latter.Secondly, as to inventiveness in translation, on the one hand, translators or the like have persisted the axiom:"devotion/faithfulness to the original"or"(functional/formal to dynamic) equivalence"(Nida, 2004b) in the first place; on the other hand, also positively convinced of"translatability", they and the younger generations find out that, because of the magnitude of constraints of translation (Newmark,2001a), there is"betrayal in some way"(Robert Escarpit, 1962), and later on, objectively, its research coverage extends to almost all the aspects of translation in principle. For convenience and mainly in contrast, here the similar are grouped in the name of"inventiveness in /of translation"①tentatively, although, maybe you can give another proper way that exists in its right. Meanwhile, at least, translation can be a kind of societal communication in virtue (Ernst-August Gutt, 2004). It cannot avoid the objective issue—from one linguistic system to another (Nida,2004b), that is, the surfacing of target text in its own cultural context. In fact, inventiveness in translation takes on a static end product—the target text in its own culture in different shapes, but more importantly, it takes places in the whole process of translating, with its specific historicity.Thirdly, naturally, what is the relationship between the first principle and inventiveness of translation is the aim of the argument:With the methodology of Operational Research, the dissertation models the relationship between the two in the Chapter 3; and by analyzing some translational principles in the Chapter 4: how for the translator /interpreter to deal with the issues in translational researches and practice, it can be proved: (1) On the one hand, from arbitrariness of linguistic sign to inventiveness of translation; the principle supplies translation with the enduring medium radically among different specific language systems, with its own characters. In details, by virtue of Escarpit's view and the like, all activities of translation can be looked on as translation inventiveness; it is true that since there are two different specific language systems in translation, the differences, between the interaction of arbitrariness and convention in specific language systems, make possible room for inventiveness of translation; and in it translation inventiveness comes into being with its own characters: the more the differences exist, the more room often comes into being. At the same time, any translational inventiveness takes on the static terms—the target text even discourse, but more importantly, they organically belong to the whole process of translating in the dynamic aspect, and it concerns the restriction of the original and its author, then the active participation of the translator/interpreter with all patronages and alike, and the confirmation of the so-called target readers②and their own cultural systems respectively. (2) On the other hand, from inventiveness of translation to arbitrariness of linguistic sign, the existence of translational practice proves scientific dimensions of the first principle. Translation inventiveness, with its specific historicalness, can be a dynamic trigger of new convention's coming into being to the target language , since"translation is, of course, a rewriting of an original text,…rewritings can introduce new concepts, new genres"(AndréLefevere,2004) is appreciated till now.Finally, Saussure ever positively points out that the first principle of arbitrary nature belongs to basic truth and it is located at the highest place in all the linguistic reality. Still this research aspect should have a good promise, although it needs more efforts in many ways.