Reverse engineering
A fresh perspective on defining translation and remodeling the process
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.
Published online: 30 April 2023
https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v3i1.61
https://doi.org/10.54754/incontext.v3i1.61
Abstract
Ever since the establishment of Translation Studies as an independent academic discipline in the 1970s, there has been an ongoing debate about the relationship between theory and practice, to which this paper aims to make a modest practical contribution in the form of a novel procedure for textual analysis and synthesis. Intellectual advances are often triggered by flashes of inspiration which suggest analogies that facilitate shift in perception and focus that, in turn, lead to changes in understanding. What is offered here may not be a flash of inspiration but is, at least, a new analogy for the definition of translation: Translation is a kind of engineering, specifically reverse engineering (RE). Through the lens of RE, translation redefines itself as a mental-physical, two-phase, input-output process in which texts are deconstructed (read and understood) and reconstructed (written) as new texts that resemble the originals but are not copies of them. This suggests a model of translating that recognizes the crucial role of efficient reading in the process of translating and is realized in the form of a straight-forward, simple but revealing Procedure: a mechanism for expanding the individual translator’s competence as a reader and as a writer and for sharing this increased expertise with others. The approach outlined here, Translation as Reverse Engineering (TARE), would not exist but for insights from others, in particular a specific proposal from Ali Darwish (2008) and, crucially, from the broad sweep of Hallidayan Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), with its view of language as purposeful social action (1978) and the more recent translation-oriented work of Munday et al. (2008, 2021). The Procedure is described in detail and is demonstrated in action in the deconstruction and potential reconstruction of three short texts. The value of the approach may lie in the way it facilitates the work of the translator and, by becoming part of his or her toolkit (to borrow Chesterman & Wagner’s 2002 term), perhaps, contributing to bridging the current gap between theory and practice.
Keywords: reading, translation, reverse engineering, meaning, memory
논문초록
1970년대에 번역학이 하나의 독립된 학문 분야로 거듭나면서부터 이론과 실무의 관계에 대한 담론이 지속되어왔다. 본 소고는 텍스트 분석과 통합을 위한 새로운 과정을 제 시함으로써 이러한 담론에 기여하고자 한다. 일반적으로 지식의 발전은 학문에 대한 관점 과 초점의 전환을 유도하는 영감으로 촉발되며, 이를 통해 학문에 대한 이해 방식을 변화하 게 한다. 본고는 이러한 영감의 결과물이라 할 것은 아니지만, 적어도 번역을 정의해볼 수 있 는 새로운 틀을 제시하고자 한다. 즉 번역은 일종의 설계 작업, 보다 정확히는 역설계(reverse engineering) 작업이라 할 수 있다. 역설계의 관점에서 보면 번역은 입력-출력 절차의 두단 계로 구성된 작업으로 재정의되며, 이 과정에서 출발텍스트는 분해(읽기, 독해) 과정을 거쳐 재구성(쓰기)된다. 그 결과로 새로이 생성되는 번역텍스트는 출발텍스트와 유사하나 그 정 확한 복사본이라 할 수는 없다. 이런 관점의 전환을 통해 제시되는 번역 모델은 번역작업에 있어 효율적 읽기 능력의 중요성을 강조하는데, 이를 통해 직관적이며 간단하지만 동시에 많 은 혜안을 얻을 수 있는 접근방식, 즉 개별 번역사가 독해를 하고 글을 쓰는 능력을 키울 뿐 아니라 이렇게 키운 능력을 타인과 공유하는 기제를 제시한다. 본고에서 제시하는 역설계 작 업으로서의 통역에 대한 접근(TARE)방식은 이전 연구가 없었다면 개발하지 못했을 것인데, 특히 알리 다르위시(2008)가 제안한 내용과 특히 언어행위를 의도적 사회적 행위로 보는 할 리데이(1978)의 체계기능언어학(SFL)의 중요한 기반이 되었다. 본고에서는 이 접근 방식에 대해 상세 기술 후 3개의 짧은 예시를 제시한다. 번역사의 작업에 도움을 주고 번역사가 가 용할 수 있는 도구(체스터만과 와그너의 2002년 연구에서 표현을 빌리자면)로 기능할 수 있 다는 점에서 해당 접근방식의 가치를 찾을 수 있을 것이다.
References (24)
Chesterman, Andrew and Emma Wagner. (2002). Can Theory Help Translators?: A Dialogue Between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface. St. Jerome.
de Saussure, Ferdinand. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale [Course in general linguistics] (Charles Bally & Albert Sechehaye, Eds.). Payot.
Grice, Herbert Paul. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (Eds.), Speech Acts (Vol. 31, pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Edward Arnold London.
Holmes, James. (1972/2000). The name and nature of Translation Studies. In Lawrence Venuti (Ed.), The Translation Studies Reader (pp. 172–186). Routledge.
Horrie, Chris. (2002, April 7). Gotcha! How the Sun reaped spoils of war. The Guardian. [URL]
Lawlor, Leonard. (2019). Jacques Derrida. In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 ed.). Stanford, CA: Metaphysics Research Labm Philosophy Department, Stanford University.
Matthiessen, Christian Matthias Ingemar Martin and Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday. (1997). Systemic Functional Grammar: A First Step Into the Theory. Retrieved March 20, 2023 from [URL]
McIntosh, Angus and Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday. (1966). Patterns of Language. Papers in General, Descriptive and Applied Linguistics. Longmans.
Mossop, Brian, Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit, Robin Setton, Ernst-August Gutt, Jean Peeters and Kinga Klaudy. (2005). Back to translation as language. Across Languages and Cultures, 6(2), 143–172.
Munday, Jeremy, Sara Ramos Pinto and Jacob Blakesley. (2022). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications (5th ed.). Routledge.
Ogden, Charles Kay and Ivor Armstrong Richards. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Thought and of the Science of Symbolism. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Quizlet. (2023). TED Unit 3. Retrieved March 24, 2023 from [URL]
Reiss, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie [Foundation of a general translation theory]. Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Searle, John Rogers. (1969). Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press.
