Philosophical foundations of translation

Translation is an anthropological constant of human existence and a condition for the possibility of knowledge in the humanities; at the same time, it is not a purely academic matter, but the sphere of passions and conflicts. Whether translation can become a philosophical problem today - N. S. Avtonomova answers this question positively, building a range of questions that allow us to comprehend translation as a tool for understanding, interpretation and communication. "All European philosophies, except, it seems, Greek, arose in the process of translation from one language to another, from one culture to another, and related creativity (this is how philosophical concepts and categories were formed in Latin, Italian, French, German, and other languages). Despite this, philosophy has not always noticed translation as a noteworthy activity, nor has it always noticed the problem of linguistic means of thought formation." This clear formulation of the problem of the relationship between philosophy and translation attracts the use of the term "creativity" and an indication of the essential role of translation in the development of philosophy. The idea emphasized in this article is largely the development of this correlation of factors that determine the main features of the translation process, as well as the nature of the translation episteme.

In the era of the revival of international relations and the growing interest in other cultures, the problems of translation are becoming increasingly relevant – because translation is the main tool of intercultural communication. Nevertheless, the problems we are interested in, both in linguistics and in philosophy, are developed rather superficially. Most philosophical studies on translation analyze translation from the point of view of philosophical hermeneutics (the theory of understanding and interpretation), the theory of knowledge (often the theory of reflection), the philosophy of communication, etc. However, it seems that an independent, pure theory of translation is also possible in philosophy, which is relatively independent of these philosophical approaches and even, on the contrary, clarifies them. This theory assumes a deeper analysis of translation for philosophy, since it finds out the very conditions of its possibility.Translation is primarily a language event. This far from being a new phenomenon requires understanding not so much as a narrowly technical form of activity, but as a manifestation of the creative activity of people, their ability to form streams of innovations that form the ground for qualitative breakthroughs in the field of culture, in the field of logic, lay the foundation for the qualitative development of individuals, communities, and the whole society.

What is translation - Is it a nondescript underside of a luxurious carpet (M. Cervantes), utopia (Otega y Gasset), or, on the contrary, persistent search for a suitable word, reaching the boundaries of the untranslatable (Goethe) - Translation simply (in a narrow sense) can be considered as a technical process of translating one language into another, as a kind of craft of people who know the relevant languages, who can do translation, replacing combinations of signs of one language with combinations of signs of another. However, it is obvious that there is a certain simplification here. Translation, on the one hand, is a means by which utilitarian everyday tasks are solved, for example, you need to go to the market and make purchases, where an unfamiliar language dominates. But this is on the one hand. On the other hand, translation is the deepest creativity, the most important form of interpretation of cultures, their specifics, norms, and logic, which permeates all interpretation as such.

Understanding a translation (in a broad sense) requires analyzing it as a translation-interpretation, a layer that falls into the category of interpretation on one side. And language translation reveals its life between its poles as generalizing creativity and as striving for artisan repetition. These are different levels of translation-interpretation.

Any natural language reproduces the diversity that occurs according to the Sepir – Whorf theory. The Sepir-Whorf hypothesis says that the structure of language determines the structure of thinking and the way of knowing the external world. Therefore, language is an instrument of interpretation. This hypothesis grew out of the philosophical and linguistic theory of W. von Humboldt. It follows that there is no exact correspondence between the translation from one natural language to another. Gadamer notes: "Where translation is required, there is a mismatch between the exact meaning of what is said in one language and what is reproduced in another-a mismatch that can never be completely overcome." The same opinion is shared by K. Azhezh: "Of course, if we consider language as a system of signs, it should be recognized that the structural relationships between signs are very different in different languages; it does not happen that a certain sign of one language occupies exactly the same place in its system as the sign with which the first one is being translated occupies in the system of another language." However, despite this obstacle that makes translation difficult, each language has the remarkable property of being " a semiotic (sign system) into which all other semiotics can be translated," including all other languages.

In this connection, I would like to mention the idea of the American philosopher W. W. Smith.Quine, who talks about the problem of the uncertainty of a radical, complete translation. "Techniques for translating from one language to another," writes Wu.Quine, - can be established in various ways, each of which is compatible with the whole set of speech predispositions, but which are incompatible with each other." Thought of W. Quaina is seen here as follows: Since the meanings of expressions cannot be separated from the ways of behavior, every attempt at an accurate translation requires solving one equation with two unknowns, namely: we do not know the verbal equivalent of the translated expression and we do not know the way of behavior corresponding to this expression. From his point of view, each person has his own language, which is ambiguously translated, interpreted into the language of another person.

This conclusion, in principle, is joined by T. Kuhn and other authoritative philosophers of the late twentieth century. In particular, T. Kuhn notes: "Proponents of different theories are probably similar to members of different cultural and linguistic communities. Realizing this parallelism, we come to the conclusion that in some sense, both groups are right. In relation to culture and its development, this position is indeed relativistic."

From the above, it could be concluded that representatives of different cultural communities are not able to understand each other, since translation from one type of language is almost impossible into another. Such a point of view, in our opinion, would be too radical. Although the Tower of Babel was not completed, nevertheless, representatives of the same cultural, historical and linguistic community understand each other well. The situation is much more complicated with the communication of representatives of different cultures. Numerous studies of anthropologists, historians, linguists, and psychosemantics have proved the "cultural relativity" of worldviews, the great variability of forms of categorization and systems of meanings that take into account in a transformed form the specifics of the life and culture of this social and national community.

Translation of a foreign language text " is inevitably accompanied by familiarity with a foreign culture, and conflict with it. In the process of this conflict, a person begins to become more aware of his own culture, his worldview, his approach to life and to people." If we comment on the last thought, then we have one of the formulations of personal development. Conflict is a form of contradiction, and contradiction, or rather its resolution, is the main source of development. Since in this case we are talking about a foreign language text, the creator of which is an individual as a representative of a separate culture, the self - development of the individual must be associated with the resolution of this form of contradiction-the contradiction of cultures. This is what enriches the understanding of each other's cultures. Therefore, foreign language is not just a unit of communication or a means of transferring information, but is the most important mechanism for the formation of personality.

What is the exceptional importance of language translation, as it reaches its peaks into the categorical layers of philosophy-Translation at the categorical level is primarily the formation of a foreign language where there is a split, a danger of a catastrophe of collisions of cultural communities, where each of them, following its own logic, is in reality only a fragment of a previously unified logic, a fragment possibly destructive, dangerous for society, for itself. We are talking about a situation of high complexity, in a changing, dynamic world. This is very important, it is not that there are many languages, but that the situation of foreign languages is growing, changing, and becoming more complicated. The importance of translation is that it creates a basis for bringing people together on a new cultural basis. This is where translation as a craft differs from translation as an interpretation in the highest sense, as a permanent laboratory of interpretation and innovation. The translation, therefore, is dual. And in its higher manifestations, it is not confined to a purely symbolic sphere (strictly speaking, this is impossible, but it is possible to strive for this and thereby primitize the translation). Translation is always on the edge of cultures and, therefore, creates some possibility of interpenetration of cultures in an increasing number of its sides and aspects, which ultimately is the interpretation that arises in the sphere of relations between, i.e. in the sphere of relations between the languages of culture as a social problem, where the basis for the formation of languages, cultural, etc. innovations is formed, where the culture is actually updated, inseparable from the development of language. Here the very duality of language goes beyond language and turns into the possibility of social, ethnic, etc. conflict.

The activity of translation in the field of languages is a form of self-development of the individual, since, translating from one language to another in an increasingly complex society (there are more languages), a person develops intellectually and educationally.

Translation is not just the translation of words from one language to another, but the development of intelligence, since mastering a new language, mastering a new culture, mastering another culture is developing through a variety of cultures. This two-way process, first, leads to individual change and, second, through the individual, to mass change. The cultural potential of a person increases, which ultimately gives a new impetus to the development of the individual and society as a whole.

Modern society has assimilated everything that has been accumulated over tens of thousands of years of its evolution, and reproduces these qualities, in particular, as the cultural basis of the individual. Therefore, no matter how capacious definitions we use to denote the current state of society, they will not contain the diversity of its properties. At the same time, we can detect new trends in the development of society, or something that has been active for a long time, but has acquired a different dynamics, scale, and pace of development. We are more interested in those qualities that are not fleeting, not bursts of random circumstances, but appear in the form of stable trends that cause systemic complex transformations, changes in the way of life of people.

In summary, I note that the problem of the relationship between translation and philosophy provides an approach to general humanitarian problems, in the focus of which a philosopher and a philologist can "sit down at the negotiating table" and allow some common field of research.

Әлеуметтік желілерде бөлісіңіз: