Semiotics of Translation
The research field that studies semiotics and translation is called Semiotics of translation or Translation Semiotics. The term was proposed by Toury (1980: 12) to describe translation as a semiotic activity, although earlier Popovič referred to the semiotic approach to translation, specifically that:
Semiotics of Translation. The semiotic nature of the translation process. Translation is, in relation to the author’s literary activity, a derived secondary activity. It is a metacommunication in relation to the receiver. The semiotic aspect of translation is concerned with the differences met within the process of translation which are a consequence of a different temporal and spatial realization of the translated text (Popovič, 1975: 16).
Popovič seems to approach translation in communicative terms with the term metacommunication referring to the temporal context that governs translation. However, the most precise definition of the semiotics of translation is given by Peeter Torop who also approaches the semiotics of translation as an act of communication but focuses on the cultural dimension of the act of translation. Torop states that:
the ontology of translation semiotics rests on the recognition that culture works in many respects as a translation mechanism and that mediation in culture involves both communication and autocommunication. This means that translation semiotics is an important instrument in interpreting communication processes as cultural autocommunication (Torop, 2008: 257).
But the greatest encouragement for a semiotic approach to translation had been given much earlier by Roman Jakobson, who is considered the originator of the semiotic approach to translation and who divided translation into three categories:
- Intralingual translation or rewording, which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language; b. Interlingual translation or translation proper, which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language; and c. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation, which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of non- verbal sign systems (Jakobson, 1959: 233).
In the same article, Jakobson formulated another important thesis which has occupied translation studies according to which translation is ‘‘equivalence in difference’’ since ‘‘translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes’’ (Jakobson, 1959: 233).
It is not an exaggeration to mention that the semiotics of translation as a research field has been influenced by Jakobson’s tripartite categorization of the act of translation and whose influence on translation studies was presented in detail by Sütiste (2008). Jia (2017: 43) argues that ‘‘[…] translation semiotics is still an emerging discipline, with its construction of three translation types awaiting improvement, and its practicality yet to be substantiated’’. However, it is generally accepted by semioticians of translation that semiotics as a theory and a method contribute significantly to Translation Studies as it contributes to a better knowledge of the cultural system.
1. The semiotic interest in translation
Semiotician’s interest in translation goes back to the origins of modern semiotics when Charles Sanders Peirce (1931-1935: 127, vol. 4) argued that meaning is ‘‘the translation of a sign into another system of signs’’. While there is no reference to translation by Ferdinand to Saussure (1916) in his seminal work, there is only one reference in a later publication of his work where he refers to ‘‘[…] translation of thought by a sign which may be of any type whatsoever and may reach a high and involve the use of a grammar level of perfection both in visual or tactile signs and in the no less conventional vocal signs’’ (Saussure, 2006: 183). Thus, just as Saussure himself suggested the necessity of the science of semiotics, his focus on the importance of the linguistic system obviously did not allow him to deal with translation.
Subsequently, prominent figures in semiotics have dealt with translation in greater depth, some significantly upgrading its role in culture, such as Juri Lotman (1990: 271) for whom ‘‘the instrument of semiotic research is translation’’ and Umberto Eco (2001, 2004) according to whom:
Culture continuously translates signs into other signs, and definitions into other definitions, words into icons, icons into ostensive signs, ostensive signs into new definitions, new definitions into propositional functions, propositional functions into exemplifying sentences, and so on; in this way it proposes to its members an uninterrupted chain of cultural units composing other cultural units, and thus translating and explaining them’ (Eco 1976: 71).
Other scholars of semiotics referred to translation peripherally as they focused on the relation of translation to other cultural phenomena. Thus, Greimas and Courtés (1982: 351) argue that ‘‘translatability stands as one of the fundamental properties of semiotic systems’’, and Paolo Fabbri (2008: 161) supports that every semiotic system can be translated into another semiotic system. It is true, however, that while language has been a privileged area of deepening semiotic research, the study of translation does not seem to have attracted the interest of semioticians in the French semiotic School.
At this point, it is worth recording a paradox of the French semiotic school and one that is linked to Roland Barthes. The phenomena of translation are, nevertheless, not part of Roland Barthes’ scientific concerns. His name appears quite frequently in some essays in translation theory and practice. This is because Barthes elaborates in his semiotic essays upon certain concepts that are very useful for the study of translation, contributing, in our opinion, to the study of intersemiosis, a phenomenon of cultural communication that seems to be a fruitful addition to semiotics and translation studies today (see Kourdis 2021: 109-124).
Perhaps this is why research on translation was primarily concerned with the Peircian Anglo-Saxon school of semiotics and the Moscow-Tartu school of semiotics. The influence of the former, which approached translation from an interpretative perspective, was also due to the pioneering work by Gorlée (1994) and, then, Hartama-Heinonen (2008), to be followed later by those of Petrilli (2000, 2003, 2014, 2015, 2022 with Ji) to whom the field of translation semiotics owes much, not only for her continuous engagement with the subject, but also for her continuous and multiple editing and publishing collaborations with which she has succeeded in triggering the interest of many translation scholars in semiotics. Similar interest from translation scholars, but this time for a biosemiotic approach to translation is recorded through the contribution of Marais (2018). For its part, the Moscow-Tartu school has studied the cultural dimension of translation with Torop (1995) as the most important scholar with numerous articles in the school’s journal Sign Systems Studies which was co-authored and edited by Torop (1995, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2002, 2003, 2007 with Sütiste, 2008, 2012, 2012 with Sütiste, 2020) and which introduced new conceptual tools for the semiotic study of translation.
Newer established schools of semiotics also show interest in the semiotics of translation, producing important scientific works in this direction. Two Scandinavian semiotic schools have expressed interest in the semiotic dimension in translation: the Finnish Helsinki School (Hartama-Heinonen 2008, 2012a, 2012b, 2013, 2015) and the Swedish Lund School (Sonesson, 1996, 2014a, 2014b, 2020) which approaches translation as double act of communication. In recent years, the semiotic dimension of translation seems to be of interest to the Greek School of semiotics, also known as the Thessaloniki School, which has dedicated two volumes to the relationship between semiotics and translation in the journal Punctum-International Journal of Semiotics (Kourdis & Kukkonen 2015 and Kourdis & Petrilli (2021) but also Kourdis (2015, 2020), Damaskinidis (2012, 2015) and Kostopoulou & Misiou (2023). The Brazilian school which is mainly interested in intersemiotic translation (Queiroz & Aguiar 2015, Aguiar & Queiroz 2009, 2013, 2015, Queiroz, J. & P Atã 2018, 2019a, 2019b), and the Chinese School represented by the publications of Jia (2016a, 2016b, 2016c, 2017).
2. The field of semiotics of translation
The research field that studies semiotics and translation is called Semiotics of translation or Translation Semiotics. The term was proposed by Toury (1980: 12) to describe translation as a semiotic activity, although earlier Popovič referred to the semiotic approach to translation, specifically that:
Semiotics of Translation. The semiotic nature of the translation process. Translation is, in relation to the author’s literary activity, a derived secondary activity. It is a metacommunication in relation to the receiver. The semiotic aspect of translation is concerned with the differences met within the process of translation which are a consequence of a different temporal and spatial realization of the translated text (Popovič, 1975: 16).
Popovič seems to approach translation in communicative terms with the term metacommunication referring to the temporal context that governs translation. However, the most precise definition of the semiotics of translation is given by Peeter Torop who also approaches the semiotics of translation as an act of communication but focuses on the cultural dimension of the act of translation. Torop states that:
the ontology of translation semiotics rests on the recognition that culture works in many respects as a translation mechanism and that mediation in culture involves both communication and autocommunication. This means that translation semiotics is an important instrument in interpreting communication processes as cultural autocommunication (Torop, 2008: 257).
But the greatest encouragement for a semiotic approach to translation had been given much earlier by Roman Jakobson, who is considered the originator of the semiotic approach to translation and who divided translation into three categories:
a. Intralingual translation or rewording, which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language; b. Interlingual translation or translation proper, which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language; and c. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation, which is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of non- verbal sign systems (Jakobson, 1959: 233).
In the same article, Jakobson formulated another important thesis which has occupied translation studies according to which translation is ‘‘equivalence in difference’’ since ‘‘translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes’’ (Jakobson, 1959: 233).
It is not an exaggeration to mention that the semiotics of translation as a research field has been influenced by Jakobson’s tripartite categorization of the act of translation and whose influence on translation studies was presented in detail by Sütiste (2008). Jia (2017: 43) argues that ‘‘[…] translation semiotics is still an emerging discipline, with its construction of three translation types awaiting improvement, and its practicality yet to be substantiated’’. However, it is generally accepted by semioticians of translation that semiotics as a theory and a method contribute significantly to Translation Studies as it contributes to a better knowledge of the cultural system.
In terms of semiotic approaches, Hartama-Heinonen (2015: 42) argues that ‘‘a translation-semiotic approach is anchored in semiotic fields that are philosophical (Peirce, Morris), linguistic/sociosemiotic (Saussure), cultural (Lotman), post-structuralist (Barthes, Derrida), and existential (or neo-semiotic; Tarasti)’’. Hartama-Heinonen continues that ‘‘these and many other approaches to semiotics constitute the shared ground and thus, the common language of translation semioticians’’. Of the above-mentioned semiotic traditions, the school of Tartu (Lotman) seems to be the most influential in the field of the semiotics of translation today.
Taking into account the approaches of the main semioticians who have dealt with translation and less so of translation scholars who have studied semiotics, it seems that the semiotics of translation is a scientific field that conceptual tools and methods of semiotics are used in the study of translation, both intralingual and interlingual, but focuses particularly on the intersemiotic translation or transposition or transmutation. An analytical presentation of the field was made by Kourdis (2015, 2022) and Kourdis & Hartama-Heinonen (2023).
3. New fields of research with the assistance of the semiotics of translation
The influence of Jakobson’s seminal essay was enormous as his scientific prestige as a semiotician, linguist, and eminent figure of the Russian formalists, was great. Many consider Jakobson’s most important contribution to be the liberation of translation from its hitherto purely a linguistic dimension, through his proposal for the intersemiotic translation. In this context, it is not an exaggeration to say that the concept of intersemiotic translation contributed to this expansion and/or fertilized several sub-fields of research in translation studies, such as multimodal translation, adaptation, audiovisual translation, transposition, transduction, and transcreation. This finding includes what Gentzler (2001: 1) calls an ‘‘entire intersemiotic network of language and culture’’. Of course, this intersemiotic network includes not only intersemiotic, but also interlingual and interlingual translation, evidence of the interdependence of all Jakobson’s forms of translation in cultural communication.
Semiotics of translation is an insightful approach to translation and its contribution lies in the fact that with semiotic tools the translator can better understand the cultural dimension of communication, which seems to be increasingly realized today at the level of second-order signs, i.e., linguistic, and non-linguistic connotations. It is quite possible that using semiotic theoretical concepts and methods, Translation Studies has wanted to make an opening to multidimensional communication, which is nowadays inevitably polysemiotic/multisemiotic and multimodal.
The intersemiotic translation or transmutation into the same or different semiotic systems or into multimodal systems is rapidly leading to the adoption of semiotic theory by different disciplines (audiovisual studies, media and intemedial studies, cinema and theater studies, arts and interart studies) that understand the translational dimension of culture and the contribution of semiotics to this cultural phenomenon. The great popularity of studies on inter-textuality, inter-semiosis, inter-iconicity, inter-mediality indicate that the definitions of translation are constantly broadening.
Bibliography
Aguiar, D. & J. Queiroz (2009). Towards a model of intersemiotic translation. The International Journal of the Arts in Society 4(4): 203–210.
Aguiar, D. & J Queiroz (2013). Semiosis and intersemiotic translation. Semiotica 196: 283–292.
Aguiar, D., P. Αtã & J. Queiroz (2015). Intersemiotic translation and transformational creativity. Punctum 1(2): 11–21.
Aguiar, D. & J. Queiroz (2015). From Gertrude Stein to dance: Repetition and time in Intersemiotic translation. Dance Chronicle 38(2): 204–232.
Damaskinidis, G. (2012). Image Analysis for Translating English Multimodal Texts into Greek. A Multimodal Semiotics Approach to Translation Training in a Greek Higher Education Context. Doctoral Thesis. London: The Open University.
Damaskinidis, G. (2015). Mediating between verbal and visual semiotic elements in the translation of English multimodal texts into Greek. Punctum 1(2): 22-38.
Eco, U. (2001). Experiences in Translation. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Eco, U. (2004). Mouse or Rat? Translation as Negotiation. London: Phoenix.
Fabbri, P. (2008). Le tournant sémiotique. Paris: Lavoisier.
Gentzler, E. (2021). Contemporary translation theories. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gorlée, D. (1994). Semiotics and the Problem of Translation: With Special Reference to the Semiotics of Charles S. Peirce. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Hartama-Heinonen, R. (2008). Abductive Translation Studies: The Art of Marshalling Signs. Acta Semiotica Fennica XXVIII, Imatra: International Semiotics Institute at Imatra &Helsinki: Semiotic Society of Finland.
Hartama-Heinonen, R. (2012a). ‘‘Interpretation is Merely Another Word for Translation’’. A Peircean Approach to Translation, Interpretation and Meaning. COLLeGIUM 7: 113–129.
Hartama-Heinonen, R. (2012b). Semiotico-translation-theoretical reverberations revisited. Sign Systems Studies 40(3): 299–318.
Hartama-Heinonen, R. (2013). Interlingual, intersemiotic, and intersystemic paths of translation. Acta Translatologica Helsingiensia 2: 43–67.
Hartama-Heinonen, R. (2015). Herding together: On semiotic-translational branches, fields, and disciplines. Punctum 1(2): 39–52.
Jakobson, R. (1959). On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In R. A. Brower (ed.), On Translation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 232–239.
Jia, H. (2016a). Considerations over the Terms of Translation Semiotics. Foreign Language Education 1: 94–97.
Jia, H. (2016b). On the Possibilities of Translation Semiotics. Shandong Foreign Languages Teaching Journal 37(3): 90–100.
Jia, H. (2016c). A Translation-semiotic Perspective of Jakobson’s Tripartite of Translation. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages 5: 11–18.
Jia, H. (2017a). Roman Jakobson’s Triadic Division of Translation Revisited. Chinese Semiotic Studies 13(1): 31–46.
Kostopoulou, L. & V. Misiou (2023) (eds.). Transmedial Perspectives on Humour and Translation from Page to Screen to Stage. New York: Routledge.
Kourdis, E. (2021). Roland Barthes et son argumentation dans la rhétorique de l’image une contribution philosophique au concept d’intersémioticité. Des mots aux actes 10: 109 –126.
Kourdis, E. & P. Kukkonen (2015) (eds.). Semiotics of translation, Translation in Semiotics. Special issue of Punctum-International Journal of Semiotics 1(2). Thessaloniki: Hellenic Semiotic Society.
Kourdis, E. & R. Hartama-Heinonen (2023). Translation Studies and Semiotics. In J. Pelkey & P. Cobley (eds.), Bloomsbury Semiotics, Volume 4: Semiotic Movements. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 143–161.
Kourdis, E. & S. Petrilli (2020) (eds.). Translation and Translatability in Intersemiotic Space. Special Issue of Punctum-International Journal of Semiotics 6(1). Thessaloniki: Hellenic Semiotic Society.
Kourdis, E. (2015). Semiotics of Translation: An interdisciplinary Approach to Translation. In P.-P. Tryfonas (ed.), International Handbook of Semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer, 303–320.
Kourdis, E. (2020). Σημειωτική και μετάφραση: από τη σημείωση στη διασημειωτικότητα [Semiotics and Translation: from semiosis to intersemiosis]. Athens: Kardamitsas.
Kourdis, E. (2022). Semiotics. In F. Zanettin & Ch. Rundle (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Methodology. New York: Routledge, 139–154.
Lotman, J. (1990). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lotman, J. (2009/1992). Culture and Explosion. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Marais, K. (2018). A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation: The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality. London & New York: Routledge.
Peirce, C.-S. (1931–1935). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols 1–6, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds). Cambridge, MA, The Belknap Press.
Petrilli, S. (2000) (ed.). Tra segni, special issue of Athanor 3. Milano: Meltemi.
Petrilli, S. (2003). Translation in semiosis. Introduction. In S. Petrilli (ed.), Translation Translation. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, 17–37.
Petrilli, S. (2014). Sign Studies and Semioethics: Communication, Translation and Values. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Petrilli, S. (2015). Translation of semiotics into translation theory, and vice versa. Punctum 1(2): 96–117.
Petrilli, S. & M. Ji (2022) (eds.). Intersemiotic Perspectives on Emotions. Translating across Signs, Bodies and Values. London: Routledge.
Popovič, A. (1975). Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation. Edmonton: University of Alberta.
Queiroz, J. & D Aguiar (2015). CS Peirce and intersemiotic translation. In P.-P. Tryfonas (ed.), International Handbook of Semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer, 201–215.
Queiroz, J. & P. Atã (2018). Intersemiotic translation as an abductive cognitive artifact. In K. Marais & R. Meylaerts (eds.), Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies. Methodological Considerations. New York: Routledge, 19–32.
Queiroz, J. & P. Atã (2019a). Intersemiotic translation, cognitive artefact, and creativity. Adaptation 12 (3): 298–314.
Queiroz, J. & P. Atã (2019b). Intersemiotic translation as a creative thinking tool: From Gertrude Stein to dance. In N. Salmose & L. Elleström (eds.), Transmediations: Communication across media borders. New York: Routledge, 186–213.
Saussure, F. de (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. Charles Bally & Albert (eds.). Sechehaye. Paris: Payot.
Saussure, F. de (2006). Writings in General Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sonesson, G. (1996). The Quadrature of the Hermeneutic Circle: The Picture as ‘Text’. In LSP and Theory of Translation: Acts of the XVI Vakki symposion, Text and Image, Vöjri, February 10– 12, 1996. Vaasa: University of Vaasa, 9–33.
Sonesson, G. (2014a). Translation as a Double Act of Communication: A Perspective from the Semiotics of Culture. In W. Yongxiang & J. Haihong (eds), Our World: A Kaleidoscopic Semiotic Network. Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of the IASS/ AIS, 5– 9 October 2012, Nanjing Normal University, vol. 3. Nanjing: Hohai University Press, 83–101.
Sonesson, G. (2014b). Translation and Other Acts of Meaning: In Between Cognitive Semiotics and Semiotics of Culture. Cognitive Semiotics 7(2): 249–280.
Sonesson, G. (2020). Translation as culture: The example of pictorial-verbal transposition in Sahagún’s primeros memoriales and codex Florentino. Semiotica 232: 5–39.
Sütiste, E. (2008). Roman Jakobson and the topic of translation: Reception in academic reference works. Sign Systems Studies 36(2): 271–314.
Sütiste, E. & P. Torop (2007). Processual Boundaries of Translation: Semiotics and Translation Studies. Semiotica 163(1): 187–207.
Sütiste, E. & P. Torop (2012). Preface: On the Paths of Translation Semiotics. Sign Systems Studies 40: 269−278.
Torop, P. (1995). Total’nyj perevod. Tartu: Tartu University Press.
Torop, P. (1998). The Limits of Translation: The Socio-Semiotic Aspect of Translation Semiotics. Sign Systems Studies 26: 136–150.
Torop, P. (2000). Intersemiosis and Intersemiotic Translation. European Journal for Semiotic Studies 12(1): 71–100.
Torop, P. (2002). Translation as Translating as Culture. Sign Systems Studies 30(2): 593–605.
Torop, P. (2003). Intersemiosis and Intersemiotic Translation. In S. Petrilli (ed.), Translation Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 271–282.
Torop, P. (2008). Translation and Semiotics. Sign Systems Studies 36(2): 253–257.
Torop, P. (2012). Semiotics of Mediation. Sign Systems Studies 40(3): 547–557.
Torop, P. (2020). The Chronotopical Aspect of Translatability in Intersemiotic Space. Punctum 6(1): 265–284.
Toury, G. (1980). In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.