The main point I want to demonstrate in this essay is that, in his lecture “Über die verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens,” Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher implicitly uses an analytical method called dihairesis which stems from Plato – the author whose work he already translated to a large extent at the time the lecture was given – in order to define the notion of ‘proper translation’ itself and linked to that the essence of the ‘translator’ in the true sense of the word.
1. Introduction
Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher’s lecture “Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersetzens” (On the various methods of translating), held on the 24th of June 1813 and published in 1816, is one of the most important and influential German texts regarding the theory of translation.1 In this essay, I will not consider the specific historical context out of which Schleiermacher’s text emerged,2 but rather concentrate on outlining the conceptual work Schleiermacher has done in it.
Although the title of Schleiermacher’s lecture initially might suggest that he would present different methods of translating which are equal in value, his actual intention is quite contrary to that, insofar as he sets out to show that only one method is the true and therefore best one.
The main point I want to demonstrate in this essay is that Schleiermacher implicitly uses an analytical method called dihairesis which stems from Plato - the author whose work he already translated to a large extend at the time the lecture was given - in order to define the notion of ‘proper translation’ itself and linked to that the essence of the ‘translator’ in the true sense of the word.
To prove this, I will first describe the main features of the method of dihairesis (with some anticipating remarks regarding Schleiermacher’s adherence to it). Afterwards, I will critically examine the steps Schleiermacher takes in the dihairetic process of defining the concept of ‘proper translation.’
2. The method of dihairesis
The term ‘dihairesis’ refers to a method for analysing ideas or concepts by means of discrimination or partitioning. This method was mainly developed by Plato as part of his dialectics, especially in the later works Sophistes and Politikos3
The aim of a dihairesis is a definition. This is gained by differentiating a general concept in a stepwise process into more specific (sub-)concepts (primarily following a certain path along the conceptual tree), ideally leading to a certain indivisible notion as an endpoint of the inquiry. (Cf. Westermann, 111) The definition is a result of the joining (synagoge) of all the relevant differences which have been found through the dihairesis. This is less explicit and condensed at a certain textual location in Schleiermacher. However, this does not discourage me from calling his approach ‘dihairetic.’ Usually, a dihairesis uses dichotomies to progress in the partition of concepts, since it is the easiest way and often logically grounded in antithetical conceptual relations. (Forthe whole paragraph cf. Schramm, 92-94)
Ideally, in a dihairesis, the concept we aim to define should stand at the end of the cascade of distinctions. If it is cut out at an earlier point, the dihairesis is somewhat impure (if not failed). This may be the case in Schleiermacher, insofar as his notion of ‘proper translation’ appears already in the middle of the dihairesis. Nevertheless, I will reconstruct Schleiermacher’s dihairesis in way that will show its paradigmatic structure clearly. Furthermore, a dihairesis can provide insight (in a negative way) by looking at what it excludes from itself. This kind of exclusion might take place right at the start of Schleiermacher’s text, but I interpret it to be part of the dihairesis and therefore as the first distinction he makes (see section 3). In Plato, a dihairesis often exhibits an ontological flexibility regarding the matter that is to be discriminated and defined. We can see that in Schleiermacher too when he shifts between talking about the method of translation on the one hand and the true translator on the other hand. (For the whole paragraph cf. Strobach, 266 f.) The gradually and vagueness of phenomena or concepts seems to be no serious problem for Schleiermacher’s dihairesis (unlike for Plato).4
In the following sections, I will present the sequence of distinctions Schleiermacher makes and we will see that its order is not random.
3. Translation within a language vs. from a foreign language into one’s own
The overarching genus with which Schleiermacher begins the dihairesis is the wide notion of ‘translation’ itself.5 The first differentiation Schleiermacher introduces within this wider notion is that of translations between languages that belong to cultures which exist or existed far from each other in regard to space or time and translations within a singular language. The latter would include translations of dialects, different historical stages of a language, sociolects, idiolects, and even one’s own linguistic expressions made in the past. (Cf. 59 f.)
The translation within a language is excluded from the further investigation by Schleiermacher because it arises only as a momentary need (“augenblickliches Bedürfnis”) and requires no specific method other than emotional guidance (‘Leitung des Gefühls’). (60) Therefore, the focus will be on translations of linguistic expressions from foreign languages into one’s own.
4. Translation in the economic realm vs. in science and art
Schleiermacher outlines two main areas where translations between languages are needed and each of these require different methods of translation depending on their needs: economy and politics on the one hand, science and art on the other. In the first area, ‘mere interpreting’ (‘bloßes Dolmetschen’) is needed while in the second ‘proper translating’ is required.
Mere interpreting is characterised by Schleiermacher as a mechanical affair (“mechanisches Geschäft” (62)) of substituting expressions of the source language by others in the target language according to knows rules. This is possible because the original expressions referred to familiar facts in a practical context, in a neutral fashion, and following the order of space and time. Also, interpreting usually takes a verbal form. (Cf. 61 f.)
Proper translating, on the other hand, should be applied if the author’s free and idiosyncratic perspective shaped (the presentation of) the subject matter, or the content is so new, indeterminate, or abstract that it is not easily processed by available translative algorithms, for this requires a highly skilled translator who is knowledgeable about the author, his language, and the subject matter at hand. Proper translating is primarily used for written texts. (Cf. 61 f.)
Hand in hand with this dichotomy goes a devaluation of verbal, practical, and non-creative use of language as well as a corresponding appreciation of written, abstract, and creative use, thereby creating a - probably problematic - linguistic hierarchy.6 Moreover, this is also apparent in the prefixed adjectives ‘mere’ (‘bloßes’) for interpreting and ‘proper’ (‘eigentliches’) for translating which are used repeatedly throughout Schleiermacher’s text. Accordingly, it is the practice of translation in the fields of science and art that Schleiermacher aims to pursue in the further course ofhis lecture.
5. Translation in science and art by means of paraphrase or emulation vs. translation which brings author and reader closer to one another
Although Schleiermacher already introduced the notion of ‘proper translation’ at this point, he has not yet exactly specified what he means by that which is why he sets out to differentiate it from two other practices inside the spheres of science and art in order to clarify the concept.
Paraphrase and emulation (‘Nachbildung’) were created as ways to generate acquaintance with works written in foreign languages. However, as we shall see, both do not actually bring author and reader closer together because they obscure the true form and otherness of the original and thereby diverge from it in aesthetic or contentual regards. This is due to the fact that both approaches answer in extreme (and opposite) ways to the challenge of the irrationality oflanguage (“Irrationalität der Sprache” (64)).
By paraphrasing one tries to reproduce the content of the source text as precisely as possible by using more familiar words and concepts in place of words which are hard to translate. The downside of this method is that it sacrifices the vividness of the language. This is why it is preferably applied in the translation of scientific texts. In extreme cases, when the paraphrase intervenes in a text to a degree that it fills gaps and tries to make the original text clearer than it actually is, it partially becomes a commentary and less a translation. (Cf. 65)
The emulation, in contrast, attempts to produce the same overall impression of the original work without substituting expressions from the source text by synonymous expressions in the emulated text. Therefore, it is more suitable for the domain of art. However, this way not only the otherness of the original text is obliterated on the formal level, but a substantially new work is created and, consequently, the identity of the work is abandoned. (Cf. 65)
The method of translation Schleiermacher has in mind lies in-between paraphrase and emulation and seeks to avoid the pitfalls of both,7 for the true translator is not partial (“unparteyisch” (70)) and therefore neither pays too much attention to the content of the work nor overly emphasises its metrical or musical qualities. Nonetheless, paraphrase and emulation can play a relevant role as long as there exists no proper translation of the respective text yet.8
6. Moving the author closer to the reader vs. moving the reader closer to the author
Schleiermacher proposes two relevant options for the intention of the translator: either move the reader to the position of the author or vice versa.9 Schleiermacher uses the spatial metaphor of the relative movement of author or reader (cf. Kitzbichler, 60) to illustrate that the main objective of a translator should be to provide the reader with a textual basis which shows traces of its foreign origin and allows him to gain an understanding of the individual singularity of the author as well as his dialectical relation to his language and culture, for these are the prerequisites for an adequate appreciation of a foreign work.10 The translator, therefore, acts as a hermeneutical mediator who practices the ‘art of understanding’ (“Kunst des Verstehens”). (64)
The two options are not as symmetric as they may seem at first glance. The first method of translation is not as extreme as the second, for the reader is only moved barely to the position of the translator, that is, merely half-way. An ideal translator following this method would translate an original text as well as the author would have translated it had he been proficient in the target language of the translator. The other method, though, moves the author beyond the position of the translator all the way into the world of the reader and makes him a contemporary. A third option is not possible according to Schleiermacher (sticking to the dichotomous structure of the dihairesis) because a reader can never fully be moved to the position of the author or his original audience (not even to that of the translator) and a mixture of both methods or alternating between them would not be reasonable. (Cf. 66)
Trying to bring the author closer to the reader may imply several issues. On the one hand, this method of translation results in an anachronism; while the content belongs to the past, the form is adapted to the present which leads to a strange tension.11 Preserving the unity of content and form, of thought and expression is the decisive criterion for the proper art of translation.12 Another problem which could follow from the application of this method is that the translator might be inclined to realise in his translation all the aesthetic potential that he has and that his language provides (with the intention of bringing the translation to the same level as that of contemporary texts). Yet this would certainly be counterproductive concerning the preservation of the original otherness of the text.13 (Cf. 71,73 f.)
7. Definition and conclusion
When we combine all the distinctions obtained by the dihairetic process as presented in the foregoing sections, we arrive at the definition of‘proper translation’ Schleiermacher conceived: Proper translation is translationfrom aforeign language into one’s own in the realm of science or art bringing author and readership closer together by moving the reader to the position of the author which means letting the otherness of the original work, its language and cultural background shine through in the translation.
References
CERCEL, Lisa & §ERBAN, Adriana (eds.). 2015. Schleiermacher and the Question of Translation. Berlin/Boston.
KITZBICHLER, Josefme. 2009. Von 1800 bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts. In: Josefine Kitzbichler, Katja Lubitz, Nina Mindt: Theorie der Übersetzung antiker Literatur in Deutschland seit 1800, Berlin, pp. 13-111.
SCHLEIERMACHER, Friedrich Daniel Ernst. 2009. Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersetzens. In: Dokumente zur Theorie der Übersetzung antiker Literatur in Deutschland seit 1800, edited by Josefme Kitzbichler, KatjaLubitz, and Nina Mindt, Berlin, pp. 59-81.
SCHRAMM, Michael. 2013. Dihärese/Dihairesis. In: Platon-Lexikon: Begriffswörterbuch zu Platon und der platonischen Tradition, 2nd ed., edited by Christian Schäfer, Darmstadt, pp. 92-95.
SERUYA, Teresa & JUSTO, José Miranda (eds.). 2016. Rereading Schleiermacher: Translation, Cognition and Culture. Berlin/Heidelberg.
STROBACH, Niko. 2017. Dialektik/Dihairesis. In: Platon-Handbuch: Leben - Werk - Wirkung, 2nd ed., edited by Christoph Horn, Jörn Müller, and Joachim Söder, Stuttgart, pp. 264-268.
WESTERMANN, Hartmut. 2008. dihairesis. In: Wörterbuch der antiken Philosophie, 2nd ed., edited by Christoph Horn and ChristofRapp, München, pp. 110-112.
[...]
1 The theoretical context as well as the reception, transformation, and application of Schleiermacher’s text and theory are covered in Cercel & §erban (2015) and Seruya & Justo (2016).
2 Specific information on this topic can be found in Kitzbichler (2009).
3 One should keep in mind that Schleiermacher’s translation of the Sophistes was already published in 1807.
4 “[•••] freilich nicht ganz bestimmt, wie dann das selten gelingt, sondern nur mit verwaschenen Grenzen, aber doch wenn man auf die Endpunkte sieht deutlich genug.” (60, page numbers without name refer to Schleiermacher’s text)
5 “Die Thatsache, daß eine Rede aus einer Sprache in die andere übertragen wird, kommt uns unter den mannigfaltigsten Gestaltenüberall entgegen.” (59)
6 “Auf dieser zwiefachen Stufenleiter also erhebt sich der Uebersetzer immer mehr über den Dolmetscher.” (61)
7 “Beide können daher auch wegen ihrer Abweichung von diesem Begriff hier nicht näher beurtheilt werden; nur als Grenzzeichen für das Gebiet, mit welchem wir es eigentlich zu thun haben, stehen sie hier.” (65)
8 “In einem solchen Zeiträume mögen also erst freie Nachbildungen die Lust am Fremden wecken und schärfen, und Paraphrasen ein allgemeineres Verstehen vorbereiten, um so künftigen Uebersetzungen Bahn zu machen.” (67)
9 “Entweder der Uebersetzer läßt den Schriftsteller möglichst in Ruhe, und bewegt den Leser ihm entgegen; oder er läßt den Leser möglichst in Ruhe, und bewegt den Schriftsteller ihm entgegen.” (65 f.)
10 “[Wenn die Leser der Übersetzung] verstehen sollen, so müssen sie den Geist der Sprache auffassen, die dem Schriftsteller einheimisch war, sie müssen dessen eigenthümliche Denkweise und Sinnesart anschauen können.” “[...] wenn er [der Übersetzer] auch seinen Lesern nur dasselbe Verständniß eröffnen will und denselben Genuß, dessen er sich erfreut, dem nämlich die Spuren der Mühe aufgedrückt sind und das Gefühl des Fremden beigemischt bleibt [...].” (64) “[...] das Gefühl des fremden [...] auf seine Leser fortzupflanzen [...] ohne Nachtheil der Sprache [...].” (71) “[Der Leser soll] eine Ahndung bekommen [...] von der Ursprache und von dem, was das Werk dieser verdankt.” (72)
11 “Auch das ist gewiß, wenn wir unsem Landsleuten recht anschaulich machen wollen, was ein Schriftsteller für seine Sprache gewesen ist, daß wir keine bessere Formel aufstellen können, als ihn so redend einzuführen, wie wir uns denken müssen, daß er in der unsrigen würde geredet haben.” However, this is futile: “[M]an kann sagen, das Ziel, so zu übersetzen wie der Verfasser in der Sprache der Uebersetzung selbst würde ursprünglich geschrieben haben, ist nicht nur unerreichbar, sondern es ist auch in sich nichtig und leer.” (74)
12 “Wer überzeugt ist, daß wesentlich und innerlich Gedanke und Ausdruck ganz dasselbe sind, und auf dieser Ueberzeugung beruht doch die ganze Kunst alles Verstehens der Rede, und also auch alles Uebersetzens, kann der einen Menschen von seiner angebomen Sprache trennen wollen, und meinen, es könne ein Mensch, oder auch nur eine Gedankenreihe eines Menschen, eine und dieselbe werden in zwei Sprachen?” (74)
Häufig gestellte Fragen zu Schleiermachers "Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersetzens"
Worum geht es in Schleiermachers Essay "Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersetzens"?
Der Essay, eine Vorlesung von 1813, behandelt die Theorie des Übersetzens. Schleiermacher argumentiert, dass es eine wahre und somit beste Methode des Übersetzens gibt und analysiert implizit mit einer Methode namens dihairesis (von Platon stammend) das Konzept der 'richtigen Übersetzung' und des 'wahren Übersetzers'.
Was ist die Methode der Dihairesis?
Dihairesis ist eine Methode zur Analyse von Ideen oder Konzepten durch Unterscheidung und Einteilung. Es ist ein schrittweiser Prozess, bei dem ein allgemeines Konzept in spezifischere Unterkonzepte unterteilt wird, um zu einer Definition zu gelangen. Die Definition ergibt sich aus der Zusammenführung aller relevanten Unterschiede, die durch die Dihairesis gefunden wurden.
Welche erste Unterscheidung trifft Schleiermacher bezüglich des Übersetzens?
Schleiermacher unterscheidet zwischen Übersetzungen zwischen Sprachen, die zu kulturell fernen Kontexten gehören, und Übersetzungen innerhalb einer einzigen Sprache (z.B. Dialekte, historische Sprachstufen). Die Übersetzung innerhalb einer Sprache wird ausgeschlossen, da sie als weniger bedeutsam betrachtet wird.
Welche Bereiche der Übersetzung werden unterschieden und wie werden sie bewertet?
Es werden zwei Hauptbereiche unterschieden: Wirtschaft und Politik (wo "bloßes Dolmetschen" ausreicht) und Wissenschaft und Kunst (wo "eigentliches Übersetzen" erforderlich ist). Schleiermacher wertet "bloßes Dolmetschen" ab und betont die Bedeutung von "eigentlichem Übersetzen" im Bereich von Wissenschaft und Kunst.
Was sind Paraphrase und Nachbildung (Emulation) und wie unterscheiden sie sich vom "eigentlichen Übersetzen"?
Paraphrase versucht, den Inhalt des Originaltexts so genau wie möglich wiederzugeben, wobei schwer zu übersetzende Wörter durch bekanntere ersetzt werden. Nachbildung (Emulation) zielt darauf ab, den Gesamteindruck des Originals zu erzeugen, ohne Ausdrücke zu ersetzen. Schleiermacher sieht beide Methoden als unvollkommen an, da sie entweder die Lebendigkeit der Sprache opfern (Paraphrase) oder die Andersartigkeit des Originals verwischen (Emulation). Das "eigentliche Übersetzen" soll die Fallen beider Methoden vermeiden.
Welche zwei Optionen für die Intention des Übersetzers schlägt Schleiermacher vor?
Schleiermacher schlägt vor, entweder den Leser dem Autor näherzubringen oder umgekehrt. Er argumentiert, dass das Ziel des Übersetzers sein sollte, dem Leser eine Textgrundlage zu bieten, die Spuren des fremden Ursprungs aufweist, damit der Leser die Individualität des Autors und seine Beziehung zu Sprache und Kultur verstehen kann.
Wie definiert Schleiermacher "eigentliches Übersetzen" basierend auf seiner dihairetischen Analyse?
Die Definition lautet: Eigentliches Übersetzen ist das Übersetzen aus einer Fremdsprache in die eigene im Bereich der Wissenschaft oder Kunst, indem Autor und Leserschaft einander nähergebracht werden, indem der Leser in die Position des Autors versetzt wird, was bedeutet, dass die Andersartigkeit des Originalwerks, seiner Sprache und seines kulturellen Hintergrunds in der Übersetzung durchscheinen.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Martin Scheidegger (Autor:in), 2022, Schleiermacher's Dihairesis of the Concept of Proper Translation, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1185245
