الفهرس 
Intertextuality in Translation: Semiotics in Action
Hatim and Mason: Intertextuality, Semiotics, and TranslationOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 551 |  |  |
| | | from | 551 | | |
Abstract
Venuti (2009) acknowledges that:
Intertextuality enables and complicates translation, preventing
it from being an untroubled communication and opening the
translated text to interpretive possibilities that vary with
cultural constituencies in the receiving situation. To activate
these possibilities and at the same time improve the study and
practice of translation, we must work to theorize the relative
autonomy of the translated text and increase the selfconsciousness of translators and readers of translations alike.
(pp. 172-173)
Intertextuality is perceived to be problematic. Translating this feature
of literary texts transcends the mere transfer of words. The literary translator
has to assume the roles of both a code analyst and an intercultural moderator.
Failure to grasp the implications intended in the intertextual part will lose the
translator the meaningful crux of the message.
Furthermore, the difficulty with intertextuality lies in its cultural
specificity. The confidence of the writer to add on to the literary content,
sure that the reader will succeed in deciphering the code, based on their
shared knowledge of the same culture, is disrupted when that text is exported
2
to a different culture. The translator, then, is faced with risks of creating
intercultural misunderstandings or hindering communication altogether
should he fall short of honouring his role as a negotiator of languages and
cultures.
Intertextuality may yet constitute a third obstacle when a literary
translator is unaware of an intertextual use of language or if the intertext is
incorporated without any marks. Then, the meaning of the message intended
will be incomplete and the desired effect will be lost.
The present thesis explores how both target texts, under study,
address this problem. The study also investigates a significant notion
pertinent to whether the translator is actually dealing with simply loaned
texts that require only a literal translation or with a whole range of new
meanings uploaded/ added to the text, hence demanding a different approach.
It further probes how far translators are aware of the role of intertextuality in
a literary work and how much effort they invest into realizing it; hence, how
far welcoming is the target text and readers of the imported intertextuality.
To this end, the thesis pursues a dual contrastive analysis of: (1)
Ziedan’s Azazeel versus Wright’s translation; and (2) al-Kharrat’s Rama and
the Dragon versus Ghazoul and Verlenden’s translation. The analysis
3
investigates areas of lexis, phraseology, structure, and semiotics, with a view
to pinpointing the different mechanisms involved in relaying intertextuality.
The present study falls into five chapters and a conclusion. Chapter
One explores the interrelationship between language, intertextuality and
translation. It is divided into four sections, dealing, first, with language as a
sign system and how signification works. Second, it tackles the relation
between semiotics and translation. Third, it covers the concept of
intertextuality as developed by Kristeva, literary translation, culture and
ideology, in addition to prior influences that gave rise to Kristeva’s
christening and elaborating of the notion. The fourth is dedicated to a display
of the texts under analysis, in terms of reviews and critical appreciation.
Chapter Two pursues an explorative review of various intertextual
voices in an effort to unravel the effects of such intricacies on translation. It
falls into three sections: Section one traces the origins of Kristeva’s concept
to Bakhtin’s dialogism. In section two, the study investigates the postKristeva evolvement of the concept with later theoreticians, including
Genette, Riffaterre, Ott and Walter and Gasparov. The third section
addresses how intertextuality is relayed in translation by referring to the
perspectives of three translators/ theorists, namely Hatim, Federici, and
Venuti.
4
Chapter Three presents a practical insight into the dynamics
governing intertextuality and translation. It adopts a parallel contrastive
analysis of Ziedan’s عزازيلversus Wright’s Azazeel. Drawing on samples
from both source and target texts, the chapter analyzes and evaluates
translational strategies pursued in response to intertextual and literary
translation-relevant challenges.
Chapter Four offers a further, in the field investigation. Following
Chapter Three’s suit, it probes, through a similar parallel contrastive
analysis, how Ghazoul and Verlenden’s Rama and the Dragon has addressed
the multi-faceted intertextuality, rife in al-Kharrat’s ,رامة والتنينand how it
has dealt with the different literary translation-relevant challenges.
Chapter Five synthesizes both investigations, comparing and
contrasting translational strategies employed in both target texts with a view
to evaluating translators’ perceptions of and approaches to intertextuality.
The Chapter also represents an attempt to focus on how intertextuality
operates in transit.
The Conclusion provides informed answers to the array of questions
motivating the present research and incorporates relevant findings in view of
the theoretical and practical investigations pursued. These questions consist
in:
5
1. What are the different intertextuality levels entailed in said research?
2. What are the problem-solving techniques employed by translators to
address intertextuality in literary translation?
3. How can a target text be as intertextual as the source one?
4. What translators’ interventions does intertextuality warrant?
5. How can target texts possess a semiotics of their own?
This study has drawn a number of conclusions and findings which
consist in the following: embracing intertextuality in translation necessitates
a reconsideration of conventional perspectives of the practice. Intertextuality
affords the translator’s work the opportunity to be received as literature in its
own right, provided that the semiotics of intertextuality is embraced.
Furthermore, embarking on a literary translation of intertextually-rich texts
calls for extensive research and readings so that the target text can offer more
than an informational transfer of penned ideas and become an actual cultural
communication, whereby translation can lay the groundwork for target-textrelated studies of stylistics and linguistics in the receiving culture.
In this context, it is evident that a fixed taxonomy of the different
layers and features of intertextuality proves impossible. The concept
embodies a chameleon character, lending itself to as many facets as the
6
ingenuity of the user would allow. If anything, the source texts investigated
are testaments to the researcher’s finding that intertextuality informs much –
if not all – of our human cognition, perception and expression.
Finally, intertextuality sheds a different light on translation. It allows
translators to better understand and reflect the dynamics governing culture
and informing linguistic expression. It hones their semiotic perception and
reinvigorates their practical skills.