Jacques Derrida, Barbara Johnson, and ​Translation

It should be mentioned that Jacques Derrida was never a translation theorist, but rather a philosopher exceptionally interested in language and the formation of meaning.  His work concerning semiotics and their function was perhaps best demonstrated specifically for our purposes by his book Dissemination (particularly Section Four of "Plato's Pharmacy") and his essay "What Is a 'Relevant' Translation?":

​

Derrida, Jaques and Venuti, Lawrence.  "What Is a 'Relevant' Translation?". Critical 
           Inquiry, 27.2 (Winter, 2001). 174-200. JSTOR. Web.
          <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344247>.

         Though reading Derrida may be quite difficult, and though the wording and analysis might seem esoteric, the knowledge gleaned from reading Derrida's work could be considered of elevated academic value, as Derrida's work was and is highly respected.  In his lecture "What Is a 'Relevant' Translation?", Derrida begins by asking what the word 'relevant' means itself.  He reveals to us the French-based word "relevant" is now used often in English, but its meaning has changed over time (an example of translation, which is omnipresent in our daily lives).  He then goes on to explain that a "relevant" translation is one that "does what one expects of it, in short, a version that performs its mission, honors its debt and does its job or its duty while inscribing in the receiving language the most relevant equivalent for an original, the language that is the most right, appropriate, pertinent, adequate, opportune, pointed, univocal, idiomatic, and so on" (177).  Derrida claims that at the same time "nothing is translatable" and "nothing is untranslatable"--perhaps that translation is always unsuccessful but a necessary evil.  

          Derrida explains that, when one is in the process of translating a work, there are two senses of economy of which one must remain vigilant:  to "transport home...in the most appropriate way possible, in the most relevant way possible, the most proper meaning of the original text, even if this is the proper meaning of a figure, metaphor, metonymy, [etc.]," and to heed a "law of quantity" (179).  In other words, perhaps, make sure the translation expresses the original meaning but is also concise and easily read.  Derrida explains that the process of converting meaning through translation "doesn't have to take a text at its word or to take the word literally.  It suffices to transmit the idea, the figure, the force" (180).  Then, less relevant perhaps to the translation that we are focusing on but at the same time no less intriguing, Derrida takes his audience through a translation of The Merchant of Venice--that is, more of a deconstructive translation than a translation in the literal sense.  Derrida focuses on the theme of translation in his critical interpretation of The Merchant of Venice, as well as themes of literal translation--specifically, translation from English to French, and the substitution of the English verb "seasons" with the French verb "relever" ("relever" is in the French title of the lecture we are now discussing).



Derrida, Jacques. "Plato's Pharmacy: The Pharmakon." Dissemination. Chicago: University,

          1981. 95-116. Print.

          This entire book is steeped in translation from every vantage point:  translations from ancient Greek and ancient Egyptian to French, from French to English (the edition you and I read), and from Johnson's English to the English reader's interpretation of the work.  However, the section of Derrida's work most intimately pertinent to the process of translation--although not literally dealing with translation--is Section Four of "Plato's Pharmacy," "The Pharmakon."  In "Plato's Pharmacy," Derrida analyzes Plato's Phaedrus, investigating the process of writing, the production of written work, and written work's subsequent dissemination and interpretation by audiences.  In "The Pharmakon," Derrida explains that the word "pharmakon" (used to mean "remedy") can also mean drug, recipe, charm, medicine, substance, spell, and, most importantly, poison--the opposite of remedy (98).  Thus, Plato, who claims that writing is an inferior medium because it does not boast the truth or immediacy that speech does, is himself projecting ambiguity through spoken word.  This is because, Derrida argues, it is not writing that is deceitful, but words themselves--signifiers are able to drag hundreds of signifieds in their wake, and chances are high that one audience member would conjure a different signified from the signifier, even if the signifier's context were supposedly clear.  This has everything to do with the interpretation of native languages, as well as translation between languages.



Barbara Johnson

In contrast to Derrida, Johnson was in fact an accomplished translator and translation theorist, as well as a renowned literary critic.  Johnson's translation of Derrida's work was the main force behind its propagation in the English-speaking West.  In the introduction to her translation of Derrida's Dissemination, Johnson relates how difficult it is to translate a work, and how a translator must slave over a text in a project that will, according to Johnson, ultimately prove futile.



Johnson, Barbara. "Translator's Introduction: Translation." Introduction. Dissemination. By

          Jacques Derrida. Chicago: University, 1981. Xviii-xi. Print.

          In her brief commentary on the translation of Dissemination, Johnson begins candidly:  "To translate an author so excruciatingly aware of the minutest linguistic differance is an exercise in violent approximation" (xviii).  Because Derrida is so playful with meaning in the original French version, it is difficult for translators to find words or phrases suitable to perpetuate the original wordplay in an identical or similar manner.  This, however, is perhaps a prime demonstration of the problems the process of translation entails.  Because a word can have so many meanings, or perhaps one meaning that cannot be expressed faultlessly in the same number of words in another language (viz., the "two economies" in "What is A Relevant Translation?"), it is near impossible to reproduce the same meaning of the original with the same economy of vocabulary.  To Johnson, this is even more difficult, since she must find an English equivalent "not only for what Derrida says but also for the way in which his text differs from its own statements and from standard French usage" (xviii).

TRANSLATION + LITERARY CRITICISM