Reading is Translation: An Interview with Professor Clive Scott

XieHui and CliveScott

Abstract： Clive Scott， Professor Emeritus of European Literature at University of East Anglia， is known in English and French literary fields for his efforts in introducing translation concept into literary research from the perspective of phenomenology. His idea is mainly demonstrated in two books： Translating the Perception of Text—Literary Translation and Phenomenology and Literary Translation and the Rediscovery of Reading. Scott argues that literary reading is an intralingual translational act and translators need to look for new linguistic resources to do justice to their psycho-physiological perception in the process of translation. Scott has also tried to work out a system of multi-modal linguistic signs to record his own readerly consciousness in his reading and translational act. In this interview， Scott talks about his understanding of literariness， inter-subjectivity， the semiotic transformation of reading consciousness， and his newly published book about translation theory. In the end， he? prospects literary translation at the age of AI technology.

Key Words： readerly consciousness; literary translation; Autobiographical input; literariness; Phenomenology

Authors： Clive Scott， Professor Emeritus of European Literature at University of East Anglia （Norwich NR4 7TJ， UK）， Fellow of British Academy（since 1994）， R. H. Gapper Book Prize winner （2003） and a literary translator. Xie Hui， Ph.D.， is associate professor of Guangdong University of Finance and Economics （Guangzhou 510320， China）， academic visitor at Cambridge University （2017-2018）. This email interview was inspired by the translation forum held in English Faculty of Cambridge University in November， 2017， where Scott gave a speech about his translation theory. After the meeting， email communications between them for the interview ensued. E-mail： wxiehui@163.com

內(nèi)容摘要：Clive Scott教授將翻譯概念引入詩學研究，以其具有開拓性和實驗性的研究成果在英、法文學及文學翻譯領(lǐng)域引起相當關(guān)注。其翻譯思想集中體現(xiàn)在Translating the Perception of Text—Literary Translation and Phenomenology和Literary Translation and the Rediscovery of Reading兩部著作中。他將文學閱讀視為一種語內(nèi)翻譯行為，認為翻譯是譯者向自身和其它讀者展開自我的過程，譯者需要尋求新的語言資源真實地反映其在閱讀過程中所產(chǎn)生的心理、身體反映。Scott在翻譯實踐中積極嘗試，創(chuàng)造出一套多模態(tài)符號用于翻譯自己的閱讀意識。本次訪談主要圍繞Scott譯論中引發(fā)關(guān)注的一些問題展開談話，比如譯文的文學性問題、翻譯中的主體間性問題、閱讀意識的符號轉(zhuǎn)換問題等， 也談到他新出版的譯論著作及其對AI科技時代文學翻譯前景的展望。

關(guān)鍵詞：閱讀意識;文學翻譯;自傳輸入;文學性;現(xiàn)象學

Xie Hui （Xie for short hereafter）： Professor Clive， thank you very much for your time on this interview. When did you begin to shift your research focus from literature to translation？ And what inspired you for that？

Clive Scott （Scott for short hereafter）： In 1989， the Germanist and novelist W.G. Sebald， a long-time colleague and friend of mine at the University of East Anglia， founded the British Centre for Literary Translation， and became its founding director until 1995. This particular event gave my own research a new focus， and since my expertise lay in metrics， rhythm， poetic forms， it was in that area that I began investigating the possibility of linguistic transformations or transpositions （in the musical sense）， and their perceptual and experiential implications/consequences. These were the principal preoccupations of my first book on translation， Translating Baudelaire， published in 2000.

Xie： In Translating Baudelaire， you put forward that the task of a translator is self-discovery and value the translators translational act. Some critic thinks that you manage to “theorize the literariness of the translational act itself” （Infante 152）. What is your opinion about this statement？

Scott： I start with a quotation from a recently written piece that you will have seen： “Finally， I must come back to the literary. Not surprisingly， there is a certain critical uncertainty about this term， not to say anxiety. Part of that uncertainty， […]， relates to an underlying ambiguity in the concept itself： whether the literary is to be reckoned a generical notion， a set of identifying properties already locatable in the text; or whether the literary is an ‘interpreted value， not text-inherent but ascribed to the text by the reader. While the former of these options leads one in the direction of the rhetorical， broadly understood （figures，verbal structures， style）， the latter has no defining characteristics， but is a quality of response. This， then， is to allow the possibility that a work may be adjudged literary by categorial right， but yet generate， in a particular reader， no literary ‘effect. The translational policy applied by those for whom the literary is a rhetorical or stylistic property， is that the property in question must be maintained—almost at any cost—or at the very least compensated for. Literary translation is a respectful translation of the already literary. On the other hand， for those translators for whom the literary is a mode of response， the literary is not simply something that lies in a text waiting to be gathered up and acknowledged. It is something read into a text， a freely insertable or relocatable quality， it is a relationship with language that presupposes a reciprocated activity. This is to release the text from the straitjacket of the devices and effects of the marked literary， and to admit， as capable of literary effect， all the virtual or non-marked literary elements of the translational page： punctuation， layout， typography， acousticity in its articulations （voiced/voiceless， rounded/unrounded， etc.） as well as it in its sounds. As we have already insisted， translation is as much a paginal affair as it is a linguistic one. And no literary translation should set out with a notion of what the literary is or should be; translation is an experiment in the literary as much as it is an experiment in cross-medial or intermedial supplementation or layout”.① What matters for me primarily in this statement is： （a） the rejection of the notion of rhetorical figures/tropes as structures of given literary effects， employed by writers as required. It turns the reading of the literary into a process of recognition or identification of the literary as structural ingredients rather than as a response to any and every kind of expressive effect; （b） relatedly， the need not to think of the literary as an aesthetic feature， possessed by the text before the reader has had anything to do with it. Aesthetics belong in the world of works seen as organic wholes， as complete entities， which runs directly against my own view of translation as the provisional， the changing， the self-multiplying and self-diversifying; （c） the literary， because it is to do with the intimate experience of the reader， to do with all excesses of the signifier over the signified， excesses which engage the reader in his/her whole being， can be found in any linguistic， paralinguistic or cross-medial feature; in other words， our conception of the literary tends to be much too limited， much too determined by tradition and by a restricted range of textual characteristics. Translation does not translate the literariness that a text already has; rather it translates the text into the literariness of the readers own responsiveness， a responsiveness which may want to express its literariness in ways not envisaged by the source text. So， the literariness of the target text may differ from that of the source text. This is what I believe is meant by “theorizing the literariness of the translational act itself”.

Xie： The translator， as you insist， should write his/her readerly experience into his translation， but what if the other readers cannot understand the translators readerly experience？ So here come two questions： whom do you think the translator should serve？ How can the translation establish inter-subjectivity between the translator and the other readers？

Scott： There are two mistakes we make in respect of this question： we assume that the process of translation is a special undertaking， separate from reading， and that translators are a breed apart， specially qualified. But I argue that translating should be an activity intimately associated with all literary reading—one reads in order to write ones reading， ones responses—and that every reader， whatever their qualifications， should be involved in translational practices. In this way， every translator serves every other reader/translator in what amounts to an ongoing and never-ending conversation about reading. This is how an inter-subjectivity between readers-as-translators is established; each translation asks to be compared with other translations; each translation invites the production of other translations by other readers. But we should remember： for this plan to work， every reader must be a polyglot reader （i.e. able to read the source text）. If readers are monoglot， then no useful communication of a translational kind can take place.

Xie： Then， how about the inter-subjectivity between the translator and the? translation critic？ How can the critic properly address translations of the kind you are proposing？

Scott： I would just say this： if the translator writes the nature of his readerly experience into his/her translation， if the translator writes the consciousness of him/herself as a reader into his/her translation， then the critic should be able to reconstruct， or attempt to reconstruct， that experience， that consciousness， from the translation. When we read a novel， we， as critics， usually try to reconstruct the novelists intentions， motives， attitudes， from the novel; similarly so， then， with the translator in the translation. Most translation criticism is concerned with the accuracy of the translation， the choice of words and syntax， etc. in relation to the perceived meaning of the text; I am suggesting that the critic should instead address the translation as an existential document which tells us about psycho-affective responses of the translator. I realise that that is very difficult; but it is perhaps more rewarding than assessing the quality of? a translation in terms of its fidelity to the source text.

Xie： In The Translators Turn published in 1991， the author Douglas Robinson highlights the translators somatic response in the process of translating. What is the difference between your opinion and his about somatic response？

Scott： In Translating the Perception of Text， I recorded my reactions to Robinsons work in these terms： ‘In The Translators Turn， for example， Douglas Robinson looks to promote a “somatics of translation”， and with many of his argumentative positions I would readily concur. But his somatics resolves itself into “intuition” and “‘gut-level” response （whether idiosomatic， or ideosomatic）， and exercises itself within what is still an interpretative project （Robinson The Translators Turn 135）. And as his book proceeds， so the somatics of translation becomes subsumed into， and almost erased by， an investigation into the categories of dialogue between translator and source language （SL） writer， translator and target language （TL） receptor. Robinson later looks to salvage his somatics from reductionist glosses like mine， in Performative Linguistics（2003）， but instead draws its teeth： “here it becomes a conditioning through social experience， collective and idiosyncratic， or the internalization and personalization of norms”（Scott Translating the Perception of Text 20-1）.

Xie： “Autobiographical input” is a term that you have used to generalize the translators reading process. It involves the translators input of vocal and visual para-languages. In order to deliver the multilingual text effectively， you mentioned that you tried to look for a new system of notation to turn reading appropriately into “the equivalence of the Roman practice of praelectio”（Scott Literary Translation and the Rediscovery of Reading 147）. How do you think about the acceptability and popularity of these linguistic transformation？

Scott： People speak of translating the rhythms， or the voice， or the music， or the movement， of a text. But these are little more than manners of speaking， metaphors， without grounding in demonstrable practice. All the evidence points to a profound lack of translational training in the hearing of rhythms， or potential vocal features， or acoustic configurations. Most people can， in the Western languages， hear rhyme or alliteration or assonance， but these are the crudest patterns of sound-repetition and are usually crudely heard. Translations merely， and without good cause， try to imitate them， or to compensate for them in some way. Equally automatic is the treatment of metres in poetry： one translates the French alexandrine into English iambic pentameter because they share a status as ‘national metres; the translator does not stop to ask about textual or rhythmic appropriateness. My suggestions， to counter? this lack of auditory finesse， are twofold; if， as translators， we are going to renew， refine and develop our hearing of text， we should （a） look to the advances made in contemporary music， in terms of the revolution both in sensitivity to new sound combinations and in the notation of new musics （musikalische Graphik）， drawing on mixed media; （b） better possess the autobiographies of our own voices， to discover? how our voices want to express themselves， how they wish to pause， or accelerate， or change tone， or pitch， or loudness. This is experimentation with the self， with ones own cognitive capacities， ones own expressive inclinations， a voyage of self-discovery through language.

Xie： In ancient times， Chinese people used to chant and read aloud poems without worrying about the textual meanings. There is a saying which goes like “If you have read about 300 poems written during Tang Dynasty， you will be very likely to have? become a good poet， or at least a good chanter. ” This may suggest that ancient Chinese poem readers already had readerly consciousness. How do you think about the cross-lingual feasibility of your translation practice？

Scott： I dont think I can provide a useful answer to your question， intriguing though it is. Of course， I would hope that there is some cross-lingual feasibility， at least in terms of certain underlying principles， such as taking works into new explorations of themselves， trying to assess their expressive resources and future possibilities. In these circumstances， the musical notion of ‘transcription may be more useful than that of translation.

Xie： “Creative” and “bold” are the two words some reviewers used to describe your? translation theory and practice. What do you think of these remarks？

Scott： It was， and perhaps still is， customary to distinguish between strict translations and free translations， where free translation is supposed to be creative and often undertaken by practising poets. But ‘creative does not mean ‘taking freedoms. It means translating the language of a given text such that it both bears the marks of a particular reader （memories， associations， hypertextual constructions， the reading environment; i.e. the autobiography of reading）， and introduces the text to other dimensions， other possibilities， of its own expressivity. These acts require no special creative skills; they require the exercise of a structural and formal imagination， the abilities to edit and expand the source text on the basis of a thorough knowledge of the medium （verse-forms， metres/rhythm， rhyming practices） and of performance values （the arts of the voice， of layout， of punctuation）; I call this process the ‘re-metabolisation of the source text. In fact， one might simply equate imaginative capacity with depth of literary knowledge. It is in this sense that translation remains a scholarly practice， and it is through translation that the scholarly is able to exercise itself not only in rigorous investigation but also in creative making. It is creative translation that makes intra-lingual translation as worthwhile as inter-lingual translation; the experience of the reading of any text can be dramatized， expanded， textualized， such that translation becomes an active agent in the exploration of linguistic and expressive possibility. If such methods look bold， it is because they are able to incorporate all manner of materials and to present themselves in a variety of formats： exhibitions， videos， websites， as well as the printed page. Each translator finds his/her own preferred resources and modes of expression. But I would emphasize that， despite the multiplicity of translations of a particular text， despite all the different media and means brought to bear on it， the textual core of the source text， its linguistic constituents， must be preserved and properly respected， otherwise the translations value as translations will be lost.

Xie： Mairi McLaughlin， also one of the reviewers of your book， mentions that your translation theory is looked as “a prospective theory of translation”（McLaughlin 654） by French translation theorists. How do you think about it？

Scott： A text does not owe its existence to a single place and time. To establish a text too naturally presupposes that it has this single existence. But if one of the purposes of translation is constantly to readjust a source text to time and space， to reveal the multiplicity it has latent within it， as part of its programme of survival （too negative a word， more properly： its ongoing activity）， then the source text must enter， for its own constant renewal， a state of continuous variation. Translation has the task of giving a future to the source text， of projecting it forward， by the discovery of its untapped potentialities， by the realization of its virtual and invisible expressive resources. This is what I understand by ‘a(chǎn) prospective theory of translation.

Xie： Your concern about translation is on the literariness of the translational act itself instead of the linear textual meaning. However， when the multilingual resources justifying the intricacies of the reading consciousness are absorbed into text by performance， they will become one part of the signs contributing to the whole meaning of the inhabited text. If translations final purpose is for communication， the reading of the translators reading is still a process of hermeneutic decoding. Do you agree？

Scott： True， it is very difficult to escape completely from the lure of hermeneutics， but what worries me about hermeneutics is its natural tendency to externalize expressive values and to fix them， to make them the constituents of an argument. In your phrase ‘the whole meaning of the inhabited text， I would object to nothing other than the word ‘meaning： I would prefer something more like： ‘the whole sense-field of the inhabited text， if that makes sense. Readers of translations are invited to feel their way into the consciousness of the translator， to intuit the senses—both sensory and semantic—which are in play in the translation， and the relation of those senses to the source text. Reading， in my terminology， both in terms of the translator-as-reader and of the readers of the translation， means not ‘interpretation， or ‘comprehension， but， precisely， the process of inhabiting， of participating in， a certain relational dynamic-of reader and writer， of words among themselves， of ST and TT—a dynamic which does not cease to act， which does not need to be nailed down by interpretation， which is constantly self-modifying and self-renewing. Any translation is， for me， designed to beget translations in other readers， such that translation becomes the many-voiced conversation of a reading community.

Xie： In Translating the Perception of Text-Literary Translation and? Phenomenology， you distinguished two terms between “translationwork” and? “translation”（Scott 3）. Is your newly-published book this year titled as The Work of Translation related to the two terms？ Please briefly introduce this book to us.

Scott： Yes， The Work of Literary Translation develops the distinction made between translation and translationwork in Translating the Perception of Text. Among other things， it wants to suggest that， while ‘translation becomes too easily focused on single， particular texts， translationwork is concerned with the broader implications and consequences of its own activity. Translationwork does not translate a text， but， precisely， works on translation （willy-nilly of a text）; translationwork does not present itself to be read， but rather works on its readers. Translation， understood as translationwork， is a work of language and on language in the world， and， for that reason， The Work of Literary Translation explores this work in its macro and micro dimensions. The book is divided into three parts. The first part concerns itself with the work of thinking about translation in relation to concepts and readings， a thinking that ever starts afresh and comes to no hard conclusions， a philosophical meditation rather than the development of a theory. Part Two examines the practice of translation among different disciplines： ecology， anthropology/ethnography， comparative literature and aesthetics， expanding the field of translations pertinence and activity， and assessing the value of its own particular insights into disciplinary attitudes and approaches. Part Three picks up issues raised by the chapter on aesthetics and investigates the expressive resources of the page （margins， punctuation， layout）， as they might be exploited by translation， and the need to develop more sensitive kinds of scansion， alert to the minutiae of paralinguistic input. Such ‘scansional versions might act not only as records of the reading experience but also as forms of translation in their own right.

Xie： Fast development of computer science and technology has strengthened the connection between literary translation and digital world. What is your prospect of? human translation in future， especially at the age of AI ？

Scott： If translation were simply about the accurate rendering of a text into another language， a pure test of hermeneutic skills， then advances in AI technology would be of the greatest interest. If translation were considered to be about the manipulation of virtual realities， virtual dynamics， the exploration of the hypertextual， and so on， then digital developments would be of crucial concern. But for me neither of these cases apply. Translation is an account of an experience of text， the experience of reading， that is to say that it is indelibly marked by the history/life of the reader/translator. This is not a direction for AI. Translation is bringing a text into the physical world， as the psycho-physiological response of the translator. Translation is thus both about corporeality and about spatial/temporal situatedness. Translation is， in these senses， wedded to materiality， for which screen science is no substitute.

Xie： Thank you so much.

Notes

①“The piece of work” here refers to Scotts paper titled as From Critical to Creative Translation， which is about to be published.

Works Cited

Infante， Ignacio. “Literary Translation and the Rediscovery of Reading （Review）.” Modern Philology 2 （2014）： 152-155.

McLaughlin， Mair. “Translating the Perception of Text—Literary Translation and Phenomenology （Review）.” Comparative Literature Studies 3 （2015）： 653-656.

Robinson， Douglas. Performative Linguistics. London： Routledge， 2003.

---. The Translators Turn. Baltimore and London： The Johns Hopkins UP， 1991.

Scott， Clive. Translating Baudelaire. Exeter： University of Exeter Press， 2000.

---. Translating the Perception of Text—Literary Translation and Phenomenology. Cambridge： Cambridge UP， 2012.

---. Literary Translation and the Rediscovery of Reading. Cambridge： Cambridge UP， 2012.

---. The Work of Literary Translation. Cambridge： Cambridge UP， 2018.

責任編輯：王文惠