Modeling Intersemiotic Translation Notes

10/12/13 AS/SA No.
24, Aguiar & Queiroz: "Notes toward a Peircian Model of Translation"

Modeling Intersemiotic Translation: Notes Toward a Peircean approach

[i] [ii]
Daniella Aguiar ; João Queiroz

‘There are various reasons for constructing models. For example, it may be desired to
make predictions about the outcome of experiments. Alternatively, models may be used to
clarify assumptions and expose the logic behind a situation.’

Houston & McNamara

1. INTRODUCTION

However important its theoretical relevance, and despite the frequency with which it is practiced, the
phenomenon of intersemiotic translation remains virtually unexplored in terms of conceptual model;ing. The
main methodological difficulty seems to be related to the comparison between radically different semiotic systems
(see Dusi, this issue; Eco, 2007; Plaza, 1987). Here we propose a tentative approach, based on Charles S.
Peirce’s model of sign process, to provide a preliminary conceptual framework to the phenomena, emphasizing
iconic properties and aspects. We hope this approach presents a heuristically interesting frame to describe
[iii]
translation between different systems and processes.

2. INTERSEMIOTIC TRANSLATION PREMISSES & MODEL

Our approach is based on two premisses: (i) intersemiotic translation is fundamentally a semiotic
operation process (semiosis); (ii) intersemiotic translation is a deeply iconicdependent process. There is no
novelty regarding these premisses. Many authors have stressed that a translation is fundamentally a semiotic
operation (see Hodgson, 2007; Gorlée, 2005, 1994: 10; Petrilli, 2003; Stecconi, 1999; Plaza 1987), as well as an
iconic process (see Petrilli & Ponzio, this issue; Gorlée, 2005, 1994: 10; Plaza 1987).

2.1 Semiosis or the ‘action of sign’

[iv]
According to Peirce, any description of semiosis (action of sign) involves a relation constituted by
three irreducibly connected terms:

My definition of a sign is: A Sign is a Cognizable that, on the one hand, is so determined (i.e., specialized,
bestimmt) by something other than itself, called its Object, while, on the other hand, it so determines some actual
or potential Mind, the determination whereof I term the Interpretant created by the Sign, that that Interpreting
french.chass.utoronto.ca/as-sa/ASSA-No24/Article6en.htm 1/8
10/12/13 AS/SA No. 24, Aguiar & Queiroz: "Notes toward a Peircian Model of Translation"
or potential Mind, the determination whereof I term the Interpretant created by the Sign, that that Interpreting
Mind is therein determined immediately by the Object’ (CP 8.177. Emphasized in the original).

The above triadic relation is regarded by Peirce as irreducible in the sense that it is not decomposable into
any simpler relation or set of relations. He conceived a Sign as a “First which stands in such a genuine triadic
relation to a Second, called its Object, so as to be capable of determining a Third, called its Interpretant, to
assume the same triadic relation to its Object in which it stands itself to the same Object” (CP 2.274. See also CP
2.303, 2.92, 1.541). The triadic relation between sign, object, and interpretant is irreducible: it cannot be
decomposed into any simpler relation. This is why the signobject relationship cannot be enough to understand
signmediated process.
A sign is also pragmatically defined as a medium for the communication to the interpretant of a form
embodied in the object, so as to constrain, in general, the interpreter’s behavior –

[…] a Sign may be defined as a Medium for the communication of a Form. [...]. As a medium, the Sign is
essentially in a triadic relation, to its Object which determines it, and to its Interpretant which it determines. [...].
That which is communicated from the Object through the Sign to the Interpretant is a Form; that is to say, it is
nothing like an existent, but is a power, is the fact that something would happen under certain conditions (Peirce
MS 793:13. See EP 2.544, n.22, for a slightly different version).

The object of sign transmission is a habit (a regularity, or a ‘pattern of constraints’) embodied as a
constraining factor of interpretative behavior – a logically ‘would be’ fact of response. The form is something that
is embodied in the object as a “regularity”, a “habit”, a “rule of action”, or a “disposition”. Form is defined as
having the “being of predicate” (EP 2.544) and it is also pragmatically formulated as a “conditional proposition”,
stating that certain things would happen under specific circumstances (EP 2.388; Queiroz & ElHani 2006). For
Peirce, it is nothing like a “thing” (De Tienne 2003), but something that is embodied in the object (EP 2.544, n.
22) as a habit, a “rule of action” (CP 5.397, CP 2.643), a “disposition” (CP 5.495, CP 2.170), a “real potential”
(EP 2.388) or, simply, a “permanence of some relation” (CP 1.415).

Figure 1: Graphic representation of the semiotic process.

There are important consequences from Peirce’s model. Semiosis is described as essentially triadic,
dynamic, interpreterdependent, and materially extended (embodied) processes (see Queiroz & Merrell, 2006).
Several authors have stressed that such properties constrain a radical reevaluation of traditional concepts in
Translation Studies as “equivalence” and “fidelity”. But it is not our objective here to develop this topic (see
Gorlée 1994, 2005; Damiani 2008).

2.2. The division of signs

In the context of the “most fundamental division of signs” (CP 2.275), the Peircean logical categories
correspond to icons (Firstness), indexes (Secondness), and symbols (Thirdness), which, in turn, match relations
of similarity, contiguity, and law between S and O (signobject relation) in the triad SOI. Icons are signs that
stand for their objects through similarity or resemblance, notwithstanding that they show any spatiotemporal
physical correlation with an existent object. In this case, a sign refers to an object in virtue of a certain quality that
sign and object share. An icon can refer to an object independently of the spatiotemporal presence of the latter
because it denotes the object merely by virtue of characters of its own, and which it possesses, just the same,
notwithstanding that the object is present or not, and, in fact, notwithstanding whether the object actually exists or
notwithstanding that the object is present or not, and, in fact, notwithstanding whether the object actually exists or
not. Icons play a central role in sensory tasks since they are associated with the qualities of objects. Thus, they are
present in the sensorial recognition of external stimuli of any modality, as well as in the cognitive relation of
analogy.
In contrast, indexes are signs that refer to an object due to a direct physical connection between them.
Since in this case the sign should be determined by the object, for instance, through a causal relationship, both
must exist as actual events. This is an important feature distinguishing iconic from indexical signmediated
processes. Accordingly, spatiotemporal covariation is the most characteristic property of indexical processes.
Symbols are signs that are related to their object through a determinative relation of law, rule or convention. A
symbol becomes a sign of some object merely or mainly by the fact that it is used and understood as such, due to
some of the kind of relations mentioned above.
We are especially interested in iconic processes. Some authors have emphatically stressed the role of
[v]
icons in translation phenomena (Merrell, this issue; Petrilli & Ponzio, this issue; Damiani, 2008; Gorlée, 2005).
For Stjernfelt (2007), the icon is the only type of sign that involves a direct presentation of qualities that belong to
its object. In operational terms, the icon can be defined as a sign that, when manipulated, ‘reveals’ one or many
aspects of its object. Icons are signs essentially hypothetical, and deeply dependent on the qualites they are made
of (Stjernfelt 2007; Savan 198788). In iconic sign process, the form which is communicated from the object to
the interpretant through the sign is a general similarity between the object and the sign (Queiroz & ElHani
2006). Generally speaking, an iconic sign communicates a habit embodied in an object to the interpretant, so as
to constrain the interpreter’s behavior, as a result of a certain quality that the sign and the object share.

2.3 The Translation Model

An important consequence related to our premises indicates that an IT is a triadicdependent iconic
[vi]
relation between systems of diferent natures.
We propose two competing models:

1. The sign is the semiotic source (translated work). The object of the translated sign is the
object of the semioticsource, and the interpretant (produced effect) is the translator sign (semiotic
target). (Figure 2)

Figure 2: Triadic relation in which the sign is the translated work, the object of the sign is the object of the
work, and the interpretant is the translator sign.

2. The sign is the semiotictarget. The object of the sign is the translated work, and the
interpretant is the effect produced on the interpreter (interpretant). (Figure 3)

Figure 3: Triadic relation in which the sign is the target, the object of the sign is the translated work, and
the interpretant is the interpreter.

According to the process described above, the ‘form’ communicated from the object to the interpretant,
produced by means of the sign, is different in each version. How can these differences help us? We can speculate
about how the alternatives provide some insights regarding the phenomenon examined. In another interpretation,
the models are not mutually exclusive but describe two distinct modalities of intersemiotic translation. According
to the first modality, the object is the object of the source, the object of the translated work. The interpretant
(semiotic target) is determined by the object (the object of the semiotic source) by the mediation of the sign
(semioticsource). The semiotic target (interpretant) is the semiotic effect produced by the object (the semiotic
source’s object) of the sign (the semiotic source) in a relation mediated by it. According to the second modality,
the object is the semiotic source itself (translated work). The interpretant (the effect on the interpreter) is
[vii]
determined by the object (semiotic source), by the mediation of the sign (semiotictarget). The second model
undoubtedly provides us with another perspective of the phenomenon, with focus on the interpreter of the
translation process.
In an effort to pose a better explanation of the model possibilities, we will exemplify them with the
SpiderMan’s comicfilm translation. According to the first possibility (Figure 4), we could replace the sign
(semiotic source)object (semiotic source object)interpretant (semiotic target) triad with the comic book comic
book object film relation. In this case, the sign is the SpiderMan comic book; the object is the SpiderMan
comic book object that, in a simplified explanation, should be the overcoming of a “spiderman hybrid hero”; and
the interpretant, the effect, is a SpiderMan film. According to the second model (Figure 5), the sign (semiotic
target) – object (semiotic source) interpretant (effect on the interpreter) triad could be replaced with the film
comic book effect on the audience. Hence, the sign is a SpiderMan film; the object is the SpiderMan comic
book, and the interpretant is the film effect on the audience.

Figure 4: Triadic relation in which the sign is the semiotic source, the object of the sign is the object of the
work, and the interpretant is the semiotic target.

Figure 5: Triadic relation in which the sign is the semiotic target, the object of the sign is the semiotic
source, and the interpretant is the effect produced on the interpreter.

Let’s assume that IT is fundamentally an iconicbased process. As we saw, an iconic sign communicates
a habit embodied in an object to the interpretant as a result of a certain quality that the sign and the object share.
According to the first modality, the quality is communicated to the semiotic target as a habit embodied in the
object of the semiotic source. This is very different from the case that a form communicated from the object to the
interpreter is mediated by the semiotic target. In this case, semiotic target and semiotic source share some quality.
In other words, what is communicated by the semiotic target to the interpreter is a quality shared between the
semiotic target and the semiotic source, which is the translated work, not the object of the translated work. If we
are dealing with icons, it should be clear that, in both cases, the interpretant is the effect of an analogy or a
similarity produced by the qualities shared between sign and object. In the second case, the process seems to be
more dependent on the intrinsic qualities of sign translation; in the first, it is dependent on the qualities of the
objects of the translated sign. In the second case, the process seems more dependent on the intrinsic qualities that
make the signs of translation; in the first, it is dependent on the qualities that make the objects of the sign
translated.

3. CONCLUSION

There are small amounts of theoretical modeling systematically produced as regards IT. Indeed, the
phenomenon is difficult to characterize and compare with analogous phenomena (e.g. interlingual translation). As
it involves systems of rather distinct nature, its analysis creates additional difficulties in any theoretical approach
compromised with semiotic processes. One of the consequences of our approach is the importance ascribed to the
materiality and dynamic involved in IT, prioritizing the semiotic properties of relations between the source and
the target signs. The partial results exhibited constitute a preliminary attempt towards modeling IT.

4. REFERENCES
Aguiar, Daniella, and Queiroz, João (2009). Towards an intersemiotic translation model. International Journal of
the Arts in Society. Volum 4. Número 4. 203210.
Bense, Max. (1971). Pequena Estética. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Campos, Haroldo (1972): A arte no horizonte do provável. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Campos, Augusto (1986): e.e. cummings, 40 poemas. São Paulo: Editora Brasiliense.
Damiani, Matteo (2008): La contribuición de la Semiótica a la traducción interlingüística. Tonos. Revista
Electrónica de Estudios Filológicos. Número 15. Junho 2008.
De Tienne, Andre (2003): "Learning qua semiosis." S.E.E.D. 3: 3753.
Dusi, Nicola, and Siri Nergaard (eds) (2000): Sulla traduzione intersemiotica. Versus 85/87.
Dusi, Nicola. (this issue): Translating, Adapting, Transposing. Applied Semiotics. Special Issue (On translation
and Intersemiotic translation).
Eco, Umberto (2007): Quase a Mesma Coisa. Rio de Janeiro: Record.
Farias, Priscila and João Queiroz (2006): "Images, diagrams, and metaphors: hypoicons in the context of Peirce’s
sixtysix fold classification of signs." Semiotica 162 (1/4) 287308.
Gorlée, Dinda L (1994): Semiotics and the Problem of Translation, With Special Reference to the Semiotics of
Charles S. Peirce. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.
———. (2005): "Singing on the breath of God." In: Song and Significance: Virtues and Vices of Vocal
Translation, ed. Dinda L. Gorlée. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.
Hodgson, Robert (2007): "Semiotics and Bible translation." Semiotica 163 (1/4) 3753.
Hodgson, Robert (2007): "Semiotics and Bible translation." Semiotica 163 (1/4) 3753.
Jakobson, Roman. (2000 [1959]): "On linguistic aspects of translation." In: The Translation Studies Reader, ed.
Lawrence Venuti. London/New York: Routledge.
Jakobson, Roman, and Kristina Pomorska (1985): Diálogos. São Paulo: Cultrix.
Merrell, Floyd (this issue): Translation as Contradictory Complementary Convergence: Language, Science, and
Culture. Applied Semiotics. Special Issue (On translation and Intersemiotic translation).
Peirce, Charles S. The Essential Peirce, Selected Philosophical Writings. (Vol. 1 ed. by N. Houser & C. Kloesel;
Vol 2 ed. by the Peirce Edition Project). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, EP1 1992,
EP2 1998. (Quoted as EP).
Peirce, Charles S. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Electronic edition reproducing Vols. I–VI
[C. Hartshorne & P. Weiss (eds.), Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1931–1935]; Vols. VII—VIII [A. W.
Burks (ed.), same publisher, 1958]. Charlottesville: Intelex Corporation, 1931–1935. (Quoted as CP).
Peirce, Charles S. Annotated Catalogue the Papers of Charles S. Peirce. (ed.) R.S. Robin. Massachusetts: The
University of Massachusetts Press, 1967. (Quoted as MS).
Petrilli, Susan (2003): "Translation and Semisis." In Translation Translation, ed. Susan Petrilli. Amsterdam/New
York: Rodopi.
Petrilli, Susan & Ponzio, Augusto (this issue): Iconic Features of Translation. Applied Semiotics. Special Issue
(On translation and Intersemiotic translation).
Plaza, Julio (1987): Tradução Intersemiótica. São Paulo: Perspectiva.
Queiroz, João, and Charbel ElHani (2004): "Towards a multilevel approach to the emergence of semiosis."
Technical Report DCAFEEC 04 (07) 121.
———.(2006): "Semiosis as an emergent process." Transaction of C.S.Peirce Society 42 (1) 78116.
Queiroz, João, and Floyd Merrell (2006): "Semiosis and pragmatism: toward a dynamic concept of meaning."
Sign System Studies 34 (1) 3766.
Queiroz, João, and Floyd Merrell (2009): "On Peirce´s pragmatic notion of semiosis – a contribution for the
design of meaning machines." Minds & Machines 19, 129143.
Savan, David. (198788): An Introduction to C.S. Peirce’s Full System of Semeiotic. Monograph Series of
Toronto Semiotic Circle, Toronto.
Stecconi, Ubaldo (1999): "Peirce’s semiotics for translation." In Fidelity and Translation: Communicating the
Bible in New Media, ed. Paul A. Soukup and Robert Hodgson. New York/Franklin: American Bible
Society/Sheed and Ward.
Stjernfelt, Frederik (2007): Diagrammatology, An Investigation on the Borderlines of Phenomenology, Ontology
and Semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer.

[i]
Comparative Literature Doctorate – State University of Rio de Janeiro , UERJ. daniella.aguiar@gmail.com.
[ii]
Research Group on Cognitive Science and Semiotics – Federal University of Juiz de Fora. UFJF. queirozj@semiotics.pro.br,
www.semiotics.pro.br.
[iii]
Importantly, we are not concerned here with the typological problem of defining intersemiotic translation (IT) as a specific class
of translation. For a detailed approach of this problem, see Dusi (this issue); Eco (2007).
[iv]
We shall follow the practice of citing from the Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Peirce, 193135, 1958) by volume
number and paragraph number, preceded by ‘CP’; the Essential Peirce by volume number and page number, preceded by ‘EP’.
References to the micro¬film edition of Peirce's papers (Harvard University) will be indicated by ‘MS’, followed by the manuscript
number.
[v]
When we deal with artwork translation this propertie must be even more relevant (Bense 1971; Plaza 1987; Campos 1972).
[vi]
It is a problem in its own to define the “nature of the system”.
[vii]
In this case the object is the materiality of the source, its qualities, and on its language strategies and procedures.

Email the editors
Pour écrire à la rédaction
© 2010, Applied Semiotics / Sémiotique appliquée

Modeling Intersemiotic Translation Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modeling Intersemiotic Translation Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/12/13 AS/SA No.

24, Aguiar & Queiroz: "Notes toward a Peircian Model of Translation"

You might also like