Metatranslative Signs of Dumas and Hamong: Names as Texts and Metaphors Therein

Abstract

As a transdisciplinary study to test the validity and practicality of Peirce's/ Petrilli's paradigm of translation (Peirce 1933, Petrilli 2003) in dealing with the problematics of “adaptation”, this research seeks to implement a metasemiotic and metatranslative analysis of an "adaptation" (cf. beon-an) (飜案) novel that is often viewed as a byproduct of pseudo- or non-translation. Taking Sanghyup Lee's Haewangseong as an important example, it makes a translativity-centered and translatoriality-sensitive approach to the translative-process-specific (meta-/ inter-/ intra-) semiotic cues/ clues in the related TTs in order to discuss the questions on (i) the applicability of the Peircean/ Petrillian notion of translation and (ii) the inclusion/ exclusion of "adaptation" as part of translation as such. Knowing that the Peircean/ Petrillian paradigm of translation is a general metaepistemology with few concrete language- and culture-specific instructions, this research proposes to implement a collaboration with a transdisciplinarily significant notion of 'metaphor' (Lakoff and Johnson 1980). When metaphor (cf. primary metaphor) is considered as a main methodological device that functions on the basis of cognition-induced partial similarity between some source domain and target domain, each translator-specific/ agent-specific sign example can be further analyzed (that is, re-translated) in metatranslative/ metasemiotic ways by having it interpreted as a unique TT (cf. representamen) that must have resulted from the pertinent sign user's partial-iconicity-based construction of a triadic sign relation (cf. strategization via skopos-sensitive selective manipulation). Upon a (meta-/ inter-/ intra-) semiotic and translative analysis of major signs as translation units/ factors/ results via metaphors, it becomes clear that even seemingly irrelevant titles, names, props, and contexts inside and outside of the indexicality-specific textual/ semiosic umwelt(s) can be (re-/ meta-) translated as a set of translator-specific and skopos-relevant TTs (as crucial representamens), which are often realized by means of the unconsciously and/ or purposefully manipulative selection of certain specific signs for them to stand for something else with certain particular interpretants (that is, a set of metatranslative sign processes) (cf. Lim, D. 2015). In particular, concentrating on the critical and effective utilization of metaphors (cf. image schemas) observed in the transactions and transmutations (Jakobson 1959) of Hamong's and other translators' specific signs as transeme-sensitive TTs, the so-called "adaptation" turns out to be an oversimplified and overgeneralized notion/ term, which should be re-examined in such a way that indexicality-sensitive (thus, skopos-sensitive, TC-sensitive, and TRs-centered) strategization gets introduced into the Petrillian meta theory of translation (cf. Reiss 1997, Nord 1997). In paying due attention to Peirce's triadic model of the sign, Petrilli's (extended) paradigm of translation is found to be able to describe and explain the (inter-/ intra-/ meta-) textual transmutations in adequate and systematic manners, especially, in terms of the cognitive ST(s)-based comprehension/ production phases that Hamong (and other translators) must have undertaken. Speaking of metaphor as a methodological device, too, the translating agent's ST-conscious and TC-sensitive metasemiotic/ metatranslative utilization of (partial) iconicity can be the main reason for such metaphor-rich transmutations (cf. Jakobson 1959, Petrilli 2003). Also, considering the semiotic-/ textual- production-centered meta-translative strategization by which basic metaphorical structures (e.g., 'Good is Up/ Big/ Abundant', 'Bad is Low/ Small/ Remote', 'Challenge is Being Distant/ Isolated', 'Freedom is Moving', 'To Win a Challenge is To Endure and Break/ Cross an Obstacle', 'Virtue is (For-) Giving', 'Self is Center', etc.) seem to have been devised or (re-) adopted, there appear to be theoretical ramifications: (i) the purposefully fractional utilization of iconicity/ icons can be implemented in non-definitively flexible ways across languages, cultures, epochs, and spaces to evoke certain meanings/ effects among the TR(s) in the TC(s) (e.g., via names, titles, directions, and/or culture- specific archetypes); (ii) the linguistic/ lexical equivalence is a relative variable (that each translator can manipulate or even disregard) rather than the ultimate requirement; (iii) semioethics is a new keyword to consider (Petrilli 2014). From the ‘meta’ analysis of Hamong's Haewangseong, it is argued that Hamong (as well as Dumas) should be considered as a unique translator whose metatranslative strategization is highly optimized in his own indexicality- sensitive umwelt(s). And, for a fuller (meta-) translation/ interpretation of Hamong's Haewangseong, it becomes evident that the Peircean/ Petrillian view of translation and translator can help shed light on the aspects and mechanisms of cognitively based translatoriality including the TC-sensitive translatorial transparency and manipulatability. To be precise, (in-) visible and/ or (in-) active translators' interventions are found to be implicitly embedded within titles, names, plots, and texts. And, translatorial competence is transsemotically realized in diversely transmuted forms of signs, particularly, as representamens purposefully selected via (primary) metaphors and/ or image schemas. Taking everything into account, this research concludes that, even if ethics-related questions remain (Petrilli 2014), it is theoretically important and meaningful to view Hamong's Haewangseong (as well as Dumas' Le Comte de Monte Cristo) as his unique example of translation—with names as key TTs—not only for translation studies but also in sign sciences as transhumanities.