Kaleidoscopic repetitions? re- or de-constructing discourse in translation
Résumé
If we first consider that literary translation itself is a kind of approximate repetition of another literary text, it raises the question of copies and sameness, the question of uniqueness, the question of original and secondary text, and many more. If we turn to philosophers we see Plato in the background and his vision of the “world as icon” or Nietzsche slightly closer to us, and his “eternal return” concept. But if we examine the etymology of the verb repeat from the latin repeto (re—peto = try to reach again) we have to consider repetition as a movement occurring after an interruption, a sort of new start relying on memories with the aim of retrieving an earlier state. The case of repetitions in translation is quite complex because when translators have to rewrite the same words, signs, sounds, structures or reproduce over and over again the same images, they are naturally prone to refrain from doing so. The versatility of repetition is certainly a serious hindrance to translation as no prescription can be worked out and blindly applied. Not only is this due to the variability of this figure, but also because it affects the text in many different ways: repetitions participate in the construction of meaning through lexis; they participate in the organization of discourse through syntax; they participate in the making of the image of the other.