Studia Islandica - 01.06.1994, Side 22
20
that discussion of translation was confined almost exclu-
sively to biblical or literary works.
Near the end of this period the focus of discussion was
enlarged somewhat to include investigations of the contra-
dictions between the inherent impossibility of translation
and its obvious necessity. A completely new note was
struck by American linguists Sapir and Whorf when they
maintained that fundamental differences in the perception
of reality in widely differing cultures, as reflected in their
language systems, precluded the possibility of translation.
The background linguistic system (in other words, the grammar) of
a language is not merely the reproducing instrument for voicing
ideas but is rather itself the shaper of ideas, the program and guide
for the individual’s mental activity, for his analysis of impressions,
for his synthesis of his mental stock in trade. (Whorf 1967:212)
Approaching the question from a literary perspective,
writers like Ortega y Gasset and Valéry also questioned the
possibility of adequate translation, particularly of poetry,
only to admit to the fascination and inherent worth of the
attempt:
Die Weltgeschichte laGt uns die unaufhörliche und unerschöpfliche
Fahigkeit des Menschen erkennen, Projekte zu erfinden, die nicht
verwirklicht werden können. In dem Bemuhen, sie zu verwirk-
lichen, erreicht er vieles, erschafft er unzahlige Realitaten, die die
sogenannte Natur unfahig ist, aus sich selbst hervorzubringen. (in
Störig 1963:304)
The eventual outcome of this century and a half of pos-
sibly unsound but nonetheless furious discussion was sadly
little. As Pedersen has summed it up in a recent essay, “en
mængde af de problemer, der stadig optager oversættelses-
teoretikerne, er formuleret for meget længe siden, og ogsá
gentagne gange spgt besvaret, uden at der dog er opnáet
generel enighed om ret meget.” (Pedersen 1987:41)
The introduction of concepts of structural linguistics and
communication theory into the study of translation in the