Translation and power at the European union
Abstract The present article discusses the topic of ‘power and translation’ at European Union institutions. The article starts by warning against over‐generalising any one particular translation situation, and advocates the need for taking into account some of the major differences between countries, between various epochs in history, as well as the translators’ foreign‐language abilities. The article then addresses very specific ‘language and power’ issues. At the European Union, language domination is tied to political power, with English and French being the ‘core languages’ for daily work; however, this domination is eroded when documents are discussed in expert and political fora. Nevertheless, the differences in foreign language acquisition — in the various EU member states — mean that some states have more influence, and more ‘power’, than they would normally be entitled to, according to the number of their inhabitants.
Translators through history
1. Table of illustrations 2. Foreword to the second edition 3. Preface 4. Introduction 5. 1. Translators and the invention of alphabets 6. 2. Translators and the development of national languages 7. 3. Translators and the emergence of national literatures 8. 4. Translators and the dissemination of knowledge 9. 5. Translators and the reins of power 10. 6. Translators and the spread of religions 11. 7. Translators and the transmission of cultural values 12. 8. Translators and the production of dictionaries 13. 9. Interpreters and the making of history 14. Appendix I. Description of illustrations 15. Appendix II. Contributors, translators and proofreaders 16. Works cited 17. Index of names 18. About the authors
Degeneracy: A reading of Peirce's writing
One of the sign divisions devised by Peirce is between 'genuine' signs and 'degenerate' signs. This opposition is used by Peirce in at least two senses. On the one hand, both indexical and iconic signs are considered degenerate with respect to symbolic, fully triadic signs, so that the only sign to be 'genuine' or 'pure' in all respects is the Third, all of whose three terms are equally Thirds. On the other hand, both Thirds and Seconds can have degenerate forms. In a degenerate Second the Secondness partakes of Firstness. A Third can be degenerate in two degrees. The first degree of degeneracy is found in a Third involving Secondness; while the second degree of degeneracy is found in a Third partaking of Firstness. The two uses of the concept of degeneracy cannot be neatly separated, but are in several ways interconnected. Not only do they coexist in Peirce's writings; they also overlap theoretically, at least to some degree. To this already confusing situation it must be added that Peirce did not develop the concept of degeneracy in any systematic way. He invented it, as it were, in 1885, then discussed it episodically, and subsequently abandoned it in his later years. What Peirce came to reject was, however, the term 'degeneracy' (with its somewhat pejorative flavor), not the notion itself. As Peirce evolved his general theory of signs and, by 1902, had adopted a new, broad concept of logic as coextensive with semeiotic, the term 'degeneracy' became superfluous, because degenerate signs were incorporated into Peirce's sign theory as varieties of signs. For the purposes of this article, the discussion of degeneracy must necessarily remain limited to one aspect — namely, its emergence in Peirce's thought. An elaborate theoretical discussion of the degenerate sign may be found in Buczynska-Garewicz (1979,1983), on whose insights I have respectfully drawn here. Rather than giving a general account of degeneracy, the present article will thus proceed chronologically. Its primary aim is to venture a commentary on, or interpretation (in the