Intersemiotic translation

This paper discusses a perceived discrepancy between a widespread acceptance of Roman Jakobson’s 1957 ideas and proposals for intersemiotic translation as part of his triadic division of three types of translation, on the one hand, and what he actually wrote, on the other, including his stated aims, approach and contributions. In this paper, I argue that Jakobson aims to make a contribution within (lexical) semantics, rather than lay the foundations for translation studies or have an impact on translation practices, like James Holmes 1988 or Peter Newmark 1980, respectively. Once the discrepancy has been established, the point is to use terms like intersemiotic translation, as coherently as possible along with other related terms, such as same-language subtitling, transmedia, multimodality, audiovisual translation, and adaptation, and leaning on empirical studies of translational phenomena. An important dilemma resides in the ambiguity of the term “translation”, for example, if it is used, like Jakobson, to refer to the mutual translatability of words and signs, or if it used to refer to sociocultural, professional and textual practices, as understood by authors like Lefevere 1992. Another necessary distinction is one of words as abstract semantic entities or the condition that they must be “performed” in context, with all the necessary paralinguistic factors.