The Copy Effect in Translation: On Formal Similarity and the Book Historic Perspective

This study takes up the perspective of material book history to revisit theparadox of identity and difference that has always been central to translation. Iwill argue here that a cognitive effect of identity in translation—which I amcalling the “copy effect”—remains to be grappled with theoretically in its ownright, and that contemporary theory has generally used the idea of “identity” intranslation as a mute antithesis from which to repel with discourse privilegingvariance and difference. My goal here is to talk about the identity inherent in anytranslation, and the powerful effect of formal identity that a good number oftranslations display. First, I will address the paradox itself. Then I will drawattention to the material side of the verbal and linguistic and make a sharpdistinction between two types of “form” that textual discourse can take: (1) a“stylistic form” that is qualitative and that translators feel free to vary; and (2)a “Pythagorean form” that is primarily quantitative and derived from textualmateriality, and that translators tend to map over with a stricter attention toinvariance. Translation scholars, we will see, have been reluctant to distinguishbetween these two types of form, which has resulted in denials and elisionsconflicting with the material evidence of translation. Then I will pursue thismaterial perspective on translation and seek out discourse situating a “copy effect”historically and culturally. This will lead to a discussion of Rita Copeland’sconnection between translation and the classical and medieval copiaverborum . Finally, I will enter into a new line of reflection opened byAnthony Pym, and propose that through the copia verborum and its historicand contemporary use in construing literalist translations, a compelling analogy canbe drawn between medieval translation practices and modern-day digital ones usingtranslation memories.