Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page123

♦byfocusingongenderasasociopoliticalcategoryinmacroanalysesof

translationphenomena,suchastheproduction,criticism,exchange,andsuccess

ofworks,authorsandtranslators;

♦byexamininggenderissuesasthesiteofpoliticalorliterary/aesthetic

engagementthroughmicroanalysesoftranslatedtexts;and

♦byshapingthetheoriesappliedtoorderivedfromtranslationpraxis.

Genderandsexualityassociopoliticalissuesinmacroanalysesof

translation

Genderasacategoryinformingmacroanalysesoftranslatedtextsislargely

revisionist,exposingthefactthatwomenandothergenderminoritieshave

essentiallybeenexcludedfromorpresentednegativelyinthelinguisticand

literaryhistoriesoftheworld’scultures.Researchershavereevaluated

historicaltexts,theirtranslations,authors,translatorsandsociopoliticalcontexts

fromtheperspectiveofgender.Oftenlargeareasofwritingandtranslatingsuch

aswomenwritersandtranslatorsinRenaissanceEngland(Hannay1985;

Krontiris1992),thetranslationofsexualityineighteenthcenturyRussia

(Tyulenev2008),orEnglishwomentranslatorsofsciencetextsinthe1700s

(Healy2002)areexploredinordertoexaminetheeffectsofgenderpolitics

acrossawideswathofsociety.Suchresearchhasraisedmanyfurther

questions,andnotallstudieshavefocusedonlyonthefemalegender.

Oneveryimportantareaofresearchhasbeentherevisionoftranslationsofkey

culturaltextssuchastheBIBLEortheQUR’ĀNfromagenderaware

perspective,revealingnewreadings,andREWRITINGthemfora

contemporaryaudience.FeministcritiquesandRETRANSLATIONSofparts

oftheBiblehaveappearedinseveralEuropeanlanguagesfromthelate1970s

(Haugerud1977;InclusiveLanguageLectionary1983;Korsak1992),

focusingontheneedforinclusivelanguagethatdirectlyaddresseswomeninthe

congregationandrecognizestheminthetextsthemselves.TheQur’ānhas

attractedsomewhatlessattention,butafewstudiesarebeginningtoappear

(seeTheFeministSexualEthicsProjectandEdipYuksel’scollectionof

‘UnorthodoxArticles’,n.d.).RevisioniststudiesoftheBiblehaveshownthat

translationshavetraditionallyhardenedChristianattitudesagainstwomen,

interpretingtheseancienttexts‘creatively’inordertodefinewomenastheroot

ofevil(Korsak1994/1995,2005)orasuntrustworthyandincapable(Stanton

1898/1985),andcastingthehumanmaleintheimageofamaleGod.Centuries

ofinterpretationandtranslationhavefosteredtheculturalandpolitical

denigrationofwomeninChristiancountriesandcultures.Whilegender

consciousretranslationsoftheBibleinthelatetwentiethcenturyinitiatedsome

turbulentdiscussionsandchangesincertainchurchesandcongregations,they

alsocausedabacklashfromtheVaticaninthe2001documententitled

LiturgiamAuthenticam(Vatican2001).ThisdocumentassertsVatican

controlofBibletranslationsandinsiststhatagenericmaletermdoesrefertoall

humans(e.g.man/homme/Mannincludeswoman/femme/Frau).Further,it

reinstatesthetraditionalmasculinevocabularyforGod,JesusChrist,andthe

HolySpirit,realigningthesefiguresoncemorewiththehumanmale.

Historicalrevisionfromagenderconsciousperspectivehasalsobeen

undertakeninrelationtoothertextual,largelyLITERARY,phenomena.

Previouslyundocumentedworkofwomentranslatorsincolonialandmodern

dayKorea(Hyun2003),eighteenthandnineteenthcenturyGermany

(MessnerandWolf2001)andeighteenthandnineteenthcenturyFrance

(Sirois1997)hasbeenunearthedanddiscussed.Theoutputofnumerous

neglectedorforgottenwomenwritersfromthepastorfrommanyothercultures

hasalsobeenidentified,andtheirworkscollected,translatedorretranslated.

ExamplesincludewomenwritersinIndia(TharuandLalita1991/1993),

abolitionistwomenwritersineighteenthandnineteenthcenturyFrance(Kadish

andMassardierKenney1994),womentranslators(Delisle2002)andwomen

writersofpostColdWarEastCentralEurope(vonFlotowandSchwartz

2006).Theimpetusforsuchresearchderivesfromfeministliterary

historiography,whichhassoughttocountertheeffectsoftheliterarycanonthat

haspromotedandrecognizedmalewritersandtranslatorsattheexpenseof

femalewritersandtranslators,thusdeprivingculturesandsocietiesofthework