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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page173

whichtravellershavetoeitherrelyonlanguagemediatorsortakeupthatrole

forthemselves.Specialistsofsubjectsrangingfromethnographytopostcolonial

theoryhaveapproachedtheseconceptsandwidenedtheirscopeinorderto

underlinetheincreasinglypervasiveroleplayedbyvariousformsoftravel,

includingthemovementacrosslanguagesandcultures,withincontemporary

societies.Thelinksdrawnbetweenspatialandlinguisticmobilityarebothofa

theoreticalnature–drawingmetaphoricalconnectionsbetweentwosetsof

concepts–andanappliedone–relatingtothehistoricallydeterminedrealities

oftwosetsofpracticesandtothewayinwhichtheyhavebeenconnectedover

thecenturies(Bassnett1993;Bauman1987;Forsdick2005:158;Hulmeand

Youngs2002:9).

Asubstantialimpulsetotheadoptionoftranslationasawiderangingtheoretical

modelandtoitsfrequentconjunctionwithnotionsofmobilityhascome,in

particular,fromtheshifttowardsacultural,ratherthanstrictlylinguistic,

understandingoftranslationprocesses,whichinturnproducedwhatBassnett

calledthe‘translationturn’inculturalstudies(Bassnett1998b).Treating

translationasabroadlyinterculturalphenomenoninvitedthereadingof

interculturalcommunicationasatranslationprocess.Thistrendhasmade

‘translation’anincreasinglypopularterminanumberoftheoreticalfields.

Duringthesameperiod,notionsofplaceandmobilitywerealsobecomingmore

popularwithinliterarytheoryandhistoricalcriticism,thelatterbeingincreasingly

sensitivetothequestionofnarrativity.MicheldeCerteau’softenquoted

statementthat‘everystoryisatravelstory,aspatialpractice’(1984:115)is

indicativeofthistendency,invitingattentiontothetextualdimensionofmobility

aswellastothespatialqualitiesoftext.

Atthesametime,theconnectionbetweengeographicandculturalmovement

wasalsobeingbroughttotheforebyanumberofhistoricalphenomenawhich

havecometobeseenascharacteristicofthelatetwentiethcentury.These

includepostcolonialityandattendantformsofneocolonialism;

GLOBALIZATION,accompaniedbyrenewedlocalism;andtheimpulsegiven

bythesetrendstobothphysicalmobilityandthecreationofwiderandfaster

communicationnetworks.Suchphenomenahaveinstigatedaradicalrethinking

ofnotionsofidentityandbelonging,stressingtheroleplayedbyasymmetrical

relationshipsofpowerwithrespecttoindividualchoicesaswellasgroup

affiliations(Papastergiadis2000).Increasingattentionhasbeendevotedtoa

varietyofformsofmobility,inflectingthenotionof‘travel’toincludegendered

andclassrelatedperspectivesaswellasnotionsofeconomicmigration,exile,

diasporaormasstourism(seeGENDERANDSEXUALITY;ASYLUM),

andtakingintoaccounttransnationalformsofidentificationsuchasnomadism

andcosmopolitanism.Manyoftheseperspectives,inturn,areconnectedto

questionsoflanguage,translationandTRANSLATABILITY.

Textualandhistoricalstudies

Agrowingnumberofstudieslinkingtravelandtranslationareconcernedwith

thewayinwhichbothpracticeshavebeenusedinordertoconstructimagesof

theforeign,especially,thoughnotexclusively,withinWesterncultures.Here,the

twoterms,‘translation’and‘travel’,areusuallyunderstoodinarestrictive

ratherthanopenendedsense,andtheyaretakenasindicativeofwell

establishedpracticescharacterizedbyfixedpointsofdepartureandclearly

defineddestinations,byspecificsourceandtargettextsaswellascultures,and

byneatly(ifattimeshastily)definedboundariesbetweentheseandother,

relatedpolarities.Withintheserathernarrowlydefinedconfines,travellersand

translatorshave,foralongtime,playedtheroleofintermediariesbetween

cultures.Theyhavealsosharedanambiguousstatusas,atoneandthesame

time,privilegedwitnessesofdiversityandpotentialliars,orevendoubleagents

intentoninfiltratingthehomecommunity.Asaresult,questionsoffaithfulness

andobjectivity,transparencyandvisibilityhavebeencommontothedebates

whichhavecharacterizedthefieldsoftranslationandtravelwritingforcenturies

(Bassnett1993,2002b;Fabbri2000).

Theacknowledgementofthesehistoricalsimilaritieshasopeneduparichfield

ofresearchconcernedwithestablishingtherelativeprestige,superimpositionor

contrapositionoftranslationsandtravelaccountsasparallelyetnotfully

interchangeablegenresrelatingtotheferryingandelaborationofcultural

difference(StAndré

Page174

2006).Arelatedandequallypromisingareaofstudyconcernsthewayinwhich

translationandtravel(aswellasthewrittenandfigurativeaccountsthey

produce)contributetotheestablishmentofnationalorregionalstereotypes,to

theirenduranceoverlongperiodsoftime,and–atleastincaseswherethe

culturesbeingrepresentedandappropriatedarelessprestigiousthanthose

activelydoingthetranslating–totheeventualreabsorptionofdominant,fixed

imageswithinthesourcecultureitself;thislatterphenomenoncantaketheform

ofautostereotypes,imageswhicharegivenwidespreadcredibilityinpopularas

wellasofficialselfrepresentationsofagroup,forinstanceaspartofthe

discourseproducedbytheheritageindustryinordertosupportmodernforms

ofmasstourism(Cronin1995;Pfister1996;Polezzi2000).Suchstudiesinthe

parallelhistoryoftranslationandtravelwritingcanhighlightmechanismsthrough

whichtranslatorsandtravellersplayacrucialroleinconstructingimagesof

foreignculturesunderthesignofdifference,attimesrelegatingthosecultures

intotherealmoftheexotic,orevenrepresentingthemasdevoidof‘civilization’

andthereforepushingthemoutsidetheboundariesofthehuman(Cheyfitz

1991).Alternatively,however,thefocusofbothtravelwritingandtranslation

canbeonthepositiveaspectsofaforeignculture,andbothtravellersand

translatorscanusetheirexperienceoftheforeigninordertointroduceand

supportinnovativepractices,ortoestablishanongoingdialoguebetweentwo

culturalpoles.Anillustrationofthistrendand,specifically,oftheroleplayedby

translationandtravelinmediatingandhighlightingissuesofgenderacross

Europeancultures,canbefoundinAgorni(2002),astudywhichexaminesthe

wayinwhicheighteenthcenturyBritishwomenwritersusedtranslationsand

travelogues(aswellasfictionalgenressuchasthegothicnovel)inorderto

produceimagesofItalywhichcouldsustaintheirown‘protofeminist’attitudes

andagenda.Onthegenderingoftravelandtranslation,seealsoBassnett(1993,

2002b)andMonticelli(2005).

Thistypeofworkisalsotypicalofatendencyforstudiesintheinterconnected

historyoftravel,travelwritingandtranslationtocombine,atamethodological

level,theanalysisofmicroandmacrotextualfeatures.Attentiontobothkinds

ofphenomenaisevident,forinstance,intheessayscollectedinDiBiase

(2006),avolumewhichtracesdetailedportraitsoftranslators/travellerswho

movedacrossEurope(and,insomecases,beyonditsboundaries)duringthe

earlymodernperiod.Thesetravellingtranslators–rangingfromMartinLuther

toJohnMilton,fromErasmustoLeoAfricanusandGarcilasoelInca–hadan

undeniableimpactonthedevelopmentoftranslationtheoryandpractice,andon

theevolutionofWesterncultureasawhole.Theiritinerariesarebothtextual

andgeographical(andinextricablyso),whiletheirworktracesawebof

interconnectionswhichisfundamentalforunderstandingnotjustliterarybutalso

politicalandreligioushistory.Combinedattentiontomacroandmicrotextual

phenomenaisalsocentraltoresearchwhichtracesthemigrationsnotof

travellersbutratheroftravelbooksacrosslanguages(Polezzi2001;Smecca

2003).Giventheroleplayedbytravellers’talesinthecreationofimagesofself

andOther,anexaminationoftheforeigntravelaccountstranslatedbyaculture

atanyparticularpointintime,oftheSTRATEGIESadoptedbythetranslators,

andofthemarketingchoicesselectedbypublisherstopromotethesetextsis

potentiallyrevealingofwiderculturaltrends.Researchofthiskindalsoshows

howrepresentationalphenomenadonotsimplyworkaccordingtoabinary

systemofoppositions(self/Other;observer/observed;subject/object;

source/target),butratherformpartofacomplexweboftravellingimagesand

multiplerefractionswhichofteninvolveseverallayersofwriting,REWRITING

andtranslation.Ultimately,suchreadingsoftranslationcallintoquestion

establishedviewsofnationalculturesasselfcontainedsystems,stressing,

instead,theconstantmutabilityanddynamicinterpenetrationofcultural

phenomena.

Migrantwriting,postcolonialtheoryandthequestionofworldliterature

Thepracticesandnotionsoftravelandtranslation,togetherwiththeirmultiple

superimpositions,arealsoaconstitutiveelementofagrowingrangeof

contemporarycreativeliterature.Inspiteofthefactthattravelwritershave

oftentendedtooverlookorglossoverthe