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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page209

lackanactualsourcetext.Inotherwords,itreferstoarelationshipofimitation

whichdoesnotlinkatargettexttoaspecificsourcetextbutrathertoanideal

one,possiblyabstractedfromagroupoftextsidentifyingaparticulargenre.In

thelattercase,pseudotranslatorsoftendrawonaclassoftexts(whichmight

constituteaspecificliterarygenreoranentireliterarysystem),selectingand

condensingcertainfeaturesthattheyaimtointroduceintotheirownliterary

system.SeeLOCALIZATIONforadifferentuseoftheterm

‘pseudotranslation’inthecomputingindustry.

Thefirstuseoftheterm‘pseudotranslation’datesbackto1823,inareviewof

Alexis’sWalladmorforTheLiteraryGazetteandJournaloftheBelle

Lettres,Arts,Sciences,asasynonymof‘freetranslation’.Sincethen,theterm

hasbeenappliedtoawiderangeofliteraryproducts(see,forexample,Radó

1979;Genette1982;Torrens1994;O’Sullivan2004–2005).However,itisthe

characterofpseudotranslationasareciprocalrelationshipbetweenapresent

textanditssources,inspiteoftheapparentabsenceofthelatter,thathas

gainedgroundintranslationstudies,inparticularinDescriptiveTranslation

Studies(seeDESCRIPTIVEVERSUSCOMMITTEDAPPROACHES).

Establishingatraditionaposteriori

Thestartingpointforthedisseminationoftheconceptofpseudotranslationwas

Popovič’sdefinitionofitasan‘originalwork’publishedbyitsauthor‘asa

fictitioustranslation’withtheexplicitaim‘towinawidepublic,thusmakinguse

ofthereader’sexpectation’(1976:20).Thisdefinition,whichalreadyproposed

apossiblereasonforauthorstohidetheiridentities,wasimmediately

appropriatedandintegratedintostudiesbyscholarsworkingwithinthe

frameworkofPOLYSYSTEMtheory.In1980,forexample,Touryredefined

pseudotranslationsas‘TLtextswhichareregardedinthetargetcultureas

translationsthoughnogenuineSTsexistforthem’(1980a:31).Thefollowing

year,Yahalomunderlinedtheiruseasaliterarystrategy,puttingthemonthe

samelevelasotherliterary‘forgeries’thatdonotnecessarilyinvolvemovement

acrosslinguisticsystems,suchaspseudolettersandpseudomemoirs

(1981:153).In1984,Lefevere,inturn,spokeofpseudotranslationsas

‘refractionsoftexts’evenifthosetexts‘oncloserscrutiny,turnoutnottoexist

atall’(1984:233).

Whatcharacterizespseudotranslationsisthereforethereferencetoasourceor

prototext,orrather,toagroupoftextstowhichtheallegedsourcetext

belongs.Toeffectthisreference,authorshaveseveraltoolsattheirdisposal:

theycanexplicitlypresentatextasatranslation,ortheycan‘creolize’it,by

scatteringacrossitspagessignalsof‘translationese’,suchaslexicalitemsand

syntacticconstructspeculiartothesourcelanguageandculture.Byprivileging

pseudotranslationovertranslation,thetargetcultureauthorsignalsaninterestin

certainaspectsofthesourcecultureintheirentirety,ratherthaninonesingle

literaryexpressionofit.Wecouldthereforesaythatattheverymomentin

whichapseudotranslatorwritesatext,heorshealsoshapesitssourcetextby

gatheringtogetheralltheelementsofthesourceculturetheyaimtotransferinto

theirownculture.

Motivations

UnderlyingPopovič’s(1976)claimthatpseudotranslationsexploitthereader’s

expectationsinordertowinawiderpublicistheassumptionthatculturesare

inclinedtoacceptinnovationsmoreeasilyfromoutside,inthebeliefthatthey

canconfinesuchchangeswithintheboundariesoftheexotic.Fromthis

standpoint,Lefevereseesthestrategyofpseudotranslatingasasortof‘strong

patronage’,underwhichinnovative–andpossiblysubversive–materialcan

gain‘thenecessarymanoeuvringspace’foritself(1984:233;seealso

REWRITING).Likewise,Toury,fromtheperspectiveofliteraryevolution,

describesitasaneffectiveway–‘sometimestheonlyway’(1984:83)–ata

writer’sdisposaltorenovatetheirliterarysystem.Contemporaryexamplesof

pseudotranslationsthatfulfilthisfunctionareparticularlycommoninthefieldof

sciencefiction(Sohár1998).Santoyo(1984)furtherpointsoutthat

pseudotranslationsresultinashiftintheauthor’snarrativestandpointwhich

enablesthemtobringtotheforetheirroleasreaderswithoutcompletely

denyingtheirstatusasauthors.

Apseudotranslationbecomesrecognized