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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page244

intermittently,attimesallowingforloopholesandsomemarginfornegotiation,

especiallyduringthefirstfewyearsbeforethewar(Rundle2000;Kohlmayer

1992;Sturge1999).Asthesecountriesedgedclosertowardswar,theybegan

toclosesuchloopholesandregulatethefunctionalandinventorycomponentsof

poeticsmorestrictly(seecasestudiesinBilliani2007a;CENSORSHIP).

Applications

Despiteitslimitations,Lefevere’smodelhasbeeninstrumentalinsituating

translationwithinabroadersetofactivitiestowhichitisinextricablylinked,and

indrawingresearchers’attentiontosocialandINSTITUTIONALfactorsthat

influenceallprocessesofrewriting.Lefeverereiteratedtheimportanceofthe

interdependenceofpoetics,socialagencyandideologythroughouthiswork

andprovidedanimpressivebatteryofexamplesfromvarioustraditions,from

EuropetoAfricaandAmerica.Thishasinspiredarangeofcasestudiesthat

drewheavilyonhismodelorsomeelementsofit,especiallypatronage(Zhao

2005,2006;Lai2007,amongothers).DrawingonLefevere’smodel,

particularlythenotionsofpatronage,poeticsandideology,Zhao(2006)

demonstrateshowHuShi,aprominentChineseintellectual,becameamajor

proponentoftheNewCultureMovementinChina(1919–1923),amovement

fuelledbyamassiveimportofforeignideologiesandpoetics.HuShi’scomplex

treatmentofIbsenillustratesthefullrangeofrewritingsdiscussedbyLefevere

anddemonstratestheextenttowhichtheconceptualizationoftheactivitiesthat

constitutetranslationcanbestretched.HuShimanagedtointroducesinicized

foreignideasintoChinabymeansofsubtledomesticatingandcontextualizing

translationtechniquesinstrategicallyselectedplaysbyIbsen(see

STRATEGIES).Hisown‘original’play,Life’sGreatestEvent,wasan

imitationofIbsen’sADoll’sHouse;itpromotedanideologyofindividualism

andfocusedonpoliticalissuesratherthandramatictechnique.HuShi’s

influentialessayentitledIbsenismventriloquizedand(re)interpretedIbsen’s

views,projectingHuShi’sownagendaofinternationalismandsocialcritique

(Zhao2005:162,168,241).

InasimilarstudythatdrawsonLefevere’smodelofrewritingtoexplainaseries

oftheatricalperformancesanddemonstratetheinfluenceofsociopolitical

conditionsandpersonalagendas,McNeil(2005)examinesthevarious

rewritingsofBrecht’sLebendesGalileiinEnglish.The1947premiereof

GalileoinAmericawasthefruitofacloseand‘respectful’collaboration

betweenCharlesLaughton(whowasworkingfromliteraltranslationsinto

English)andBrecht(whowasstillrevisinghis‘historyplay’versionof1938).

Theresultwasaplaythatwasmuchsharper,faster,withfewerscenes,aplay

thatbroughtoutthecontradictionbetweenindividualandsocialmorality,

betweenscience’spotentialanditshistoricalapplications(McNeil2005:67).

Thiswasaplaythatengagedwithimmediatedilemmasintheaftermathof

Hiroshima.The1980productionfortheNationalTheatreintheUK,onthe

otherhand,wastheresultofadifferentdivisionoflabourandauthority.The

NationalTheatrecommissionedHowardBrenton,whoworkedfromliteralas

wellasexistingtranslationsoftheplayandwhosoughttoimitate,appropriate

and(aggressively)supersedeBrechtinordertoproduceamodernizedversion

thatcanserveasaripostetoThatcherism(ibid.:74).Thedirector,JohnDexter,

ontheotherhand,sawBrecht’sLifeofGalileoasaconcealedautobiography

ofsomeonewho‘soldout’;hesoughtto‘getridoftheMarxistrubbish’in

ordertoportrayBrechtasasurvivorandmodifiedthetextaccordinglyto

produceafasterpiecethatwouldbemoreappropriateasaNationalTheatre

production(ibid.:84,89).Theendproductwasabarometerofthetensions

pervadingsocialisttheatreinEngland,giventhelimitationsimposedbya

conservativegovernmentonlefttheatre:thistensiontooktheformofadialectic

relationbetweenarejectionofthemainstream,bourgeoisvaluesandinstitutional

outletsandacompromisethatallowedBrentonandDextertosendouta

messageeventoabourgeoisaudiencethatisnotnecessarilyresponsive(ibid.:

94)(seeDRAMA).

TheappealofLefevere’smodelliesinthefactthatitidentifiesimportant

contextualfactorsthatimpingeontranslation,irrespectiveofhowwellitweaves

thesefactorsintoacoherentmodel.Thewayinwhichthesefactorsoperate,

andthepromotionofpoliticalandotherintereststhroughtranslation,arenot

restrictedtotheareaofliterature(Lefevere’smainpreoccupation).

Page245

Thesamecanbesaidtoapplytoothertypesoftranslationandtopolymedial

productssuchasADVERTISINGmaterial,AUDIOVISUALmaterial,and

COMICS.ExamplesincludetherewritingoftheTreatyofWaitangiintoMaori,

withpoliticalrepercussionsthatcontinuetoreverberateincontemporaryNew

Zealand(FentonandMoon2003),andCroatiannationalistic‘rewritings’ofthe

AsterixseriesafterthedissolutionofYugoslavia(KadricandKaindl1997).

Theseandothernonliteraryinstancesofrewritingcanbeproductivelyanalysed

usingsomeversionofLefevere’smodel.Inordertoinvestigatecasessuchas

these,itisnecessarytotakeintoaccounttheinterplaybetweentextualvariables

andpower/patronageinthebroadersociopoliticalcontextinwhichtranslation

takesplace,andLefevere’stheoryofrewritingprovidesatleastastimulating

firststepinthisdirection.

Seealso:ADAPTATION;CENSORSHIP;CLASSICALTEXTS;

DESCRIPTIVEVS.COMMITTEDAPPROACHES;LITERARY

TRANSLATION;POLYSYSTEM;PUBLISHINGSTRATEGIES;

SHAKESPEARE;SOCIOLOGICALAPPROACHES.

Furtherreading

Lefevere1982/2000,1985,1992a;Hermans1999;Zhao2006;Lai2007.

DIMITRISASIMAKOULAS

Page246

Scientificandtechnicaltranslation

Thebinominalphrase‘scienceandtechnology’occursfrequentlyincorporaof

newsandacademicprose(Biberetal.1999:1033)anditisperhapsitsfamiliar

naturewhichleadsusveryreadilytousetheterm‘scientificandtechnical

translation’.Thisnomenclatureappearstoindicatethatthereisauseful

distinctiontobemadebetween‘scientificandtechnicaltranslation’,

COMMERCIALTRANSLATION,‘legaltranslation’,etc.Atfirstglance,the

topicbaseddistinctionmightberegardedasclearcut.However,inpractice,it

isnotunusualfortheterm‘technicaltranslation’tobeusedtorefertothe

translationoftextsfromdomainsotherthantechnology/appliedscience.For

somescholars,‘technicaltranslation’issynonymouswith‘specialized

translation’orthetranslationoflanguageforspecialpurposes(LSP),as

exemplifiedbythedefinitionoftechnicaltranslationofferedbyWrightand

Wright(1993:1).Thereisalsowidespreaduseoftheterm‘pragmatic

translation’,introducedbyCasagrande(1954:335)torefertotranslationwhere

thepurposeis‘totranslateamessageasefficientlyandasaccuratelyas

possible’andwhere‘theemphasisisonthecontentofthemessage’as

opposedtoitsaestheticorliteraryform.Thistopicindependentlabelis

frequentlyusedinrelationtotranslationoftexttypescommoninscientific,

technicalandcommercialdomains.

Proceedingfromanunderstandingofscientificandtechnicaltranslationasthe

translationoftextsfromthedomainsofscienceandtechnology,anotherpointof

contentionarises:namely,theextenttowhichitismeaningfultogroupthesetwo

together.Byrne(2006:8),forexample,arguesthatitisnot,becausescientific

andtechnicaltextsexhibitdifferencesin‘subjectmatter,typeoflanguage[and]

purpose’.

Notwithstandingthedifficultieswithclassification,itiswidelyacknowledgedthat

translationhasplayedamajorroleinthedisseminationofknowledge–often

scientificortechnical–throughouttheages.Thoughunderrepresentedin

translationstudies,therehasbeensomehistoricalresearchwhichtakesscientific

andtechnicaltextsasabasisforindepththeoreticalreflectionontheroleof

translation;forexample,Pym’s(2000a)casestudyoftranslationofmedicine,

mathematicsandastronomyfromArabicintoLatinintwelfthcenturyToledo,

andDelisleandWoodsworth’s(1995)discussionofthetranslationofsciencein

theChineseandIndianhistoricalcontexts.Fromahistoryofscience

perspective,Montgomery,whoarguesthat‘translationisinvolvedateverylevel

ofknowledgeproductionanddistributioninthesciences’(2000:ix),hascarried

outstudiesofscientifictranslationactivityinseveralhistoricalperiods.Likewise,

Burnett(e.g.2005)hasconductedextensiveresearchonthetransferof

mathematicsandsciencefromtheArabworldtoEuropethroughtranslation.

Scientifictextsarenowincreasinglywrittenwithinternationalconsumptionin

mindandinthelinguafrancaofEnglish.However,technicaltranslationactivityis

flourishingintoday’sglobaleconomyandinformationsociety,inwhichthereis

strongdemandforproductspecifications,instructionleaflets,userguides,etc.,

inmanylanguages,aswellasfortheLOCALIZATIONofsoftware

applications.