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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page256

Figure4:‘Ilpleut’byGuillaumeApollinaire

Page257

Seealso:

DECONSTRUCTION;POETRY.

Furtherreading

CookandGinsburg1911;Teele1949;Henderson1958;Alexander1966;

Budge1967;Pound1969;Bann1977;Warren1989;Brotherston1992;Coe

1992;Harris2001;ArnoldanddeDiosYapita2006.

GORDONBROTHERSTON

Selftranslation

Theterm‘selftranslation’canreferbothtotheactoftranslatingone’sown

writingsintoanotherlanguageandtheresultofsuchanundertaking.Once

thoughttobeamarginalphenomenon(asdocumentedinSantoyo2005),ithas

oflatereceivedconsiderableattentioninthemoreculturallyinclinedprovinces

oftranslationstudies.Severalspecialissueshavebeendevotedtothetopicby

journalsinSpain(Quimera,Vol.210,2002),theUK(InOtherWords,Vol.

25,2005)andRomania(Atelierdetraduction,Vol.7,2007).Hokensonand

Munson’sTheBilingualText,themostambitiousattemptthusfartochartthe

terraincognitaofselftranslation,alsoappearedin2007.

Selftranslatorsdonotjustmaster,butchoosetocreateinmorethanone

language.Theirconsciousawarenessofthisoptioncannotbeoverstated:while

‘bilingualsfrequentlyshiftlanguageswithoutmakingaconsciousdecisiontodo

so,polyglotandbilingualwritersmustdeliberatelydecidewhichlanguageto

useinagiveninstance’(Beaujour1989:38;emphasisinoriginal).Sinceself

translationinvolvesanequallyimportantdecision,itmayproveusefulto

consider,inadditiontotheactualuseauthorsmakeoftheirlanguages,the

attitudesandfeelingstheydeveloptowardsthem.

Languageuseandattitude

Afewquestionsmayhelptofleshouttheportraitofaparticular(groupof)self

translator(s).Atwhichpointintheircareersdotheydecidetotranslatetheir

ownwritings?Doesthispracticebecomesystematicordoesitremainasingle

experience?Arewritersconstantintheirchoiceofsourceandtargetlanguages

ordotheyswitchdirections?Istheirmothertonguereservedfororiginaltexts

only,orisitusedfortranslations(seeDIRECTIONALITY)?Doesthere

appeartobea‘divisionoflabour’betweenthelanguagesinvolved,onebeing

predominantlyusedfor‘highliterature’,theotherformorepopulargenres?And

lastbutnotleast:aresecondversionsproducedsometimeafterthefirst

versionshavebeenpublishedordotheyevolvemoreorlesssimultaneously,

crossfertilizingeachotherasitwere?

Havingthusdeterminedhowselftranslators’languagesrelatetoeachother,

onehastoaskafartrickierquestion:whydosomewriterschoosetorepeat

whattheyhavealreadywritteninanotherlanguage?Dissatisfactionwithexisting

translationsalonehardlyexplainsachoicethat,tosomeatleast,seemsas

absurdas‘redoingapaintinginadifferentshade’(Devarrieux1993:15).Apart

frommaterialconditions(exile,marriage,financialgain),theremustbesome

ulteriormotivethathelpsthemovercometheirinitialreluctance.Forneither

VladimirNabokovnorSamuelBeckett,arguablythetwomostfamous

examplesofsustainedselftranslation,lookedforwardtowhattheformer

describedas‘sortingthroughone’sowninnards,andthentryingthemonfor

sizelikeapairofgloves’(Beaujour1989:90),thelatterasthe‘wastesand

wildsofselftranslation’(Cohn1961:617).

Whileitishardtopinpointasinglefactor,somepatternusuallyemergesfrom

theconsiderationofagroupofwriterswhosebilingualismcanberelatedto

socioculturalcircumstances.InRenaissanceEurope,forinstance,itwasnot

uncommonforpoetstotranslatetheirownLatinmusings,asfingerexercises.

TrainedinLatin,theyhadreachedalevelofcompetenceunequalledevenin

theirnativelanguage,andneeded‘toformtheirpoeticdictioninthe

vernacular’(Forster1970:30).AwellknownexamplewasJoachimduBellay,

afoundingmemberoftheFrenchPléiadeschool(Demerson1984).Leonard

Forster(1970:30–35)mentionsthecaseofAntwerpbornJanvanderNoot,

whoseOlympia(1579)appearedinabilingualedition,withFrenchandDutch

textssidebyside,thelatterafreerenderingofwhatwasalreadyan‘imitation’

ofPierredeRonsard.The