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

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page343

forInternationalDevelopment).Thecommissionencouragedthepublicationof

UStechnicalworksandtextbookswherenoBrazilianequivalentexisted.The

programmesponsoredbyUSIS,theUnitedStatesInformationService,

representsanotherattempttoboostthenumberoftranslationsofUSmaterial

intoBrazilianPortuguese.PublishedtitlescoverAmericanhistory,economics,

science,communismandliterature,amongothertopics.Black(1977:97)

mentionsthat‘intheyears1965through1967,442bookswerepublished

underthisprogram’.Francewasquicktoreactandofferedtosubsidizethe

translationofFrenchtextbooksbypayingauthors’royalties.

Profession,trainingandresearch

TheprofessionofsworntranslatorswasregulatedbyaRoyalDecreein1851.

Sworntranslatorshadtoprovetheirmasteryofforeignlanguages,andtopay

annualtaxes.Womenwerebarredfromtheprofessionatthetime.ABusiness

Codeintroducedinthelate1850sestablishedthatthetranslationofforeign

languagedocumentswouldonlybeacceptedifthetranslationwasdonebya

sworntranslator.Intheabsenceofone,atranslatoragreeduponbytheparties

concernedwouldbeacceptable.Statementsofaccountsofforeign

businessmen,ontheotherhand,wouldonlybeacceptediftranslatedbya

sworntranslator.TranslatorsweresworninbytheTradeCourts,whichwere

eliminatedin1875andreplacedbyBoardsofTrade.

TheBrazilianCivilCodeof1916ensuredthesurvivaloftheprofessionof

sworntranslatorbymaintainingtherequirementthatforeignlanguagedocuments

betranslatedintoPortuguese.In1943,anewdecreeallowedwomentojoin

theprofession;todaythemajorityofsworntranslatorsarewomen.Atpresent,

admissionintotheprofessionofsworntranslatorisbycompetitiveexamination,

coordinatedindependentlybytheBoardsofTradeofthevariousBrazilian

states.Associationsofsworntranslatorswerefoundedinandafter1959to

protectprofessionalinterests.Theprofessionoftranslatoringeneral,comprising

literary,technical,drama,cinemaandtelevisiontranslators,conference,

consecutiveandsimultaneousinterpretersaswellastapetranscribers,was

recognizedbytheMinistryofLabourin1988.

Untilthelate1960s,nospecifictrainingfortranslatorswasofferedinBrazil.As

aresult,thetranslatorsofBrazilweremainlyitsrenownedwritersandthose

whohadlearnedforeignlanguagesatschoolorabroad,orthosewhohada

universitylanguagedegree.AdecreepassedbytheMinistryofEducation

duringthe1960senabledFacultiesofArtstoexpandtheirlanguagecoursesso

astoprovidetrainingfortranslatorsatuniversitylevel.Thefirstsuchcourses

wereofferedattheCatholicUniversityatRiodeJaneiroandPortoAlegre,and

attheFederalUniversityofRioGrandedoSul.

ItwasthepioneerworkofPauloRónai(1907–93)thathadamajorimpacton

thestudyoftranslationinBrazil.Rónaiwroteseveralbooksontranslation.

Escoladetradutores(‘SchoolofTranslators’,1952)wasthefirstbookon

translationtobepublishedinBrazil.ItwasfollowedbyHomenscontraBabel

(‘MenagainstBabel’,1964),Guiapráticodatraduçãofrancesa(‘A

PracticalGuidetoFrenchTranslation’,1967)andAtraduçãovivida

(‘TranslationExperienced’,1976).Healsopublishednumerouspapersand

lecturedwidelyonthesubject.SeveralofRónai’sbookshavebeenrevised,

enlargedandreprintedmanytimes;theyhavealsobeentranslatedabroad(in

GermanyandJapan,forexample).Atatimewhentranslationstudieswasstill

tryingtofinditsfeet,Rónaiadoptedapracticaloutlook,derivedfromhis

experienceasatranslator,butneverceasedconsideringtranslationasanart.

Alargenumberofworksonthetheory,practiceandteachingoftranslation

havebeenpublishedsincethen,aswellaspapers,essaysandjournals.The

theoreticalreflectionsofthebrothersAugustodeCamposandHaroldode

Campos(1970,1976a,1976b,1979,1981,1986;seeVieira1999)ontheir

translationpracticearetheclosestthingtoatheoryoftranslationinBrazil.Being

Concretepoets,thebrothersdevotedthemselvestothetranslationofauthors

whotheyfelthaveradicallytransformedpoeticstyles,suchasPound,

cummings,Joyce,Mallarmé,Maiakovsky,Valéry,Poe,LewisCarrollandJohn

Cage,amongothers.Theirviewoftranslationprivilegesformovercontentand

favourstheintroductionofnewformsintothetargetlanguage.Fortheseviews,

theydrawonWalterBenjamin,RomanJakobsonandEzraPound.Whathas

capturedWesternimagination

Page344

isanelementwhichtheydrawspecificallyfromBrazilianculture.Thisistheidea

of‘cannibalism’,derivedfromtheModernistmovementof1922andthe

writingsofOswalddeAndrade,particularlyhis‘Cannibalist

Manifesto’(Andrade1970;Bary1991).Thecannibalistmetaphorfortheactof

translationisoneoftheveryfewBraziliancontributionstobeacknowledged

outsideBrazil(seeBassnett1993).Itexpressestheexperienceofacolonized

peoplewhodevourwhatisofferedtothembytheircolonizersbutdonot

swallowitwhole:quitetheopposite,theyspitoutwhatisnoxioustothem,but

whattheykeeptheymakewhollytheirsbyalteringandchangingittosuittheir

nutritionalneeds.

Furtherreading

Putnam1948;Calógeras1963;Burns1966;Dulles1969;Black1977;Burns

1980;Hallewell1982;Bordenave1990;Souza1990;Bary1991;Wyler1993.

HELOISAGONÇALVESBARBOSAANDLIAWYLER

Britishtradition

Thereare,ofcourse,severalBritishtraditions,thoughthisentrycoversindetail

onlythetraditionbroughtaboutbythearrivalduringthefifthcenturyofinvaders

fromwhatarenowHolland,DenmarkandGermany,whosettledinthecentral

partsoftheislandanddrovetheCelticinhabitantstoitswesternandnorthern

fringes(and,later,colonizedIrelandsimilarly).Invasionandcolonizationhave

characterizedthelinguisticandculturalsituationoftheseislandsalmostfromthe

beginning,andtranslationhasplayedanactiverolethroughout.Sincetheir

arrival,theEnglish–astheybecame–havebeenmorethanonceunderthreat

ofinvasion,buttheirculturalandlinguistichegemonyhasbeenseriously

challengedonlytwice:duringtheperiodoftheVikinginvasions(eighth–tenth

centuries),wheretwolanguageswerespokenintheregionoverrunbythe

Vikings,andforthethreehundredyearsaftertheNormanConquest,where

AngloNormanwasinitiallythelanguageoftheconquerorsandEnglishthe

languageoftheconquered.Inbothcaseswearestruckbythepowerofthe

nativetraditionstoabsorbandfinallytakeoverfromthetraditionsofthe

invaders.Otherinvasionswereaccomplishedmorepeacefully–witnessthe

regularaccommodationsofthenativetraditionstotraditionsofclassicallearning

–butwithanequallyenergeticandimportantpartplayedbytranslatorsand

theirtranslations.Indeed,theculturalsituationoftheseislandshasbeensuch

that,thoughtheCeltictraditionsstillsurviveinthefringestowhichtheinvaders

consignedthem,theirrecessivepositionis,regrettably,areflexofthe

dominanceofEnglish:whichmayexplain,thoughnotjustify,theirneglectinthis

entry.

Introduction

ThetraditionoftranslationintheBritishIslesislongandvaried.Consequently,it

isdesirabletosummarizeanumberofimportantfeaturesbeforeproceedingto

describeindividualperiodsinmoredetail.

IntheMiddleAgestheCatholicChurchplayedacentralroleinthegeneration

andauthorizationofmedievaltranslation,especiallyintoandfromLatin.Butits

attitudetotranslationintothevernacularwasnotaspositiveasthatofthe

Orthodoxchurch;theclergyoftenviewedLatinasthenormandthevernacular

ascorruptandbarbaric.Admittedly,vernacularandLatinweremutually

supportiveintheareasofscientificandmedicalwritings(Voigts1989).

Likewise,translationintoLatinwasanecessaryconditionofawork’swider

circulationand/orthetranslator’sclaimtomembershipoftheselectclubwhich

Latinculturerepresented.Butsuchtranslationgenerallyrepresentedachallenge,

directorindirect,tothelearningfromwhichitoriginated(Copeland1991).In

theMiddleAges,theRenaissanceandthenineteenthcentury,translationinto

thevernacularhelpedtocreateandconsolidateanational/literary

consciousness;henceBishopBryanWalton’sview,in1659,thatthe1611

BiblecouldstandcomparisonwithanyotherEuropeanversion(Norton1993:

I.219).IntheAugustanperiod,translationhelpedunderwritenational/literary

selfconfidence:forinstance,inAlexanderPope’sImitationsofHorace

(1734–7),LatinoriginalandEnglishversion,onfacing