Metodología de análisis traductológico. El modelo Lambert-Van Gorp y su aplicación a una revista de propaganda cultural durante la Guerra Fría
Summary
Excerpt
Table Of Contents
- Cubierta
- Título
- Copyright
- Sobre el autor
- Sobre el libro
- Esta edición en formato eBook puede ser citada
- Contenido
- From a Romanian Journal to Descriptive Translation Studies
- 1. Introducción
- 1.1. Objetivos
- 1.2. Hipótesis
- 1.3. Metodología
- 2. El modelo Lambert – Van Gorp en el marco del paradigma descriptivo de la traductología
- 2.1. El paradigma descriptivo
- 2.2. El modelo Lambert-Van Gorp
- 3. Estudio de caso: una revista rumana de propaganda cultural durante la Guerra Fría
- 3.1. Romanian Review/Revue Roumaine
- 4. Aplicación del modelo Lambert-Van Gorp al análisis de Romanian Review/Revue Roumaine
- 4.1. Análisis del nivel preliminar de datos
- 4.1.1. Análisis del nivel preliminar de RR en la década de los 80
- 4.1.2. Observaciones generales acerca de la década de los 80
- 4.1.3. Análisis del nivel preliminar de RR en la década de los 90
- 4.1.4. Observaciones generales acerca de la década de los 90
- 4.2. Análisis del macronivel estructural de la revista. Estudio de caso: una obra de teatro y sus traducciones inglesa y francesa
- 4.2.1. Descripción del corpus de datos utilizado en este análisis
- 4.2.2. Análisis comparativo de las versiones “oficiales” en lengua origen
- 4.2.2.1. Diferencias de didascalia y extensión entre las distintas versiones “oficiales”
- 4.2.2.2. Las dramatis personae en las versiones “oficiales”
- 4.2.2.3. El título y subtítulo en las versiones “oficiales”
- 4.2.3. Análisis de diferencias ostentadas por las versiones “no oficiales” (los manuscritos: 1977, 1987, 1988)
- 4.2.3.1. Título y subtítulo
- 4.2.3.2. Estructura
- 4.2.3.3. Diferencias de extensión, didascalia y dramatis personae
- 4.2.3.4. Elementos inexistentes en las versiones “oficiales”
- 4.2.3.5. Resumen de hallazgos tras el análisis comparativo del macronivel del conjunto de textos en lengua origen
- 4.2.4. Análisis macroestructural comparativo de las dos traducciones (inglesa y francesa) de la obra
- 4.2.4.1. Los datos
- 4.2.4.2. Título, subtítulo y etiqueta de género
- 4.2.4.3. Estructura, extensión y teatralidad
- a) Estructura
- b) Extensión
- c) Didascalia
- c1) Número total de direcciones escénicas
- c2) Frecuencia de direcciones escénicas
- c3) Longitud de las direcciones escénicas
- c4) Tipología de las direcciones escénicas
- c5) Ubicación de las direcciones escénicas
- d) Dramatis personae
- d1) Número de personajes
- d2) Definición (aposición)
- d3) Disposición de los personajes
- 4.2.4.4. Texto base
- 4.3. Análisis del micronivel estructural de la obra La tercera estaca y sus traducciones sincrónicas y diacrónicas
- 4.3.1. El micronivel estructural en las traducciones inglesa y francesa
- 4.3.1.1. Nivel gráfico-fonológico
- 4.3.1.2. Nivel léxico-semántico: turquismos; unidades fraseológicas de ámbito (seudo)religioso y rimas populares (y ad hoc)
- a) Los turquismos
- b) Referencias religiosas
- c) Rimas populares
- 4.3.2. Análisis del micronivel estructural de la obra La tercera estaca y sus dos traducciones al inglés
- 4.3.2.1. Los datos
- a) La versión de Dennis Deletant (DD)
- b) La editorial “Forest Books”
- c) El traductor: Dennis Deletant
- d) La revisora: Brenda Walker
- 4.3.2.2. Nivel léxico-semántico, sintáctico y estilístico (similitudes y diferencias entre ambas versiones inglesas)
- I. Grupo A: Similitudes con distanciamiento del TO
- II. Grupo B: Falsas diferencias
- III. Grupo C: Diferencias de percepción
- IV. Grupo D: Diferencias de plasmación
- IV.1 Metáfora
- IV.2 Extranjerismos
- IV.3 Situacionalidad
- IV.4 Oralidad/teatralidad
- IV.4.a Forma, longitud, puntuación
- IV.4.b Contenido léxico-semántico
- IV.4.c Estilo
- 4.4. Análisis del contexto sistémico de las traducciones comparadas
- 4.4.1. La revista Romanian Review y su relación con otros textos y países
- 4.4.2. Relaciones establecidas entre la versión francesa AC y la inglesa AG
- 4.4.3. Relaciones establecidas entre las versiones inglesas AG y DD
- 4.4.4. Similitudes entre las versiones inglesas AG y DD
- 4.4.5. Diferencias entre las versiones inglesas DD y AG
- 4.4.6. La intertextualidad en RR
- 4.4.6.1. La intertextualidad con respecto a los textos AC y AG
- 4.4.6.2. La intertextualidad en las versiones inglesas DD y AG
- 4.4.7. Paratextos y elementos semióticos en RR
- 4.4.7.1. Elementos semióticos relacionados con los textos AC y AG
- 4.4.7.2. Elementos semióticos del texto origen
- 4.4.7.3. Elementos semióticos y paratextos en la versión DD
- 4.4.8. Tendencias detectadas en el análisis del contexto sistémico
- 5. Conclusiones
- 5.1. Una longeva revista de propaganda cultural basada en la traducción
- 5.2. TT1 (versión inglesa de AG) y TT2 (versión francesa de AC)
- 5.3. Dos versiones inglesas: AG y DD
- Índice de imágenes
- ANEXO 1. Información sobre las diversas representaciones
- ANEXO 2. Diferencias de plasmación (D)
- Diccionarios consultados
- Bibliografía
- Obras publicadas en la colección
From a Romanian Journal to Descriptive Translation Studies
Well informed colleagues, particularly Daniel Gile (2012), have stressed that translation is (very) old and that Translation Studies as well as Interpreting Studies (from now on TIS) are (very) young. Research on translation may happen to be also much older than Translation Studies, in case we give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar: the concept Translation Studies was coined by James Holmes (1970), the Dutch-American translator and scholar who wanted to help organizing and institutionalizing research on translation as an academic discipline (The Name and Nature of Translation Studies, Holmes 19721, 1978; republished several times; often quoted as an article from 1988: Holmes 1988a, 1988b!). The real collective start of Holmes’ initiative cannot be disconnected any more from three symposia (Leuven 1976; Tel Aviv 1978; Antwerp 1980) and research groups established in smaller countries (the Low Countries, Israel). Symbolic? Holmes and his partners were dissatisfied by the lack of awareness of translation issues in academic programs and even in academic life. That is why he coined a concept that was apparently both new and very open: Translation Studies. But academic innovations are supposed to render their innovations systematic and attractive, hence the necessity to work out the program: in relation with other academic programs, in relation with the complexities of the translation concepts in various cultures.
Such ambitions look more amazing nowadays than in 1972. It is true that research on translation had already generated excellent work (Sinner 2020) in the 20th century: quite a few “great Books” and even important centres, around experts who still have their impact in 2022 (Brian Harris, in Canada; Jäger, Kade, Neubert at Leipzig; Levý, Popovic at Prague, Nitra, Bratislava) but the academic and interdisciplinary ambitions of Holmes’ Translation Studies were unprecedented, and so far, they have no equivalent.
At the beginning of the Internationalization process in society, Holmes’ formulation did not even look too “Western” (whatever a few among his ←17 | 18→American countrymen were going to call it three decades later) and its openness keeps being recommended by colleagues from five continents until this very day, without being fundamentally revised by its critics. The fact is that many alternative concepts already circulated in the same years, for instance, Translationswissenschaft, traductology/traductologie/traductología, which had obvious Franco-Canadian roots (Harris). It was not surprizing that earlier definitions and goals did not simply coincide with the Holmes priorities, especially in matters of academic status and goals. It is much more embarrassing that nowadays, many contemporary researchers and institutes make use of the Holmes label without being aware of its origins nor its chronology: academic representatives of the discipline are supposed to know their own roots. Holmes published almost exclusively in English, never in big publishing houses. The funny thing is that such situations mainly occur in English, the language used also for lamenting about the Western features (“Oh! So Western!”). Colonization in TIS?
Anyway, the distribution of the Holmes model and concept since, say, 1980–1990 confirms at least that the institutionalization has taken place on five continents, and that English has of course been a powerful component. The idea that this may have conditioned – and indeed narrowed down – the heritage was not ignored in the first academic model, but Internationalization in TIS was a discovery of the nineties and later: to what extent such delays were implied from the beginning depends more on the new explorations inspired by The Name and Nature(…) than on the Holmes text as such.
It was not at all by coincidence that the Holmes Group with its explicit roots in small countries worried about the cultural components in translation and TIS, if not in distribution matters. Before Holmes 1972, the Great Books in translation research usually carried titles like “Translation Theory” where the solipsistic inspiration of individual theorists was proposed without systematic explorations in empirical terms: a new academic model without (hardly) any empirical tendencies? This was one of the obsessions of the Holmes Group, and it explained In Search of a Theory of Translation (Toury 1980) as well as the much more explicit orientation in TIS from around 1990 on. According to bibliographers (such as Javier Franco Aixelá, or Benjamins’ Translation Studies Bibliography), the best seller among translation theorists is still Gideon Toury’s book: Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (Toury 1995), where several key ideas go back to the Holmes priorities.
The awareness of our own historical backgrounds is a relevant therapy against onesidedness. On Describing Translations (Lambert & Van Gorp 1985) was worked out as an ambitious (enthusiastic?) component in the planning of ←18 | 19→translation research as part of a new discipline, not as a dogmatic model: how could any scholar fascinated by translation phenomena within culture resist the dream of systematic historical-empirical research, the more since the justification of Holmes’ (and other) dreams was exactly that it was a shame how little had been done in the past? This was also the justification of Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS), which was more than just a dream. We did not ignore that most traditional approaches were inspired by very different ambitions, for example, as far as the definition of “translation” was concerned: the two texts from the Leuven 1976 symposium (Holmes, Lambert & Van Den Broeck, 1978) selected in Lawrence Venuti’s (2000) The Translation Studies Reader (Toury 1978; Even-Zohar 1978) stressed exactly the idea that, at least in the given circumstances there were more relevant and more urgent issues than the question “What is a translation?”
As made clear in The Manipulation of Literature (Hermans 1985), the first manifesto-oriented output of the Holmes Group, the new paradigm wanted to move into another future: their common goals happened to enter heavily in conflict with the past of translation research/theory. Their views stressed the priority of historical-cultural research (for instance, norms). But what kind of research exactly? The self-definition of the Group looked negative rather than supported by objectives designed in common. The institutionalization of the discipline (for example, in 1989: Target, and CETRA) also generated new orientations, among others, Cultural Studies (Bassnett, Lefevere) and strange confusions between disciplines (see Lambert 2019: World Literature, Comparative Literature and Translation Studies. Selective inattention?)
As recently demonstrated (Lambert forthcoming), the so-called Holmes Group developed into various directions, and while Toury more than anyone else continued the Holmes heritage, such as the institutionalization of the discipline (Hermans 1997), several among the members of the group got seduced by different priorities, among others by Cultural Studies (Bassnett, Lefevere, Hermans 2002). And movements with political backgrounds started interfering from 2000 on (see the Baker – Toury incident, including the comments by Anthony Pym (1998) or Lambert, forthcoming: “Brexit avant la lettre”).
Anyway, the article “On Describing” was the expression of the proposed effort into historical-cultural research rather than into theorization. It became obvious in the years before 1995 that Toury’s DTS attracted quite a few new initiatives without of course absorbing all previous or new tendencies. But since Mary Snell-Hornby and large sections of translation training adopted Holmes’ label Translation Studies within more linguistic orientations, the illusion grew that this was all part of one new discipline. In fact, many French-Canadian (and ←19 | 20→other) Institutes sticked to traductologie/traductology, while also privileging the (normative) translation training options. Whereas Holmes, Hermans and Toury’s DTS or “On Describing” had the explicit goal to enter the world of academic disciplines via research programs. The question of translation was not to be reduced to the distinction between good and bad translations: relations of all kinds were to be taken into consideration, including the “external ones” (linguistics, sociology, political power, etc.).
It was within such larger perspectives that On Describing claimed to operate. It has been explained how the discovery of the norms concept generated methodological work on “How to study/analyse/describe translations”: before Leuven 19762, Holmes himself uttered the statement: “This is my topic!”. Hermans is quite right when noticing how Kitty van Leuven’s approach (Kitty was a disciple of Holmes) might be considered as a fragment from On Describing (Hermans 1999: 57–68) but aiming at the (more microscopic) levels of translation (narrative translated texts). However, her sophisticated technical distinctions did not lead into functional cultural insights; they focused on textual, rhetorical procedures rather than translation phenomena. Our own priorities (Lambert 1991b) started from the conviction that macroscopic relations rather than the microscopic ones happened to be inspiring: how particular textual material entered/did not enter into genre patterns, how titles, paragraphs, oral/written discourse become part of large national/international movements (for example the rise of narrative prose; the “Contes fantastiques” genre systems; media came later into the picture). This was not part of an attempt to produce any exhaustive insights. Many such criteria had been applied to translations, but the system(at)ic combination was new.
As any kind of general methodological approaches, our cultural framework soon needed to be updated (for instance in matters of subtitling, dubbing, as shown by Delabastita). It is true that our schemes with questions, thus as open and large as possible, happened to be much more binary than we intended them to be (Hermans 1999: 57–68). And that is why our article on the new kinds of communication, in the first year of Target, was necessary (Lambert 1989): Toury’s revolutionary discovery of the target trends in (most) translations had the unfortunate consequence to ignore other than source/target cultures. Many scholars were aware of the media revolution in translation, but they ←20 | 21→did not succeed in integrating them into their/our schemes. Internationalization in translation phenomena has been recognized at a late moment, we did not really see how to formalize it into research models and programs.
Kitty van Leuven (1989; 1990) recognized that it was utopian to explore all possible relations within particular translated texts. As already stressed by Toury (1991b), computer-based corpora are requested from the moment we look for syntactic, lexical, stylistic patterns, and even more from the moment we look for the position of translated discourse within the discursive “systems”.
How would such ambitions make sense in relation with our own (much larger) frameworks? Katrin Van Bragt’s computerized bibliography (Bragt, D’hulst & Lambert 1995) also left open quite a few relations within the corpus of some 12.000 items, but without her impressive data and questions, the French 19th century translations would still be approached along selective and impressionistic criteria. Descriptive (empirical?), (Toury 1985, 1991a) research requires teamwork, which still frightens most disciplines in the Human Sciences. And this is one of the major reasons why even DTS remains a combination of well selected topics, while research requires cooperation, continuity as well as counterchecking or peripheral experimentation: this is Utopia, except when the research team indicates explicitly what kind of priorities have been selected. In traditional translation research statements and individual expertise were (and still are) preferred to systematic empirical observation: no research at all?
There can be no doubt about Catalina Iliescu’s position in such basic dilemmas. Her work is in harmony with several important recommendations from our proposals.
Details
- Pages
- 246
- Year
- 2022
- ISBN (PDF)
- 9783631889497
- ISBN (ePUB)
- 9783631889503
- ISBN (Hardcover)
- 9783631889312
- DOI
- 10.3726/b20170
- Language
- Spanish; Castilian
- Publication date
- 2022 (December)
- Published
- Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Warszawa, Wien, 2022. 246 p., 2 il. en color, 11 il. blanco/negro, 23 tablas.
Biographical notes
Catalina Iliescu (Author)
Catalina Iliescu-Gheorghiu es licenciada en Filología Hispánica e Inglesa (Universidad de Bucarest); Doctora en Filología Inglesa (Universidad de Alicante) donde es docente desde 1997; traductora literaria con 30 libros; autora/editora de una veintena de volúmenes científicos y medio centenar de artículos en el ámbito de la lingüística, traductología y la comunicación intercultural.
