Rizzi, Lang e Pym (2019) - What is Translation History?

T WHAT IS TRANSLATION HISTORY?

Towards a new translation history

• TH deveria adereçar problas de causas sociais complexas que ajudam ou atrapalham a comunicação intercultural 1.
• Translation = interlingual transfer 2.
• Trad é impossível sem confiança.
• researching translators as people in addition to translations as texts; examining translation norms—since norm-adherence can be one of the bases of trust—and investigating translator-client relations, collaborative translation, and translation cultures. 2
• Confiança interpessoal, institucional e regime-enacted.
• Primeira onda Foucaultiana seguida de um turn sociológico para Bordieu e Latour. Depois um olhar mais mercadológico.
• "Fundamentally, we propose, translators and interpreters exchange their trustworthiness [...] " 4
• [Ver Burke e Hsia 2007 e Santoyo 2006.]
• [Ver: . Pym, Method in Translation History; Brigitte Lépinette, La historia de la traducción. Metodología. Apuntes bibliográficos (Valencia: Universitat de València, 1997); Samuel López Alcalá, La historia, la traducción y el control del pasado (Madrid: Universidad Pontificia Comillas, 2001); Travel and Translation in the Early Modern Period, ed. Carmine G.  Di Biase (Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi B. V., 2006); Politics, Policy and Power in Translation History, ed. Lieven D’hulst, Carol O’Sullivan, and Michael Schreiber (Berlin: Frank & Timme, Verlag für wissenschaftliche Literatur, 2016); The Translability of Cultures; Mirella Agorni, Translating Italy for the Eighteenth Century: Women, Translation, and Travel Writing, 1739– 1797 (Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2002); Margaret Ferguson, Dido’s Daughters: Literacy, Gender, and Empire in Early Modern England and France (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2003); special issue on ‘Translating and Translations in the History of Science’, ed. Bettina Dietz, Annals of Science 73 (2016); special issue on ‘Science and Translation’, ed. Maeve Olohan and Myriam Salama-Carr, The Translator 17 (2011); Bistué, Collaborative Translation; Collaborative Translation: From the Renaissance to the Digital Age, ed. Anthony Cordingley and Céline Frigau Manning (London and New  York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2017); and Sharon Deane-Cox, Retranslation: Translation, Literature and Reinterpretation (London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014).]
• Trust
• For the translation history we have in mind it is crucial to understand the diversity of roles and strategies employed by the mediators and clients in their transfer and reception of translation. As a third-party player, any kind of intercultural mediator (translator, interpreter, editor, publisher, or patron) needs to build trust with at least one other party. The need to build trust works from various degrees of distrust on the part of clients or patrons. Comprehending these degrees of trust or distrust can illuminate the inequalities that underscore intercultural transfers (as in the case of Doña Marina) and the consequences of such relational dynamics: colonisation, foreignisation, gender discrimination, misunderstanding, lack of communication, or silence. Thus, trust is fundamental in transfers involving three parties or more, and is more problematic there than in dyadic transactions. Although, in George Simmel’s phrase, the third party may be an ‘egoistic exploiter of the situation’, a great number of ancient or early modern interpreters were slaves or low-class subjects forced into mediatory roles as a means to survive.23 Yet, even when the mediator is anonymous or invisible, trust in the third party is a ‘deal-maker’ or a ‘deal-breaker’. 6
• Steiner holds that a ‘leap of faith’ is taken by the translator who selects a start text, assuming that the work is worthy of translation. By the same token, the translator has to trust the process of translation. Translation is a ‘commitment of trust’ that is tested in action. Trust is helpfully defined by Charles Tilly as ‘a historical product rather than a phenomenon whose variation we can explain without reference to history’.40 [...]  Chesterman describes trust in translation as ‘the value governing the accountability norm’, formulated as stating that ‘a translator should act in such a way that the demands of loyalty are met with regard to the various parties concerned’.41 This value might work in a twenty-first-century professional context (although there is less direct accountability of this kind in current freelance markets, and because of tendencies to outsource in-house translators and interpreters), but proves of little help when studying the past. Moreover, Chesterman does not clarify who, exactly, would best check the accountability or loyalty when there are no professional standards or charters serving as a touchstone for the norm. Trust—or ‘loyalty’ as proposed by German scholar Christiane Nord—is a value or a moral principle that binds the translator or interpreter to a network of clients and patrons. We understand that, as a historical product, trust in all its variations is informed by a complex web of rhetorical, emotional, and attitudinal factors: signalling or promise-making, sincerity, and readers’ and audiences’ receptivity to texts and agents. As such, it seems helpful to envisage that past translators’ trustworthiness may have been directed to a ‘profession as an intercultural space’, in the sense of a network of agents bound by shifting levels of trust or distrust.42 10-1
• Mas havia gente pensando sobre isso antes dos teóricos modernos.
• Fala das consequencias e efeitos da confiança.
• Paratextos no XV
•  this sixteenth-century example shows, in their prefaces, or introductory material, translators often acknowledged roles for the reader, patron, and dedicatee in the internal process of translation (we return to this point below). At the same time, they also made elaborate promises about their translative achievements. They promised, for instance, to have cleaved to certain standards or ideals for texts, such as correctness, in order to make their work trustworthy. 17
• This example shows something of the complex signalling of trust performed by past translators and their collaborators or patrons. A new translation (and the reputation of the translator and publisher) needed to be set against earlier translations and translators. The reputation of each text or translator was accordingly assessed, promoted, or critiqued, offering the reader a narrative of trust or distrust. Regimes effect the production and reception of texts. 18
•  Retórica do tradutor 19

On relationality: trusting translators

• "Trust is often silent, whereas distrust tends to leave traces." 33
• TH itegra niveis micro e macro além de ser capaz e pode ser auxiliada por microhistoria.
• Trust em TH
• A tripartite [interpersonal, institutional, and regimeenacted] eventful sociological approach might help translation historians to avoid looking for no more than tenuous large-scale laws, and to search instead for the mutual influences of contingent, open-ended factors. 37
• Perca da ingenuidade da tradução enquanto produto puro 40
• [Sobre plagio ver:Maria Teresa Turell, ‘Textual Kidnapping Revisited: The Case of Plagiarism in Literary Translation’, International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11 (2004): https://journals.equinoxpub.com/ index.php/IJSLL/article/view/536]
• Plágio é uma declaração de confiança? 46
• Retórica do tradutor:
•  Translators work ‘translatively’ in the sense that their subjectivity is ostensibly hidden behind the main text and emerges in the liminal spaces of stylistic preferences, prefaces, footnotes, or reviews.49 The translation history we are interested in examines these liminal spaces where the translators’ claims to trustworthiness are intended to meet the expectations of their readers and clients, and gain trust. Different cultures and societies make different assumptions about the roles and social functions of translators. The mismatch between trust claims, readers’ expectations, and perceived betrayal of regimes in some cases results in the persecution and death of the translator r—see, for instance, William Tyndale’s death following his 1525 English translation of the Christian New Testament. A mismatch can also provide translators with an important role within specific professional contexts. Early in the history of psychoanalysis as a profession, undertaking to translate psychoanalytic studies provided many lay analysts (who were medically untrained) with a means to gain some standing in their growing professional networks 
• ome regimes expect detachment or limited responsibility from the translator or interpreter: it is not the translator or interpreter who takes responsibility for the content of the message, but the first author or the patron. Other regimes emphasise the service provided by translators rather than the inherent value of the product, the text. By ‘service’ we mean a suite of relational values that are significant for the receiving culture: the prestige of the translated author or culture; nation-building by means of domestication of foreign texts and ideas, or social, cultural, and economic forms of capital for patrons, dedicatees, clients, readers, and translators themselves.47-8
• Paratextos dos tradutores buscavam confiança por várias estratégias.
• Invisibilidade sob a ótica da confiança
• "The growing professionalisation of translators and interpreters is little considered in recent discussions about the translators’ invisibility." 52
• The invisibility of the western translator is therefore less significant with respect to trust. Industrial standards for language-service companies seek to ensure quality not by evaluating the product (the translation) but by regulating the production process, for example by requiring that all translations be reviewed by someone other than the translator. The product is assumed trustworthy if the industrial process has been followed correctly. Such standards also seek to regulate translators not in terms of personal skills but through reference to institutional training or certification. In the catalogue of International Standards, for example, for ISO17100 (2015) ‘Translation services’, all translators covered by the standard must have ‘a certificate of competence in translation awarded by an appropriate government body’.71 The ‘scandal’ of invisibility exposed by Venuti seems, from this perspective, a matter of increased institutional supervision that claims a global scope. 53

On relativity: trusting historians

• What we say as historians depends in the first place on where we are and why we are doing history. This can mean at least three things for translation history. First, we can be never entirely external, detached, or neutral with respect to this particular object. Second, the very positions from which we speak are in historical movement and thus to some extent translational in themselves. And third, we should not shy away from the bad things of our past, one of which might be the expansion of one particular translation form (and its mode of study) across virtually all others, a process that has gone strangely unseen. 62
• Trad já é suspeita desde o início pois pressupõe ignorancia.
• Não há distanciamento entre historiador e historiado. Paradoxo do observador.
• Os aspectos tecnológicos influenciam a prática.
• Trad tem mãos sujas.

On interdisciplinarity: trusting translation history

• Capítulo especializado em hc.
• Cc vista como lingua universal dos 1920 a 1960. Depois vem a critica ao universalismo. 89
• Discurso sobre interdisciplinaridade.
• Comentários excelentes sobre Montgomery 92-3
• Sugere skopos para Montgomery 95-6
• [Ver: Monika Krein-Kühle, ‘Laying the Foundations for Scientific and Technical Translation’, The Translator 17 (2011): 439–444]
• TS e HS
• On a solely discursive level we could thus conclude that, at least in this special issue of The Translator, the boundaries within translation studies have become porous, beginning to form an interlanguage. The linguists soften their rigid methodology by applying their methods to scientific historical texts, by considering historical factors, and by referencing secondary literature from the history of science. The cultural historians choose the history of science as a topic in the first place (a greater step for them than for the linguists, who have a longer tradition of embracing science as a special language), and give a detailed textual and historical analysis; in their close textual readings and historical contextualisation they, too, reference historians of science. This cross-referentiality represents an important aspect of a language shared across the long-standing, institutionalised divide between the disciplines of linguistics and cultural history 97
• DARWIN
• cita o freeman database
• Gliboff primeiro estudo profundo sobre as trads de darwin.
• Gliboff argues against previous assumptions that Bronn’s translation of On the Origin of Species was not aimed at ‘twisting Darwin into conformity with outmoded views that Bronn himself had never even espoused’ as Britta Rupp-Eisenreich argues.53 According to Gliboff’s study, the shifts in meaning that ensued from Bronn’s translation—which made Darwin somewhat unhappy at times— can explained by the linguistic challenges and institutional differences between English and German science.54 98 
• Contudo Gliboff ainda não engaja muito com TS. Acuna Partal também não.
• Problemas da interdisciplinaridadec 99
• Mais um discurso sobre interdisciplinaridade

Conclusion

• Downstream: from the translated text or culture to the readers and client
• Upstream: from the reception of translation and translator up to the translated text or request to translate. 111
•