Pym 2010

EXPLORING TRANSATION THEORIES

I - What is translation theory?

• Traduzir é escolher. 1
• texto de partida > texto fonte 2
• Poder das palavras na teoria 2
• "Only when there are disagreements over different ways of translating does private theorization tend to become public theory." 2
• Paradigmas. Kuhn. 3
•  When the paradigms clash, people are often using the word “translation” to refer to quite different things. Debate then becomes pointless, at least until someone attempts to go beyond their initial paradigm. 4 
• Pluralidade de teorias. 5

II - Natural equivalence

• Equivalencia é o princípio de que é possível encontrar o mesmo valor em forma ou função na outra língua. 6
• Eq natural: A <> B; Eq direcional A>B; B>A2 6
• Pontos chave
• Eq é uma relação de igual valor
• Pode ser estabelecido em qualquer nivel linguistico
• Nat Eq existe antes da trad e não é direcionalmente afetada
• Linguistas estruturalistas n acreditam em Nat Eq
• "The equivalence paradigm solves this problem by working at levels lower than language systems. This can be done by focusing on contextual signifi cation rather than systemic meaning, by undertaking componential analysis, by assuming reference to a tertium comparationis, by assuming that deverbalization is possible, or by considering value to be markedness."
• Vinay e Darbelnet categorizaram as soluções
• Nat eq é histórica em sua natureza. 6-7
• Vinay e Darbelnet definiam equivalencia por função como meio de resolver problemas de falta de simetria. 8
• Nida traz eq formal e dinamica (funcional). 8
• Estrturalismo: Humboldt; Sapir & Whorf; Saussure.
• . One should conclude, according to structuralist linguistics, that the words sheep and mouton have very different values. They thus cannot translate each other with any degree of certainty. In fact, since different languages cut the world up in very different ways, no words should be completely translatable out of their language system. Equivalence should not be possible. 9 
• Yet it is. Teorias de eq. surgem buscando resolver essa questão do estruturalismo. 9 Alguns argumentos:
• Signification: Distinção entre valor (intrínseco, langue) e significação (uso real, parole). Assim pode se encontrar equivalencia.
• Language use: estudos direto de parole. Koller.
• Text levels: Eq rank bounded para os vários níveis de um texto. Catford.
• Componential Analysis: Semantica lexica. Isolar e contar os valores.
• Vinay e Darbelnet estudaram os equivalentes que podem ser encontrados.
• "Natural equivalents do exist, but rarely in a state of untouched nature. As the German theorist Otto Kade (1968) argued, they are mostly the stuff of terminology, of artifi cially standardized words that are made to correspond to each other. All specialized fi elds of knowledge have their terminologies; they unnaturally create “natural” equivalents. Vinay and Darbelnet, however, are seeking equivalents characterized as “natural” precisely because they are supposed to have developed without interference from meddling linguists, translators, or other languages."

• Tabela em ordem de literalidade. 13 [tem também Compensation, mas já é direcional 25]
• Há tambem efeitos prosódicos, alguns são: 14
• Amplificação/Redução
• Explicitação/Implicitação
• Generalização/Particularização
• Ver Fawcett 1997 para um apanhado de estratégias de tradução com equivalentes de pares de idiomas diferentes.

• Categorias tem o problema de não serem muito práticas ou de serem amplas demais. 15-6
• Koller (Reiss acompanha) 17
• Denotative
• Connotative
• Text normative
• Pragmatic
• Formal
• Tertium comparationis
•  Seleskovitch’s ideal translator would move mentally from start form to universal sense, and then to the target form. Vinay and Darbelnet, however, implicitly model the translator as fi rst selecting the translation that is closest to the start form, and only moving away from that literalism when necessary. Deverbalization or literalism, which model is the most correct? This might be the central argument of the natural equivalence paradigm. 17-8
• Pym lista as virtudes da eq nat: no contexto estruturalista defendeu a prática da trad; tradutores que estudaram foram buscar exemplos práticos que são ou foram úteis no treinamento de outros tradutores; é uma teoria que carrega os termos mais próximos do senso comum. 18
• Argumentos comuns contra:
• Natural equivalence presupposes a non-existent symmetry" (Snell-Hornby)
• The tests of equivalence have no psychological basis (Delisle)
• New information cannot be ‘natural’
• Naturalness hides imperialism
• Naturalness promotes parochialism (Venuti)
• Nat eq como um subparadigma histórico
• Belief in the equal values of languages was quite rare in European theorizing prior to the Renaissance. Much of medieval thinking assumed a hierarchy of languages, where some were considered intrinsically better than others. At the top were the languages of divine revelation (Biblical Hebrew, New Testament Greek, Arabic, sometimes Sanskrit), then the languages of divinely inspired translation (the Greek of the Septuagint, the Latin of the Vulgate), then the national vernaculars, then the patois or regional dialects. This usually meant that translation was seen as a way of enriching the target language with the values of a superior source language. Most translations went downward in the hierarchy, from Hebrew or Greek to Latin, or from Latin to the vernaculars. For as long as the hierarchy existed, claims to equivalence (certainly without the term) played little role in thought on translation.
• For roughly parallel historical reasons, the basic idea of equivalence was diffi cult to maintain prior to the age of the printing press. Before printing, the start text was not a stable entity. Texts tended to undergo constant incremental changes in the process of copying (each copyist adapted and changed things), and those small changes followed the numerous variations of regional dialects, prior to the standardization of national vernaculars. There was usually not just one “source text” waiting to be translated. There would be a range of different manuscripts, with layer upon layer of different receptions inscribed in those manuscripts. Translation could be seen as an extension of that process. Why try to be equivalent if there is nothing stable to be equivalent to? 
•  Printing and the rise of standardized vernaculars helped the conceptualization of equivalence. True, the term “equivalence” was not used. In its place you usually fi nd talk of “fi delity,” often to an author, but also to a sense, intention, or function that could be found in a fi xed text. 
•  In accordance with this same logic, the relative demise of equivalence as a concept could correspond to the electronic technologies by which contemporary texts are constantly evolving, primarily through updating (think of websites, software, and product documentation). Without a fi xed text, what should a translation be equivalent to? For that matter, in the age of international English and strong national vernaculars, have we not created a new hierarchy of languages (see 7.8 below)? 
•  Seen in this historical light, natural equivalence cannot really provide any guarantee of a “true” or “valid” translation. Yet its power as a concept remains strong.  20-1

III - Directional equivalence

• Pontos chave 24-5
• Assimetria. Equivalencia direcional
• Mais escolhas para o tradutor. Escolhas não ditadas pelo texto de partida.
• Soluções em pares de "fidelidade"
• Equivalencia como uma ficção social que promove confiança em comunicações culturais.
• Chesterman fala de similaridade divergente (um novo texto é produzido que não substitui o de partida) e convergente (A<>B). Pym acredita que a direcionalidade também aparece em teorias de eq 26
• Catford, Nida e outros parecem entender que a equivalencia só existe no alvo. O termo é substituido ou reproduzido pela sua contraparte mais próxima possível. 27
• Pérola
• In any theory, look for the defi nition of translation and try to see what it is assuming, then what it is omitting. What you fi nd often indicates the strengths and weaknesses of the whole theory. In this case, the strength of the defi nitions, whether based on naturalness or directionality, is that they have the one term (“equivalent”) that distinguishes translation from all the other things that can be done in interlingual communication (rewriting, commentary, summary, parody, etc.). The weakness is that they mostly do not explain why this relation should just be one- way in some cases, or two- way in others. Further, they are often in doubt as to whether the equivalent is equal to a value within a language, to a message, to a text with content and style, to an effect, or to all those things but at different times. 28 
• Para Kade, Eq:
• One to one (termos estáveis técnicos, não-direcional)
• One to several (várias alternativas, direcional)
• one to part (match parcial, direcional)
• one to none (sem equivalente, cunhar nova palavra)
• Backtranslation 30
• Polaridades. 30-2
• cicero: ut interpres/ ut orator, 
• schleiermacher: estrangeirizada/domesticada
• nida: formal/dinâmica
• Newark: semântica/comunicativa
• Levi: ilusória/anti-ilusória
• House: overt/covert
• Nord: Documentary/instrumental
• Toury: adequate/acceptable
• Venuti: Fluente/resistente
• Gutt traz implicatura de Grice. Subtexto entre as palavras. 35 4 máximas 35-6
• Maxim of quantity: não dar mais informação que o necessário
• quality: não desinforme
• relevance: seja relevante
• manner: fluencia de leitura
• Virtudes 37-8
1. não tem tanta ideologia quanto aquela que pretende encontrar algo natural universal;
2. mais ampla;
3. algumas assumem que existem ilusões;
4. resolve a impossibilidade de tradução pela abertura de várias maneiras de alcançar a eq
5. abre caminho pra ética do tradutor;
6. rtradutor livre para escolher a eq que queria.
• Argumentos frequentes
• Equivalence presupposes symmetry between languages (Snell Hornby)
• Theories of directional equivalence are unnecessarily binary (Meschonnic)
• Theories of equivalence make the start text superior (vermeer)
• Equivalence is not effi cient; similarity is enough (Chesterman)

IV - Purposes

• Vermeer thus claimed to have “dethroned” the start text and have gone beyond equivalence. This approach accepts that the one text can be translated in different ways in order to carry out different functions. The translator thus needs information about the specifi c goals each translation is supposed to achieve, and this requires extra- textual information of some kind, usually from the client. In this way, the linguistic frame of the equivalence paradigm becomes much wider, bringing in a series of professional relationships 43
• Takeaways 43-4
• Skopos da enfase ao target, afastando-se da eq
• A eq é um caso especial no qual as funções dos textos são iguais
• Diferentes trads para diferentes propósitos.
• Liberdade e flexibilidade do tradutor em Holz Manttari e Honig e Kussmaul;
• Skopos como novo paradigma. O tradutor trabalha para atingir a função comunicativa, não a partir do texto de partida 44
• AS equivalencias dependem do que se traduz. 46
• Reiss:

• Nord e Snell Honrby opuseram seu funcionalismo a eq. 48
• Tipo do texto decide se ele será traduzido com notas no start text funcionalism. Interessante para a tese 48 Vermeer tem uma visão mais matizada 48-9
• Translator expertise Holz Manttari. 49
• For Holz-Mänttäri, the properly trained translator is the expert in solving problems concerning translation, and so should be left to decide on such issues. Authors and clients, on the other hand, tend to be experts in their own respective fi elds, and so should be left to decide about such things as fi eld- specifi c terminology and the desired effect on the reader. Holz-Mänttäri thus presents a world of complementary expertise, full of mutual respect, and with a prominent and well- defi ned place for the properly trained translator. The translator is sovereign in properly translational matters. 53
• Adições e omissões:
• An important consequence of the purpose paradigm is that the translator can give more information than is in the start text if necessary, and less information if so required. That possibility was partly recognized within the equivalence paradigm, but never fully condoned. Nida, for example, talked about “addition” as something a translator could do with a text, but he immediately explained that “there has been no actual adding to the semantic content of the message, for these additions consist essentially in making explicit what is implicit in the source- language text” (1964: 230–1). Similarly, what Nida calls “subtraction” apparently “does not substantially lessen the information carried by the communication” (1964: 233). The equivalence paradigm generally does not legitimize cases of outright addition or omission, where the translator need not point to something in the start text as the reason for what is in the target text. In fact, while an author like Vázquez-Ayora could certainly discuss the category of “paraphrase” as something that translators are occasionally called upon to do, he issues repeated warnings that such uses of reduction do not really belong to the domain of translation: “To translate does not mean to explain or comment on a text, or to write it as we see fi t” (1977: 288; my translation). Somewhere beneath this general refusal to allow additions or omissions we might fi nd the Biblical prohibitions of modifying the sacred text (cf. Deut. 4:2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19). More generally, an age of strong authorship tends to respect the integrity of all texts, and for as long as the start text remains the measure and justifi cation of translation solutions, the question of exactly how much the translator can add or take away need never be formulated as such. On the other hand, in an age where many texts are relatively authorless (brochures, webpages, and instructions do not usually carry the name of any one author), there seems to be greater translatorial liberty. 51 
• Honig e Kussmaul trazm o principle of the necessary degree of precision. 51
• Quem decide a função 53-4
• Para Holz Manttari não o tradutor. Vermeer é dificil de saber, mas parece ser o leitor. Nord e Snell Hornby enfatizam o contratante. Nord traz o conceito de lealdade às partes. Gouadec:
• If we compare Gouadec’s approach with German- language Skopos theory, several signifi cant differences emerge. Most obviously, Gouadec sees the translator as a language technician able to follow explicit instructions as part of a team. Holz-Mänttäri and Vermeer, on the other hand, tend to see the translator as an expert individual trained to make decisions and to be responsible for them. Their ideal translator would be a consultant on crosscultural communication, able to advise clients about how to present themselves in a different culture.  [vai na direção oposta a pluralidade em sua interpretação do skopos] 59
• Virtudes 54-5
• Decisções governadas pelo propósito;
• Amplia a atividade tradutória;
• Várias traduções possíveis para um texto;
• Instruções ou briefing são necessários;
• Vários atores envolvidos além do tradutor;
• reconhece a tradução como profissão;
• não é prescritivo nas categorias;
• é mais rica em aspectos da ativdade tradutória;
• adereça questões éticas.
• Argumentos frequentes 55-8
• We translate words, not functions (Newmark)
• Purposes are identified in the text (Malmkjaer)
• The concept of purpose (or Skopos) is an idealism;
• The Skopos theory is unfalsifi able;
• The theory does not address equivalence as a default norm;
• Purpose analysis is mostly not cost- effective
• The well- trained translator is a self- serving notion;
• The theory cannot resolve cases of confl icting purposes;
• The theory contradicts ethics of truth and accuracy (Newmark)
• Gouadec's job description
• For Gouadec, if all the elements of the translation project can be located and defi ned in this elaborate “ pre- translation” phase, through discussion and negotiation with the client, the actual translating will present relatively few problems. In fact, Gouadec goes a little further. For him, there remain many decisions for which translators are probably more competent than their clients, particularly concerning such things as forms of address (polite or formal second person, for example). Translators should decide on these “optional” elements, but then present a list of proposed decisions to the client for approval. Pretranslation thus does as much as possible to remove all possible sources of doubt. It effectively establishes the equivalents prior to doing the job. 59 

V - Descriptions

• Takeaways 62-3
• Descrevem o que é, não o que deveria ser.
• Shifts são diferenças padronizadas entre a target e start. Top down ou bottom up
• Trads tem papel cultural
• Podem ser inovativas ou conservativas
• Podem ser vistas como fatos da cultura alvo, tirando um pouco da enfase dada ao start text
• Normas guiam o processo
• "Universals of translation" diferenciam a trad de outras atividades
• Laws of translation descrevem como trads se correlacionam entre culturas.
• Descrições cognitivas comparativas para entender no que os autores podem ser treinados.
• Para toury
•  equivalence was a feature of all translations, simply because the texts were thought to be translations, no matter what their linguistic or aesthetic quality (cf. Toury 1980: 63–70). That changed everything. If equivalence was suddenly everywhere in translations, or almost, it could no longer be used to support any linguistics that would help people create it. Translation theory was thereby moved to a realm that was relatively unprotected by any parent discipline; it founded its own discipline. More than pure theory, however, the descriptive approach emphasized the need to do research, mostly of the kind done in structuralist literary studies. 63
• Shits como "departure of form" para Catford 64
• Análise bottom up tem muitas falhas. 64-5 Análise top down é hipotetico dedutiva. 66
• Níveis de análise Toury 68
• Sistema: o que pode ser
• Normas: o que deve ser
• Performance: o que é.
• Polissistemas de Even Zohar
• When the Israeli scholar Itamar Even-Zohar analyzes the relation between translations and cultures, he uses the term “ polysystems.” This “poly-” means “many” or “plural,” indicating that a culture is a system made up of many other systems (linguistic, literary, economic, political, military, culinary, etc.). For Even-Zohar, translated literature can be seen as a sub- system occupying a position within the literature that hosts it. The translations can become a key element in the literature (and thus “innovative” or “central”); they may be secondary or unimportant (“conservative” or “peripheral”); or they can occupy positions in between. In these terms, translation is a way one polysystem “interferes” with another, where the verb “to interfere” is not pejorative. 69
• Pode ser central em culturas recentes ou periféricos em ambientes mais estabeleecidos. Implicações interessantes para a trad no Brasil do sécul XIX. 69
• Função é o que o texto faz no sistema (se é periférico ou central, conservativo ou inovador). Diferente da função do Skopos 70
• " norms are not laws that everyone has to follow. Norms are more like common standard practices in terms of which other types of practice are marked. " 70
• Toury: preliminary e operational norms; Chesterman: professional e expectancy norms 71
• "the concept of norms has helped bridge some of the gaps between descriptivism and prescriptivism" 72
• Assumed translation [n é uma questão que me interessa tanto] 73
• Universais de tradução propostos: 76-7
• Simplificação léxica
• Explicitation
• Adaptation
• Equalizing
• Unique items
• Há também as leis. Toury tem a "lei de aumento de padronização" e "lei da interferencia" 79
• Process studies: Trads mais experientes usam mais parafrases e menos literalismo; processam unidades maiores; revisam por mais tempo, mas pegam menos erros; leem mais rápido e ficam mais tempo no target q no start; processam top down e se referem mais ao propósito; fazem mais de memória; expressam mais principios e teorias pessoais; incorporam o clitner; automatizam conscientemente; são mais realistas, confiantes e críticos. 80
• Virtudes 81
• Enfase na história da trad
• Avançou o campo
• Bem útil
• Não prescritivo.
• Argumentos 81-2
• Descriptions do not help train translators.
• The target side cannot explain all relations
• The models concern texts and systems, not people
• The focus on norms promotes conservative positions
• The defi nition of ‘assumed translations’ is circular
• Descriptivist theory is unaware of its own historical position

• Sumário:
• This chapter has sketched out a set of descriptive theories that oppose the equivalence paradigm in that they aim to be non- prescriptive, their prime focus is on “shifts” rather than types of equivalence, and they do not undertake extensive analysis of the start text. They tend to be like purpose- based Skopos approaches in that they emphasize the targetculture context and the function of translations. They nevertheless differ from purposebased approaches in that they see functions in terms of the positions occupied by translations within the target systems, rather than with respect to a client or a job description. Descriptive theories also tend to concern what translations are usually like in a particular context, rather than the ways in which particular translations might differ. They are thus able to talk about the “norms” that guide the way translations are produced and received. The paradigm is relativistic in that it is very aware that what is considered a good translation in one historical context may not be rated so highly in a different context. 83

VI - Uncertainty

• Takeaways 86
• Pode se duvidar da causa e efeito entre um par de textos;
• Essa incerteza vale pro sentido de qualquer comunicação
• Algumas não questionam os textos mas apenas que o ST não causa trad.
• Outras são totalmente indeterministas
• Trad ainda pode ser explicada nesse contexto;
• Desconstrução admite que toda trad envolve transformação.
• Pontos fracos da equivalência:
• Instability of the “source”: Descriptive research has shown that what translators do varies according to their cultural and historical position. For example, in the pre- print age, texts were often manuscripts that were constantly being copied, modifi ed, and rewritten, as well as translated, making translation just another step in an endless sequence of transformations (in this, medieval texts were rather like our websites and software programs today). They were not stable points of departure to which any translation could be considered equivalent. So the concept of equivalence was not something that medieval translators argued about. Similar doubts about equivalence occur in our own technocratic age, where the success of a text tends to be measured in terms of the user pushing the right button or clicking on the right link, rather than by comparison with any anterior text. 2
•  Epistemological skepticism: Alongside the growing awareness of variability, the intellectual climate of the humanities was changing quite dramatically from the 1970s. Various forms of structuralism had assumed that scientifi c study could produce stable scientifi c knowledge in a world of relations between objects. However, philosophers had long been questioning that certainty. The relations between things could not be separated from relations within language, and language could not be assumed to be transparent to those things. In literary studies and cultural philosophy, structuralism gave way to post- structuralism and deconstruction. Those movements asked serious questions about equivalence. If a piece of language was supposed to be equivalent to some other piece of language, who had the right to say so? How could you ever be certain you had located the thing in common? What was equivalent to what, exactly, for whom, and with what authority? Those questions concern epistemology (the study of the ways knowledge is produced), and they are asked from a position of skepticism (whatever knowledge is produced, we are not entirely sure about it). A challenge to equivalence thus came from epistemological skepticism: the knowledge provided by equivalence might not be wrong, but we are not entirely sure about it. 87
• Quine propõe a indeterminação da linguagem. 89-90
• Platão, Sócrates, Hermogenes Crátilo e o nominalismo e realismo. 91-2
• "an indeterminist theory of naming [nominalista] can produce an equivalence- based theory of translation." e vice versa 92
• Existem teorias cratilisticas: " determinist theory of expression underlying an indeterminist theory of translation" 92-3
• Wittgenstein
• Croce signifi cantly describes the “ similarity” or “approximation” as a “ family likeness.” The metaphor was to become rather better known through Wittgenstein (e.g. 1958: 32), who talked about “family likenesses” (Anscombe translates it as “family resemblances”) to describe the relations between the elements of semantic sets. From there, the metaphor has been used within the equivalence paradigm to describe different ways translations relate to their start texts (see 3.1 and 3.9.4 above). It has also served in the descriptivist paradigm to portray the way translations are different yet belong to the same set (cf. Toury 1980; Halverson 1998). However, for the Modernist aesthetic, where form cannot be separated from content, the sense of “family likeness” was more radically negative: a likeness was the best that translation should hope to achieve, since there could be no absolute equivalence. Translations are all very well, but they will never replace originals. That is one way determinist theories of language, or of expression in general, have sought to retain the possibility of translation, by weakening the concept. It is a way that actually meets up with some forms of directional equivalence. Yet there are other ways as well. 93-4
• "... Heidegger’s attention is devoted to precisely what is “not translatable,” the “remainders,” the non- equivalents that are somehow covered over by the “commonplaces” of offi cial equivalence. Rather than valuing family likenesses, Heidegger values the productive confl ict of differences" Lembra epistemícidio 94
• Para Heidegger nós somos agentes de transmissão da linguagem. A parte ativa é dela. Tradução é um legado. 95
• Benjamin, línguas como fragmentos de um receptáculo. 95
• Teorias para lidar com a indeterminação:
• Teoria da iluminação. Contexto religioso. Fé elimina a indeterminação. "The real communication lies in shared experience". 97
• Teoria de consenso. Fundamentada em Locke. Definir os termos em conjunto préviamente. 98
• Hermeneutica. Questões interpretativas. Diálogo. Berman e Ricoeur. 99-100
• Construtivismo.  100-1
• Game theory 101-2
• Non Linear Logic: Heuristics; Visualization; Cybernetics; Complexity theory; Risk analysis; Fuzzy logic as partial set membership; and as simultaneous set membership; wisdom; ecology 102-4
• Semiótica. Peirce, Eco, Jakobson. Pym faz uma critica interessante no final. 104-5
• Desconstrução (Derrida); Translation as a form of transformation [seeking the] remainder. Critica ao essencialismo da eq. ST como sugestão. Mas era da boca pra fora pra ele. Arrojo segue melhor 106-7
• Argumentos 109-112
• The theories are not useful to translators
• The theorists are not translators and do not care about translation
• The theories lead to a lack of rigor
• Indeterminism is of no consequence
• These theories are merely oppositional
• Deconstruction prescribes what translations should be
• Linearity is part of the translation form
• Indeterminism is debilitating
• These theories do not help us live with uncertainty
• Sumário
• This chapter started from the simple idea that translators cannot be absolutely certain about the meanings they translate. This is seen as a problem of determinism, in the sense that a text does not fully cause (or “determine”) its translations. I have identifi ed two kinds of theories that accept this uncertainty. Some theories assume that the (great) text is full of meaning in a way to which translations will be adequate. Those theories are thus determinist with respect to expression and indeterminist with respect to translation. Other theories, however, assume uncertainty to be a feature of all communication. They are indeterminist with respect to both start texts and translations. Seen in this way, uncertainty becomes a problem that the translator has to resolve. I have identifi ed several ways in which translators might come to live with uncertainty. You can, for example, trust that religious faith or mystical illumination will guide you; you could enter into extended dialogues in order to reach social consensus about meaning; you can accept that your position infl uences what you fi nd in a text, so it is worth analyzing your own motivations; you can see translation as the way in which all meaning is constructed; you can see translating as a game in which we make moves and place bets, in a complex world theorized through non- linear logic. Finally, the practice of deconstruction is one further way of dealing with uncertainty, based on translating or analyzing translations in such a way that the points of indeterminacy are revealed rather than hidden. 112-3

VII - Localization

• Takeaways 117
• Loc cria linguas e culturas artificias como resposta a indeterminação
• Internacionalização, preparação do produto para tradução rápida
• Mais próxima de eq devido aos glossários e a trad descontextualizada.
• Softwares de tradução e memória.
• Internacionalização afeta o texto. 122
• Trad é só uma parte da loc. 131
• Argumentos 132-3
• Localization is a part of translation
• There is nothing new in localization
• Localization belittles translators
• Localization leads to low- quality communication
• Standardization reduces cultural diversity”
• World language system (de Swaan): 
• The general picture is of a hierarchy where some languages are central and used for production, others are semi- central and impose strong constraints on consumption, and still others are virtually excluded from the relations of production, consumption, and translation. The result is strangely like the dynamics and ideologies of the medieval hierarchy of languages. 134
• Relação entre globalização e ética 135
• "the paradigm also allows for considerable cultural adaptation, going well beyond the confi nes of traditional equivalence- based translation. In most respects, the long- term cultural effects of localization remain to be seen. " 136

VIII - Cultural translation

• Takeways 138
• Vai além da trad de textos;
• Movimentos de pessoas, não de textos;
• Abordagem que pode ser complementar;
• Pode ser feita a partir da antropoplogia e sociologia da tradução.
• Tradução como mediação 144-5
• Semiótica
•  Jakobson’s statement that “the meaning of any linguistic sign is its translation into some further, alternative sign” (1959/2012: 127). This is the key point of a theory of semiosis, where meaning is constantly created by interpretations and is thus never a fi xed thing that could be objectifi ed and transferred. As I noted, rather than represent a previous meaning, translation would be the active production of meaning. That was in 1959, from within a linguistics that at that stage wanted to become semiotics, the wider study of all kinds of signs. 145
•  Serres tem uma tradução cultural da ciência no Hermes III. 146
• Eco e Jakobson ainda privilegiavam a tranalation proper. 146
• Etnografia como tradução. 148
• ANT de Callor e Latour é baseada em tradução por influencia de Serres!? 149
• Translation, for Callon, is the process by which one person or group says things that are taken to be “on behalf of” or to “stand for” another person or group. That might simply be another version of Jakobson’s view of linguistic meaning, of semiosis, except that in this case the representation process is seen as the formation of social power. 150
• By “translation” we mean the set of negotiations, intrigues, acts of persuasion, calculations, acts of violence by which an actor or a force accords or allows itself to be accorded the authority to speak or to act in the name of another actor or force ... (Callon and Latour 1981/2006: 12–13; my [Pym] translation) 150
• [ Não seria abrir demais a semântica da palavra?]
• It would be a sad error, however, to think that translation sociology should be applied to professional translators simply because the term “translation” appears in both. The word has very different meanings in the two places. 151 
• Virtudes da ANT 150-1
• Recusa em reconhecer limites sociais e culturais pré estabelecidos. Tradução no espaço inter culturas
• Trad na formação de relações de poder.
• Trad como "falar por outro"
• Sociologia que abarca as redes dos tradutores, caracterizadas por serem pequenas quantitativamente, mas enormes qualitativamente.
• Inclui o sociologo.
• Renn, trad como ferramenta das sociedades fragmentadas. 151
• Generalized translation
• Within and beyond the above frames, there is no shortage of metaphorical uses of the word “translation.” Language is a translation of thought; writing translates speech; literature translates life; a reading translates a text; all metaphors are also translations ( metapherein is one of the Greek terms for “translation”), and in the end, as the Lauryn Hill song puts it, “everything is everything.” 153
• EUA como breeding ground da trad generalizada 153.
• Pontos positivos
• it introduces a human dimension and sees translation from the perspective of the (fi gurative) translator; it concerns translation as a cultural process rather than a textual product; its focus on hybridity undoes many of the binary oppositions marking previous translation theory; it relates translation to the demographical movements that are changing the shape of our cultures; it can generally operate within all the critiques ensuing from the uncertainty paradigm. 154
• Argumentos
•  These theories only use translation as a metaphor
• Cultural translation is an excuse for intellectual wandering
• Cultural translation is a space for weak interdisciplinarity
• Cultural translation can be studied entirely in English
• Cultural translation is not in touch with the translation profession

Postscript

• A penny for your thoughts
• What do I think of the paradigms? Equivalence, for me, is an effi cient social illusion. People believe in it just as they believe in the value of the money they carry in their pockets; we believe in these things even when there is no linguistic certainty behind equivalence and not enough gold to back up our coins. We have to understand the way equivalence beliefs work. From that point, I can accept all the other paradigms as having valid points to make about the illusory nature of equivalence. Skopos theory, for me, is a collection of quite evident things, unfortunately unable to solve ethical problems involving competing purposes. As for the descriptive paradigm, it stands at the center of translation research and cannot be ignored, but it must be made to refl ect critically on the role of the describer. The uncertainty paradigm also has good and bad in it—I accept the lessons of deconstruction and I am looking for ways to live with them, but I do not go along with theories that assume the supremacy of the start text, and I am uneasy with the hermeneutic tradition that stares in that direction. I am more interested in the aspects of the uncertainty paradigm that can help create a future, particularly in the dynamics of risk management and cooperation (sooner or later we have to build a better world, as well as criticize bad worlds). As for localization, I am fascinated by the effects of technology, which is offering a better future, just as I am appalled by the naïve way in which equivalence has returned in that paradigm, in all its deceptive simplicity. Cultural translation then opens up new ways of thinking about translation in social contexts. For me, however, the paradigm ceases to function as translation theory when it can no longer address translations, and I suspect that much of the work done on cultural translation would be better branded as “intercultural studies.” 159
• Here, then, is my one piece of advice: When theorizing translation, when developing your own translation theory, fi rst identify a problem—a situation of doubt requiring action, or a question in need of an answer. Then go in search of ideas that can help you work on that problem. And be prepared to change everything. There is no need to start in any one paradigm, and certainly no need to belong to one. 160