- Después de la lluvia (Spanish Edition).
- What to Do in Troubled Times.
- Post-colonial Translation: Theory and Practice - Google Книги.
She attacks existing translations including one by the celebrated A. Asymmetrical power relationships in a postcolonial context also form the thread of the important collection of essays entitled Postcolonial Translation: In their introduction p. In current theoretical discourse, then, to speak of postcolonial translation is little short of tautology.
Bassnett and Trivedi For Bhabha , the discourse of colonial power is sophisticated and often camouflaged but its authority may be subverted by the production of ambivalent cultural hybridity that allows enunciative space for the discourse of the colonized to interrelate with it and thus undermine it. The consequences for the translator are crucial. As Michaela Wolf Several chapters are based on the theory and practice of translation from an Indian perspective: Srikantaiah Viswanatha and Simon and A.
You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Twitter account. True enough, but does that justify conceptual vagueness, bad logic, rhetorical fudging? If the aim is to effect the dismantling of postcolonial power structures, should they not be minutely analyzed rather than further mystified by theoretical jargon? Her view of a stairwell as "a liminal space" is made use of as a metaphor for identity: At one point Bhabha offers an aggregate of definitions, which goes on for a few pages.
Here are some examples: Hybridity is the revaluation of the assumption of colonial identity through the repetition of discriminatory identity effects. What is more, his writings have been endorsed by major names in various circles of the academic establishment - postcolonial Said , marxist Eagleton , new historicist Stephen Greenblatt , cultural studies Stuart Hall , literary Toni Morrison. As yet I have not even mentioned the well-known fact that in many other academic quarters, such as philosophical and empirical aesthetics, historiography and sociology, the very underpinnings of poststructuralism have been severely criticized for more than two decades despite the fact that poststructuralism - at times broadly termed postmodernism - has had a foothold in some niches of these fields.
This critique has - as far as I know - never been adequately answered and, most likely, cannot be. In brief, poststructuralism mainly rests on: As we have seen in this brief review of three leading postcolonial theoreticians and critics, they have all largely based their writings on an array of poststructuralist theories.
This means, in turn, that their theoretical frameworks are dubious and that the criticism they - and scholars and students influenced by them all over the world - produce stands on very shaky ground indeed. To spell it out, the reason why I am so critical of the leading postcolonial theoreticians is that I consider postcolonial literature and criticism and postcolonial translation of such momentous importance to contemporary literature, literary studies and translation studies that the theoretical frameworks that inform our view of them should be plausible to say the least , and should build on actual, contextual, historically-informed, sociocultural including ideological and textual groundedness in at least two cultures - and a willingness to employ this groundedness in order to bring about more discriminating understanding of those cultures and their artifacts.
In other words, what we need to recognize today is the complexity of literary communication and translation.
In this endeavour expendable criticism in academic jargon on an untenable theoretical basis is not just scientifically off the mark; it is also morally dubious pedagogy if this kind of writing is endorsed by teachers and scholars and, ultimately, one of the reasons why literary studies have been given such a bad name in other academic disciplines. As in all literature, in postcolonial literature we should be aware of the uniqueness of every work, its context of production, mediation and reception - and the latter two in diachronic as well as synchronic perspectives see Pettersson More specifically, in postcolonial criticism sweeping notions of hybridity are of little use, since the post colonial contexts differ so radically from case to case.
What has brought us to this point is obvious: All the theoreticians and critics who endorse the writings of "the Holy Trinity" do so because they too are steeped in this tradition - which, needless to say, was sorely needed after the preceding romantic biographism and which has produced much of lasting interest.
Postcolonial Translation Theory
To reiterate, what is called for now are broader frameworks, which are able to account for originary, mediating, receptive as well as textual aspects in literary communication - and case studies recognizing this complexity. In this century notably marxists, feminists and postcolonial scholars have contextualized their objects of study; this is why it is particularly deplorable to see how many such even prominent scholars have been swept off their feet by poststructuralist frameworks and jargon.
Postcolonial Translation in Theory and Practice As we move from postcolonial theory to the theory and practice of postcolonial translation, we see that much is taken over from the former or from the theoretical frameworks that inform the former. The most widely discussed and cited translation scholar in the last few years has probably been Lawrence Venuti especially Venuti , who advocates foreignizing as against domesticating translation at all costs.
First we should note what is obvious: Another point I have made elsewhere is that there are, especially in literary translation, instances in which the source text includes features such as the ones Venuti advocates - "discursive variations, experimenting with archaism, slang, literary allusion and convention" Venuti In such cases perhaps the convention of "faithful" or "invisible" translation Venuti a, , so despises would better convey the features that prompted their translations in the first place.
What is more, it is at least potentially paradoxical that the translator should be "visible" and employ "foreignizing" features at the same time, since foreignizing features, at least in the Schleiermacher tradition see Lefevere and Bassnett The influence Venuti has exerted on translation studies - not least postcolonial translation - has been widespread enough to warrant scrutiny of his theoretical framework. But in other fora he has been more outspoken. In his introduction to and selection in the edition Rethinking Translation. The relevant changes were largely part of a development within the discipline more generally and could be identified already at the famous Leuven conference in and in the collection entitled The Manipulation of Literature.
In this collection there are only two overt references to poststructuralism and its predecessors: A brief review of the theory and practice of postcolonial translation studies quickly reveals the extent to which translation scholars draw on poststructuralism, "the Holy Trinity" especially Bhabha , and Venuti Two of the earliest and most explicitly poststructuralist studies are Vicente L. They are lucidly reviewed by Douglas Robinson in his survey Translation and Empire. In fact Robinson The importance of these four critical points lies in the fact that Robinson considers the results of employing theoretical frameworks in translation studies and goes on to suggest that acts of translation should be contextualized.
I return to Robinson and this point in section 3. Theory and practice which is largely informed by poststructuralist frameworks. In their introduction Bassnett and Trivedi a: Else Ribeiro Pires Vieira describes the way in which Haroldo de Campos launches his "poetics of transcreation" from a Brazilian point of view.
Even though Rosemary Arrojo However, the most dissenting voice in Bassnett and Trivedi b is that of Vinay Dharwadker , who, in the longest paper in the collection, shows what indigenous scholarship cross-fertilized with Western traditions of literary studies, linguistics and anthropology has accomplished in the translation theory and practice of A.
In the course of so doing, Dharwadker What is more, expressly unlike Bhabha, for whom, Dharwadker However, one should remember that even though I here have singled out the poststructuralist frameworks that translation scholars employ, many of them draw on a broad array of translation theories and in some cases practices. To conclude, let us briefly consider where translation studies in general and postcolonial literary translation studies in particular are today, and where they might go.
Postcolonial Translation Theory – Literary Theory and Criticism Notes
Roads to be Taken and Roads Not to be Taken The above section title probably irks people who feel that translation studies should be past prescriptive admonitions, since the disciplinary watchword for more than two decades has been description rather than prescription. CPD consists of any educational activity which helps to maintain and develop knowledge, problem-solving, and technical skills with the aim to provide better health care through higher standards.
It could be through conference attendance, group discussion or directed reading to name just a few examples.
We provide a free online form to document your learning and a certificate for your records. Already read this title? Please accept our apologies for any inconvenience this may cause.
Add to Wish List. Toggle navigation Additional Book Information. Description Table of Contents Reviews.
Related Postcolonial Translation: Theory and Practice (Translation Studies)
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved