Post-colonial Translation Studies and Rey Chow"s ‘Translation between Cultures’

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 95-134
Author(s):  
Choon-sung YIM
Author(s):  
Mirian Ruffini ◽  
Gabriel Both Borella

The publication of translations of postcolonial literary works is increasingly gaining space in the Brazilian publishing market. In this article, the articulation between Translation Studies and Postcolonial Studies is sought through the analysis of the post-colonial novel Half a Life, by V.S. Naipaul, and its translation to Brazilian Portuguese, entitled Meia Vida. Discussions of ideological aspects in the translation of postcolonial texts and the very choice of what is translated and by whom are questions raised by the text, as well as the challenges of translating postcolonial literary texts. Finally, it is discussed how the postcolonial discourse of the original work is transmitted through translation, ascertaining possible suppression or maintenance of the postcolonial tone of the original work in the translated work.


Author(s):  
Paul F. Bandia

Postcolonial intercultural writing has been likened to translation both in terms of the writing practice and the nature of the postcolonial text, which often involves multiple linguistic and cultural systems. To highlight the significance of this view of translation as a metaphor for postcolonial writing and its impact on current translation theory, this paper attempts to lay the groundwork for defining the linguistic and cultural status of postcolonial discourse and to establish parallels between the translation process and some strategies for crafting the postcolonial text. The ontological relation between translation theory and practice is discussed in the light of post- colonial translation practices which have broadened the scope of research in translation studies to include issues of ideology, identity, power relations, and other ethnographic and sociologically based modes of investigation.


2011 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 142-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dirk Delabastita

This theoretical case study starts from a brief critical discussion of Eurocentrism in translation studies, underscoring the importance of the efforts toward a more inclusive, truly global and culturally balanced approach to translation which are increasingly being made in our field, often under the banner of “the international turn.” However, the rejection of Eurocentrism leaves open a wide range of alternative models and approaches, and this paper aims to show that the search for alternatives is not without its own difficulties. For example, it might be tempting for non-European scholars to derive an alternative way of thinking about translation from translational practices and discourses in their own continent that appear to be at odds with what is perceived as the “European” model of translation. A post-colonial sensibility would seem to make this an extremely attractive proposition. This is the line of thinking which inspired Edwin Gentzler’s Translation and Identity in the Americas. New Directions in Translation Theory (2008). The paper enters into a critical dialogue with Gentzler’s book in order to argue the general thesis that the replacement of one (perceived) continent-based paradigm by another (perceived) continent-based paradigm is not the best way forward, suffering as it does from a range of methodological problems. The best way to overcome Eurocentrism is not to construct and promote an American continentalism (“translation in the American sense”) as an alternative to it, or any other nationally or continentally defined concept of translation, for that matter.


2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-106
Author(s):  
Dana Crăciun

Abstract In a context where post-colonial translation has emerged as a strong interface between post-colonial studies and translation studies, the present paper examines the case of Salman Rushdie as a post-colonial translator. Drawing on concepts and ideas put forth by the two above-mentioned paradigms, the paper will argue that the strategies used by Rushdie in his attempts to write about the importance of redressing the balance of power and of resisting Orientalising practices are similar to those used by translators of post-colonial literature. The writing of post-colonial literature becomes an act of (re)translation, while translating post-colonial literature should aim at resisting domestication and at creating a target text that remains ‘foreign’ enough for the reader. While there is no doubt that through its post-colonial and global concerns Rushdie’s entire work fits this frame, the analysis will focus only on two works, Midnight’s Children and Two Years, Eight Months and Twenty-Eight Nights, since they seem to bracket Rushdie’s efforts in this respect.


Author(s):  
Maria Tymoczko

Early translation studies scholars explored the relationship between translation and literary creation, showing that translation serves innovative purposes in literary systems that are in crisis, or that are weak or relatively young. Translation also acts as an ‘alibi ’for the introduction of difference. These early explorations leave out the role of ideology in the creative aspects of translation, a role articulated in both discourse theory and postcolonial theory. As a form of linguistic interface, translation introduces discourse shifts, destabilizes received meanings, creates altern ate views of reality, establishes new representations, and makes possible new identities. All these changes can produce creative results in a literary system and a culture. These creative dimensions of translation are particularly apparent in post-colonial contexts, illustrated here by the nexus of language interface, translation, and literary creativity in Ireland from the end of the nineteenth century to the present.


Linguaculture ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-55
Author(s):  
Daniel Gagnon

Abstract Self-translation and bilingual writing are drawing increasing critical attention in literary and translation studies. Bilingual writing can cover a wide range of phenomena involving varying degrees of bilingualism. Scholarly focus has been on emigrant, expatriate or exiled writers and more recently, on bilingual writers writing in a post-colonial context, using the acquired language of the colonizer. The emphasis has been on the cultural and political power inequalities between languages. Self-translation has also been seen from the broader, ontological point of view as a form of double representation of the writing self. My own experience in the particular cultural geography of a bi-national, multicultural country such as Canada offers a different context for reflecting on self-translation and bilingual writing, or what I prefer to call “cross-writing,” based on the fundamental cross-cultural communicative aesthetics underlying my specific writing and self-translation process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document