TRANSLATION STUDIES – Susan Bassnett (3ª ed., 2002)


In 1978, in a brief Appendix to the collected papers of the 1976 Louvain Colloquium on Literature and Translation, André Lefevere proposed that the name Translation Studies should be adopted for the discipline that concerns itself with <the problems raised by the production and description of translations>.”

The art of translation is a subsidiary art and derivative. On this account it has never been granted the dignity of original work, and has suffered too much in the general judgement of letters.” Belloc

studies purporting to discuss translation <scientifically> are often little more than idiosyncratic value judgements of randomly selected translations of the work of major writers such as Homer, Rilke, Baudelaire or Shakespeare. What is analysed in such studies is the product only, the end result of the translation process and not the process itself.”

1791 had seen the publication of the first theoretical essay on translation in English, Alexander Tytler’s Essay on the Principles of Translation

Hence Dante Gabriel Rossetti could declare in 1861 that the work of the translator involved self-denial and repression of his own creative impulses” “At the opposite extreme Edward Fitzgerald, writing about Persian poetry in 1851, could state <It is an amusement to me to take what liberties I like with these Persians, who, (as I think) are not Poets enough to frighten one from such excursions, and who really do want a little Art to shape them.>” “These two positions are both quite consistent with the growth of colonial imperialism in the nineteenth century. From these positions derives the ambiguity with which translations have come to be regarded in the twentieth century.” “Hence a growing number of British or North American students read Greek and Latin authors in translation or study major nineteenth-century prose works or twentieth-century theatre texts whilst treating the translated text as if it were originally written in their own language.”

Some scholars, such as Theodore Savory, define translation as an <art>; others, such as Eric Jacobsen, define it as a <craft>; whilst others, perhaps more sensibly, borrow from the German and describe it as a <science>. Horst Frenz even goes so far as to opt for <art> but with qualifications, claiming that <translation is neither a creative art nor an imitative art, but stands somewhere between the two.>”

The most important advances in Translation Studies in the twentieth century derive from the ground-work done by groups in Russia in the 1920s and subsequently by the Prague Linguistic Circle and its disciples. Vološinov’s work on Marxism and philosophy, Mukařovský’s on the semiotics of art, Jakobson, Prochazka and Levý on translation have all established new criteria for the founding of a theory of translation and have showed that, far from being a dilettante pursuit accessible to anyone with a minimal knowledge of another language, translation is, as Randolph Quirk puts it, <one of the most difficult tasks that a writer can take upon himself.>” “To divorce the theory from the practice, to set the scholar against the practitioner as has happened in other disciplines, would be tragic indeed.”

The fourth category, loosely called Translation and Poetics, includes the whole area of literary translation, in theory and practice. Studies may be general or genre-specific, including investigation of the particular problems of translating poetry, theatre texts or libretti and the affiliated problem of translation for the cinema, whether dubbing or sub-titling. Under this category also come studies of the poetics of individual, translators and comparisons between them, studies of the problems of formulating a poetics, and studies of the interrelationship between SL [Source Language] and TL [Target Language] texts and author—translator—reader.” “It is important for the student of translation to be mindful of the four general categories, even while investigating one specific area of interest, in order to avoid fragmentation.”

All too often, in discussing their work, translators avoid analysis of their own methods and concentrate on exposing the frailties of other translators. Critics, on the other hand, frequently evaluate a translation from one or other of two limited standpoints: from the narrow view of the closeness of the translation to the SL text (an evaluation that can only be made if the critic has access to both languages) or from the treatment of the TL text as a work in their own language. And whilst this latter position clearly has some validity—it is, after all, important that a play should be playable and a poem should be readable—the arrogant way in which critics will define a translation as good or bad from a purely monolingual position again indicates the peculiar position occupied by translation vis-à-vis another type of metatext (a work derived from, or containing another existing text), literary criticism itself.

In his famous reply to Matthew Arnold’s attack on his translation of Homer, Francis Newman declared that

Scholars are the tribunal of Erudition, but of Taste the educated but unlearned public is the only rightful judge; and to it I wish to appeal. Even scholars collectively have no right, and much less have single scholars, to pronounce a final sentence on questions of taste in their court.



In his useful book Translating Poetry, Seven Strategies and a Blueprint, André Lefevere compares translations of Catullus’ Poem 64 with a view not to comparative evaluation but in order to show the difficulties and at times advantages of a particular method. For there is no universal canon according to which texts may be assessed. There are whole sets of canons that shift and change and each text is involved in a continuing dialectical relationship with those sets. There can no more be the ultimate translation than there can be the ultimate poem or the ultimate novel

The nineteenth-century English concern with reproducing <period flavour> by the use of archaisms in translated texts, often caused the TL text to be more inaccessible to the reader than the SL text itself. In contrast, the seventeenth-century French propensity to gallicize the Greeks even down to details of furniture and clothing was a tendency that German translators reacted to with violent opposition. Chapman’s energetic Renaissance Homer is far removed from Pope’s controlled, masterly eighteenth-century version.”

if there are criteria to be established for the evaluation of a translation, those criteria will be established from within the discipline and not from without.”


The first step towards an examination of the processes of translation must be to accept that although translation has a central core of linguistic activity, it belongs most properly to semiotics, the science that studies sign systems or structures, sign processes and sign functions (Hawkes, Structuralism and Semiotics, London 1977).”

Language, then, is the heart within the body of culture, and it is the interaction between the two that results in the continuation of life-energy. In the same way that the surgeon, operating on the heart, cannot neglect the body that surrounds it, so the translator treats the text in isolation from the culture at his peril.”

Jakobson declares that all poetic art is therefore technically untranslatable” “Jakobson gives the example of the Russian word syr (a food made of fermented pressed curds [tecnicamente, coalhada, tofu ou queijo coalho]) which translates roughly into English as cottage cheese. In this case, Jakobson claims, the translation is only an adequate interpretation of an alien code unit and equivalence is impossible.”

consider the question of translating yes and hello into French, German and Italian. This task would seem, at first glance, to be straightforward, since all are Indo-European languages, closely related lexically and syntactically, and terms of greeting and assent are common to all three. For yes standard dictionaries give:

French: oui, si

German: ja

Italian: si

It is immediately obvious that the existence of two terms in French involves a usage that does not exist in the other languages. Further investigation shows that whilst oui is the generally used term, si is used specifically in cases of contradiction, contention and dissent. The English translator, therefore, must be mindful of this rule when translating the English word that remains the same in all contexts.” “French, German and Italian all frequently double or <string> affirmatives in a way that is outside standard English procedures (e.g. si, si, si; ja, ja, etc). Hence the Italian or German translation of yes by a single word can, at times, appear excessively brusque, whilst the stringing together of affirmatives in English is so hyperbolic that it often creates a comic effect.”

Whilst English does not distinguish between the word used when greeting someone face to face and that used when answering the telephone, French, German and Italian all do make that distinction. The Italian pronto can only be used as a telephonic greeting, like the German hallo. Moreover, French and German use as forms of greeting brief rhetorical questions, whereas the same question in English How are you? or How do you do? is only used in more formal situations. The Italian ciao, by far the most common form of greeting in all sections of Italian society, is used equally on arrival and departure, being a word of greeting linked to a moment of contact between individuals either coming or going and not to the specific context of arrival or initial encounter.” “Jakobson would describe this as interlingual transposition, while Ludskanov would call it a semiotic transformation

butter in British English carries with it a set of associations of whole-someness, purity and high status (in comparison to margarine, once perceived only as second-rate butter though now marketed also as practical because it does not set hard under refrigeration).

When translating butter into Italian there is a straightforward word-for-word substitution: butter—burro. Both butter and burro describe the product made from milk and marketed as a creamy-coloured slab of edible grease for human consumption. And yet within their separate cultural contexts butter and burro cannot be considered as signifying the same. In Italy, burro, normally light coloured and unsalted, is used primarily for cooking, and carries no associations of high status, whilst in Britain butter, most often bright yellow and salted, is used for spreading on bread and less frequently in cooking. Because of the high status of butter, the phrase bread and butter is the accepted usage even where the product used is actually margarine.” “The butter—burro translation, whilst perfectly adequate on one level, also serves as a reminder of the validity of Sapir’s statement that each language represents a separate reality.” “Good appetite in English used outside a structured sentence is meaningless. Nor is there any English phrase in general use that fulfills the same function as the French.”

The translator, Levý believed, had the responsibility of finding a solution to the most daunting of problems, and he declared that the functional view must be adopted with regard not only to meaning but also to style and form. The wealth of studies on Bible translation and the documentation of the way in which individual translators of the Bible attempt to solve their problems through ingenious solutions is a particularly rich source of examples of semiotic transformation.

Hence Albrecht Neubert’s view that Shakespeare’s Sonnet <Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?> cannot be semantically translated into a language where summers are unpleasant is perfectly proper”

Giovanni sta menando il can per I’aia.


John is leading his dog around the threshing floor.

The image conjured up by this sentence is somewhat startling and, unless the context referred quite specifically to such a location, the sentence would seem obscure and virtually meaningless. The English idiom that most closely corresponds to the Italian is to beat about the bush, also obscure unless used idiomatically, and hence the sentence correctly translated becomes

John is beating about the bush.

Não é que seja tradução livre. É que estamos condenados a ir além da liberdade!



“o <elo perdido> entre os componentes de uma teoria completa das traduções parece ser a teoria das relações de equivalência que possam ser estabelecidas tanto para o modelo dinâmico quanto para o modelo estático.”

E que valência têm seus vãos louros?

E.V.Rieu’s deliberate decision to translate Homer into English prose because the significance of the epic form in Ancient Greece could be considered equivalent to the significance of prose in modern Europe, is a case of dynamic equivalence applied to the formal properties of a text which shows that Nida’s categories can actually be in conflict with each other.”

Formules are for mules

Hence a woman writing to a friend in 1812 would no more have signed her letters with love or in sisterhood as a contemporary Englishwoman might, any more than an Italian would conclude letters without a series of formal greetings to the recipient of the letter and his relations.”

stress that you are stressed

It is again an indication of the low status of translation that so much time should have been spent on discussing what is lost in the transfer of a text from SL to TL whilst ignoring what can also be gained, for the translator can at times enrich or clarify the SL text as a direct result of the translation process.”

Nida cites the case of Guaica, a language of southern Venezuela, where there is little trouble in finding satisfactory terms for the English murder, stealing, lying, etc., but where the terms for good, bad, ugly and beautiful cover a very different area of meaning. As an example, he points out that Guaica does not follow a dichotomous classification of good and bad, but a trichotomous one as follows:

(1) Good includes desirable food, killing enemies, chewing dope in moderation, putting fire to one’s wife to teach her to obey, and stealing from anyone not belonging to the same band.

(2) Bad includes rotten fruit, any object with a blemish, murdering a person of the same band, stealing from a member of the extended family and lying to anyone.

(3) Violating taboo includes incest, being too close to one’s mother-in-law, a married woman’s eating tapir before the birth of the first child, and a child’s eating rodents.”

“Nida cita o caso do Guaica, uma língua do sul da Venezuela, em que não é complicado encontrar termos satisfatórios para os vocábulos do Inglês assassinato, furto, mentir, etc., mas em que os termos bom, ruim, feio e bonito se estendem a uma zona de significados muito distinta. Por exemplo, ele assinala que o Guaica não segue uma classificação dicotômica de bom e ruim, mas uma classificação tricotômica, como segue:

(1) Bom inclui a comida desejável, matar inimigos, mastigar maconha com moderação, provocar queimaduras nas esposas como repreensão pela insubordinação ao marido, roubar alguém desde que não seja do seu clã.

(2) Ruim inclui frutas podres, qualquer objeto maculado, matar alguém do próprio clã, roubar de um membro da própria linhagem familiar e mentir sob quaisquer circunstâncias.

(3) Violar o tabu inclui incesto, ser muito íntimo da sogra, se uma mulher casada come carne de anta antes de dar a luz ao primeiro filho, uma criança comer roedores.”

Nor is it necessary to look so far beyond Europe for examples of this kind of differentiation. The large number of terms in Finnish for variations of snow, in Arabic for aspects of camel behaviour, in English for light and water, in French for types of bread, all present the translator with, on one level, an untranslatable problem. Bible translators have documented the additional difficulties involved in, for example, the concept of the Trinity or the social significance of the parables in certain cultures [eu não sabia o tamanho de um grão de mostarda!]. In addition to the lexical problems, there are of course languages that do not have tense systems or concepts of time that in any way correspond to Indo-European systems. Whorf’s comparison (which may not be reliable, but is cited here as a theoretical example) between a <temporal language> (English) and a <timeless language> (Hopi) serves to illustrate this aspect.”

If I’m going home is translated as Je vais chez moi, the content meaning of the SL sentence (i.e. self-assertive statement of intention to proceed to place of residence and/or origin) is only loosely reproduced. And if, for example, the phrase is spoken by an American resident temporarily in London, it could either imply a return to the immediate <home> or a return across the Atlantic, depending on the context in which it is used, a distinction that would have to be spelled out in French. Moreover the English term home, like the French foyer, has a range of associative meanings that are not translated by the more restricted phrase chez moi. Home, therefore, would appear to present exactly the same range of problems as the Finnish or Japanese bathroom.”


the American Democratic Party

the German Democratic Republic

the democratic wing of the British Conservative Party.”

Against Catford, in so far as language is the primary modelling system within a culture, cultural untranslatability must be de facto implied in any process of translation.”

A slightly more difficult example is the case of the Italian tomponamento in the sentence C’è stato un tamponamento.

There has been/there was a slight accident (involving a vehicle).

Because of the differences in tense-usage, the TL sentence may take one of two forms depending on the context of the sentence, and because of the length of the noun phrase, this can also be cut down, provided the nature of the accident can be determined outside the sentence by the receiver. But when the significance of tomponamento is considered vis-à-vis Italian society as a whole, the term cannot be fully understood without some knowledge of Italian driving habits, the frequency with which <slight accidents> occur and the weighting and relevance of such incidents when they do occur. In short, tomponamento is a sign that has a culture-bound or context meaning, which cannot be translated even by an explanatory phrase. The relation between the creative subject and its linguistic expression cannot therefore be adequately replaced in the translation. [Barbeiragem?]”

SUPERESTIMANDO A ALTURA DAS MONTANHAS: “Boguslav Lawendowski, in an article in which he attempts to sum up the state of translation studies and semiotics, feels that Catford is <divorced from reality>, while Georges Mounin feels that too much attention has been given to the problem of untranslatability at the expense of solving some of the actual problems that the translator has to deal with.”

Mounin acknowledges the great benefits that advances in linguistics have brought to Translation Studies; the development of structural linguistics, the work of Saussure, of Hjelmslev, of the Moscow and Prague Linguistic Circles has been of great value, and the work of Chomsky and the transformational linguists has also had its impact, particularly with regard to the study of semantics. Mounin feels that it is thanks to developments in contemporary linguistics that we can (and must) accept that:

(1) Personal experience in its uniqueness is untranslatable.

(2) In theory the base units of any two languages (e.g. phonemes, monemes, etc.) are not always comparable.

(3) Communication is possible when account is taken of the respective situations of speaker and hearer, or author and translator.”

Translation theory tends to be normative, to instruct translators on the OPTIMAL solution; actual translation work, however, is pragmatic; the translator resolves for that one of the possible solutions which promises a maximum of effect with a minimum of effort. That is to say, he intuitively resolves for the so-called MINIMAX STRATEGY.” Levý

literary criticism does not seek to provide a set of instructions for producing the ultimate poem or novel, but rather to understand the internal and external structures operating within and around a work of art.”

it would seem quite clear that any debate about the existence of a science of translation is out of date: there already exists, with Translation Studies, a serious discipline investigating the process of translation, attempting to clarify the question of equivalence and to examine what constitutes meaning within that process. But nowhere is there a theory that pretends to be normative, and although Lefevere’s statement about the goal of the discipline suggests that a comprehensive theory might also be used as a guideline for producing translations, this is a long way from suggesting that the purpose of translation theory is to be proscriptive.”


The persecution of Bible translators during the centuries when scholars were avidly translating and retranslating Classical Greek and Roman authors is an important link in the chain of the development of capitalism and the decline of feudalism. In the same way, the hermeneutic approach of the great English and German Romantic translators connects with changing concepts of the role of the individual in the social context. It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the study of translation, especially in its diachronic aspect, is a vital part of literary and cultural history.”

George Steiner, in After Babel, divides the literature on the theory, practice and history of translation into 4 periods. The first, he claims, extends from the statements of Cicero and Horace on translation up to the publication of Alexander Fraser Tytler’s Essay on the Principles of Translation in 1791. (…) Steiner’s second period, which runs up to the publication of Larbaud’s Sous I’invocation de Saint Jérome in 1946 is characterized as a period of theory and hermeneutic enquiry with the development of a vocabulary and methodology of approaching translation. The third period begins with the publication of the first papers on machine translation in the 1940s, and is characterized by the introduction of structural linguistics and communication theory into the study of translation. Steiner’s fourth period, coexisting with the third has its origins in the early 1960s and is characterized by <a reversion to hermeneutic, almost metaphysical inquiries into translation and interpretation>” “his first period covers a span of some 1700 years while his last two periods cover a mere thirty years.” “His quadripartite division is, to say the least, highly idiosyncratic, but it does manage to avoid one great pitfall: periodization, or compartmentalization of literary history. It is virtually impossible to divide periods according to dates for, as Lotman points out, human culture is a dynamic system.”

Classical philology and comparative literature, lexical statistics and ethnography, the sociology of class-speech, formal rhetoric, poetics, and the study of grammar are combined in an attempt to clarify the act of translation and the process of <life between languages>.” Ge.St.

There is a large body of literature that attempts to decide whether Petrarch and Chaucer were medieval or Renaissance writers, whether Rabelais was a medieval mind post hoc, or whether Dante was a Renaissance mind two centuries too soon.”

André Lefevere has compiled a collection of statements and documents on translation that traces the establishment of a German tradition of translation, starting with Luther and moving on via Gottsched and Goethe to the Schlegels [?] and Schleiermacher and ultimately to Rosenzweig.”


All too often, however, studies of past translators and translations have focused more on the question of influence; on the effect of the TL product in a given cultural context, rather than on the processes involved in the creation of that product and on the theory behind the creation. So, for example, in spite of a number of critical statements about the significance of translation in the development of the Roman literary canon, there has yet to be a systematic study of Roman translation theory in English. The claims summed up by Matthiesson when he declared that <a study of Elizabethan translations is a study of the means by which the Renaissance came to England> are not backed by any scientific investigation of the same.”

Eric Jacobsen claims rather sweepingly that translation is a Roman invention, and although this may be considered as a piece of critical hyperbole, it does serve as a starting point from which to focus attention on the role and status of translation for the Romans. The views of both Cicero and Horace on translation were to have great influence on successive generations of translators, and both discuss translation within the wider context of the two main functions of the poet: the universal human duty of acquiring and disseminating wisdom and the special art of making and shaping a poem.

The significance of translation in Roman literature has often been used to accuse the Romans of being unable to create imaginative literature in their own right, at least until the first century BC. Stress has been laid on the creative imagination of the Greeks as opposed to the more practical Roman mind, and the Roman exaltation of their Greek models has been seen as evidence of their lack of originality. But the implied value judgement in such a generalization is quite wrong. The Romans perceived themselves as a continuation of their Greek models and Roman literary critics discussed Greek texts without seeing the language of those texts as being in any way an inhibiting factor. The Roman literary system sets up a hierarchy of texts and authors that overrides linguistic boundaries and that system in turn reflects the Roman ideal of the hierarchical yet caring central state based on the true law of Reason. Cicero points out that mind dominates the body as a king rules over his subjects or a father controls his children, but warns that where Reason dominates as a master ruling his slaves, <it keeps them down and crushes them>. With translation, the ideal SL text is there to be imitated and not to be crushed by the too rigid application of Reason. Cicero nicely expresses this distinction: <If I render word for word, the result will sound uncouth, and if compelled by necessity I alter anything in the order or wording, I shall seem to have departed from the function of a translator.>

Horace, whilst advising the would-be writer to avoid the pitfalls that beset <the slavish translator> [o imitador barato], also advised the sparing use of new words. He compared the process of the addition of new words and the decline of other words to the changing of the leaves in spring and autumn, seeing this process of enrichment through translation as both natural and desirable, provided the writer exercised moderation. The art of the translator, for Horace and Cicero, then, consisted in judicious interpretation of the SL text so as to produce a TL version based on the principle non verbum de verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu (of expressing not word for word, but sense for sense), and his responsibility was to the TL readers.

But there is also an additional dimension to the Roman concept of enrichment through translation, i.e. the pre-eminence of Greek as the language of culture and the ability of educated Romans to read texts in the SL. When these factors are taken into account, then the position both of translator and reader alters. The Roman reader was generally able to consider the translation as a metatext in relation to the original. The translated text was read through the source text, in contrast to the way in which a monolingual reader can only approach the SL text through the TL version.”

Ser compilador não era algo degradante per se.

The good translator, therefore, presupposed the reader’s acquaintance with the SL text and was bound by that knowledge, for any assessment of his skill as translator would be based on the creative use he was able to make of his model.”

Bien que…: “Longinus, in his Essay On the Sublime, cites <imitation and emulation of the great historians and poets of the past> as one of the paths towards the sublime and translation is one aspect of imitation in the Roman concept of literary production.”

Moreover, it should not be forgotten that with the extension of the Roman Empire, bilingualism and trilingualism became increasingly commonplace, and the gulf between oral and literary Latin widened. The apparent licence of Roman translators, much quoted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, must therefore be seen in the context of the overall system in which that approach to translation was applied.

With the spread of Christianity, translation came to acquire another role, that of disseminating the word of God. A religion as text-based as Christianity presented the translator with a mission that encompassed both aesthetic and evangelistic criteria. The history of Bible translation is accordingly a history of western culture in microcosm. Translations of the New Testament were made very early, and St Jerome’s famous contentious version that was to have such influence on succeeding generations of translators was commissioned by Pope Damasus in AD 384.” “but the problem of the fine line between what constituted stylistic licence and what constituted heretical interpretation was to remain a major stumbling block for centuries. § Bible translation remained a key issue well into the seventeenth century, and the problems intensified with the growth of concepts of national cultures and with the coming of the Reformation. Translation came to be used as a weapon in both dogmatic and political conflicts as nation states began to emerge and the centralization of the church started to weaken, evidenced in linguistic terms by the decline of Latin as a universal language. § The first translation of the complete Bible into English was the Wycliffite Bible produced between 1380 and 1384, which marked the start of a great flowering of English Bible translations linked to changing attitudes to the role of the written text in the church, that formed part of the developing Reformation. John Wycliffe (c. 1330–84), the noted Oxford theologian, put forward the theory of <dominion by grace> according to which man was immediately responsible to God and God’s law (by which Wycliffe intended not canon law but the guidance of the Bible). Since Wycliffe’s theory meant that the Bible was applicable to all human life it followed that each man should be granted access to that crucial text in a language that he could understand, i.e. in the vernacular.” “his disciple John Purvey revised the first edition some time before 1408 (the first dated manuscript).”


(1) a collaborative effort of collecting old Bibles and glosses and establishing an authentic Latin source text;

(2) a comparison of the versions;

(3) counselling <with old grammarians and old divines> about hard words and complex meanings; and

(4) translating as clearly as possible the <sentence> (i.e. meaning), with the translation corrected by a group of collaborators.”

After the Wycliffite versions, the next great English translation was William Tyndale’s (1494–1536) New Testament printed in 1525. Tyndale’s proclaimed intention in translating was also to offer as clear a version as possible to the layman, and by the time he was burned at the stake in 1536 he had translated the New Testament from the Greek and parts of the Old Testament from the Hebrew.”

In 1482, the Hebrew Pentateuch had been printed at Bologna and the complete Hebrew Bible appeared in 1488, whilst Erasmus, the Dutch Humanist, published the first Greek New Testament in Basle in 1516. This version was to serve as the basis for Martin Luther’s 1522 German version. Translations of the New Testament appeared in Danish in 1529 and again in 1550, in Swedish in 1526–41, and the Czech Bible appeared between 1579–93. Translations and revised versions of existing translations continued to appear in English, Dutch, German and French.”

I would desire that all women should reade the gospell and Paules episteles and I wold to God they were translated in to the tonges of all men so that they might not only be read and knowne of the scotes and yrishmen/

But also of the Turkes and the Sarracenes…. I wold to God the plowman wold singe a texte of the scripture at his plow-beme. And that the wever at his lowme with this wold drive away the tediousnes of tyme. I wold the wayfaringeman with this pastyme wold expelle the weriness of his iorney. And to be shorte I wold that all the communication of the christen shuld be of the scripture for in a manner such are we oure selves as our daylye tales are.” Erasmus

Coverdale’s Bible (1535) was also banned but the tide of Bible translation could not be stemmed, and each successive version drew on the work of previous translators, borrowing, amending, revising and correcting.”

(1) To clarify errors arising from previous versions, due to inadequate SL manuscripts or to linguistic incompetence;

(2) To produce an accessible and aesthetically satisfying vernacular style;

(3) To clarify points of dogma and reduce the extent to which the scriptures were interpreted and re-presented to the laypeople as a metatext.

In his Circular Letter on Translation of 1530 Martin Luther lays such emphasis on the significance of (2) that he uses the verbs übersetzen (to translate) and verdeutschen (to Germanize) almost indiscriminately.”

In an age when the choice of a pronoun could mean the difference between life or condemnation to death as a heretic, precision was of central importance.”

In the Preface to the King James Bible of 1611, entitled The Translators to the Reader, the question is asked <is the kingdom of God words or syllables?>”

With regard to English, for example, the Lindisfarne Gospels (copied out c. AD 700), had a literal rendering of the Latin original inserted between the lines in the tenth century in Northumbrian dialect. These glosses subordinated notions of stylistic excellence to the word-for-word method, but may still be fairly described as translations, since they involved a process of interlingual transfer. However, the system of glossing was only one aspect of translation in the centuries that saw the emergence of distinct European languages in a written form. In the ninth century King Alfred (reign 871–99), who had translated (or caused to be translated) a number of Latin texts, declared that the purpose of translating was to help the English people to recover from the devastation of the Danish invasions that had laid waste the old monastic centres of learning and had demoralized and divided the kingdom. In his Preface to his translation of the Cura Pastoralis (a handbook for parish priests) Alfred urges a revival of learning through greater accessibility of texts as a direct result of translations into the vernacular, and at the same time he asserts the claims of English as a literary language in its own right. Discussing the way in which the Romans translated texts for their own purposes, as did <all other Christian nations>, Alfred states that <I think it better, if you agree, that we also translate some of the books that all men should know into the language that we can all understand.> In translating the Cura Pastoralis, Alfred claims to have followed the teachings of his bishop and priests and to have rendered the text hwilum word be worde, hwilum andgiet of andgiete (sometimes word by word, sometimes sense by sense), an interesting point in that it implies that the function of the finished product was the determining factor in the translation process rather than any established canon of procedure. Translation is perceived as having a moral and didactic purpose with a clear political role to play, far removed from its purely instrumental role in the study of rhetoric that coexisted at the same time.

The concept of translation as a writing exercise and as a means of improving oratorical style was an important component in the medieval educational system based on the study of the Seven Liberal Arts. This system, as passed down from such Roman theoreticians as Quintilian (first century AD) whose Institutio Oratoria was a seminal text, established two areas of study, the Trivium (grammar, rhetoric and dialectic) and the Quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy), with the Trivium as the basis for philosophical knowledge.” “Quintilian recommends translating from Greek into Latin as a variation on paraphrasing original Latin texts in order to extend and develop the student’s imaginative powers.”

In his useful article on vulgarization and translation, Gianfranco Folena suggests that medieval translation might be described either as vertical, by which he intends translation into the vernacular from a SL that has a special prestige or value (e.g. Latin), or as horizontal, where both SL and TL have a similar value (e.g. Provençal into Italian, Norman-French into English).” “And whilst the vertical approach splits into two distinct types, the interlinear gloss, or word-for-word technique, as opposed to the Ciceronian sense-for-sense method, elaborated by Quintilian’s concept of para-phrase, the horizontal approach involves complex questions of imitatio and borrowing.”

Within the opus of a single writer, such as Chaucer (c. 1340–1400) there is a range of texts that include acknowledged translations, free adaptations, conscious borrowings, reworkings and close correspondences.”

One of the first writers to formulate a theory of translation was the French humanist Étienne Dolet (1509–46) who was tried and executed for heresy after <mistranslating> one of Plato’s dialogues in such a way as to imply disbelief in immortality. In 1540 Dolet published a short outline of translation principles, entitled La manière de bien traduire d’une langue en aultre (How to Translate Well from one Language into Another)

the frequent replacement of indirect discourse by direct discourse in North’s translation of Plutarch (1579), a device that adds immediacy and vitality to the text”

Translation was by no means a secondary activity, but a primary one, exerting a shaping force on the intellectual life of the age, and at times the figure of the translator appears almost as a revolutionary activist rather than the servant of an original author or text.”

O DEMORADO ECO ITALIANO: “Translation of the classics increased considerably in France between 1625 and 1660, the great age of French classicism and of the flowering of French theatre based on the Aristotelian unities. French writers and theorists were in turn enthusiastically translated into English.”

for it is not his business alone to translate Language into Language, but Poesie into Poesie; and Poesie is of so subtile a spirit, that in pouring out of one Language into another, it will all evaporate; and if a new spirit be not added in the transfusion, there will remain nothing but a Caput mortuum.” John Denham

“o prefácio de Cowley foi tomado como o manifesto dos <tradutores libertinos dos fins do século XVII>.”


I have endeavoured to make Virgil speak such English as he would himself have spoken, if he had been born in England, and in this present age.” Dryden

NÓS OS JURAMENTADOS HÁ 200 ANOS ÉRAMOS MAIS DESIMPEDIDOS: “The impulse to clarify and make plain the essential spirit of a text led to large-scale rewritings of earlier texts to fit them to contemporary standards of language and taste. Hence the famous re-structuring of Shakespearian texts, and the translations/reworkings of Racine. Dr. [nem existia doutorado nessa época, fala sério] Johnson (1709–84), in his Life of Pope [que não era o Papa] (1779–80), discussing the question of additions to a text through translation, comments that if elegance is gained, surely it is desirable, provided nothing is taken away [mais é mais], and goes on to state that <the purpose of a writer is to be read> [diria que acertou em cheio, mas não é muito difícil…], claiming that Pope wrote for his own time and his own nation. The right of the individual to be addressed in his own terms, on his own ground is an important element in eighteenth-century translation and is linked to changing concepts of <originality>.”

Pope’s Andromache [Ilíada] suffers and despairs, whilst Chapman’s Andromache comes across as a warrior in her own right. Chapman’s use of direct verbs gives a dramatic quality to the scene, whilst Pope’s Latinate structures emphasize the agony of expectation leading up to the moment when the horror is plain to see. And even that horror is quite differently presented—Pope’s <god-like Hector> contrasts with Chapman’s longer description of the hero’s degradation:


Too soon her Eyes the killing Object found,

The god-like Hector dragg’d along the ground.

A sudden Darkness shades her swimming Eyes:

She faints, she falls; her Breath, her colour flies. (Pope)


Round she cast her greedy eye, and saw her Hector slain, and bound

T’Achilles chariot, manlessly dragg’d to the Grecian fleet,

Black night strook through her, under her trance took away her feet. (Chapman)

Goethe (1749–1832) argued that every literature must pass through three phases of translation, although as the phases are recurrent all may be found taking place within the same language system at the same time. The first epoch <acquaints us with foreign countries on our own terms>, and Goethe cites Luther’s German Bible as an example of this tendency. The second mode is that of appropriation through substitution and reproduction, where the translator absorbs the sense of a foreign work but reproduces it in his own terms, and here Goethe cites Wieland and the French tradition of translating (a tradition much disparaged by German theorists). The third mode, which he considers the highest, is one which aims for perfect identity between the SL text and the TL text, and the achieving of this mode must be through the creation of a new <manner> which fuses the uniqueness of the original with a new form and structure. Goethe cites the work of Voss, who translated Homer, as an example of a translator who had achieved this prized third level. Goethe is arguing for both a new concept of <originality> in translation, together with a vision of universal deep structures that the translator should strive to meet. The problem with such an approach is that it is moving dangerously close to a theory of untranslatability.”

the translator cannot use the same colours as the original, but is nevertheless required to give his picture <the same force and effect>.”

With the affirmation of individualism came the notion of the freedom of the creative force, making the poet into a quasi-mystical creator, whose function was to produce the poetry that would create anew the universe, as Shelley argued in The Defence of Poesy (1820).”

In England, Coleridge (1772–1834) in his Biographia Literaria (1817) outlined his theory of the distinction between Fancy and Imagination, asserting that Imagination is the supreme creative and organic power, as opposed to the lifeless mechanism of Fancy. This theory has affinities with the theory of the opposition of mechanical and organic form outlined by the German theorist and translator, August Wilhelm Schlegel (1767–1845) in his Vorlesungen über dramatische Kunst und Literatur (1809), translated into English in 1813.” “A.W. Schlegel, asserting that all acts of speaking and writing are acts of translation because the nature of communication is to decode and interpret messages received, also insisted that the form of the original should be retained (for example, he retained Dante’s terza rima in his own translations). Meanwhile, Friedrich Schlegel (1772–1829) conceived of translation as a category of thought rather than as an activity connected only with language or literature.”

The idea of writers at all times being involved in a process of repeating what Blake called <the Divine Body in Every Man> resulted in a vast number of translations, such as the Schlegel-Tieck translations of Shakespeare (1797–1833), Schlegel’s version and Cary’s version of the Divina Commedia (1805–14) and the large intertraffic of translations of critical works and of contemporary writings across the European languages. Indeed, so many texts were translated at this time that were to have a seminal effect on the TL (e.g. German authors into English and vice versa, Scott and Byron into French and Italian, etc.) that critics have found it difficult to distinguish between influence study and translation study proper. Stress on the impact of the translation in the target culture in fact resulted in a shift of interest away from the actual processes of translation.”

If poetry is perceived as a separate entity from language, how can it be translated unless it is assumed that the translator is able to read between the words of the original and hence reproduce the text-behind-the-text; what Mallarmé would later elaborate as the text of silence and spaces?” “with the shift of emphasis away from the formal processes of translation, the notion of untranslatability would lead on to the exaggerated emphasis on technical accuracy and resulting pedantry of later nineteenth-century translating.”

an explanation of the function of peculiarity can be found in G.A. Simcox’s review of Morris’ translation of The Story of the Volsungs and Niblungs (1870) when he declared that the <quaint archaic English of the translation with just the right outlandish flavour> did much to <disguise the inequalities and incompletenesses of the original>”

What emerges from the Schleiermacher—Carlyle—Pre-Raphaelite concept of translation, therefore, is an interesting paradox. On the one hand there is an immense respect, verging on adulation, for the original, but that respect is based on the individual writer’s sureness of its worth. In other words, the translator invites the intellectual, cultivated reader to share what he deems to be an enriching experience, either on moral or aesthetic grounds. Moreover, the original text is perceived as property, as an item of beauty to be added to a collection, with no concessions to the taste or expectations of contemporary life. On the other hand, by producing consciously archaic translations designed to be read by a minority, the translators implicitly reject the ideal of universal literacy. The intellectual reader represented a very small minority in the increasingly diffuse reading public that expanded throughout the century, and hence the foundations were laid for the notion of translation as a minority interest.”

Let not the translator, then, trust to his notions of what the ancient Greeks would have thought of him; he will lose himself in the vague. Let him not trust to what the ordinary English reader thinks of him; he will be taking the blind for his guide. Let him not trust to his own judgement of his own work; he may be misled by individual caprices. Let him ask how his work affects those who both know Greek and can appreciate poetry.” Matthew Arnold [vide polêmica elencada acima]

But although archaizing [afetação, hermetismo] has gone out of fashion, it is important to remember that there were sound theoretical principles for its adoption by translators. George Steiner raises important issues when he discusses the practice, with particular reference to Émile Littré’s theory and his L’Enfer mis en vieux longage François (1879) and to Rudolf Borchardt and his Dante Deutsch:

<The proposition ‘the foreign poet would have produced such and such a text had he been writing in my language’ is a projective fabrication. It underwrites the autonomy, more exactly, the ‘meta-autonomy’ of the translation. But it does much more: it introduces an alternate existence, a ‘might have been’ or ‘is yet to come’ into the substance and historical condition of one’s own language, literature and legacy of sensibility.>

The archaizing principle, then, in an age of social change on an unprecedented scale, can be compared to an attempt to <colonize> the past. (…) The distance between this version of translation and the vision of Cicero and Horace, also the products of an expanding state, could hardly be greater.”

IANQUES, VANGUARDA DO ATRASO: “The increased isolationism of British and American intellectual life, combined with the anti-theoretical developments in literary criticism did not help to further the scientific examination of translation in English. Indeed, it is hard to believe, when considering some of the studies in English, that they were written in the same age that saw the rise of Czech Structuralism and the New Critics, the development of communication theory, the application of linguistics to the study of translation: in short, to the establishment of the bases from which recent work in translation theory has been able to proceed.”

The work of Ezra Pound [Literary Essays] is of immense importance in the history of translation, and Pound’s skill as a translator was matched by his perceptiveness as critic and theorist.”

George Steiner, taking a rather idiosyncratic view of translation history, feels that although there is a profusion of pragmatic accounts by individuals the range of theoretic ideas remains small:

[OS TREZE CAVALEIROS] <List Saint Jerome, Luther, Dryden, Hölderlin, Novalis, Schleiermacher, Nietzsche, Ezra Pound, Valéry, MacKenna, Franz Rosenzweig, Walter Benjamin, Quine—and you have very nearly the sum total of those who have said anything fundamental or new about translation.>


Anne Cluysenaar goes on to analyse C.Day Lewis’ translation of Valéry’s poem, Les pas and comes to the conclusion that the translation does not work because the translator <was working without an adequate theory of literary translation>.” “what is needed is a description of the dominant structure of every individual work to be translated.”

Every literary unit from the individual sentence to the whole order of words can be seen in relation to the concept of system. In particular, we can look at individual works, literary genres, and the whole of literature as related systems, and at literature as a system within the larger system of human culture.” Robert Scholes

Entram num bar: um conteudista, um contextualista, um interesseiro (ou pragmatista) e um deviacionista (selecionador de citações). Qual deles sou eu?

devil acionista

Um concurseiro, um leitor dinâmico, um diletante, um político e um filho de escritor numa roda intelectual-boêmia. Todos falam, mas só o próprio falante se escuta.

The translator is, after all, first a reader and then a writer and in the process of reading he or she must take a position.”

CHOICER”: “The twentieth-century reader’s dislike of the Patient Griselda motif is an example of just such a shift in perception, whilst the disappearance of the epic poem in western European literatures has inevitably led to a change in reading such works.”

suco de palavras

(brincadeira de adultocriança)

the reader/translator will be unable to avoid finding himself in Lotman’s fourth position [aquele que seleciona conteúdos conforme seu interesse humanista-cultural, eu no Seclusão: menos um nazista que cita Nietzsche com propósitos escusos do que alguém que busca simplesmente tirar proveito de algo que possa ainda repercutir num mar de coisas que perderam a referência e o sentido para o homem contemporâneo…] without detailed etymological research. So when Gloucester, in King Lear, Act III sc. vii, bound, tormented and about to have his eyes gouged out, attacks Regan with the phrase <Naughty lady>, it ought to be clear that there has been considerable shift in the weight of the adjective, now used to admonish children or to describe some slightly comic (often sexual) peccadillo.” Danadinha… Perniciosa, insidiosa. Erva daninha!

PIRE(PYRE) COM MODERAÇÃO(FOGO BAIXO): “Quite clearly, the idea of the reader as translator and the enormous freedom this vision bestows must be handled responsibly. The reader/translator who does not acknowledge the dialectical materialist basis of Brecht’s plays or who misses the irony in Shakespeare’s sonnets or who ignores the way in which the doctrine of the transubstantiation is used as a masking device for the production of Vittorini’s anti-Fascist statement in Conversazioni in Sicilia is upsetting the balance of power by treating the original as his own property.”


Catullus, after all, was an aristocrat, whose language, although flexible, is elegant, and Copley’s speaker is a caricature of a teenager from the Johnny [sic – Johnnie] Ray generation. Copley’s choice of register makes the reader respond in a way that downgrades the material itself. The poem is no longer a rather suave and sophisticated mingling of several elements, it is located very precisely in a specific time and context. And, of course, in the relatively short time since the translation appeared, its language and tone have become almost as remote as that of the original!” “The great difference between a text and a metatext is that the one is fixed in time and place, the other is variable. There is only one Divina Commedia but there are innumerable readings and in theory innumerable translations.”

Both English versions appear to stress the I pronoun, because Italian sentence structure is able to dispense with pronouns in verbal phrases. Both opt for the translation make out for distinguo, which alters the English register. The final line of the poem, deliberately longer in the SL version, is rendered longer also in both English versions, but here there is substantial deviation between the two. Version B keeps closely to the original in that it retains the Latinate abandoned as opposed to the Anglo-Saxon adrift in version A. Version B retains the single word infinite, that is spelled out in more detail in version A with infinite space, a device that also adds an element of rhyme to the poem.

The apparent simplicity of the Italian poem, with its clear images and simple structure conceals a deliberate recourse to that process defined by the Russian Formalists as ostranenie, i.e. making strange, or consciously thickening language within the system of the individual work to heighten perception (see Tony Bennet, Formalism and Marxism, London 1979). Seen in this light, version A, whilst pursuing the ‘normalcy’ of Ungaretti’s linguistic structures, loses much of the power of what Ungaretti described as the ‘word-image’. Version B, on the other hand, opts for a higher tone or register, with rhetorical devices of inverted sentence structure and the long, Latinate final line in an attempt to arrive at a ‘thickened’ language by another route.”

The most striking aspect of any comparison of these three sonnets is the range of variation between them. Petrarch’s sonnet splits into octet and sestet and follows the rhyme scheme a b b a/a b b a/c d c/c d c. Wyatt’s poem is similarly divided, but here the rhyme scheme is a b b a/a b b a/c d c/c d d which serves to set the final two lines apart. Surrey’s poem varies much more: a b a b/c d c d/e c e c/f f and consists of three four-line sections building to the final couplet. The significance of these variations in form becomes clear once each sonnet is read closely.”

What can I do, he asks, since my Lord Amor is afeared (and I fear him), except to stay with him to the final hour? and adds, in the last line, that he who dies loving well makes a good end.” “He does not act but is acted upon, and the structure of the poem, with the first person singular verbal form only used at the end, and then only in a question that stresses his helplessness, reinforces this picture.” “But it is not enough to consider this poem in isolation, it must be seen as part of Petrarch’s Canzoniere and linked therefore through language structures, imagery and a central shaping concept, to the other poems in the collection.”

Wyatt creates the image of ‘the hertes forrest’, and by using nouns ‘with payne and cry’, instead of verbs lessens the picture of total, abject humiliation painted by Petrarch.” “The Lover in Wyatt’s poem asks a question that does not so much stress his helplessness as his good intentions and bravery. The Italian temendo il mio signore carries with it an ambiguity (either the Lord fears or the Lover fears the Lord, or, most probably, both) whilst Wyatt has stated very plainly that ‘my master fereth’. The final line, ‘For goode is the liff, ending faithfully’ strengthens the vision of the Lover as noble. Whereas the Petrarchan lover seems to be describing the beauty of death through constant love, Wyatt’s lover stresses the virtues of a good life and a faithful end.” “Love shows his colours and is repulsed and the Lover sets up the alternative ideal of a good life. We are in the world of politics, of the individual geared towards ensuring his survival, a long way from the pre-Reformation world of Petrarch.”

It is in Surrey’s version that the military language prevails, whilst Wyatt reduces the terminology of battle to a terminology of pageantry.” “The Lover is ‘captyve’, and he and Love have often fought. Moreover, the Lady is not in an unreachable position, angered by the display of Love. She is already won and is merely angered by what appears to be excessive ardour.” “Moreover, in the final line of the third quartet, the Lover states plainly that he is ‘fawtless’ and suffers because of ‘my lordes gylt’. The device of splitting the poem into three four-line stanzas can be seen as a way of reshaping the material content. The poem does not build to a question and a final line on the virtues of dying, loving well. It builds instead to a couplet in which the Lover states his determination not to abandon his guilty lord even in the face of death. The voice of the poem and the voice of the Lover are indistinguishable, and the stress on the I, apparent in Wyatt’s poem already, is strengthened by those points in the poem where there is a clear identification with the Lover’s position against the bad behaviour of the false lord Love.

But Wyatt and Surrey’s translations, like Jonson’s Catullus translation, would have been read by their contemporaries through prior knowledge of the original, and those shifts that have been condemned by subsequent generations as taking something away from Petrarch, would have had a very different function in the circles of Wyatt and Surrey’s cultured intellectual readership.” Now nobody reads Petrarch!


“although analysis of narrative has had enormous influence since Shlovsky’s early theory of prose, there are obviously many readers who still adhere to the principle that a novel consists primarily of paraphrasable material content that can be translated straight-forwardly. And whereas there seems to be a common consensus that a prose paraphrase of a poem is judged to be inadequate, there is no such consensus regarding the prose text.”

Belloc points out that the French historic present must be translated into the English narrative tense, which is past, and the French system of defining a proposition by putting it into the form of a rhetorical question cannot be transposed into English where the same system does not apply.”

Let us consider as an example the problem of translating proper names in Russian prose texts, a problem that has bedevilled generations of translators. Cathy Porter’s translation of Alexandra Kollontai’s Love of Worker Bees contains the following note:

Russians have a first (‘Christian’) name, a patronymic and a surname. The customary mode of address is first name plus patronymic, thus, Vasilisa Dementevna, Maria Semenovna. There are more intimate abbreviations of first names which have subtly affectionate, patronizing or friendly overtones. So for instance Vasilisa becomes Vasya, Vasyuk, and Vladimir becomes Volodya, Volodka, Volodechka, Volya.

So in discussing The Brothers Karamazov Uspensky shows how the naming system can indicate multiple points of view, as a character is perceived both by other characters in the novel and from within the narrative. In the translation process, therefore, it is essential for the translator to consider the function of the naming system, rather than the system itself. It is of little use for the English reader to be given multiple variants of a name if he is not made aware of the function of those variants, and since the English naming system is completely different the translator must take this into account and follow Belloc’s dictum to render ‘idiom by idiom’.”


Arguably, the volume of ‘complete plays’ has been produced primarily for a reading public where literalness and linguistic fidelity have been principal criteria. But in trying to formulate any theory of theatre translation, Bogatyrev’s description of linguistic expression must be taken into account, and the linguistic element must be translated bearing in mind its function in theatre discourse as a whole.” Platão seria Teatro?

The leaden pedantry of many English versions of Racine, for example, is apt testimony to the fault of excessive literalness, but the problem of defining ‘freedom’ in a theatre translation is less easy to discern.”

* * *


André Lefevere, Translating Literature: The German Tradition. From Luther to Rosenzweig (Assen and Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1977)

Anton Popovič, Dictionary for the Analysis of Literary Translation (Dept. of Comparative Literature, University of Alberta, 1976)

De Beaugrande, Robert, Shunnaq, Abdulla and Heliel, Mohamed H., (eds.), Language, Discourse and Translation in the West and Middle East (Amsterdam: John Bejamins, 1994)

Benjamin Lee Whorf, Language, Thought and Reality (Selected Writings) ed. J.B.Carroll (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1956)

Chan, Sin-Wai, and Pollard, David, (eds), An Encyclopaedia of Translation. Chinese/English, English/Chinese (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1994)

Cicero, ‘Right and Wrong’, in Latin Literature, ed. M.Grant (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1978)

Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Preface to his translations of Early Italian Poets, Poems and Translations, 1850–1870 (London: Oxford University Press, 1968)

Erasmus, Novum Instrumentum (Basle: Froben, 1516). 1529, tr. W. Tindale.

Francis Newman, ‘Homeric Translation in Theory and Practice’ in Essays by Matthew Arnold (London: Oxford University Press, 1914)

Hilaire Belloc, On Translation (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1931)

Horace, On the Art of Poetry, in Classical Literary Criticism (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1965)

Jacobsen, Eric, Translation: A Traditional Craft (Copenhagen: Nordisk Forlag, 1958) “This book contains much interesting information about the function of translation within the terms of medieval rhetorical tradition, but, as the author states in the introduction, avoids as far as possible discussion of the general theory and principles of translation.”

Joachim du Bellay – Défense et lllustration de la Langue française

Josephine Balmer, Classical Women Poets (Newcastle upon Tyne: Bloodaxe Books 1997)

Keir Elam, Semiotics of Theatre and Drama (London: Methuen, 1980)

Levý, Jiří, ‘The Translation of Verbal Art’, in L.Matejka and I.R.Titunik (eds), Semiotics of Art (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1976)

Liu, Lydia H., Translingual Practice: Literature, National Culture and Translated Modernity in China 1900–7937 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995)

Luis, William and Rodriguez-Luis, Julio, (eds), Translating Latin America. Culture as Text (Binghamton: Centre for Research in Translation: State University of New York at Binghamton, 1991)

Mukherjee, Sujit, Translation as Discovery and Other Essays on Indian Literature in English Translation (New Delhi: Allied Publishers/London: Sangam Books, 1981), 2nd ed. (New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1994)

Nirenburg, S. (ed.), Machine Translation: Theoretical and Methodological Issues (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)

Oittinen, Riita, I am Me—I am Other: On the Dialogics of Translating for Children (Tampere: University of Tampere, 1993)

Rafael, Vicente, Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988)

Simon, Sherry, Gender in Translation. Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission (London: Routledge, 1996)

Somekh, Sasson, ‘The Emergence of two sets of Stylistic Norms in the early Literary Translation into Modern Arabic Prose’, Poetics Today, 2, 4, 1981, pp. 193–200.

Vanderauwera, Ria, Dutch Novels Translated into English: The Transformation of a ‘Minority’ Literature (Amsterdam: Rodolpi, 1985)

Wollin, Hans and Lindquist Hans, (eds), Translation Studies in Scandinavia (Lund: CWK Gleerup, 1986)


Deixe um comentário

Preencha os seus dados abaixo ou clique em um ícone para log in:

Logotipo do

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Sair /  Alterar )

Foto do Google+

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Google+. Sair /  Alterar )

Imagem do Twitter

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Twitter. Sair /  Alterar )

Foto do Facebook

Você está comentando utilizando sua conta Facebook. Sair /  Alterar )

Conectando a %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.