What Was a Relevant Translation in the 18th Century?

• Authors: Monica Vasileanu
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The paper applies RT to analyse an 18th century translation of a Latin text by the preeminent Romanian scholar Demetrius Cantemir. The translation diverges significantly from the original and was met with harsh criticism. Using the conceptual toolkit of RT, I argue that the differences between the original and its English translation were motivated by the translator’s desire to yield the same cognitive effect without putting the audience to unnecessary processing effort. Both effects and effort need to be evaluated by taking into account the respective cognitive environments of the source-text and the target-text audiences. The intertextual dimension of the text under scrutiny adds to the difficulty of communicating the same message in different languages and cultures.

Keywords

EN

18th century; cognitive effects; intertextuality; processing effort; relevance theory; translation

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Łódzki. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego
• Journal: Research in Language
• Year: 2017
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 79-96

Dates

published

2017-03-30

Contributors

author

Monica Vasileanu

• University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

References

• Cantemir, Dimitrie. 2015. Incrementorum et decrementorum Aulae Othmannicae sive Aliothmannicae historiae a prima gentis origine ad nostra usque tempora deductae libri tres. Edition by Dan Sluşanschi, revised by Octavian Gordon, Florentina Nicolae, MonicaVasileanu, translated into Romanian by Ioana Costa. Bucureşti: Editura Fundaţiei pentruLiteratură şi Artă [IDAO]
• Cantemir, Demetrius. 1734–1735. The History of the Growth and Decay of the Othman Empire. Translated into English from the author’s own manuscript by N. Tindal, London, printed for James, John and Paul Knapton, at the Crown in Ludgate Street, 2 vol. [HGD]
• Albrecht, Michael von. 2003. Cicero’s style: a Synopsis. Leiden: Brill.
• Almazàn-García, Eva M. 2001. Dwelling in marble Halls: A Relevance-Theoretic Approach TO Intertextuality In Translation. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 14. 7–19. doi: 10.14198/raei.2001.14.01
• Burke, Peter and R.Po-chia Hsia. 2007. Introduction. In Peter Burke and R.Po-chia Hsia (eds.), Cultural Translation in Early Modern Europe, 1–4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Burke, Peter. 2004. Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Burke, Peter. 2007. Cultures of Translation in Early Modern Europe. In Peter Burke and R.Po-chia Hsia (eds.), Cultural Translation in Early Modern Europe, 7–38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Cândea, Virgil. 1999. Manuscrisul original al Istoriei Imperiului Otoman de Dimitrie Cantemir. In Dimitrie Cantemir, Creşterile şi descreşterile Imperiului Otoman, XVII–LVII. Bucureşti: Roza Vânturilor.
• Cândea, Virgil. 2010. Prefaţa traducerii româneşti. In Dimitrie Cantimir, Istoria creşterilor şi a descreşterilor Curții othman[n]ice sau Aliothman[n]ice, de la primul început al neamului, adusă până în vremurile noastre, în trei cărţi, 5–9. Bucureşti: Paideia.
• Culler, Jonathan. 2005. The pursuit of signs: semiotics, literature, deconstruction. London: Routledge.
• Ellis, Robert and Liz Oakely-Brown. 2008. British Tradition. In Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha (eds.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd edn, 344–354. London / New York: Routledge.
• Eşanu, Andrei and Valentina Eşanu. 2008. Dimitrie Cantemir şi Academia de Ştiinţe din Berlin. In Andrei Eşanu (ed.), Dinastia Cantemireştilor, 254–266. Chişinău: Ştiinţa.
• Gutt, Ernst-August. 1990. A Theoretical Account of Translation – Without a Translation Theory. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 2/2. 135–164.
• Gutt, Ernst-August. 2004. “Challenges of Metarepresentation to Translation Competence.” [Online] Available at: http://cogprints.org/6328/1/LICTRA2001-Gutt_w_figures.pdf [Accessed on 15th February 2015].
• Gutt, Ernst-August. 2014. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.
• Hammer, Joseph de. 1824. Sur l’Histoire Ottomane du prince Cantemir. Journal Asiatique, 4. 32–45.
• House, Juliane. 2001. Translation Quality Assessment: Linguistic Description versus Social Evaluation. Meta: Journal Des traducteursMeta:/Translators’ Journal 46 (2). 243–57.
• Koutrianu, Elena. 2009. Intertextuality and Relevance Theory in the Interdisciplinary Approach to Surrealist Literature and Painting. A Case-Study: Nikos Engonopoulos’s Bolivar. ResearchNotebooks 29. 145–154.
• Martínez, José Mateo. 1998. Be relevant (Relevance, translation and cross-culture). Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 11. 171–182. doi: 10.14198/raei.1998.11.13
• Panaitescu, Petre P. 1958. Dimitrie Cantemir: viaţa şi opera. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei.
• Salama-Carr, Myriam. 2008. French tradition. In Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha (eds.), The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd edn, 404–410. London / New York:Routledge.
• Sellevold, Kirsti. 2012. Style as Linguistic Resemblance. Translating the ‘Disjointed, Broken and Gadding’ Style of the Essais. In Ewa Wałaszewska and Agnieszka Piskorska (eds.), RelevanceTheory: More Than Understanding, 307–316. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Sperber, Dan and Deirdre Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Waquet, Françoise. 2001. Latin or the Empire of a Sign: from the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Centuries. Translated by John Howe. London: Verso.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/rela-2017-0007