Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  AUTHORIAL TRANSLATION
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

PERMEABILITY OF THE INTERCULTURAL SPACE OF FRENCH LITERATURE: LANGUAGE IDENTITY, DUAL DOMICILE, AUTHORIAL TRANSLATIONS

100%
Bednarova K.
Slovak Review. A Review of World Literature Research
|
2006
|
vol. 15
|
issue 2
105-122
EN
The study deals with reception of a piece of literature functioning in specific conditions of the bilingual and biliterary communication and entering the metatextual process in the form of an authorial translation. The essential material research is based on a 'non-French' authors who had chosen French as their literary language, and at that they write the same works in their mother tongue or translate them for themselves, too (Beckett, Ionesco, J. Green, N. Nuston, Kundera, etc.). Literary francophonie, dual domicile of a piece of literature and authorial translation are three essential domains reflected in the study. These are as well connected with the research interest of the authoress in the sphere of the contemporary French literature (identity of the author; identity modeled in a text), and in the sphere of the theory and praxeology of the translation. The authoress grounds her thoughts on the thesis that the literary works situated on the boundary-line of two languages, two literatures, existing in the bilingual variants and the auto-translations are a specific translation and reception problem. When explaining this, she uses terms as: permeability, multicultural, francophonie (French-speaking), bilingualism, biliterariness; transgression, intertext, architext, variant of a text, intertextuality. The authoress understands an authorial translation as a typological problem, as the traditional theory of translation, she separates very radically the sphere of the original as a writing and creation, from the translation as a metatextual activity. It is especially in the situation, when auto-translation is at the same time a rewriting of a text; the anomaly arises, regarding the traditional classification. Similarly, it is not productive to understand authorial translation as an equivalent version of the original. It might be possible to study auto-translation as a piece of literature of plural immanence or in terms of auto-hypertextuality. When translating these works to a third language, a number of the problems arise, some of which can only be solved by the means of analysis of the the authorial translation. The above mentioned analyses confirm the importance of the fact that the intercultural and multicultural aspect (which is moreover relevant in interpretation of a piece of literature, as well as its translation) should be considered in reception of the foreign works of literature.
2
Content available remote

FROM THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF (AUTHORIAL) TRANSLATION (Z teorie a praxe (autorskeho) prekladu)

63%
Bednarova K.
World Literature Studies
|
2009
|
vol. 1(18)
|
issue 3
12-27
EN
The authoress reflects on authorial translation on the background of the reception of bi- and multilingual literary production. On the example of Kundera's essayistic production in French and Czech, she demonstrates how difficult it is to ascertain the status of the text, i.e. whether it is an original or a translation. This issue is the determining factor in translating this kind of texts into a third language. It is fundamental to detect the nature and the mode of literary production in the author's bi- and multilingual situation, which is characterized by a fabric of various texts and modes of translation (pre-text, work, text, inter-text, meta-text, translation, authorial translation, second-hand translation, indirect translation), as well as the relation of the author to the text which is designated as an authorial translation, i.e. to ascertain whether it should be considered an original or not. This also bears on the instruction for translation into a third language. The authoress concludes that the theoretical reflection does not bring a clear answer, and neither so the authors who ontologically delineate themselves, define themselves in relation to the language and space, despite the openness and unlimitedness of this space, which de facto does not require this limitation. From the theoretical reflection and from the viewpoint of the text follows a notion of textual chain whose every unit carries within itself the potency of the original as well as of the translation, regardless of these chains' formation as a network or as a horizontal progression. The situation changes from the viewpoint of the author of the literary text. Ignoring the author's attitude and the status which he awarded to the original and to the (authorial) translation (which is not always the case in practice) impends that the notions of authorship and textual identity will oscillate.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.