Universais de tradução [Translation universals]

Andrew Chesterman
Traduzido por Inês Mendes, Susana Valdez & Iolanda Ramos
Índice

A investigação sobre universais de tradução tem origem numa convergência de influências. A primeira influência baseia-se na ideia tradicional de que os textos traduzidos são percetivelmente diferentes de outros textos. O conceito "tradutês" (“translationese” em inglês) foi precisamente fruto de uma longa tradição de críticas quanto à falta de fluência das traduções. Do igual modo, há muito que se considera que há aspetos do texto de partida, do seu significado ou estilo que normalmente se perdem ao serem traduzidos (consulte Estilística e tradução ) (stylistics and translation). O pressuposto subjacente a estas duas tradições é o de que os textos traduzidos partilham alguns traços, já que de outra forma não seria possível fazer generalizações sobre os seus problemas comuns.

Full-text access to translations is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

Referências bibliográficas

Baker, M.
1993 “Corpus linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and applications.” In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, M. Baker et al. (eds), 233–250. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins TSB. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blum-Kulka, S.
1986 “Shifts of cohesion and coherence in translation.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, J. House and S. Blum-Kulka (eds), 17–35. Tübingen: Narr. TSBGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, A.
2004 “Beyond the particular.” In Mauranen and Kujamäki (eds), 33–49. TSB. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laviosa, S.
2002 Corpus-based Translation Studies: Theory, Findings, Applications. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. DOI logo BoPGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, A. & Kujamäki, P.
(eds) 2004 Translation Universals. Do they exist? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logo BoPGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, O. & Koskinen, K.
2010 “Reprocessing texts. The fine line between retranslating and revising.” Across Languages and Cultures 11 (1): 29–49. DOI logo TSBGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, S.
2004 “Unique items – Over- or under-represented in translated language?” In Mauranen & Kujamäki (eds), 177–184.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logo BoPGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria
1998 “Computerized corpora and the future of Translation Studies.” Meta 43 (4): 653–659. DOI logo TSBGoogle Scholar

Outras leituras

Chesterman, A.
2007 “What is a unique item?” In Doubts and Directions in Translation Studies, Y. Gambier et al.. (eds), 3–13. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins TSB. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, S.
2003 “The cognitive basis of translation universals.” Target 15 (2): 197–241. DOI logo TSBGoogle Scholar
House, J.
2008 “Beyond Intervention. Universals in translation?” trans-kom 1 (1): 6–19. TSBGoogle Scholar
Klaudy, K.
1996 “Back-translation as a tool for detecting explicitation strategies in translation.” In Translation Studies in Hungary, K. Klaudy et al. (eds), 99–114. Budapest: Scholastica. TSBGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2008 “On Toury’s laws of how translators translate.” In Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, A. Pym et al. (eds), 311–328. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ulrych, M.
2009 “Translating and editing as mediated discourse: focus on the recipient.” In Translators and Their Readers. In Homage to Eugene A. Nida, R. Dimitriu & M. Shlesinger (eds), 219–234. Brussels: Editions du Hasard.Google Scholar