[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.Each group had approached the poemssomewhat dixerently, depending on the backgrounds and interests of themembers.All of them felt that the information I had distributed had beenappropriate and helpful.In general, their comments focused on the historicalperiods of both author and translator and its inuence on word choice, deci-sions about language conventions, and formal constraints, especially rhyme.There was also considerable discussion about decisions related to gender.Infact, one of the rst things quite a few of the participants noticed about thepoems was the absence of conventional titles and Sor Juana s use of descriptivesentences to introduce the poems.The descriptions give no indication of thepoet s gender.It would be possible for a translator to avoid a gendered descrip-tion in English as well, even though the Spanish sentences do not contain anexpressed subject (nor do the rules of Spanish grammar require that they do). 164 Carol S.MaierNot all of Sor Juana s translators have done this, however.Contrast, for ex-ample, Electa Arenal and Amanda Powell s translation of Arguye deinconsecuentes as The poet proves illogical (1994: 157) with Margaret Say-ers Peden s She proves the inconsistency (1997: 148) and Alan Trueblood s She demonstrates the inconsistency (1988: 111).Such contrasts promptedthe participants to consider not only the translation of the titles but also theevident intervention of the translator, whose perspective with respect to gender(as evidenced in even the translation of the introductory sentences) will haveclear and far-reaching implications for the translation.The second workshop at East Anglia was not a formal workshop but aspontaneous session arranged for the following day at the request of some ofthe participants in the rst session.This session was strictly a workshop, inwhich participants commented on a text that I was currently translating.Thegroup included members of a post-graduate translation class, their instructor,and the translators-in-residence at the British Centre for Literary Translation.Idistributed photocopies of several passages and asked the group to commenton whatever aspect of the text they wished, explaining that I had chosen thepassages because of the gender-related issues they raised for me.Although the participants initial responses addressed those issues, thecomments soon focused on the translation of idioms, the use of dialect, andthe nature of the narration.The role of gender was mentioned continuallythroughout the session, but only as it related to individual situations, not as aseparate issue.Workshop Three: Across the Word: Translating a Mexican Nun Wagner Col-lege, Staten Island, NYThis workshop, like those that preceded it, included two sessions.The rst waspart of a series of dinner forums for faculty and students from all disciplines.All of the students were undergraduates.Given the fact that most members ofthe audience had no specialized knowledge about translation, I did not focusmy comments directly on translating gender.I did, however, focus on theinvariably operative and determinative role of the translator s approach.Al-though most of the discussion centered on the translation of work by SorJuana, I began my remarks by reading two dramatically dixerent versions ofseveral verses of the second chapter of Matthew, one from the King Jamesversion and one from Clarence L.Jordan s Cotton Patch Version of Matthewand James in order to demonstrate the extent to which translations of a singletext can vary.The clear, even controversial disparity prompted immediateinterest, which made it possible for me to move quickly to the translation of Gender, pedagogy, and literary translation 165Sor Juana s poems.I briey outlined Sor Juana s life, asked the audience tolook at the sheet I had distributed, and drew their attention to evidence of thetranslators approaches, asking that they notice the particular aspects of thepoems and the translation that had interested the groups at Vic and theUniversity of East Anglia.Responses were perceptive, although general, giventhe nature of the audience; and most of the questions and comments focusedon the most salient dixerences among the versions.Many of those dixerencesgave rise to gender-related issues.For example, there was particular interest inthe varied renditions of the word necios in the rst line of the Stira losóca. That word, which is the second word of the poem and modies hombres(men), appears in the English versions as foolish, silly, misguided, and stupid. As one would expect, the group s discussion about the translation ofnecios gave rise to comments and questions about the entire poem, especiallyabout gender.In other words, although I had not singled out gender as thefocus of my presentation, the question of gender arose spontaneously from acomparison of the multiple versions.A similar experience occurred the following day when I discussed transla-tion as writing and rewriting in an honors seminar about Latin Americanliterature.Not all of the students were procient in Spanish, so the class readthe works in translation.Although my visit occurred near the end of thesemester, translation as such had not been addressed, and the class was con-ducted in English, as if the fact of translation was not pertinent.I began theclass with introductory comments about translation as a form of retelling,using as my example Sor Juana s Answer (Respuesta), which was one of the rstbooks they had studied.Next, I told them about the three translations of theRespuesta that exist in English and distributed copies of two passages fromeach.(Two of the versions contained both the Spanish and English texts.) Oneof the Spanish-speaking students was asked to read the rst passage in Spanishand then each of the other passages was read aloud and discussed.The stu-dents initial comments focused on word choice, style, and on the presence orabsence of notes.The role of the translator s approach and, more specically,the issue of gender, arose gradually from our discussion about the use of notes.(Two of the versions do include notes, those by Electa Arenal and AmandaPowell, and Margaret Sayers Peden).The notes by Arenal and Powell are morenumerous and detailed than those of Peden, and they place a deliberate andexplicit emphasis on the role of women in Sor Juan s time and on the possible feminist nuances in the Respuesta.The students were intrigued by the dixerences among the versions and theinuence that a translator s reading and intention could have on a text.At no 166 Carol S.Maierpoint did I ask them which version they preferred or found best [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl milosnikstop.keep.pl
.Each group had approached the poemssomewhat dixerently, depending on the backgrounds and interests of themembers.All of them felt that the information I had distributed had beenappropriate and helpful.In general, their comments focused on the historicalperiods of both author and translator and its inuence on word choice, deci-sions about language conventions, and formal constraints, especially rhyme.There was also considerable discussion about decisions related to gender.Infact, one of the rst things quite a few of the participants noticed about thepoems was the absence of conventional titles and Sor Juana s use of descriptivesentences to introduce the poems.The descriptions give no indication of thepoet s gender.It would be possible for a translator to avoid a gendered descrip-tion in English as well, even though the Spanish sentences do not contain anexpressed subject (nor do the rules of Spanish grammar require that they do). 164 Carol S.MaierNot all of Sor Juana s translators have done this, however.Contrast, for ex-ample, Electa Arenal and Amanda Powell s translation of Arguye deinconsecuentes as The poet proves illogical (1994: 157) with Margaret Say-ers Peden s She proves the inconsistency (1997: 148) and Alan Trueblood s She demonstrates the inconsistency (1988: 111).Such contrasts promptedthe participants to consider not only the translation of the titles but also theevident intervention of the translator, whose perspective with respect to gender(as evidenced in even the translation of the introductory sentences) will haveclear and far-reaching implications for the translation.The second workshop at East Anglia was not a formal workshop but aspontaneous session arranged for the following day at the request of some ofthe participants in the rst session.This session was strictly a workshop, inwhich participants commented on a text that I was currently translating.Thegroup included members of a post-graduate translation class, their instructor,and the translators-in-residence at the British Centre for Literary Translation.Idistributed photocopies of several passages and asked the group to commenton whatever aspect of the text they wished, explaining that I had chosen thepassages because of the gender-related issues they raised for me.Although the participants initial responses addressed those issues, thecomments soon focused on the translation of idioms, the use of dialect, andthe nature of the narration.The role of gender was mentioned continuallythroughout the session, but only as it related to individual situations, not as aseparate issue.Workshop Three: Across the Word: Translating a Mexican Nun Wagner Col-lege, Staten Island, NYThis workshop, like those that preceded it, included two sessions.The rst waspart of a series of dinner forums for faculty and students from all disciplines.All of the students were undergraduates.Given the fact that most members ofthe audience had no specialized knowledge about translation, I did not focusmy comments directly on translating gender.I did, however, focus on theinvariably operative and determinative role of the translator s approach.Al-though most of the discussion centered on the translation of work by SorJuana, I began my remarks by reading two dramatically dixerent versions ofseveral verses of the second chapter of Matthew, one from the King Jamesversion and one from Clarence L.Jordan s Cotton Patch Version of Matthewand James in order to demonstrate the extent to which translations of a singletext can vary.The clear, even controversial disparity prompted immediateinterest, which made it possible for me to move quickly to the translation of Gender, pedagogy, and literary translation 165Sor Juana s poems.I briey outlined Sor Juana s life, asked the audience tolook at the sheet I had distributed, and drew their attention to evidence of thetranslators approaches, asking that they notice the particular aspects of thepoems and the translation that had interested the groups at Vic and theUniversity of East Anglia.Responses were perceptive, although general, giventhe nature of the audience; and most of the questions and comments focusedon the most salient dixerences among the versions.Many of those dixerencesgave rise to gender-related issues.For example, there was particular interest inthe varied renditions of the word necios in the rst line of the Stira losóca. That word, which is the second word of the poem and modies hombres(men), appears in the English versions as foolish, silly, misguided, and stupid. As one would expect, the group s discussion about the translation ofnecios gave rise to comments and questions about the entire poem, especiallyabout gender.In other words, although I had not singled out gender as thefocus of my presentation, the question of gender arose spontaneously from acomparison of the multiple versions.A similar experience occurred the following day when I discussed transla-tion as writing and rewriting in an honors seminar about Latin Americanliterature.Not all of the students were procient in Spanish, so the class readthe works in translation.Although my visit occurred near the end of thesemester, translation as such had not been addressed, and the class was con-ducted in English, as if the fact of translation was not pertinent.I began theclass with introductory comments about translation as a form of retelling,using as my example Sor Juana s Answer (Respuesta), which was one of the rstbooks they had studied.Next, I told them about the three translations of theRespuesta that exist in English and distributed copies of two passages fromeach.(Two of the versions contained both the Spanish and English texts.) Oneof the Spanish-speaking students was asked to read the rst passage in Spanishand then each of the other passages was read aloud and discussed.The stu-dents initial comments focused on word choice, style, and on the presence orabsence of notes.The role of the translator s approach and, more specically,the issue of gender, arose gradually from our discussion about the use of notes.(Two of the versions do include notes, those by Electa Arenal and AmandaPowell, and Margaret Sayers Peden).The notes by Arenal and Powell are morenumerous and detailed than those of Peden, and they place a deliberate andexplicit emphasis on the role of women in Sor Juan s time and on the possible feminist nuances in the Respuesta.The students were intrigued by the dixerences among the versions and theinuence that a translator s reading and intention could have on a text.At no 166 Carol S.Maierpoint did I ask them which version they preferred or found best [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]