Estudos da Tradução e Literatura Comparada: conflito e complementaridade

Translation Studies had in its beginnings, a complex relationship with Comparative Literature, marked by conflict and complementarity, as many of its founders came from literary studies, and some of Comparative Literature itself. Over the past four decades, we can distinguish two main trends occurring unevenly in both disciplines. On the one hand, Translation Studies experienced a robust growth, with expansion of its research objects and certain detachment of literary studies. On the other hand, Comparative Literature has been gradually opening to the translation phenomenon and the very discipline of Translation Studies. The initial conflict disappeared and the dialogue was restricted to a portion of Translation Studies, which we might call the Literary Translation Studies and Comparative Literature. This is particularly true in Brazil, where literary translation studies occupy an important space in graduate programs, particularly in the specific programs of translation studies.

Introduction: Cross-Cultural Reading

Celebrations, Clusters, and Comparative Literature Dorothy M. Figueira In this issue of The Comparatist, I decided that we might try something different. I have had the occasion, as I grow older and my colleagues grow even older, to participate in various Festschriften offered in their honor. This is a charming custom, where colleagues join together to celebrate the career of one of their own. It is a custom that does not occur often enough in the States. On too many occasions, a scholar’s retirement is feted in the seminar room after hours with some punch and cookies or worse, with a dinner of glorified cafeteria food where administrators make lame jokes. When I first learned that Michael Palencia-Roth had retired after many years at the University of Illinois, I thought it reasonable to use my editorial discretion to collect a number of articles in honor of his work. Prof. Palencia-Roth is an eminent comparatist and a valiant soldier in our field. His work, both scholarly and pedagogically, exemplifies the best of our discipline. The Board of the Southern Comparative Literature Association supported my decision to frame this issue as a Festschrift to him. This year, Palencia-Roth took part in a keynote forum at our annual meeting at Auburn University, announcing this volume. The Board of the scla Press of its journal, the only regional American journal of Comparative Literature with a national, and even international, readership. I appreciate their encouragement as we venture forth with such alternative clusters of articles. Working with this perspective has brought forth unexpected connections: for example, David Damrosch’s article in this issue anticipates next year’s cluster on the relationship between comparative literature and world literature (this future cluster stems from an acla panel I organized devoted to this topic) while simultaneously recalling a cluster presented last year (the icla panel on the state of the discipline, which also took place at the acla). In coming years, we are also planning guest-edited topics and clusters that are comparative in scope culled from the scla annual meeting. Michael Palencia-Roth, the Emeritus Trowbridge Scholar in Literary Studies and Professor of Comparative Literature at the University of Illinois, was born and raised in Colombia. He taught at Illinois for thirty years, where he directed the program in Comparative and World Literature for six years (1988–94). He has published books and monographs on Gabriel García Márquez, Thomas Mann, James Joyce, the conquest period in Latin America, the Holocaust, Comparative Literature as a discipline, and comparative civilizational analysis. His approximately 80 [End Page 1] other publications include major encyclopedia articles on Latin American authors, as well as essays on Germanic subjects, English literature, the Spanish colonization of the New World, and theoretical issues in cross-cultural analysis. Palencia-Roth’s role as a teacher, mentor, and administrator bears particular note. He has molded a generation of comparatists, instilling in them a sense of what it means to work together both professionally and collegially. It is, therefore, both his scholarship and his work as a citizen in the profession that the scla honors in these pages. A number of scholars have written articles devoted to topics that Palencia-Roth has touched upon in his work. We begin this issue with an interview with Professor Palencia-Roth in which he discusses his peregrinations within Comparative Literature. He examines the nature of the discipline and the changes he has seen in it since his days at Harvard as a graduate student. He also offers a prognosis for its future, noting the possibilities and pitfalls that might occasion the transformation of Comparative Literature into World Literature. Palencia-Roth’s concerns (and celebration of Comparative Literature’s potential) nicely establish a framework that the essays in his honor will engage, beginning with David Damrosch’s comments on the American institutionalization of World Literature. Damrosch investigates the cultural and institutional impact of American Comparative Literature as both a limiting factor and an arena of possibility. He questions how Americentric American comparatism actually is. On a further note, he questions to what extent world literature is becoming a creature of American conglomerate capitalism and an export trade...

Globalization has indeed exerted strong influence on China’s literary and cultural studies. The present essay first of all deals with the controversial issue of globalization with the author’s reconstruction of it from a Chinese perspective on the basis of his previous observations. Then it discusses cultural studies, including studies of elite culture and its products challenged by popular culture, in China. It lays particular emphasis on the currently prevailing Cultural Studies introduced from the West into China at the beginning of the 1990s. The author addresses the following issues: how Cultural Studies is introduced into the Chinese context, how it is integrated with domestic elite culture studies and literary studies, how it is institutionalized in the Chinese context, and how it is developing into the phase of carrying on equal dialogues with the Western scholarship in the age of globalization. To the author, Cultural Studies has a lot in common with literary studies, especially in the Chinese context, so these two branches of learning should not necessarily be opposed to one another. A sort of dialogue and complement rather than opposition between literary and cultural studies could be realized. Even in the age of globalization, when many of the other disciplines of the humanities are severely challenged, comparative literature, merging with cultural studies, is still flourishing as it is closely related to the debate on the issue of globalization. Although both the two disciplines are closely related to the advent of globalization and have travelled from the West to China, they have after all been “glocalized” in the Chinese context with certain Chinese characteristics. That is why they still survive the age of globalization.

All Colours of Translation The article discusses the collective book Prismatic Translation edited by Matthew Reynolds (Cambridge: Legenda, 2019) in the light of the history of optical metaphors for translation and recent modernism studies. Tracing the conceptual genealogy of the term and the subtleties of its theoretical usage, the reviewer argues that “prismatic translation” remains an impressive though still excessively ambiguous translation studies metaphor that has not yet solidified into a precise and operative theoretical tool. Notwithstanding these objections, Prismatic Translation can be considered an excellent reference for professionals and students engaged in literary and cultural translation studies as well as comparative modernism studies.

I begin with the ongoing debate in the field of comparative literature as a point of departure for reflecting on the current state of Chinese literary and cultural studies. There are several reasons for doing this. First, by definition, comparative literature crosses many boundaries-linguistic, national, and cultural, to name only the most obvious ones-therefore, the transnational and transcultural thrust of comparative literature makes it a logical site for discussions on multiculturalism. Second, as a modern Western discipline, comparative literature has exerted a significant influence on Chinese literary studies for decades. Quite a few scholars in the latter field in North America and Europe are trained in comparative literature and play a major role in the introduction of contemporary theory and practice, including multiculturalism, to Chinese audiences. Finally, comparative literature distinguishes itself from other kinds of literary studies by its comparative

This essay is divided into two parts. The first one intends to make a summary of Earl Miner’s cross-cultural comparative poetics. The author asserts that Earl Miner, as a distinguished scholar in comparative literature studies, has made innovative contribution in three aspects: his proactive global vision, his pioneering research methods, and his insightful academic thoughts. The second part, starting from Miner’s pioneering work and his theory in comparative literature, focuses on the comparative studies in China. The author argues that comparative literature studies in China has generally ignored its uniqueness in discipline status and academic community, mainly on “the positioning of discipline” and the Chinese comparatists. Under the circumstances of Chinese comparative literature studies, moving toward a conscientious construction of world poetics, the author is committed to the idea of “comparative world literature” with the great help of translation. Such “a study of foreign literatures in translation” will enable scholars to conduct researches on literary relations, cultural studies and/or interdisciplinary studies.

As someone who entered the United States as a foreign student in the late 1980s, my academic career was intensely shaped by the then burgeoning discourses on colonialism and postcolonialism.1 The triumvirate of Said, Spivak, and Bhabha functioned like a citation machine; and despite Said’s Orientalism, South Asia, especially India, dominated as the colonial/ postcolonial site par excellence. Much of this had to do not just with the presence of many a South Asian scholar studying, writing, and teaching in U.S. universities but also with the fact that some of the most brilliant work was being undertaken on India: Lata Mani’s work on the discourses on sati, the work of the Subaltern Studies historians, Spivak’s “Can the Subaltern Speak?” and her famous essays on the Rani of Sirmur, and of course Bhabha’s legendary essays “Sly Civility” and “Signs Taken for Wonders.” The outpouring of anglophone fiction from South Asia, topped off by the publication of Rushdie’s Midnight’s Children, made certain that there would be no dearth of work on South Asian (read Indian) postcolonial fiction, and even today, despite a fairer distribution of attention to other parts of the ex-colonial worlds, works on South Asia continue to dominate the scene. Much has been written about this privileging of South Asia (again, read India) and its incarnation as the quintessential postcolonial site, and I am not going to rehearse the debates here. But suffice it to say that while my teaching spans continents, my first book was part and parcel of the work on the discourse of gender and nationalism in colonial and postcolonial literary representations by British, Bengali, and anglophone South Asian writers. But, in another sense the book was comparative because it brought into play writers working in different languages, and I remember getting a report from Cambridge University Press asking me why there was no chapter on Rushdie.

Francomano (2012) reports on the presentation she made at the special panel of the 2012 MLA Convention on graduate programs in Spanish. In her remarks, she focuses on the need for graduate students to become trained teachers dealing with culture, literature, and critical thinking; in short, to become professors of humanities. This idea is well taken, and is such an obvious point to make that it seems absurd that Francomano would have to make it to begin with. Of course, graduate students in literary studies will enter the academy as scholars and teachers of the humanities. Of course, they should be equipped to deal with the profession they have chosen. My purpose here is not to comment on what I see as a laudable goal of graduate studies. Instead, I would like to examine some of Francomano’s claims regarding language teaching and applied linguistics in graduate education. Francomano claims that “at present, graduate programs emphasize language teaching.” She continues: “Most graduate curricula in Spanish include applied linguistics and teaching methodologies to train students to be proficient teachers of second language acquisition.” She concludes these ideas by stating: “Additionally, graduate students are given ample opportunities to become seasoned teachers as they progress through their doctoral studies” (xviii). At first blush, these comments seem factual, and for the context in which Francomano exercises her profession (Georgetown), they may be true. For the profession more generally, however, these claims are questionable. The assertion that graduate programs across the country emphasize language teaching runs counter to what students study and are tested on in most literary graduate programs. For example, no doctoral program in literary studies that I know of includes examinations on language acquisition and/or language teaching. No graduate student in literary studies is ever asked to demonstrate in final comprehensive exams any ability in the language classroom. In fact, in many institutions, fields such as second language acquisition and second language teaching simply do not exist at the graduate level. Some institutions actively discourage or discount such fields within graduate student work. And it is rare for a graduate student to lose a teaching assistantship except under extreme situations. That is, mediocre teaching is allowed in many programs. Related to the claim that language teaching is emphasized is the notion that graduate programs include applied linguistics and language teaching methodologies. Leaving aside that methods are dead and that applied linguistics is not a field, let’s ask the question, “How many courses does the typical doctoral student in Spanish studies take on language teaching or language acquisition?” The answer is “one, at best.” Ignoring what the content of such a course normally is—a point I will return to in a minute—one course on language teaching does not a proficient or knowledgeable teacher make. Contrast this situation with what happens for the area of concentration. The typical graduate program requires that students take multiple courses in Iberian literature, Spanish American literature, film, critical theory, and so on. Why? Because graduate professors know that one course in literature does not a scholar or professor of literature make. To think about this a different way, we might ask ourselves, “What background or courses would make for a proficient or knowledgeable second language teacher?” To name but some, there are courses in linguistics (syntax, phonology, pragmatics, discourse, and so on), because teachers ought to understand the nature of language as it is currently understood

While a critical mass of scholarship may have been reached to launch a journal such as TIS, much work needs to be done in developing allies and growing the field of translation and interpreting studies in the United States. This paper attempts to outline a few natural academic allies—programs in creative writing, area studies, com-parative literature, and anthropology. While looking at the respective strengths of the translation scholarship in these allied fields, I also offer a critique of some of those pro-grams. The goal is to point out areas of interest that will mutually benefit both translation studies and other fields. The paper is divided into five parts: (1) The 2004 ATSA Confer-ence; (2) The First US Translation Studies Scholar; (3) The Present State of Translation Studies in the United States; (4) Connections with Emerging Area Studies Programs; and (5) Connections with Comparative Literature and Anthropology. I conclude by suggesting that, while a critical mass may have been reached to start a journal, much work needs to be done in broadening the scope of our organization to include potential partners. The goal is to build a truly open and inclusive discipline, one that reflects the true range of ongoing translation studies investigations in the country.

This article aims to offer a concise analysis and evaluation of the historical trajectory and the current state of comparative literature in Turkey with a particular focus on its interdisciplinary nature. Additionally, it seeks to explore the development of comparative literature and translation studies in the Turkish context, aiming to reassess the seemingly close relationship between these adjacent fields within the context of Turkish literature, which can, we believe, encourage border-crossings in comparative and translation studies and open a space for newfangled approaches in comparative studies of translated literature.

What are the potential impacts of new technological advancements over research on the lives and work of literary translators? The emerging concept of human-centredness in translating with Artificial Intelligence (AI) offers unique opportunities to address this question from the existing perspective of Literary Translator Studies. Whereas much research in Translation Studies focuses on texts and processes, Translator Studies delves into individual people practically engaged in translation. Ever since the term “Translator Studies” was employed by Andrew Chesterman in 2009, the interplay between humans and technology in the context of literary translation has remained a potential topic of research. However, studies in this area have historically placed focus on sociological, cultural, and cognitive aspects of the translation industry. The sudden widespread availability of AI since the end of 2022, more than any previous technological development, carries with it substantial potential implications for literary translators. This article assesses the ways in which human-centredness is being studied at the beginning of the era of translation with AI. It synthesises existing Translator Studies research, identifying patterns and lacunae. It also takes stock of current conversations in the context of Literary Machine Translation and Computer-Assisted Literary Translation, in order to identify research questions and emerging methodological innovations at the point when the practical usability of generative AI in the context of literary translation is first emerging. At present, research in Translator Studies that is relevant to both literature and technology does not appear to have changed substantially in response to the introduction of generally available Large Language Models. Based on these findings, the article looks to the future, suggesting research topics that move beyond the isolated case study model, integrating the impact of emerging technologies within and beyond Literary Translator Studies. It also suggests that human-centred research that considers the interplay of literary translators and technology could likely make extensive use of data drawn from direct interaction with the humans involved.

Handbooks on literary theory and works of literary criticism almost universally ignore the phenomenon of literary translation; literary histories, even those that cover more than one national literature, rarely make more than a passing reference to the existence of translated texts. Since about the mid-1970s, a loosely-knit international group of scholars has been attempting to break the deadlock in which the study of literary translation found itself. Their aim is, to establish a new paradigm for the study of literary translation, on the basis of a comprehensive theory and ongoing practical research. As a theoretical model the polysystem theory appears to provide an adequate framework for the systematic study of translated literature. The net result of the new approach to translation is a considerable widening of the horizon, since any and all phenomena relating to translation, in the broadest sense, become objects of study.

Public Schools and British Opinion, 1780–1860: The Relationship between Contemporary Ideas and the Evolution of an English Institution. By Edward C. Mack. [Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature.] (New York: Columbia University Press. 1939. Pp. xvi, 432. $3.75.) Public Schools and British Opinion, 1780–1860: The Relationship between Contemporary Ideas and the Evolution of an English Institution. By Mack Edward C.. [Columbia University Studies in English and Comparative Literature.] (New York: Columbia University Press. 1939. Pp. xvi, 432. $3.75.) G. T. Hankin G. T. Hankin New York City Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The American Historical Review, Volume 45, Issue 4, July 1940, Pages 870–872, https://doi.org/10.1093/ahr/45.4.870 Published: 01 July 1940

Este ensayo recoge las experiencias de enseñanza de un curso de traducción literaria en la Universidad Nacional de Colombia con el objetivo de plantear una metodología pedagógica para la traducción literaria que, posiblemente, pueda aplicarse a la traducción en otros campos. Conforme a un marco teórico que incluye conceptos provenientes de la teoría literaria, de la traductología y del análisis del discurso, además de reflexiones de algunos autores acerca de la pedagogía de la traducción, se establece una metodología para la clase de traducción como un laboratorio de experimentación, en donde han de ejercitarse, simultáneamente, las habilidades de escritura de los estudiantes y su capacidad para evaluar críticamente sus elecciones de traducción.