You are on page 1of 4

NOTAS Florianópolis: UFSC, Núcleo de tra-

dução.
1 A reflexão acerca da teoria de
Eugene Nida foi extraída a partir do
trabalho de Rosemary Arrojo em
Oficina de tradução: a teoria na
prática.
2 Professor da Seção de Lisboa da Contemporary Translation
Faculdade de Filosofia da Univer-
sidade Católica Portuguesa. Theories: 2nd revised edition,
by Edwin Gentzler. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters, 2001.
230 pp.

REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS The second revised edition of Con-


Arrojo, R. (1997) Oficina de tradução: temporary Translation Theories, by
a teoria na prática. São Paulo: Edwin Gentzler, presents the same
Ática. structure as its first edition, that is,
seven chapters divided into different
Berman, A. A tradução e a letra ou o sections providing a historical over-
albergue ao longe. Trad. Marie view and discussing some of the most
Hélène Catherine Torres & Walter prominent approaches over the last
Carlos Costa. Inédito. decades. Why writing a second re-
Hume, D. (1989) Enquiries concerning vised edition then?
human understanding and Its first edition raised much contro-
concerning the principles of mo- versy as to the choice of approaches,
ral. Edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge as Larose puts it:
with text revised and notes by P.H
Nidditch. 3ª ed. Oxford: Clarendon Sont donc exclus tous les travaux
Press. des traductologues français (de
Mounin à Berman, en passant par
_____. (1998) An enquiry concerning Ladmiral) et canadiens d’expres-
the principles of moral. Edited by sion française ou anglaise. On
Tom L. Beauchamp. New York: s’étonne que Steiner, Newmark, de
Oxford University Press. Beaugrande et Pym, auteurs non
_____. (1995) Uma investigação so- négligeables dans le domaine de la
bre os princípios da moral. Trad. traductologie contemporaine,
José Oscar de Almeida Marques. soient absents de Contemporary
Campinas, SP: Editora da Theories of Translation. L’auteur
UNICAMP. écarte aussi les études d’inspira-
tion linguistique (Hatim et Mason,
_____. Investigação sobre o entendi- Bell, Nord, etc.) ou à vocation empi-
mento humano. Trad. Artur Morão. rique (Krings, Lôrscher, Tirkkonen-
Lisboa: Edições 70, 1989. Condit, Dancette, Séguinot, etc.)
Schleiermacher, F. “Sobre diferentes (Larose, 1996 : 164).
métodos de tradução.” In: Gentzler responded to those criticisms
Heidermann, W. (org.) (2001) Clás- on the preface to the revised edition
sicos da teoria de tradução. where he states that, ‘[t]his book, how-

Fragmentos, número 26, p. 087/092 Florianópolis/ jan - jun/ 2004 89


ever, was never intended to provide a processes involved in translation. The
quantitative overview (...) I chose to main difference, however, lies in his
discuss five of the most important ones approach on Reiss and Vermeer’s func-
at the time; and I still think that those tionalist translation theory. Gentzler
five do reflect innovations crucial to expanded a single paragraph on the
the young field’s development’(2001: first edition into nine on the second
xi). Some arguments presented were revised edition. The main problem
also criticized and he ackowledges that: though is restated, that is, a miscon-
ceived notion of the functional ap-
This second edition has allowed proach as toward fidelity to the source
me to correct typos and errors of text. He writes that ‘they (Reiss and
fact, and to update sections to re- Vermeer) argue that translation should
flect new developments within the be governed primarily by the one func-
specific areas. Occasionally, I mod- tional aspect which predominates, or,
erated my voice when I felt it led to in the new terminology, by the
a distortion of the ideas presented original’s “Skopos”’ (Gentzler, 1993:
by any individual scholar – those 71). On the second edition he writes:
changes have been surprisingly
few (2001: xii). Despite advances over the faithful
This review lies its focus on vs. free debate, these approaches
specifically some changes Gentzler at some point still tend to be source-
made on the much-criticized third chap- oriented in nature and invest the
ter, The “Science” of Translation. This original with some sort of structure
chapter deals both with the influence and information that can subse-
Chomsky’s generative grammar had on quently be encoded in another lan-
Nida’s scientific claim of his dynamic guage, to which the translator must
equivalence and with the science of remain faithful (Gentzler, 2001: 75).
translation in German speaking coun- Toury though states the opposite
tries. Much of the criticism directed at when contrasting Skopos Theory and
this chapter is based on its superficial Descriptive Translation Studies:
review and on Gentzler’s harsh criti-
cism of the latter. Larose writes: A second paradigm which was
heavily target-oriented, so-called
Les sept dernières pages de ce troi- Skopostheorie, gradually emerged
sième chapitre portant sur les ten- as an alternative. It even managed
dances en traductologie allemande to gain considerable ground, albeit
(Kade, Neubert, Reiss, Vermeer, mainly in German-speaking circles.
etc.) sont très riches, mais malheu- Thus, target-orientedness as such
reusement beaucoup trop courtes. no longer arouses the same antago-
Gentzler est extrêmement sévère à nism it used to less than twenty
l’endroit des traductologues alle- years ago (Toury, 1995: 136).
mands et à l’égard de leurs théo- In our opinion, Gentzler failed to no-
ries, qu’il considère “prétendument tice the difference between the earlier
scientifiques”, lesquelles ont ten- Skopos Theory formulated by Reiss
dance à être prescriptives (Larose, and Vermeer and the later by Nord who
1996). reintroduced the concept of fidelity or
Gentzler worked on the superficiality loyalty, as she puts it. According to
alluded to. He inserted a paragraph on Pym ‘Nord tells us the translator re-
page 67 about Paul Kussmaul’s con- mains “responsible” for work carried
tribution to the research of the mental out according to someone else’s crite-

90 Resenhas/Reviews
ria and further posits that the tive target situation”. It is thus to
translator’s “loyalty” is to both send- be derived from the instructions
ers and receivers’ (Pym, 1993: 188). given by the “initiator”, the per-
son for whom the translator is
On the first edition it seems like both
working (not to be confused with
functional and dynamic concepts
authors or readers, although au-
blurred; on the second he reexamines:
thors and readers may become ini-
Pushing the boundaries of Nida’s con- tiators). The skopos is in a sense
cept of dynamic equivalence to new the pragmatic content of the
levels of flexibility and adaptability, initiator’s instructions (Pym, 1993:
functionalist scholars (...) have 184).
adapted well to conditions of the new Nevertheless, Gentzler examines thor-
global market (...) The two most impor- oughly the bases of the functionalist
tant shifts in theoretical developments approach and unveils the economic
in translation theory over the past two interests behind it and its normative
decades have been (1) the shift from nature. Far from pretending impartial-
source-text oriented theories to target- ity, Gentzler provides the readers with
oriented theories and (2) the shift to a much more detailed perspective of
include cultural factors as well as lin- the matter.
guistic elements in the translation
training models. Those advocating As to the severe criticism on the func-
functionalist approaches have been tionalist approach Larose mentioned,
pioneers in both areas. Functionalist it is in perfect concordance with
theorists conceive of translation as an Gentzler’s beliefs in the translator tak-
action carried out by a person who ing an active part in text production.
has a specific communication goal, Gentzler wrote on a subsequent article:
which Reiss and Vermeer refer to as
I suggest that scholars continue
the text’s Skopos. Because the appro-
with an open mind, open multiple
priateness of the form of communica-
versions, and remain open to trans-
tion always relates to the accomplish-
lators’ voices from all parts of the
ment of the intended goal, the target
culture voices. Postcolonial trans-
cultural takes on crucial importance
lation studies is still in its infant
(Gentzler, 2001: 70).
stages, and before falling into rhe-
Herein he sheds light on the previous torical strategies of affirmation or
unsettled boundaries between dy- negation, I suggest creating more
namic and functional translation theo- openings and letting more
ries. He also points out to the more thoughts proliferate. Let’s have
active role the translator plays since more voices at the table rather than
henceforth (s)he is a true cultural me- fewer. Too many voices have been
diator who may negotiate suitable strat- silenced for too long (Gentzler,
egies to be used in a given translation 2003).
process. Despite those advances, Despite Gentzler’s misconstruction of
Gentzler could have explored more the fidelity in Skopos Theory, an attentive
translator’s exclusion of the function- reader of the second edition of Con-
alist new binary model, that is, author/ temporary Translation Theories will
initiator. As Pym mentions: perceive the meticulous work he went
through in reediting it. Gentzler up-
[T]he skopos is “a more or less ex-
dated each of the approaches to Trans-
plicit description of the prospec-
lation theory, incorporating 50-60

Fragmentos, número 26, p. 087/092 Florianópolis/ jan - jun/ 2004 91


pages of new material, including new Toury, G. (1995) The Notion of Assumed
research and a new conclusion. He has Translation: An Invitation to a
accomplished successfully to attain New Discussion. In: H. Bloemen,
the right tone and to provide his read- E. Hertog, W. Segers (eds.).
ers with a more comprehensive version Letterlijkheid, Wordelijheid/
of the approaches examined offering Literality, Verbality. Antwerpen:
new insights into the nature of trans- Fantom, pp. 135-147.
lation, language and cross-cultural
communication. This book would be Luana Ferreira de Freitas
beneficial to professors and students
alike and it can prove useful as a start- PGL/UFSC
ing point for those who aim to research
as it offers an overview of some of the Christine Bareño Etges
most alluded approaches to translating. PGI/UFSC

REFERENCES

Gentzler, E. (1993) Contemporary


Translation Theories. London:
Routledge.
Gentzler, E. (2001) Contemporary
Translation Theories: 2nd revised
edition. Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters.
Gentzler, E. (2003) Translation,
Postcolonial Studies, and the
Americas. In: Paula Burnett (ed.)
Translation and Transcreation, vol.
2, no. 2. http://www.brunel.ac.uk/
faculty/arts/entertext (08/01/2004)
Larose, R. (1996) C. R. Gentzler, E.
(1993): Contemporary Theories
of Translation In: Meta vol. XLI
no. 1 pp. 163-170. http://
www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1996/
v41/n1/003404ar.html (09/01/2004)
Pym, A. (1993) Christiane Nord. Text
Analysis in Translation. Theory,
Method, and Didactic Application
of a Model for a Translation-
Oriented Text Analysis. In: TTR 6/
2, 184-190.

92 Resenhas/Reviews