delia chiaro

Jeremy Munday (Leeds) Delia Chiaro (Bologna) Moderator: Marcus Tomalin (Cambridge) Diversity, in its diverse forms, has come to characterise those modern nation-states that advocate the socio-political advantages of cultural and ethnic pluralism – and sociolinguistic diversity in particular (whether inter- or intralingual) has received increasing consideration (e.g., Mayoral Asensio 1999, Cotterill and Ife 2000, Stolt 2010, Federici 2011, Hansen-Shirra et al. 2012). Communities subdivide themselves by means of distinctive languages, sociolects, genderlects, dialects, and the like -- and, in different contexts, they deploy different stylistic registers with varying degrees of prestige and validity. Naturally, this situation presents paradigmatic problems for translators, since any extended utterance is unavoidably riven with regional, ethnic, socio-economic, and/or socio-political connotations that are strongly embedded in the culture of the source language. However, this also provides wonderful opportunities too, since translations can help to bring distinct cultures into closer, more sympathetic, contact. In his seminal work A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965), John Catford considered various strategies for translating linguistic variation, noting that all too often a flattening or neutralizing effect predominates. Translation can, therefore, promote homogeneity rather than heterogeneity, often unwittingly. The literary critic Roland Barthes claimed that 'non-standard' forms have generally been treated inadequately by authors and translators alike, mainly because they have too often been deemed peripheral (Barthes 1984, 123). Yet attentiveness to such differences is sometimes unavoidable. It is a brave, if misguided, translator who renders the Italian phrase ‘mi fa cagare!’ literally into (say) Arabic, without considering its pragmatic implications. Nonetheless, such nuances are often hard to approximate. As Gillian Lane-Mercier has observed, all attempted renderings of non-standard forms inevitably reveal ‘the translator’s aesthetic, ideological and political responsibility’ (Lane Mercier 1997, sub-title). Consequently, whenever required to contend with instances of conspicuous linguistic variation, translators must necessarily participate in the fraught task of mediating diversity by means of language – and their decisions reveal much about their underlying worldviews and ideologies. This panel discussion will provide an opportunity to reflect upon the benefits and challenges of creating translations in socio-political contexts where cultural and ethnic diversity predominate

Jeremy Munday (Leeds) Delia Chiaro (Bologna) Moderator: Marcus Tomalin (Cambridge) Diversity, in its diverse forms, has come to characterise those modern nation-states that advocate the socio-political advantages of cultural and ethnic pluralism – and sociolinguistic diversity in particular (whether inter- or intralingual) has received increasing consideration (e.g., Mayoral Asensio 1999, Cotterill and Ife 2000, Stolt 2010, Federici 2011, Hansen-Shirra et al. 2012). Communities subdivide themselves by means of distinctive languages, sociolects, genderlects, dialects, and the like -- and, in different contexts, they deploy different stylistic registers with varying degrees of prestige and validity. Naturally, this situation presents paradigmatic problems for translators, since any extended utterance is unavoidably riven with regional, ethnic, socio-economic, and/or socio-political connotations that are strongly embedded in the culture of the source language. However, this also provides wonderful opportunities too, since translations can help to bring distinct cultures into closer, more sympathetic, contact. In his seminal work A Linguistic Theory of Translation (1965), John Catford considered various strategies for translating linguistic variation, noting that all too often a flattening or neutralizing effect predominates. Translation can, therefore, promote homogeneity rather than heterogeneity, often unwittingly. The literary critic Roland Barthes claimed that 'non-standard' forms have generally been treated inadequately by authors and translators alike, mainly because they have too often been deemed peripheral (Barthes 1984, 123). Yet attentiveness to such differences is sometimes unavoidable. It is a brave, if misguided, translator who renders the Italian phrase ‘mi fa cagare!’ literally into (say) Arabic, without considering its pragmatic implications. Nonetheless, such nuances are often hard to approximate. As Gillian Lane-Mercier has observed, all attempted renderings of non-standard forms inevitably reveal ‘the translator’s aesthetic, ideological and political responsibility’ (Lane Mercier 1997, sub-title). Consequently, whenever required to contend with instances of conspicuous linguistic variation, translators must necessarily participate in the fraught task of mediating diversity by means of language – and their decisions reveal much about their underlying worldviews and ideologies. This panel discussion will provide an opportunity to reflect upon the benefits and challenges of creating translations in socio-political contexts where cultural and ethnic diversity predominate

Professor Delia Chiaro (Department of Interpreting and Translation, University of Bologna) Dr Graeme Ritchie (Honorary Senior Research Fellow, School of Natural and Computing Sciences, University of Aberdeen) Moderator: Dr Marcus Tomalin (English/Engineering, University of Cambridge) Humour is a universal human trait found across all cultures and throughout history, and one deeply embedded in them. Translating the combination of verbal humour and referential humour, for example, has often been likened to translating poetry: impossible. The imperative of the perlocutionary effect (amusement) complicates matters further, not to mention the fact that, to an extent, a sense of humour is innate and cannot really be learnt. However, the increasing global demand for the translation, or adaptation, of humour in a variety of texts and contexts (literary, film and television, live interpretation, etc.), has produced a growing body of research by scholars and translators from various academic disciplines worldwide (Delabastita, 1996, 1997; Chiaro, 1992, 2005, 2010; Attardo, 2002; Vandaele, 2002; Zabalbeascoa, 1996, 2005, 2016). How should translation render parody when the parodied text is unknown to the foreign audience? If a degree of transgression is inherent in humour, what happens if its target is taboo in the receiving culture? What are the specific ethical implications for the translator? These are some of the questions we will be addressing. The panel will discuss some of the questions that have emerged from the debate, exploring how the translation of humour has been addressed in different cultures and historical periods from a range of theoretical and practical perspectives.