Traduire, écrire, réécrire dans un monde en mutation - ESIT, Paris, 1-2 Dec 2016

International Conference

Ecole Supérieure d’Interprètes et de Traducteurs (E.S.I.T.)
Université de Paris 3 – Sorbonne Nouvelle

1-2 December 2016

Translating, Writing, Rewriting in and for a World in Flux

Translators have always given precedence to issues of writing and the problem of meaning, which, just like the work of thinking that would amount to detachment and separation, involve a trajectory, detours and disruptions.

Let us take as our starting point that translation is not a pale copy of the original, but rather a creation, a textual hermeneutic, that leads to the progressive emancipation of the translated text and that provides the opportunity to deconstruct several key concepts such as model and origin. It is clear that, in the final analysis, what is important is the transformed text, the second text, as well as the process of textual transformation, i.e. what the translator has done with the text, and not what it was. In other words, as Antoine Berman has suggested with regards literary texts, each translated text reveals, by highlighting it, a part of the original text, thanks to the space-time continuum that separates the two texts, thus allowing us to question the nature of each text and the conditions of interpretation. The translated text helps the reader strip the original text bare. In the end, as Jean Szlamowicz (2011) would say, the source text and the target text have gained from the experience and challenge of transfer.

The process of translation as rewriting corresponds to the writer’s remit. Involving not only expressive texts, it also includes audiomedial, informative and operative texts, which are particularly pertinent to the conference theme and frame our analysis. Mandated to produce a written text, the writer can be distinguished from the person responsible for the actual speech act who translates ideas into words, which means that the former adapts his text to transmit the latter’s – the client’s – message, without judging its value. The writer’s text will be deemed satisfactory if it renders the speaker’s intended message. Like the translator, the writer is responsible for content and must be able to justify his choices (Beaudet and Smart, 2002).

Socio-cognitive relevance of a message to its target audience is the hard core of communicational competence and raises, in the era of globalisation, complex training issues that call for an appropriate response. Writings, which are integrated into a network of written, rewritten and read texts that are also the object of numerous discussions, are the result of a language practice. They require that the translator and the writer appropriate ways of doing and thinking specific to different fields through reading and writing. This comes down to taking into account the genre of the text, the subject matter, rhetorical (the dominant message) and pragmatic (expected results) challenges in addition to the target reader. It is along these general lines that functionalist approaches to translation (Nord, 1997) encourage professionals to prioritize the function of the text, its intention along with its readers in order to attain the objective suggested by the original text and “restore the balance of communication disrupted by translation” (Bastin, 1993).

Based on these considerations, the role that translator-writers play in the age of globalisation deserves study in order to propose university training programmes adapted to our future artisans of writing. This is the aim of the discourse and writing studies discipline that is defined as a field of interdisciplinary research having as an object of study all of the processes and knowledge involved in the production of discourse, writing and communication adapted to the intended audience (Labasse, 2006). By analysing the writing act in all of its forms (books, media, the arts, new technologies, journalism, institutional settings, etc.), discourse and writing studies raises questions about such fundamental concepts as authorship, audience, ethos, identity and language. Its evolution is marked by the dynamic role of writing as a tool of communication in a knowledge economy, by the transformation of writing practices brought about by emerging numerical technologies, as well as the globalisation of contexts and contents. Within this vast universe, it is obvious that translators and their translations also form an extremely active core, feeding various sectors while being fed by them (Nakbi, 2002).
We would like to initiate a discussion around the following issues (an open-ended and non-exhaustive list):

1) The contribution of translation to discourse and writing studies, and vice-versa, from the point of view of writing competence;
2) the role of translator-writers in business and institutional communication strategy;
3) the technical challenges raised by the translation and writing of this type of discourse, and
4) the skills required to enter this vast market.

More generally, this conference aims to promote multidisciplinarity in order to seek out answers to the following questions: In the context of globalisation, is there a place for a borderless discourse that would be devoid of precise national, regional markers and no longer submitted to dominant language norms? What does it mean to translate, write and rewrite in a collaborative and ergonomic working environment that is favorable to inventiveness and adapted to the increased need for multilingual corporate communications?

The conference languages are English and French. Proposals (250-500 words) are to be sent to Fayza.el-qasem@univ-paris3.fr, et/ou Susana.mauduit@univ-paris3.fr before end of september

Bibliography

Bastin, G., “La notion d’adaptation en traduction,” Meta, vol. 38, n° 3, 1993, pp. 473-478. On line: https://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1993/v38/n3/001987ar.html

Beaudet, C. & Smart, G. (ed.), “Les compétences du rédacteur professionnel/The expertise of professional writers,” Technostyle, vol. 18, n° 1, 2002. On line: cjsdw.arts.ubc.ca/pdf/V18-n1-2002

Folkart, B., Le Conflit des énonciations. Traduction et discours rapporté. Montréal: Les Éditions Balzac, 1991.

Labasse, B., La communication écrite. Une matière en quête de substance. Lyon: Editions Colbert, 2006.

Mossop, B., “The Translator as Rapporteur: A Concept for Training and Self-improvement,” Meta, vol. 28, n° 3, 1983, pp. 244-278. On line: https://www.erudit.org/revue/meta/1983/v28/n3/003674ar.html.

Nakbi, K., “La rédactologie : domaine, méthode et compétences,” ASp, vol. 37-38, 2002, pp. 15-26. On line: http://acseg.univ-mrs.fr/redactologie/IMG/pdf/la-redactologie-domaine-methode-et-competences.pdf.

Nord, C., La traduction : une activité ciblée. Introduction aux approches fonctionnalistes. Traduit de l’anglais par Beverly Adab. Arras: Presses Université d’Artois, 2008.

Szlamowicz, J., “L’écart et l’entre-deux : traduire la culture,” Sillages Critiques, vol. 12, 2011. On line: http://sillagescritiques.revues.org/2314.
Scientific Committee:

- Georges BASTIN, Université de Montréal, Canada
- Louise BRUNETTE, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Canada
- Fayza EL QASEM, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3
- Séverine HUBSCHER-DAVIDSON, Aston University United Kingdom
- Susana MAUDUIT-PEIX, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3
- Denise MERKLE, Université de Moncton, Canada
- Freddie PLASSARD, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3
- Myriam SALAMA CARR, University of Manchester, United Kingdom
- Frédérique SITRI, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre