Calls for papers

The Journal of Internationalization and Localization (JIAL), a peer-reviewed biannual journal published by John Benjamins (https://benjamins.com/catalog/jial), invites new (including recently completed PhD students) and established scholars to submit unpublished, original 6,000-10,000-word articles for Volume 7, Issues 1 and 2, to be published in 2020. Though we welcome submissions on any aspect of software, website and video game internationalization and localization, we particularly encourage submissions that address any of the following themes: Localization management (project management, process management, client management) Politics and localization (localization by governments, political issues that arise during localization) Machine translation in the localization industry (machine learning, AI, post-editing) Localization and quality (automation, Standards, translation strategies) Localization and open-source/volunteer communities Technical writing in the internationalization and localization industry Localization and minority languages In addition, we wish to invite the following contributions: Book reviews (3,000 – 4,000-word) of a new book-length publication of relevance Position papers (6,000 – 10,000-word) on a given topic to which a number of response papers will be invited to be published for the following issue We also welcome proposals for guest-edited thematic issues for either Volume 7 (2020) or Volume 8 (2021). Submission deadlines: For Volume 7, issue 1: 31 October 2019 For Volume 7, issue 2: 1 March 2020 Inquiries should be addressed to the journal’s co-editors: Minako O’Hagan (University of Auckland, New Zealand) minako.ohagan@auckland.ac.nz Julie McDonough Dolmaya (York University, Canada) dolmaya@glendon.yorku.ca

Parallèles publishes high-quality original research in translation and interpreting, as well as other forms of multilingual and multimodal communication. The journal is double-blind peer reviewed, open access and, since 2013, web-based only. Parallèles is a multilingual journal. It welcomes contributions in English, French, German, Spanish and Italian. The journal is published bi-annually – in April and October – and alternates between thematic and non-thematic issues. Special issue proposals are examined once a year. Parallèles is indexed with the main scientific databases, including the MLA International Bibliography (listed in the Directory of Periodicals), ERIH PLUS, TSB, BITRA and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Submission guidelines are available at https://www.paralleles.unige.ch/en/soumissions/.

SECOND BIENNIAL CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR TRANSLATION STUDIES IN AFRICA 6-7 JUNE 2020, UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON, ACCRA, GHANA Community translation and interpreting have been a field of interest in translation studies for quite a while now. In the process, it has amassed a significant body of literature and a research agenda. The organizers of the second biennial conference of the Association of Translation Studies in Africa would like to put community translation/interpreting on the agenda of translation studies scholars working in the African context. There is a strong suspicion that community translation in Europe, for instance, does not mean the same as in Africa. There are also indications that non-professional translation/interpreting and community interpreting in Africa could be quite closely related. Debates on community translation/interpreting also raises issues of education and training. The organizers thus call for papers that engage with issues regarding community translation/interpreting in the African context. Relevant topics may include the following, but are not limited to these: · What does community translation/interpreting entail in Africa? · What would be key differences between community translation/interpreting practices in Africa and in other contexts? · What is the role of intersemiotic translation in community translation/interpreting in Africa? · How does the development status of African countries influence community translation/ interpreting? · How does the language landscape in Africa influence community translation/interpreting? · What is the relationship between community translation/interpreting and non-professional translation/interpreting in Africa? · What are the implications of the debate on community translation/interpreting for translator/ interpreter training and education in Africa? The organizers are awaiting abstracts for this conference. Papers could be conceptual, empirical or a blend of the two. Submission Process Abstract of roughly 300 words can be sent to the Prof Robert Yennah of the Scientific Committee of ATSA 2020 at atsagh@yahoo.com Abstracts should include complete information of the author(s), contact details, institution and key words. The following time line applies: · 15 August 2019: Submissions for abstracts opens. · 1 November 2019: Submissions closes and review process starts · 1 December 2019: Participants are notified about the outcome of the review process. · 1 January 2020: Early-bird registration for conference opens · 1 April 2020: Early-bird registration for conference closes · 1 May 2020: Registration for conference closes · 6-7 June 2020: Second ATSA Conference

The Interpreters’ Newsletter is a printed journal on Interpreting Studies. After publication all issues are placed on-line in an electronic format. The journal provides a readily accessible forum for an exchange of information on Interpreting Studies worldwide. This has been its aim since 1988 when it appeared as the first journal on Interpreting Studies. It publishes contributions that cover all theoretical and practical aspects of interpreting: conference interpreting (simultaneous and consecutive interpreting), dialogue interpreting (court interpreting, public service interpreting, liaison interpreting, sign language interpreting, etc.), including numerous methodologies and interdisciplinary approaches. Contributions should be submitted in English or French. All essays should include an English abstract of max. 200 words. The editorial staff especially welcomes interdisciplinary contributions with special attention to innovative trends. The journal has an anonymous referee system that undertakes double-blind peer review. One issue per year is expected. Important dates Manuscript submission: 15th October 2019 Results of peer-reviewing process: 30th March 2020 Publication: December 2020 For more information, visit https://www.openstarts.units.it/handle/10077/2119

13-14, December 2019 @ The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR Conference Statement Home to the cradle of various ancient civilizations, East Asia boasts remarkable and seemingly inscrutable traditions of language, culture and thought. Long histories of translational activities in the region have testified to the diffusion of knowledge, the quest for transcendental truth, the bond of identities, the vie for power as well as the rise and fall of empires, facilitating diverse and complex interaction of literate cultures. Yet rationalization on translation has long remained fragmented and disproportionate. Modernity witnessed the disruption of venerable traditions by western imperialism and the consequential transition of age-old institutions in search of new paradigms, prompting the intensification and valorization of translation initiatives and the resultant counter-interpellative translation discourse. With the contemporary professionalization of translation and development of translation studies as an integrated interdiscipline, researchers are addressing new issues and challenges, including cutting-edge advances in translation technology, and re-examining old concerns utilizing hybrid models and perspectives, hoping to extend the role of East Asia in the development of the field and to transcend their local, regional, global and spiritual existence. Abstract proposals for individual presentations and papers are invited on any aspectof the following themes in the East Asian context: 1. Translation/interpreting teaching and training; 2. Traditions of literary and/or classics translation; 3. Translation of media and popular culture; 4. The translation profession (qualified and amateur translators/interpreters; networks of collaboration); 5. Translation technology; 6. Translation publishing; 7. Cultural issues in translation; 8. Issues of identity in translation; 9. Post-colonial approaches to translation; 10. Others. Selected papers (in English) from the conference will be published in Translation Quarterly in 2020/21 and in edited volume(s) by major publisher(s). Important Dates 30 August 2019 (Fri): Deadline of registration (paper presenter) and submission of abstracts – The First Batch 14 September 2019 (Sat): Notification of results (paper presentation) – The First Batch 30 September 2019 (Mon): Deadline of early registration 31 October 2019 (Thu): Deadline of Pre-registration 13 December 2019 (Fri): On-site registration (if applicable) 13 – 14, December 2019: Translation Studies in East Asia: Tradition, Transition and Transcendence (2019EAST) February 2020: Deadline of full paper submission for publication (TBC)

An international conference hosted by the Centre for Translation and the Translation Programme, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, 7-9 April 2020   Open panels The Genealogies of Knowledge II conference will be hosting the following open panels. Colleagues are warmly invited to submit paper abstracts for consideration by the panel convenors by 30 September 2019.  Rewriting Chains in Comic Book Adaptations of Canonical TextsConvenor: Dimitris Asimakoulas, University of Surrey, UK Insurrectional Epistemologies in the Global Justice Movement: The Impact of Time and SpaceConvenor: Julie Boéri, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Orientalism and Historicity: Traditional and Emerging Forms of MediationConvenor: Phrae Chittiphalangsri, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand Work Practices as PoliticsConvenor: Christina Delistathi, University of Westminster, UK Contesting Epistemologies in Cognitive Translation and Interpreting Studies: The current state of playConvenors: Sandra L. Halverson, University of Agder, Norway and Álvaro Marín García, University of Essex, UK Migrational Epistemologies: Translation in the Middle East and North AfricaConvenor: Kamran I. Karimullah, University of Manchester, UK Translation and the Discourse of Diversity and Inclusion: Episteme, doxa or buzz words?Convenor: Gillian Lane-Mercier, McGill University, Canada Translation and Invisible Violence in the Human SciencesConvenors: René Lemieux, Université de Sherbrooke, Canada and Joshua Price, Binghamton University, US Translating Gender and Sexuality in the MENA RegionConvenor: Reem Meshal, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Qatar Producing, Sharing and Transforming Knowledge on Social MediaConvenor: Neil Sadler, Queen’s University Belfast, UK Translation and Mediation in Online Knowledge Platforms: Exploring Wikipedia and BeyondConvenor: Mark Shuttleworth, Hong Kong Baptist University Digital Approaches to Translational Epistemologies: Themes, Methods and Case StudiesConvenor: James St. André, Chinese University of Hong Kong Microhistories of Translation in the Socialist Intellectual SpaceConvenor: Igor Tyšš, Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Slovakia Translating Modernity: The Dissemination and Mediation of Modern Concepts in AsiaConvenor: Yifan Zhu and Kyung Hye Kim, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China Submission of Paper Proposals Submissions should be sent to the relevant panel convenor by 30 September 2019. Submissions should consist of: Abstract (350-400 words, including up to 5 bibliographic references).Contributor’s 150-word (maximum) biodata written in the third person. See examples from a previous event here: http://genealogiesofknowledge.net/events/gok2017conference/presenters/Full affiliation(s). Notification of acceptance will be sent by 30 October 2019. For more information, visit http://genealogiesofknowledge.net/events/gokconf2020/panels/

Proposal for an edited volume prepared by Kobus Marais Department of Linguistics and Language Practice University of the Free State, Bloemfontein jmarais@ufs.ac.za The well-known, if somewhat notorious, turns in translation studies are indicative of a field of study that is still trying to find its boundaries. In subsequent turns, translation studies has expanded, on the one hand, the ambit of its scholarly view from linguistics to pragmatics to culture to sociology to ideology/power – keeping in mind that some might arrange the list in different order or use different names for the turns. On the other hand, these expanding efforts did not succeed in expanding the notion of translation itself beyond interlinguistic translation. Not much anyway. In a recent monograph (Marais, 2019), I presented an argument for expanding the notion of translation to that of negentropic semiotic work performed on semiotic processes with the aim of imposing constraints on these semiotic processes to create meaning. Many of the implications of such a theoretical expansion still need to be explored. One such exploration would be to study the ‘alternative’ uses of the term translation. By alternative, I mean alternative to interlinguistic translation. The theoretical work I did opened up all aspects of semiotic activity to translational enquiry. Alternative could thus refer to alternative fields of study, alternative times, alternative spaces, alternative cultures, alternative practices, alternative people or alternative conceptualisations. This volume thus aims at exploring translational aspects in contexts in which scholars usually do not think about translation. While large portions of translation studies have been trying frantically to defend their field of interest in terms of interlinguistic translation, the rest of the world has been using the term ‘translation’ in a variety of contexts. Translation studies often responded to this wider use by calling it a ‘metaphorical’ use of the term translation. However, the theoretical conceptualisation to which I referred in the previous paragraph argues that these uses are not metaphorical at all. Rather, all semiotic work is based on the basic principle of translation, namely, ‘the meaning of a sign is its translation into another, more developed sign’ (CP) (Pym, 1993, pp. 35-42). Thus, what mathematicians, physicists, biologists, engineers, architects, managers, politicians, theologians, anthropologists, sociologists, semioticians, medical specialists, computer scientists, development specialists and others mean when they use the term ‘translation’ might indeed have specific connotations in that field, but they all refer to a meaning-making semiotic process which operates with the imposition of constraints on semiotic process. As is well known in translation studies, in interlingual translation, translators and their practices and products differ widely, depending on the space and time under consideration. For instance, relatively little is known about pre-colonial translation practices in Africa or other colonized contexts. Furthermore, new technology allows for new practices. The aim of this volume is thus to get together as many alternative views as possible on the notion of translation to explore and illustrate the breadth of the notion of translation. Authors are invited to submit papers that present theoretical work or data from their fields that illustrate the unique use of the term ‘translation’. They are furthermore invited to reflect on this uniqueness and to compare the use of ‘translation’ in their field/context with its use in other fields/contexts. To fit into the category of ‘handbook’, potential authors should consider the following: · Provide a substantial review of the main ideas and debates in the subject through a review of the literature, outlining the historical development of ideas in the field. · Assess the main methodologies/paradigms in the field today, outline the main questions which the subject has sought or seeks to address, describe the current research agendas, analyze how the subject does or does not draw on related disciplines (or practices/professions if appropriate), and how it has or can explore key concerns (ethical, epistemological, etc.). · Outline the likely future of the field, possible developments and new research directions. I suggest this volume be structured in a number of sections: · Alternative fields of study, such as Mathematics Physics Biology Medicine Computer science Architecture Engineering Sport Agriculture Law Development studies Management Economics Theology Other Alternative practices, such as Animal-animal communication Animal-human communication Animal psychology Human psychology Animal welfare Guide animals, rescue animals, police animals, etc. Other Alternative technology, such as Computer translation Multimodality/intermediality Interart Other Alternative spaces, such as Rural areas Extreme climates Inner cities Other Alternative times, such as Precolonial times The Anthropocene Post-apocalyptic times Alternative people, such Non-professionals People with neurological, psychiatric or psychological disabilities Autism spectrum Subcultures Cultures or languages that have had no exposure in the translation studies literature Other Time-line 1 April 2019 – Call for papers 1 September 2019 – Submission of abstracts 1 |December 2019 – Authors notified of review process 1 June 2020 – First drafts submitted and peer review starts 1 September 2020 – Reworking of drafts starts 1 November 2020 – Final drafts submitted 1 March 2021 – Final manuscript submitted to publisher For enquiries or to submit abstracts, e-mail Kobus Marais at jmarais@ufs.ac.za

Edited by José Luiz Vila Real Gonçalves and Patrícia Rodrigues Costa Deadline for submission: 15 November 2019 Translator education at universities dates back to the 19th century in Argentina, China and Germany. However, higher education programs in translation began to spread in Europe and in the Americas only by the middle of the 20th century. In Brazil, translator education in Higher Education Institutions first appeared by the mid-1960s thanks to a new National Education Guidelines and Framework Law (1968). 50 years after the publication of that law, with the profession of translator recognized but not regulated, there are now several Translation undergraduate programs in the country, mostly of oral languages. Translator education research has been encouraged all over the world, which can be verified by the growth in scientific publications, including papers, theses and dissertations, and the organization of events on the topic. Among recent seminars and conferences, the most notorious include: International Conference on Teaching Translation and Interpreting (TTI), held at the University of Łódź, Poland, Consortium for Translation Education Research (CTER), held at Jagiellonian University and the Pedagogical University of Kraków, Congrés internacional sobre investigació en Didàctica de la traducció (didTRAD), organized by the group PACTE from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, Spain, and the Seminar on Pedagogy and Didactics of Translation (SEDITRAD), held at the University of Brasília, Brazil. Short courses for translator educators have also become common, such as the Training in Translation Pedagogy Program (TTPP), held at the University of Ottawa, Canada, and the Training the Teacher of Literary Translation, promoted by the European School of Literary Translation (ESLT). In order to collaborate with the consolidation of translator education, we invite researchers to submit contributions such as papers, translated pieces, reviews of works on the subject, reviews of translations, and interviews concerning the following aspects related to translator education of either oral or sign languages in Brazil and abroad: Translator and researcher education in translation; Evaluation and assessment in translator education (translation evaluation; evaluation and assessment of translation students; evaluation and assessment of professional translators; curriculum design evaluation and assessment) Translator academic education vs. professional training for the job market; Continuing education of translator educators; Interdisciplinary approaches to translator education; Application of educational theories to translator education; Translation competence;Translator educator competence; Translator competence; Translation curriculum design (Undergraduation, post-graduation and continuing education); Elaboration of teaching materials to translator education; The history of translator education;Innovative methodologies in translation teaching; Distance learning in translator education; Language education (mother tongue and foreign language) in translator education; The use of technologies in translator education. All contributions must be submitted to the system of Revista Belas Infiéis. Texts in Portuguese must follow the Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (ABNT). Texts in languages other than Portuguese must follow the standards of the Modern Language Association (MLA). For more information, visit http://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/belasinfieis/announcement/view/70

University of Lodz, Lodz (Poland), September 20-21, 2019 The core issue of the sixth edition of the International Conference on Translatology and Translations is dedicated to the relationships between translation studies and other disciplines of humanities and science. The modern theories of translation and their developers are often restricted in their activities to an overview of external representation and facing pragmatic realities such as difficulties of the textual analysis, translation strategies relating to individual typologies of texts, assessing the equivalence level of translations as well as their degree of fidelity. However, according to Rovena Troque if ‘it is true that the object of research of translatology was originally investigated with the use of linguistic tools, the modern translation studies are based on the principle that translation is a linguistic fact but not only.’ In addition, exceeding the linguistic threshold in translatology means an opening to interdisciplinarity understood as a search for analytical methods and principles. As an interdisciplinary science, translation studies use the research tools covering different fields of studies such as linguistics, philology, terminology, lexicology, literary studies, history, philosophy, semiotics, psychology, sociology and computer science. This reasoning outlines a horizon of investigation in the main thematic areas of the conference to be developed as the following: - boundaries between translation studies and other disciplines of humanities; - influence of translation studies on other disciplines of humanities/science and vice versa; - methodology and tools of other disciplines in translation studies; - teaching translation and interpreting vs. teaching foreign languages; - specialization of translators and interpreters in the sectors different than translation; - assistance to the process of translation with the use of IT tools (machine translation, corpus-based translation, etc.) Deadline for submission: July 15, 2019 Academic committee acceptance: July 22, 2019 Deadline for payment of the fee: August 12, 2019 Publication of the conference program: August 31, 2019 For more information, click here. 

Special Issue of Translation Spaces on Fair Machine Translation: Building ethical and sustainable MT workflows Guest edited by: Joss Moorkens, Dorothy Kenny and Félix do Carmo Special issue due for publication as Translation Spaces 9(1), July 2020 Since the well-publicised advent of neural MT, many more language service providers have begun to offer raw and post-edited MT as a reduced-cost option among their suite of products (Lommel and DePalma 2016). The level of automation in translation is usually related to the perishability of the text, along with considerations of regulatory compliance and risk, but new use cases are regularly appearing for NMT where automation might previously have been considered unwise (Moorkens 2017, Way 2018). Meanwhile, research on MT has tended to focus on building systems to maximise the quality of output, evaluating that output in a cost-effective way, along with various forms of pre- and post-processing of texts. There has been little focus on the sort of workflows that these MT systems would be built into outside of experimental conditions, and where these workflows have been considered, the focus has been on efficiency and utility (Plitt and Masselot 2010, O’Brien 2011). Likewise, the origin and ownership of training data have received scant attention. At present, claims and counterclaims for copyright of translations all have legal merit without having been tested, yet they are largely ignored within the translation industry (Troussel and Debussche 2014). These conflicting claims could have an anticommons effect, in which there are so many competing claims on a resource that it becomes impossible to use or exploit it. Work created by a machine does not currently qualify for copyright, meaning that the copyright – and liability – lies with the operator. This risk is rarely considered in MT use. When repurposing and retasking human translations and translation fragments, the industry is also avoiding a discussion on the ethical dimensions of data management, including consent for secondary use, copyright management, and data ownership – issues that affect not just vendors but also clients. And where the original motivation for MT was utopian, the main driver is now the pressure to reduce human costs. If translation is reduced to a series of “language-replacement exercises” (Pym 2003) to be carried out at speed by freelance workers while their productivity rate is quantified within a translation tool, there is a real risk that talent will be discouraged (Abdallah 2014). How do we train students to enter such an industry – or should we even do so? And does the very existence of machine translation undermine efforts to train translators or – more broadly – to educate language learners, in the first place? At this point, we think it worth looking at the ethics of MT use in industry and the economic and social effects on all stakeholders. With these issues in mind, we would like to invite submissions that respond to the following and related questions: What would an ethical MT supply chain look like? How can translation data be used efficiently, but in a way that respects the rights of all agents in the supply chain? How has our approach to risk evolved in the context of machine translation? What role is played by technology in supporting the business models that are reshaping this chain? What real effect do mergers and acquisitions create on the sustainability of translation as an industry and for the people that live in it? How can we guarantee the safety of our products for consumers, while maximising the social quality (Abdallah 2014) of all workers in the industry? How can we continue to attract and retain human talent in the translation industry? What can academics and translator trainers do to make a positive impact on the use of automation in the translation industry? Instructions for contributors Articles should be no more than 8,000 words long and should follow the journal’s house style. Full instructions for authors can be found on the journal website. Articles are to be submitted via Editorial Manager, choosing the option for this special issue. Please send any enquiries to joss.moorkens@dcu.ie with the subject line ‘Translation Spaces’. Schedule October 15th 2019 – deadline submission of full articles for peer review December 18th 2019 – feedback from peer-review to authors January 20th 2020 – deadline for submission of authors’ revised articles January 24th 2020 – feedback from guest editors on revised articles January 29th 2020 – deadline for submission of final version March 25th 2020 – proofs sent to authors July 2020 – publication For  more information, visit http://fairmt.adaptcentre.ie/2019/07/01/special-issue-of-translation-spaces/

Guest Editors: María Calzada Pérez (Universitat Jaume I) and Sara Laviosa (Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro) This special issue is intended to be a self-reflexive research work that looks back and forward upon corpus-based translation studies (CTS). Similarly to other publications in the field (e.g. Laviosa 1998; Laviosa 2002; Olohan 2004; Kruger et al. 2011), looking back brings us to at least 1993, when Mona Baker officially envisaged a turning point in the history of the discipline. Baker was not the first person to undertake corpus-based research (see, for example, Gellerstam 1986; Lindquist 1989), but she was undoubtedly the scholar who most forcefully predicted what the future had in store. And her premonitions were realized in virtually no time. Research has grown exponentially from 1993 onwards in the very aspects Baker had anticipated (corpora, methods and tools). We believe it is time we pause and reflect (critically) upon our research domain. And we want to do so in what we see is a relatively innovative way: by importing Taylor and Marchi ‘s (2018) spirit and methodologies from corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS) into CTS. Like them, we want to place our emphasis precisely on the faulty areas within our studies. We aim to deal with the issues we have left undone; or those we have neglected. In short, and drawing on Taylor and Marchi’s (2008) work, we propose to devote this volume to revisiting our own partiality and cleaning some of our dustiest corners. Regarding partiality, Taylor and Marchi (2018: 8) argue that “[u]nderstandably, most people just get on with the task of doing their research rather than discussing what didn’t work and how they balanced it.” Going back to our previous research, identifying some of its pitfalls, and having another go at what did not work is a second chance we believe we deserve. Looking at our object of study from different viewpoints or within new joined efforts, plunging into (relatively) new practices, such as CTS triangulation (see Malamatidou 2017), may be one of the ways in which we can now contribute to going back to post-modernity; and do things differently. As to dusty corners (“both the neglected aspects of analysis and under-researched topics and text types” (Taylor and Marchi, 2018: 9), like Taylor (2018) we need further work on (translated) absence; similarities (as well as differences); silent voices, non-dominant languages, amongst many other concerns. The present CFP, then, is interested in theoretical, descriptive, applied and critical papers (from CTS and external fields) that make a contribution to tackling CTS partiality and dusty spots of any kind. We particularly (but not only) welcome papers including: critical evaluation of one’s own workawareness of (old/new) research design issuesuse of new protocols and tools to examine corporaidentification of areas where accountability is required and methods to guarantee accountabilitycases of triangulation of all kindsstudies of absences in originals and/or translationsstudies of new voices, minoritised (and non-named) languages, multimodal texts, etc.pro-active proposals to bring CTS forward PRACTICAL INFORMATION AND DEADLINES Please submit abstracts (in Catalan, English, Italian, and Spanish) of approximately 500 words, including relevant references (not included in the word count), to both calzada@uji.es and saralaviosa@gmail.com. Abstract deadline: 1 November 2019 Acceptance of proposals: 1 January 2020 Submission of papers: 31 May 2020 Acceptance of papers: 15 September 2020 Submission of final versions of papers: 15 November 2020 Publication: December 2020

Fiction/Non-fiction: what can translation contribute to the debate? Contemporary literature beats to the factual drum; the interweaving of fiction and non-fiction seems to dominate today’s literary production. Such a phenomenon can be seen in the increasing space accorded to creative non-fiction, or in the plethora of documentary graphic novels. It traces its origins back to the ground-breaking “faction” of Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood. For the coming academic year 2019-20, TRACT is continuing its “Translating the Contemporary” cycle by focusing on the place of translation in the circulation of such texts. There is no denying that problem of the boundaries between fact and fiction (Lavocat, 2016) or the representation of reality in non-fiction texts may seem old hat – they have been excavated in the past by Barthes (1984), Searle (1979) or Schaeffer (1999). Yet today, the question raised by the categorisation of such texts lies at the heart of national and international debates. This is illustrated by the recent controversy in the New York Review of Books between the American historian Robert Paxton and the French writer Eric Vuillard, over Vuillard’s historical novel L'ordre du jour. The debate was continued in the recent publication of an article by the New Yorker which questioned the tradition of fake literature and its ethical dimension, after the publication of Impostors by Christopher L. Miller (2018). Miller’s study examines the practice of fake autobiography, presented as identity theft, in both French and American literature. These two examples question the central tenets of Francophone critical thinking. How does one deal with the “death of the author” in the era of “biographical capital” (Delory-Momberger, 2009)? Issues to do with intersectionality and cultural appropriation are also raised by such practices. How can the “reading pact” endure in the face of the triumph of authenticity, particularly in the United States? What distinction can be made between fakes, deceit and representation (Schaeffer, ibid.) when we are constantly reminded of the danger of fake news and other forms of editorial manipulation? In other words, where are we at in the game between reality and fiction in literature, and what contribution does translation make to such a debate? The first issue that our seminar would like to explore is that of the classification of such writing. Does the labelling of such literature, as fiction or non-fiction, affect the translation, circulation and reception of texts which rely on the inclusion of facts from the real world? The critical, commercial and institutional success of these forms has not wavered for several years. Witness the various forms it can take: Barthes’ “documentary literature” (biography, autobiography, diary, travel narrative, investigation, journalistic narrative), the autofictions and microfictions of the Francophone world, memoirs and English-speaking factions, the creative or narrative non-fiction, the new journalism of Tom Wolfe and Gay Talese, or indeed the gonzo journalism of Hunter S. Thompson. The ultimate validation of such forms can be seen in the Nobel Prize awarded in 2015 to Svetlana Alexievitch. The study of these categories and their characteristics can usefully be examined via the terms used to describe them. The use of prefixes (non-fiction), affixes (autofiction, microfiction) and portmanteau words (faction), for instance, is revealing. So too is the cross-fertilisation of these genres, which draw on both the English and French traditions. Another possible approach might examine the junction between the methods and postulates of literature and those employed in the social sciences, especially in history and sociology. The Paxton/Vuillard debate mentioned earlier echoes the oppositions found between a fictional discourse and the writing of history. How do those distinct editorial and academic traditions rub along together? Ivan Jablonka’s manifesto (2014) militates in favour of creative history as a form of “contemporary literature”. How do such hybrid texts pass the translation test? Can translation lay bare the tensions that lie at the heart of such hybridity? A final topic that we hope to study in our seminar will take account of the discursive dimension of such texts. How do they redefine both the “reading pact” and the reader’s “willing suspension of disbelief”? If, as Searle suggests, non-fiction is a form of assertion, then this presupposes a number of semantic and pragmatic rules for taking charge of such statements. It influences the author’s sincerity, and the ability to prove what the texts argue. These are rules from which fiction is exempt as it only pretends to assert things. What position should a translator adopt when faced with a text that intends to mix or blur such forms? This final issue also includes the question of documentation, bibliographic referencing and even possible legal disputes and other scandals that may arise from the publication of texts that include very real people. Martin Hirsch recently highlighted this case when pointing to his presence on the list of accused in Edouard Louis' novel Qui a tué mon père (2018) and wondering if such a gesture would be understood by the readership of the translated text. His inclusion is down to a literary and aesthetic gesture, linked to his role in the establishment of the RSA (the minimum unemployment benefit). This position is in sharp contrast to the precautions taken by Alexandria Marzano-Lesnevich in The Fact of a Body: a murder and a memoir (Flatiron Books, 2017). The story combines an autobiographical plot with her investigation into the murder of a child. At the end of the book, she cites the journalistic and judicial documents that were the sources for each chapter, and outlines the elements that represent a literary reconstruction on her part. Whether it be a legal precaution, a deconstruction of the narrative device, or a tacit admission of the limits of the genre, Marzano-Lesnevich’s precautions have been maintained in the French edition by the French publisher (L'Empreinte, translation Héloïse Esquié, Sonatine 2019). This offers us an example of how the discursive positioning of these authors and their translators continues to develop along with the success of this fiction/non-fiction as a literary genre. Fiction/Non-fiction : que dit la traduction ? Dans la continuité de deux années consacrées à la traduction de la pensée française dans le monde, le TRACT poursuit son cycle « Traduire le contemporain » en s’intéressant à la place de la traduction dans la circulation des textes appartenant « aux territoires de la non-fiction » pour reprendre le titre du colloque organisé en 2017 par le Pôle HALL d’USPC[1]. Si la problématique des frontières entre fait et fiction (Lavocat, 2016) ou de la représentation de la réalité dans les textes de non-fiction peut sembler déjà ancienne, comme le montrent les travaux de Barthes (1984), Searle (1979) ou Schaeffer (1999), il semble toutefois que la question générique soit aujourd’hui au cœur de questionnements et débats nationaux et internationaux, comme l’illustre la récente polémique ayant opposé au sein de la New York Review of Books l’historien américain Robert Paxton et l’écrivain français Eric Vuillard, autour de son roman historique L’ordre du jour[2]. Autre signe des temps dans ce dialogue transatlantique, la publication récente d’un article du New Yorker[3] s’interrogeant sur la tradition du faux littéraire et son aspect éthique dans la foulée de la publication de Impostors de Chistopher L. Miller (2018), étude sur la pratique de la fausse autobiographie dans la littérature française et américaine présentée comme une usurpation identitaire. S’il pourrait être tentant de n’y voir qu’une coïncidence, ces exemples interrogent bel et bien des concepts centraux de la critique de tradition francophone : qu’en est-il de la « mort de l’auteur » à l’époque du « capital biographique » (Delory-Momberger, 2009) et des débats sur l’intersectionnalité et l’appropriation culturelle, du « pacte de lecture » face au triomphe de l’authenticité, notamment aux Etats-Unis, ou encore des distinctions entre feintise, tromperie et représentation (Schaeffer, ibid.) face au danger des fake news et autres manipulations éditoriales ? Pour le dire autrement, où en sommes-nous dans le jeu entre réalité et fiction au sein de l’écriture et quelle place la traduction tient-elle dans celui-ci ? Une première piste d’exploration pourra s’articuler sur la question générique et sur la traduction, la circulation et la réception de formes dont le dispositif met en jeu ou questionne la mise en récit de faits du monde réel. De la « littérature de document » dont parlait Barthes (biographie, autobiographie, journal, récit de voyage, enquête, récit journalistique), aux autofictions et microfictions francophones, memoirs et factions anglophones, en passant par le nonfiction novel hérité de Truman Capote, la creative ou narrative nonfiction, le nouveau journalisme de Tom Wolfe et Gay Talese, le gonzo de Hunter S. Thompson ou plus généralement la « littérature du réel », le succès critique, commercial et institutionnel de ces formes ne se dément pas depuis plusieurs années, comme en témoigne le Prix Nobel remis en 2015 à Svetlana Alexievitch. Pour autant, la question de ces catégories et de leurs caractéristiques, de leur désignation grâce à l’emploi de privatifs (non-fiction), d’affixes (autofiction, microfiction) ou de mots valises (faction) riches de sens, l’influence mutuelle des traditions anglophones et francophones et les défis que pose la traduction de ces genres constitueront un champ de réflexion fertile pour espérer retrouver notre chemin dans cette jungle du réel. Un deuxième axe pourra concerner l’articulation entre les méthodes et postulats de ces dispositifs d’écriture et les sciences humaines, notamment l’histoire et la sociologie. En effet, la polémique Paxton/Vuillard évoquée plus haut entre en écho avec des oppositions que l’on retrouve chez nombre d’auteurs ayant réfléchi à la définition du discours de fiction, celle qui met face à face le roman, et plus particulièrement le roman historique, et l’écriture de l’Histoire[4]. Comment faire dialoguer des traditions éditoriales et universitaires distinctes ? Les décloisonnements que certains appellent de leurs vœux, faisant par exemple de l’histoire une « littérature contemporaine » pour reprendre le titre du manifeste d’Ivan Jablonka (2014), passent-ils l’épreuve de la traduction et celle-ci peut-elle agir comme un agent révélateur vis-à-vis de ces textes et de leurs postulats ? Enfin, on pourra traiter la question de la non-fiction sous son aspect discursif, et voir en quoi ces formes contribuent à redéfinir le pacte de lecture, la « suspension de l’incrédulité » ou la mimesis, faisant naître dans le même temps un certain nombre de polémiques. Si, comme le propose Searle, la non-fiction est une assertion, alors cela présuppose un certain nombre de règles sémantiques et pragmatiques en matière de prise en charge des énoncés, de sincérité et de possibilité de prouver ce qui est avancé ; règles dont la fiction se dispense puisqu’elle feint d’asserter. Comment se situer face à un texte qui entend mêler ces discours ou brouiller les frontières qui les séparent ? En posant la question de ce qui constitue un fait, à la suite de Barthes, et du rôle des « effets de réel » dans la fiction comme dans le document, on pourra se demander où le traducteur peut se placer en tant que locuteur intermédiaire. En allant plus loin, si l’attrait de ces textes provient avant tout de leur promesse d’une représentation fidèle ou du moins honnête du réel, que faire de la traduction comme activité de représentation ou de feintise langagière ? L’image d’Epinal d’un traducteur effacé représentant de façon transparente et non-problématique le texte-source ou la pensée de l’auteur n’est-elle pas d’autant plus mise à mal si le rapport du texte au réel ou à l’extratextuel est déjà une source de trouble, d’illusion ou de débat ? Si le traducteur, acteur social du monde réel, n’a rien de fictif, une position qui le verrait ne pas avoir à répondre de ses paroles, ni de leur vérifiabilité — comme pour un texte de fiction — est-elle seulement tenable ? Ainsi mis face au monde à travers le texte-source, quelles démarches spécifiques devra-t-il engager ? On pense notamment ici à la question de la documentation, du référencement bibliographique voire aux éventuelles démêlées judiciaires et autres scandales que peuvent provoquer la publication de textes incluant des personnes bien réelles, comme le soulignait récemment Martin Hirsch, se demandant si sa présence dans la liste des accusés du roman Qui a tué mon père d’Edouard Louis (2018) serait bien comprise, une fois le texte traduit, comme un geste littéraire et esthétique lié à son rôle dans la mise en place du RSA[5]. A l’inverse, on peut penser aux précautions prises par Alexandria Marzano-Lesnevich dans The Fact of a Body : a murder and a memoir (Flatiron Books, 2017), récit mêlant une trame autobiographique et son enquête sur le meurtre d’un enfant issue de la tradition du nonfiction novel : à la fin de l’ouvrage, elle prend soin de référencer pour chaque chapitre ce qui relève de la lecture de documents journalistiques et judiciaires et ce qui est une reconstruction littéraire de sa part. Précaution juridique, déconstruction réflexive du dispositif narratif ou admission tacite des limites du genre, ce paratexte a en tout cas été conservé par l’éditeur français (L’Empreinte, traduction Héloïse Esquié, Sonatine 2019), offrant peut-être un exemple de la façon dont le positionnement discursif de ces auteurs et de leurs traducteurs évolue avec le succès de ce champ littéraire.   Proposals (approximately 300 words + short bio) should be sent to Clíona Ní Ríordáin (cliona.ni-riordain@sorbonne-nouvelle.fr) and Charles Bonnot (charles.bonnot@sorbonne-nouvelle.fr).   Bibliographie Roland Barthes, Le bruissement de la langue, Paris, Seuil, 1984. Anthony Beevor, « The appeal of faction to writers and readers has recently increased in a dramatic way », The Guardian, 19 février 2011. Christine Delory-Momberger, La condition biographique: essais sur le récit de soi dans la modernité avancée, Paris, Téraèdre, 2009. Umberto Eco, Lector in Fabula ou la Coopération interprétative dans les textes narratifs, Paris, Grasset, 1985. Monika Fludernik, Towards a ‘Natural’ Narratology, Londres, New York, Routledge, 1996. Gérard Genette, « Fictional narrative, factual narrative », Poetics Today, vol. 11, n°4: “Narratology Revisited II”, p 755-774, 1990. Bernard Guelton (dir.), Fictions & médias : intermédialité dans les fictions artistiques, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne, « Arts et monde contemporain », 2011. Martin Hirsch, Comment j’ai tué son père, Paris, Stock, 2019. Ivan Jablonka, L’Histoire est une littérature contemporaine : manifeste pour les sciences sociales, Paris, Seuil, 2014. Françoise Lavocat, Fait et fiction : pour une frontière, Paris, Seuil, 2016. Françoise Lavocat (dir.), La Théorie littéraire des mondes possibles, Paris, CNRS Editions, 2010. Jean-Luc Lioult, A l’enseigne du réel. Penser le documentaire, Aix-en-provence, Publications de l’Université de Provence, 2004. Edouard Louis, Qui a tué mon père, Paris, Seuil, 2018. Judith Lyon-Caen et Dinah Ribard, L’historien et la littérature, Paris, La Découverte, 2010 Alexandria Marzano-Lesnevich, The Fact of a Body: a Murder and a Memoir, New York, Flatiron Books, 2017. Christopher L. Miller, Impostors:Literary Hoaxes and Cultural Authenticity, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2018. Christopher Nash, Narrative in Culture. The Use of Storytelling in the Sciences, Philosophy and Literature, Londres, Routledge. 1990. Bill Nichols, Representing Reality, Issues and Concept in Documentary, Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1991. Gisèle Sapiro, La Responsabilité de l’écrivain. Littérature, droit et morale en France (XIXe-XXIe siècle), Paris, Seuil, 2011. Jean-Marie Schaeffer, Pourquoi la fiction, Paris, Seuil, 1999. Jean-Marie Schaeffer, « Fictional vs. Factual narration », in Peter Hühn et al. (éd.), The Living Handbook of Narratology,Hambourg, Hambourg University Press, Disponible en ligne : http://wikis.sub.uni-hamburg.de/lhn/index.php/Fictional_vs._Factual_Narration [dernière modification le 8 mars 2013, consulté le 20 mai 2019]. John Searle, Sens et expression : études de théorie des actes de langage, traduction Joëlle Proust, Paris, Editions de Minuit, [1979] 1982. Lars-Åke Skalin (éd.), Narrativity, Fictionality and Literariness. The narrative Turn and the Study of Literary Fiction, Örebro, Örebro Univeristy, 2005. Paul Veyne, Comment on écrit l’histoire, essai d’épistémologie, Paris, Seuil, 1971. Eric Vuillard, L’ordre du jour, Arles, Actes Sud, 2017. [1] Territoires de la non-fiction, Projet « Littératures du monde », Philippe Daros, Alexandre Gefen, Alexandre Prstojevic, 7-9 décembre 2017. [2] Voir ici la critique du roman de E. Vuillard par R. Paxton et ici la réponse du romancier. [3] « Faking It », Louis Menand, The New Yorker, 10 décembre 2018 [4] On pense ici aux travaux de Schaeffer sur les biographies fictionnelles, aux réflexions de Searle prenant pour exemples un article du New York Times, un roman d’Iris Murdoch et le personnage de Sherlock Holmes ou encore aux développements de Barthes sur l’effet de réel et l’illusion documentaire s’appuyant sur Michelet et Flaubert. [5] « Edouard Louis n’a pas le monopole de Bourdieu », interview publiée dans Le Monde le 22 février 2019. Le jeu littéraire ne s’arrête pas là puisque Martin Hirsch a publié cette année un roman intitulé Comment j’ai tué son père (Stock) dans lequel un tueur à gage nomme « Nitram » est envoyé sur les traces de son père par Edouard Louis lui-même.