Calls for papers

The increasing presence of research on orality in translation studies seems to follow two main trajectories: (1) treatment of orality in interlingual translation practice such as in interpretation and audiovisual translation research. (2) exploration in translation research of issues related to the representation of otherness or alterity, marginalized identities, minority or subaltern language cultures, etc., such as in postcolonial translation research (Paul Bandia, Translation as Reparation; Maria Tymoczko, Translation in a Postcolonial Context). Other points of intersection between orality and translation can be found in subfields and topics such as:- translation history: Classics, Antiquity, Medieval, Renaissance, Oral Tradition- religious translation, Bible translation and evangelization- consecutive, simultaneous or community interpreting- colonialism, postcolonialism, gender and cultural studies- intermedial, intersemiotic and intercultural communication- translation sociology, ethnography and anthropological translation- audiovisual translation, film and media studies- literacy, orality-writing interface, intercultural writing- translation pedagogy, teaching literature in translation, and cultures of translation These research areas and topics (and many more) are fertile ground for exploring the intersection between orality studies and translation research, and showcasing orality as an important research area in translation studies. Articles will be 5000-8000 words in length, in English. Abstracts of 400-500 words should be sent by email to the guest editor. Detailed style guidelines are available at www.tandf.co.uk/journals/rtrs. Schedule: February 1, 2013: deadline for submitting abstracts (400-500 words) to the guest editorApril 1, 2013: deadline for decisions on abstractsJanuary 2014: submission of papersSeptember 2014: submission of final versions of papersMay 2015: publication date

  INVITED SPEAKERS   Plenary 1          Istvan Kecskes (University at Albany, USA) Plenary 2          Mona Baker (University of Manchester, UK) Plenary 3          Lynda Yates (Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia) (TBC) Plenary 4          Minako O’Hagan (Dublin City University, Ireland) Plenary 5          Ana Rojo (Universidad de Murcia, Spain) Plenary 6          Christine Béal and Véronique Traverso ( (Université Paul Valéry, Montptellier and Lyon 2, France) (provisional order)     Outreach Event Special Guest contributor   Makiko Mizuno (Kinjo Gakuin University, Nagoya) (public and community interpreting)     CALL FOR PAPERS   The conference builds on the success of two prior Cross-cultural Pragmatics at a Crossroads conferences at the UEA - Speech Frames and Cultural Perceptions in 2006, and its larger-scale follow-up Linguistic and Cultural Representations across Media in 2011 -, this time with an even more ambitious agenda.   Like its forerunners, CCP III will be interdisciplinary, and aims to bring together, under the umbrella of cross-cultural pragmatics, researchers from domains which are particularly sensitive to cross-cultural issues, to promote the cross-fertilization of practises, ideas and theoretical approaches, and explore key concerns associated with communication across language and culture boundaries, in practice and theory.   ­Making a difference, the impact theme of this third meeting, will tap into, and confront, two closely related spheres of research activity in intercultural communication:   Research in its value and contribution to wider society,  i.e. the pursuit of research that makes a difference and ways of making it applicable and available to those for whom it can make a difference   Research in its investigation of factors that impede or promote communication, understanding and respect for otherness in multicultural/globalised settings   Conflict and conflict resolution, negotiation at all levels (local, national, global) across languages, cultures and contexts (political, business, welfare, media, culture), and attendant failures, breakdowns and also successes, feed the news with headlines and affect our lives on an everyday basis. How do we, and how can we, make the difference?   →  How can the theories of cross-/intercultural communication be applied to solve communicative conflicts in multicultural/globalised settings, for example?  Such conflicts can be triggered not just by prejudiced or overtly ethnocentric inputs but also by uninspected assumptions that, with English as lingua franca, acquisition and knowledge of languages other than English is no longer necessary, that “cultural” contrasts can be neatly separated from communicative and linguistic issues, that avoidance of potentially conflict-laden topics/terminologies (e.g. faith-related communication, political-historical evaluations) will guarantee conflict-free communication, or that a strictly “plain” or formally defined language use will avoid misunderstanding and miscommunication.   →  How can the theories of cross-/intercultural communication be applied to promote understanding and respect for otherness in all its richness, and pre-empt communicative conflict in multicultural/globalized settings?   →  How can the theories of cross-/intercultural communication be further developed? Miscommunication between individuals and groups leads to dire consequences and on a global international level the outcomes of breakdowns or misrepresentations have a decisive and often devastating impact on whole communities and nations. The investigation into the reasons why this may occur, as well as how to solve problems and prevent them in the first place are a priority in today’s world. Parallels at local or interpersonal levels or in other contexts can be no less dramatic, and are equally in urgent need of exploration.         CCP III will provide a platform for open dialogue on the multiple factors that play a role in both success and failure to communicate at all levels and highlight the ways forward where failure will no longer be an option, and tolerance to otherness not just an aspiration. Our understanding of IMPACT is grounded in the belief that research outcomes should reach beyond the realm of pure academia and have an impact themselves across linguistic, cultural, political or economic borders. We are also mindful of the need to recognise that research outcomes are not all equally tangible in their impact and of the need therefore constantly to challenge institutional and public understandings of the concept.   With these goals in mind, we invite researchers from various disciplines to offer theoretically reliable and practically applicable frameworks for raising awareness of the fundamental importance that cross-cultural communication has today and will have in the future. Domains of application that CCP III will be particularly interested in include:    Professional communication and negotiation Political and strategic negotiation Forensic linguistics and translation Access to justice  and public services Translation and communication across arts and media Translation and communication in the globalised world of sport Interfaith dialogues Public debates about multi-/intercultural society Responses to cross- and intercultural crossings    Other related topics.       The general framework for the conference will be provided by plenary papers delivered by distinguished scholars representing different languages and complementary perspectives: intercultural communication, intercultural and socio-pragmatics, translation and globalisation, translation and contrastive rhetoric, contrastive translation and psycholinguistics, discourse analysis and professional discourse.   By virtue of the conference theme and of the inbuilt inter-disciplinarity of cross-cultural pragmatics generally, proceedings will be informed by different methodological paradigms (e.g. cross- and intercultural pragmatics, socio-pragmatics, translation studies, interactional and critical discourse analysis, conversation analysis, linguistic typology, psycholinguistics, systemic functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics, sociolinguistics). Proposals, for individual papers (20 minutes) or proposer-led panels on a particular theme (90 to 150 minutes), will be expected clearly to identify their theoretical frame(s) of reference and methodological approach.   Outreach Event   Like its predecessor, CCP III will seek to foster the partnership between the University, its local host community and communities beyond with an end-of-conference Outreach Event that will bring together representatives from all these groups to share their views on the challenges of communication across languages and cultures. Details will be posted on the conference website.   Special Guests   In the world of Translation Studies and Intercultural Communication, the past few years have seen the rise of the idea of ‘otherness’, and attempts to understand how to build bridges to the ‘other’ worlds beyond Europe, such as Asia or Africa. Listening to the voices from other parts of the world can be an antidote not only to Anglocentrism, but also to the increasing risk of Eurocentrism. For this event, we are therefore delighted and honoured to count among our invited speakers two outstanding Japanese scholars, Makiko Mizuno and Minako O’Hagan, and to celebrate with them and with our new Centre for Japanese Studies at the UEA our commitment to promoting Japanese and Japanese Studies at the highest level.     PRACTICAL DETAILS   Abstract deadline:  15 November 2012   Language:  English, French, Spanish   Proposal:  400-word anonymous abstract (800 words for panels) to be submitted through the Linguist List at http://linguistlist.org/confcustom/ccpIII2013. Titles should give an indication of the main question/s addressed, of the data and methodology used and of the language/s of application.   Organisers: Marie-Noëlle Guillot with Roger Baines, Jo Drugan, Luna Filipovìc, Clive Matthews, Andreas Musolff, Carlos de Pablos-Ortega, Alberto Hijazo-Gascon, Giulio Pagani, Gabrina Pounds, Nana Sato-Rossberg, Alain Wolf    m.guillot@uea.ac.uk, r.w.baines@uea.ac.uk, j.drugan@uea.ac.uk; l.filipovic@uea.ac.uk, clive.matthews@uea,ac,uk, a.musolff@uea.ac.uk, c.de-pablos@uea.ac.uk, A.Hijazo-Gascon@uea.ac.uk, g.pounds@uea.ac.uk,g.pagani@uea.ac.uk, N.Sato-Rossberg@uea.ac.uk, a.wolf@uea.ac.uk  

This situation has radically altered the role and importance of literary translation. While in the past both writer and publisher sought success first and foremost at national level, foreign language translations following only when a significant national consensus decreed an author worthy of the honour, it is now understood that any significant achievement, whether literary or merely commercial, will be international in nature.   The writer is thus aware from the start of the need to prepare a translatable text that will appeal to an international audience while the translator finds himself involved in a large-scale international project which frequently aims to publish and promote a work simultaneously in many countries and languages.   Though phenomena of this kind can be noted everywhere, English literature finds itself in a unique position. English is the main medium of global literature, and authors can become global only if they write in English or are translated into it. English is the hub every writer must go through if he or she wants to go global.   This new situation raises many questions, for all authors, whether English or not: how does the rapid internationalization of the market for literature and the growing perception that the writer is addressing a global rather than a national community affect the content and style of what gets written and the conditions in which the translator works? Are novelists adapting their styles to make translation easier? Are they becoming more aware of what is culture specific in their work? How do conditions and perceptions vary from one culture to another? Would it be possible to hazard a morphology of the successful ‘global’ novel? And is there really a ‘global’ public or are we just speaking of a transnational, liberal, book-reading elite? What is the role of the cultural press in forming and informing this public?   It will be the purpose of this issue of Textus, the peer-reviewed journal of the Italian Association of English Studies, to examine these developments and their many repercussions, with particular reference to English-speaking countries and Italy, but also considering Europe and the world in general.   Subject areas:   1. The increasing integration of the national and international literary scenes. 2. Translation and publication of English-language writers in other languages. 3. Translation of foreign writers into English. 4. Writers who are not translated or rarely. 5. English and foreign translators. 6. Counter tendencies: poetry and minority language writing. 7. Margins? Postcolonial writers and global readers. 8. Literary journalism. 9. International literary prizes in Anglophone countries.   Please send a 300-word abstract to both editors:   skrapmito@gmail.com and edoardo.zuccato@iulm.it   Deadline for contributions: 15 December 2012 Date of publication: December 2013   Project's facebook page http://www.facebook.com/pages/GLINT-Global-Literature-and-Translation/106865852729924?sk=wall   IULM website http://www.iulm.it/wps/wcm/connect/iulmit/iulm-it/ricerca/progetti-di-ricerca/progetti-di-ateneo/letteratura-globalizzata    

Epistemology and history Every historical period produces and reconfigures knowledge, depending on which of its elements are valued or repressed, in ways that can often seem arbitrary. What are the reasons behind choosing specific texts and authors, and how are these texts translated? How is the way we conceptualize and grasp the world transmitted from one culture to the next, from one generation to the next? How does translation contribute to paradigm shifts in various sciences and technologies? Does it contribute to scientific revolutions (Kuhn)? What distinguishes the different historical contexts that have facilitated or blocked the importation or exportation of scientific or technical texts? Lastly, to what extent is translation intertwined with the history of science and ideas? Discourse and terminology Scientific and technical knowledge is not homogenous, nor are writing practices. Hence, editing standards and the value attributed to certain discursive forms vary from one domain to the next: one does not publish and write the same way in physics, biomedicine or computer science. Furthermore, the type of scientific discourse and the target readership impose functional restrictions: how does translation deal with these? What role does it play in the transmission of technoscientific codes originating from dominant language-cultures? Is there a resistance? Does translation have an influence on writing conventions? As concerns terminology, the last 20 years have brought to light its dynamic aspects and its various influences. There are in fact economic advantages linked to mastering scientific terminology and lexicons, but questions of identity can also be at stake. What are the consequences of linguistic interference? Can translation still pass on knowledge to different social strata when scientific and technical training is given in a language other than the vernacular? Ideology Following the victory of positivism at the beginning of the 20th century, the universality of scientific knowledge and its truth value came under close scrutiny, kindling a major debate. Between Lyotard (The Postmodern Condition) and Sokal (Intellectual Impostures), where do we stand now? What legitimacy should be given to scientific discourse? And to its translation? Do we translate objective accounts of scientific facts or merely hypotheses considered to be true by the scientific or even non-scientific community? Which rhetorical and discursive devices are used not only by scientists but also, and especially, by those who exploit science for their own ends? How does translation contribute to the strategies used in the supposedly neutral and objective texts that it disseminates? Sociology Lastly, the social role of translators as well as their relationship with different social actors have sparked strong interest these last few years. Who sponsors the translation of scientific books and technical texts? For whom do translation firms and freelance translators work and what are their standards? What are the working conditions in various contexts where translation is practised? Through which structures are texts published and circulated? To what extent does translation contribute to the scientific establishment and to the popularization of science? Pedagogy and teaching of scientific and technical translation Must one be a scientist or an engineer to translate scientific or technical texts? How does one become a specialized translator? Though these questions are classic, they can be revisited in original ways. What role is played by Internet—part blessing, part curse—in helping learners? Are there new ways of teaching? And last but not least, how can the old dichotomy between practice and theory find a fruitful outcome in order to better equip the entire profession and help its members to promote their expertise?     Presentations should not exceed 20 minutes in length. Your proposal must contain the following documents:1)    An abstract in Word format not exceeding 300 words, to be included in the conference program. 2)    The following form duly filled out. The information it contains will be incorporated in the grant application that CATS will submit to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and will not be used as evaluation criteria for your proposal. Please submit your proposal to the organizers, Pier-Pascale Boulanger and Sylvie Vandaele, at actcats2013@gmail.com no later than September 14, 2012. Family name    First name Affiliation country Affiliation Degrees (starting with the most recent and specify the discipline) MAXIMUM 4 LINES Recent positions and those relevant to the event (starting with the most recent) MAXIMUM 5 LINES Recent publications and those relevant to the event (starting with the most recent) MAXIMUM 10 LINES Title and outline of the presentation (100 to 150 words) Explain why your presentation is relevant to the Conference theme (100 to 150 words) -------------------------- For more information, please contact Pier-Pascale Boulanger or Sylvie Vendaele at actcats2013@gmail.com.

The Research Centre for Ambient Intelligence and Accessibility CAIAC at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona is pleased to announce the 4th International Symposium on Live Subtitling: Live subtitling with respeaking and other respeaking applications, to be held on March 12th 2013. This symposium will be the fourth in a series of symposiums on live subtitling and respeaking technology. Its predecessors were held at Forli, Barcelona and Antwerp respectively (see: www.respeaking.net). The symposium will bring together specialists from academia, software development, broadcasting and the service industry as well as consumers and others interested in cutting-edge developments in media accessibility. Now consolidated as the preferred means of providing live subtitles on TV, respeaking is currently facing a number of challenges as European broadcasters struggle with new legislation and subtitling quotas as well as critical cuts in their budgets.  These challenges will shape the future of this relatively young translation mode and test its aim to make audiovisual media accessible for viewers with hearing loss. In countries where respeaking has been used for over a decade and where the quantity of live subtitling is no longer a problem, the issue of quality has become increasingly important, as has the application of respeaking to other contexts such as public events and classrooms. In those countries where respeaking is not yet being used or not used consistently, the further development of speech recognition technology plays a fundamental role.  Generally speaking, technological progress is bound to have a significant impact on the nature of respeaking in all contexts, not least with the potential introduction of speaker-independent speech recognition and automatic subtitling. Research in this area is more pertinent than ever. We therefore welcome contributions on the following topics as well as related issues: -        Accuracy and delay in respeaking-        Respeaking in contexts outside TV broadcasting-        Respeaker training-        Software development and training-        Speaker-independent speech recognition and automatic subtitling-        Reception research-        Other areas related to respeaking

The history of these developments in Russia remains largely unexplored. Although a few disciplines, such as philosophy (almost by definition), sociology, linguistics, psychology, economics and history (particularly Begriffsgeschichte), have been covered by this sort of examination and research, Russia has been little involved in these approaches, except for those fields where major discoveries were made that transcended “Russian”, such as the literary and linguistic studies of the first third of the 20th century. But this examination is sparse, fragmentary and, not least, not sufficiently supported by close diachronic study of phenomena often thought of as beyond time and space. The history of scholarly translations is at best touched upon in monographs on the reception in Russia of a particular author (philosopher, say, or historian). The history of the key concepts that were used to constitute scientific discourse, translated or transcribed from “scholarly” languages and then gaining a life of their own in Russian, is virtually a blank sheet.The conference will be a first step to remedy this. Its relative novelty encourages us to cover a vast field both in chronology and number of disciplines. The chosen period stretches from the mid-18th century up to and including the 1920s. These dates (also those of the ANR “Schusocru” research project to which the conference belongs) cover the beginnings of the human sciences in Russia and the invention of the social sciences just before the Great Turn of the 1930s and display a certain continuity for our purposes. The disciplines covered are the human and social sciences as a whole.The papers we expect may be devoted to micro-study(a word, a concept, a book, an author, etc.) or wider views, including cross-disciplinary work. Without restricting the scope of possibilities for specialists interested in this project for their own field, we would emphasise the following points: The presence of foreign books and foreign languages in scholarly centres. This type of research does not concern only the early period. Even at the start of the 20th century, the question of acquiring basic works and learning essential languages was still sufficiently problematic for the topic to remain relevant. The study of libraries, both university and private, and of modes of acquisition, standard matters for book historians, has much to contribute here. And the scholarly use of Latin, German and Russian in certain institutions exposed to multilingualism by their design (Academy of Sciences) or location (Universität Dorpat ) is another way of addressing the same topic. It may be possible to establish a general or more detailed periodization for a given scholarly field as a function (among others) of the rise and fall of interest in foreign publications. Periodization and background of translations. It is particularly important to examine the early period of translation, when it was argued to be necessary for educational purposes (by the historian Pogodin in the early 1830s, for example), but the question remains valid even when, at the end of the 19th century, translations from French, German and English were to some extent commonplace. The choice of books to be translated, the identity of the translator, the translator’s resources, the choices made in translating words difficult to transpose (neologism by use of the original word or calque, use of an existing Russian word, transcription) are often of interest. A simple bibliographical or statistical analysis of translations may lead on to further questions. For example, did the emerging nationhood that affected the human sciences to an extent as yet unknown, including scientific discourse, have any influence on translation and if so of what sort? This “national” angle may also lead to other periodizations, as mentioned above.•    Translation as access to universality. When citing foreign authors or describing realities outside Russia, specialists would sometimes deliberately choose terms taken from a specifically Russian lexical field, referring to specifically Russian realities. This approach (equivalent terms = equivalent realities) may form the foundation for constructions that transcend national borders. It was adopted, for example, by the historian Pavlov-Sil’vanskij, to assert the existence of a Russian “feudalism” equivalent to the “feudalism” in Western Europe. This goes beyond the issue of translation and is rather an attempt at breaking down boundaries (or generalising or deleting local features), which may be particularly significant in the social sciences (history, sociology, ethnography), with many examples in the early 20th century. Translation of Russian texts in Western languages was a part of the same process. •    Cross-disciplinary diffusion. The importance of a given discipline at a given moment in the study period may have played a part in the adoption of words and phrases, and consequently topics from other fields. The dominance of linguistics around the year 1900, of French and British sociology in Russian social sciences, are reasons to consider transfers not only, and not so much, from one language to another, one discipline to another, but more transversally (several languages, several disciplines). It would be instructive to examine to what extent vigorous scientific movements such as Russian formalism, “social” history and Orientalism, were largely determined by linguistic configurations specific to Russian universities.    The conference will be held in Paris on 24-25 May 2013. Conference languages will be French, Russian and English. Those who wish to take part are invited to send us the topic of their paper and a brief description (between 10 lines and a page) by 30 September 2012 at the latest.Elena Astafieva and Wladimir Berelowitch,  Schusocru project coordinators,  Members of CERCEC (Centre d’études des Mondes russe, caucasien et centre-européen), EHESS/CNRS(astafok@hotmail.fr, berelowi@ehess.fr )   

Put 'Macau Crossings' in the subject line of your message and author'slast name. To insure prompt notification, please include your e-mailaddress on your submission. If you are willing to chair a session,please note this at the top of your abstract.Conference Organising Committee:Carlos GohnFernanda Gil CostaJohn MiltonMárcia SchmaltzRaquel Abi-SâmaraYao Jingming.Conference Advisory Panel:Ana Cristina Alves (Centro Cultural e Científico de Macau em Lisboa, Portugal)Carlos Gohn (Universidade de Macau)Fernanda Gil Costa (Universidade de Macau)John Milton (Universidade de São Paulo)Maria Antónia Espadinha (Universidade de Macau)Martha Cheung (Hong Kong Baptist University)Zhang Meifang (Universidade de Macau)

Extended call for papers - deadline for abstract su888bmission 22 June Research Models and Methods in Legal Translation LINGUISTICA ANTVERPIENSIA, NEW SERIES (12/2013) -Themes in Translation Studies Guest editors: Łucja Biel (University of Gdańsk, Poland) & Jan Engberg (Aarhus University, Denmark) 

CALL FOR PAPERS   CECC – The Research Centre for Communication and Culture announces: 3rd Graduate Conference in Culture Studies December 3-4, 2012 Faculty of Human Sciences – Catholic University of Portugal, Lisbon   Report from the Pop Line: On the Life and Afterlife of Popular   The concept of the popular, or popular culture for that matter, has never ceased to be an ambivalent one. Although it has come to occupy a particular place under the spotlight over the past decades within the broad study of culture, such apparently privileged position has not deprived it of the manifold ambiguities, complexities or misconceptions that have often involved its general understanding.   Since its emergence within the context of the processes of industrialization and the changes they brought about, namely in terms of cultural relations and the development of the capitalist market economy, the concept of popular culture has been, not only utterly rejected by intellectuals and scholars alike, but also denied any possibility of constituting a serious and valid topic for academic debate. Up until the mid twentieth-century, popular culture was often reduced to a poor and simplistic form of entertainment and pleasure, and was even deemed morally and ethically questionable (not to mention aesthetically). However, and particularly after the 1950s, new perspectives would soon alter this perception in very significant ways, especially with the emergence of Cultural Studies and the influence their project had on both sides of the Atlantic. From severe condemnation, popular culture quickly evolved into a period of positive reception and celebration, which resulted from critical work developed inside the academia, but also popular demand outside it.   The concept of the popular was then adopted both as an intrinsic feature, and as topic in its own right of artistic creation developed under the sign of pop. From pop art to pop music, a new understanding of culture has been put forth, building from what is embedded in the ambivalence of the popular and its many possibilities of intersection with new artistic forms of expression.   At the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century, popular culture finds itself at a crossroads: has the concept been drained of its meaning because of its overwhelming popularity? After the euphoria around the popular, what afterlife can be expected from it? Should we still be discussing the popular as opposed to high and folk culture? And where and how do pop art forms intersect with the current notion of the popular?   This conference wishes to address the complexities surrounding the debate around the notions of both pop and the popular and discuss the possibilities of their afterlife.     This conference wishes to bring together doctoral students, post-doc researchers and international key scholars from different areas and disciplines, to share research interests and works-in-progress, engage in fresh intellectual discussion and build a community of young scholars.   Papers are welcome on the topics listed below, amongst others:   §  Popular Culture in Theory §  Life and Afterlife of Popular Culture §  Popular, Power and Politics §  Popular Culture: Globalization, Centres and Peripheries §  Material Culture §  Popular Arts §  Celebrities and Fans: The Dynamics of Popularity §  Representation, Mediation and Mediatisation of the Popular §  Cultures, Subcultures, Scenes and Tribes §  Pop and Popular: Overlap, Dissemblance and Divergence    Confirmed keynote speakers:   §  John Hutnyk (Goldsmiths College, University of London) §  Luísa Leal de Faria (Catholic University of Portugal)   Speakers should be prepared for a 20-minute presentation followed by questions. Please send a 300-word abstract, as well as a brief biographical note (100 words) to email popline2012@gmail.com by July 15th, 2012. Proposals should list paper title, name, institutional affiliation and contact details. Successful applicants will be notified by July 31st, 2012.     Please note there is a conference registration fee of 30€ due by October 30th. We regret that travel and accommodation funding for conference participants is not available at this time.

The concept of “epistemicide” was coined in the 1990s by the Portuguese sociologist, Boaventura de Sousa Santos, to refer to the destruction of "other” knowledges by hegemonic Western science (eg. Santos 1996, 2001, 2007). This volume is designed to draw attention to the extent to which the process occurs during the practice of translation (Bennett 2007). Hence, it aims to attract contributions that chart this trend in different linguistic contexts, disciplines and academic genres, or which bring a fresh new perspective to the question. Suggestions as to how translators might act to combat this problem are especially welcome. References: Bennett, Karen, 2007. ‘Epistemicide! The Tale of a Predatory Discourse’, in Sonia Cunico and Jeremy Munday (eds), Translation and Ideology: Encounters and Clashes, special edition of The Translator, Vol. 13, No. 2:151-169. Cronin, Michael, 1998. ‘The Cracked Looking Glass of Servants: Translation and Minority Languages in a Global Age’, The Translator, Vol. 4, No. 2:145-62. Santos, Boaventura de Sousa, 1996. "The Fall of the Angelus Novus: Beyond the Modern Game of Roots and Options" (Working Paper Series on Political Economy of Legal Change, 3, University of Wisconsin-Madison. ----- 2001. “Towards an epistemology of blindness: Why the new forms of ‘ceremonial adequacy’ neither regulate nor emancipate”, European Journal of Social Theory 4(3): 251-279 ----- 2007. “Beyond Abyssal Thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledge”, Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais 78. 3-46. Proposals of between 1000 and 1500 words should be sent by August 31st 2012 to: karen.bennett@netcabo.pt Notification of acceptance will be sent by 15th September. Deadline for completed articles: 15th December.

Viceversa is a broad-based journal whose aim is to publish refereed, well-written originalresearch articles, and studies that describe the latest research and developments in the areaof translation. The areas of interest include (but are not limited to):· History of translation and interpreting theory and practice· Theory of translation and interpreting· Development and use of translation and interpreting tools (dictionaries, glossaries,software, etc.)· Critical reviews of literary and non-literary translations· Critical reviews of translation and interpreting tools· Translators' reflections on their work· Specific translation and interpreting problemsManuscripts may be sent to the Editor, Viceversa, via e-mail (alugris@uvigo.es). Detailedinstructions on how to prepare your manuscript are available from the editor or under"Committee-Author Instructions" at http://webs.uvigo.es/webatg/viceversa/consello.htmPapers may be submitted in any major European language but will be translated intoGalician for the print publication. The electronic version of Viceversa will contain both theoriginal and Galician versions.

CENTER FOR RESEARCH IN TRANSLATION AND TRANSCULTURAL COMMUNICATION ENGLISH/FRENCH - FRENCH/ENGLISHCALL FOR PAPERS AND /OR TALKS   The Issue of Discursive Coherence: Translation and HomogenisationPalimpsestes 26 / Conference: 12-13 October 2012Recreating the balance of a literary text in translation means that the discursive space be taken into account as a whole and that the issue of homogenisation, which affects any translative process, be addressed. How do we translate texts that are based on a principle of plurality, dispersion or rupture? Does the translative process heighten or lessen such stylistic and narrative traits? What about Lawrence Venuti’s heterogenising approach which is meant to reduce the ethnocentrism prevalent in translation?  On a linguistic level, the contacts between languages in areas and countries where bilingualism prevails could be examined, as could the instances when different age groups or social classes interact. John Lyons’s “fiction of homogeneity” relative to speakers of the same linguistic community could be looked at in relation to the manner in which it manifests itself in translation and in the critique of translation. Moreover, it would also be interesting to test the well-documented principle of homogeneity of the English language, in which, we are told, an inanimate subject and an animate predicate do not fare well together as compared to what takes place in the French language.  On a socio-critical level, the possible editorial reasons behind such textual and stylistic homogenising could be a further matter of investigation. In what ways, for instance, do the audiences and markets aimed at by the publishers or editors commissioning translations influence the process of homogenisation? Does the separation of audiences (young readers, high brow audience, mainstream audience, and so on) lead to retranslations or competing translations of the same texts? What happens when one author’s oeuvre is translated by different translators, both diachronically and synchronically? Finally, on a socio-historic level, it might be useful to investigate the ways in which translations and transcultural transfers generate a rather homogeneous—or on the contrary heterogeneous—vision of other/foreign cultures.Proposals (a half-page summary in English or French) plus a short CV should be sent, by 15th April 2012 at the latest to: Christine Raguet Pascale Sardinc.raguet@univ-paris3.fr pascale.sardin@univ-paris3.fr