Distintos enfoques al traducir y su efecto en el receptor

  1. Aguilera, Elvira Cámara
  2. Faber, Pamela
Revista:
Revista española de lingüística aplicada

ISSN: 0213-2028

Año de publicación: 2014

Volumen: 27

Volumen: 2

Páginas: 297-322

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1075/RESLA.27.2.03CAM DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Otras publicaciones en: Revista española de lingüística aplicada

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

The objective of this study was to determine how the translation approach adopted in an elementary reading text affected its reception by a group of primary school children. Also studied was the impact that the translation approach used had on reading motivation. The three approaches were the following: (i) a domesticating approach that adapted cultural elements to the readership (Gonzalez Cascallana, 2006, p. 99); (ii) a foreignizing approach that preserved the elements of the source culture; (iii) a mixed approach with a combination of elements from both the foreign and domestic cultures. The sample population in the study was composed of 120 second-graders, who read different translated versions of the same story and subsequently answered questions about it to assess the understanding, recall, and motivation. The results obtained showed that the subjects had a greater understanding and motivation in the case of the domesticating translation, in which cultural elements were adapted.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Andreassen, R., & Braten, I. (2010) Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 33-3, 263–283.
  • Baddeley, A. (1992) Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559.
  • De Vega, M. (1989) Introducción a la psicología cognitiva. Madrid: Alianza.
  • González Cascallana, B. (2006) Translating cultural intertextuality in children’s literature. En J.V. Coillie & P.W. Verschueren (Eds.), Children’s literature in translation (pp. 97–110). Manchester: St. Jerome.
  • Hirano, K. (2007) Recall protocols as a measure of reading comprehension: Advantages and disadvantages. Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education, 261, 79–86.
  • Kirby, J.R., Ball, A., Geier, K., Parrila, R., & Wade-Woolley, L. (2011) The development of reading interest and its relation to reading ability. Journal of Research in Reading, 341, 263–280.
  • Klingberg, G. (1986) Children’s fiction in the hands of the translators. Lund: Bloms Boktryckeri.
  • Kruger, H. (2013) Child and adult readers’ processing of foreignised elements in translated picturebooks. Target, 25(2), 180–227.
  • Lathey, G. (2011) The translation of literature for children. En K. Malmkjaer & K. Windle (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of translation studies (pp. 198–213). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Leppihalme, R. (1997) Culture bumps: An empirical approach to the translation of allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Marcelo, G. (2007) Traducción de las referencias culturales en la literatura infantil y juvenil. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
  • Morales, J.R. (2008) La exotización en la traducción de la literatura infantil y juvenil: El caso particular de las traducciones al español de las novelas infantojuveniles de José Mauro de Vasconcelos. Las Palmas de Gran Canaria: Universidad de Las Palmas.
  • Nikolajeva, M. (1996) Introduction to the theory of children’s literature. Tallin: Pedagogical University.
  • Nord, C. (2003) Proper names in translations for children: ‘Alice in Wonderland’ as a case in point. Meta, 48(1-2), 182–196.
  • Oittinen, R. (2000) Translating for children. Nueva York/Londres: Garland.
  • O’Sullivan, E. (1992) “Kinderliterarisches Übersetzen [The translation of children’s literature]”. Findevogel, 93/94, 4–8.
  • O’Sullivan, E. (2005) Comparative children’s literature. Londres/Nueva York: Routledge.
  • Pascua, I., & Marcelo, G. (2000) La traducción de la LIJ: Relevancia, posición y tendencias actuales. En V.R. Kenfel, C. Vázquez García & L. Lorenzo García (Eds.) Literatura infantil y juvenil: Tendencias actuales en investigación (pp. 211–220) Vigo: Universidad de Vigo.
  • Petit, M. (1999) Nuevos acercamientos a los jóvenes y la lectura. Trad. R. Segovia y D. L. Sánchez. Ciudad de México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  • Puurtinen, T. (1995) Linguistic acceptability in translated children’s literature. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.
  • Schleiermacher, F. (1992) On the different methods of translating. Trad. W. Bartscht. En R. Schulte & J. Biguenet (Eds.), Theories of translation: An anthology of essays from Dryden to Derrida (pp. 36–54). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Shavit, Z. (1981) Translation of children’s literature as a function of its position in the literary polysystem. Poetics Today, 2(4), 171–179.
  • Shavit, Z. (2006) Translation of children’s literature. En G. Lathey (Ed.), The translation of children’s literature: A reader (pp. 25–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Smits, A. (2004) La literatura infantil: traducciones y adaptaciones. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Utrecht.
  • Sousa, C. (2002) TL versus SL implied reader: Assessing receptivity when translating children’s literature. Meta, 47(1), 16–29.
  • Stolt, B. (2006) How Emil becomes Michel: On the translation of children’s books. En G. Lathey (Ed.), The translation of children’s literature: A reader (pp. 67–83). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  • Venutti, L. (1995) The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Londres/Nueva York: Routledge.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet