This article compares two cases of poetic self-translation in two different periods in the development of modern Swahili literature – Euphrase Kezilahabi in Tanzania of the 1970s and Kithaka wa Mberia in Kenya of the 2000s. These writers represent two different literary situations and two different statuses that Swahili literature had achieved in the respective periods. The main argument in the article is that the two writers in their works seem to have a similar aim – to familiarise wider audiences on the national level with elitist poetic forms. The differences in both cases are determined by the specific socio-cultural context.

The diploma thesis offers an analysis of a unique set of texts. The analysis explores the language devices used in the composition of the texts. The set of texts includes a short story Groza by Vladimir Nabokov and its translations. The short story was originally written in Russian, and then translated by the author into English. There exist two Czech translations, one from Russian, one from English. The thesis presents a theoretical framework for the analysis. It is composed of two parts. The first one summarizes the most frequent translation related changes in meaning. The second one compares Nabokov's theory and practice of translation. The theoretical framework is applied to the comparison of the target-language texts with the source-language texts, as well as to the comparison of the two translations from different source-language texts. Comparison of the results of the analysis with the hypotheses stated in the Introduction affirms the movement of the meaning towards stylistic neutrality and shows the influence of the source-language upon the target-language. On the other hand it rejects the statement that Nabokov as a self-translator wanted to preserve the literary qualities of the text, being ready to sacrifice its language qualities. Keywords: comparative analysis, language devices,...

Esta Tese visa aprofundar algumas questões da poética nabokoviana, a partir de uma tradução inédita do russo para o português brasileiro de capítulos de (Druguíe Beregá), de 1954, uma das variações de sua autobiografia, chamada, na Rússia, de romance. Incluída em seleções e antologias no mundo todo, esta obra de Nabókov possui uma história repleta de matizes linguísticos e estilísticos: um de seus princípios foi um conto-ensaio escrito em francês, Mademoiselle O (1936), recomposto e traduzido para o inglês, tornando-se uma primeira versão em livro de memórias, Conclusive Evidence, ou Speak, Memory (1951, EUA e Inglaterra, respectivamente), revertido e reformulado em russo, por sua vez retransformado em uma versão final, Speak, Memory: An Autobiography Revisited (1967). A comparação entre os textos corrobora a hipótese de que as transformações que se concretizam na recriação de , obra mediadora, são fundamentais para a leitura tanto da última versão em inglês, como também da primeira. Para Nabókov, essa reescritura, além do processo criativo inerente ao ato tradutório, passa a ser uma releitura e revisão de sua própria obra, com alterações que vão além das peculiaridades de cada língua. Dessa forma, faz-se necessário ler, traduzir e examinar cada versão como texto independente. A tradução, em todas as suas formas e manifestações, como mote e como prática, tem papel essencial na obra e na vida de Nabókov. É com ela que ele inicia sua trajetória literária, é por meio dela que ele retorna à Rússia e à língua russa. A relação do escritor com o tradutor e a (auto)tradução é crucial e a Tese tem o propósito de refletir sobre não uma Arte da Tradução nabokoviana, mas Artes da Tradução, já que transformam o tradutor em escritor, o autotradutor em revisor, e o revisor em reescritor. / This dissertation aims to deepen some issues about the Nabokovian poetics, presenting the first Russian translation into Brazilian Portuguese of some chapters of (1954), one of the variations of his autobiography, known as a novel in Russia. Included in selections and anthologies around the world, this work has a history full of linguistic and stylistic nuances: one of the first versions was a story-essay written in French, Mademoiselle O (1936), recomposed and translated into English, becoming a memoir, Conclusive Evidence, or Speak, Memory (1951, USA and England, respectively), reworked in Russian, and then reprocessed into a final version: Speak, Memory: An Autobiography Revisited (1967). A comparison of the texts shows that the transformations performed in recreating , an interposed work, are key to reading the last version in English, as well as the first. For Nabokov, this rewriting, besides the creative process inherent to the act of translation, becomes a reinterpretation and revision of his own work, full of changes beyond the peculiarities of each language. Thus, it is necessary to read, translate and study each version as a autonomous text. Translation in all its forms and expressions, as a theme and as a practice, plays an essential role in Nabokov\'s work and life. It is translating that he began his literary career, it is through it that he returns to Russia and Russian language. The writer\'s relationship with the translator and (self)translation is critical and the dissertation aims to reflect on not a Nabokovian Art of Translation, but multiple Arts of Translation since they transform the translator into a writer, the self-translator into an editor, the editor into a rewriter.

Embora o nome Nabókov remeta tão-somente a escritor norte-americano, criador de Lolita, raro se lembra de sua origem russa. Nem os leitores, nem a crítica literária brasileira associam Nabókov à literatura russa, apesar de ter-se consagrado primeiramente como autor russo e por mais de 20 anos ter escrito nessa língua, com a qual ele se identifica tanto como escritor, tradutor e autotradutor, quanto como professor e teórico. A presente dissertação é o primeiro trabalho a trazer tradução direta do russo da coletânea de contos Primavera em Fialta (1956), obra-prima do momento russo de Nabókov, inédita no Brasil. Propõe-se a adentrar o arcabouço nabokoviano, delinear sua poética e traçado distintivo, ressaltando seus procedimentos estilísticos e lingüísticos. Finalmente, objetiva-se observar o processo tradutório de Nabókov, suscitando questões atreladas às mudanças de paisagem e língua literária e investigando a relação entre escritura, tradução e identidade cultural e artística. / Although Nabokov is usually best remembered as the North-American author of Lolita, his Russian origins are rarely mentioned. Brazilian readers and literary critics never think of linking Nabokov with Russian literature, even though he was first known as a Russian writer, for over two decades, and even though he identified himself as such, as well as being a translator, self-translator, teacher and theoretician. This master thesis is the first one to offer a direct translation from Russian into Portuguese of Spring in Fialta (1956), a remarkable collection of short stories from Nabokov s Russian period, considered a masterpiece, never yet published in Brazil. It will also describe Nabokov´s poetics and stylistic peculiarities, as well as the linguistic process at work in the short stories. This work aims at studying Nabokov´s translation process, raising issues linked with the changes in his literary landscape and language, and observing the relation between writing, translation, as well as cultural and artistic identity.

Le présent travail portant sur la traduction française des œuvres roumaines d’Emil Cioran cherche à réévaluer ou à nuancer certains préjugés liés à l’écrivain ainsi qu’à la traduction littéraire. Nous entendons dépasser les généralisations réductrices, positives ou négatives, du genre : Emil Cioran, « le plus grand stylisticien du XXe siècle », Emil Cioran, l’aphoristicien ou bien l’insomniaque et le nihiliste, en analysant ponctuellement l’écriture cioranienne, notamment celle de jeunesse. Quant à la traduction, nous sommes encline à penser qu’il n’existe pas de « recette » prédéfinie applicable à chaque texte. Les traductions très différentes que nous analysons montrent que nous ne pouvons simplement pas choisir une théorie ou l’autre de la traduction et l’appliquer sans discernement et qu’en plus, ces théories, comme par exemple celle de la traduction cibliste et sourcière, de la forme ou du sens, prouvent désormais leur caractère historique. Loin de penser que la théorie et la pratique de la traduction sont deux choses séparées, nous entendons prouver que ce va-et-vient constant que nous réalisons entre théorie et pratique peut s’avérer très fructueux. L’objectif qui se dessine ainsi est double. D’une part, nous nous proposons de faire une analyse stylistique des œuvres de jeunesse d’Emil Cioran et de mettre en exergue les mutations qu’a subies l’écriture cioranienne de la période roumaine à la période française. Nous entendons montrer concrètement en quoi l’écriture a changé et comment cette analyse peut nous aider à mieux saisir l’œuvre de Cioran dans toute sa complexité et son glissement permanent. D’autre part, nous entendons faire une analyse de la traduction française des œuvres roumaines d’Emil Cioran. Cela nous donne également l’occasion d’étudier les différents facteurs influençant une traduction en accord avec une opinion, largement répandue depuis Henri Meschonnic, de l’historicité de toute traduction. Toute citation de Cioran est d’abord analysée du point de vue stylistique et toute de suite après du point de vue de la qualité de la traduction. Au niveau macroscopique, le travail est organisé en trois grandes parties. La première, « Figures typiques dans l’œuvre roumaine d’Emil Cioran », constitue une analyse des figures du discours récurrentes dans la première étape d’écriture cioranienne et de leur traduction. Ainsi allons-nous observer que la répétition joue un rôle déterminant dans la période roumaine et que la plupart des autres figures sont également sous-tendues par une forme ou autre de répétition : la paraphrase, la reformulation, la métabole, la gradation et ainsi de suite. Dans la deuxième partie, « Les images cioraniennes », nous nous intéressons à des unités de discours plus grandes, à savoir les images. Nous avançons non seulement vers l’analyse des passages plus amples, mais également vers des théories plus complexes du langage et du texte poétique. Nous dédions trois chapitres séparés à trois concepts clés pour notre analyse : l’ « image de la pensée », l’ekphrasis et la lamentation.La troisième partie, « Des images cioraniennes à l’image roumaine de Cioran », fonctionne comme une synthèse rassemblant et développant les conclusions des analyses précédentes. Loin de le situer définitivement dans la catégorie de grand « aphoristicien » (« un La Rochefoucauld du XXe siècle » « plus français que les Français » selon Pascale Casanova) ou dans celle opposée des nihilistes, cette étude s’est proposé de montrer un Cioran en quête permanente de nouvelles stratégies de compensation esthétiques aussi bien que rationnelles et cognitives et qui fournit, outre une analyse très complexe de nos émotions, une véritable étude de cas de notre manière de faire face aux affects à différents moments de notre vie. / In the present study, which analyzes the French translations of Emil Cioran’s Romanian work, we intend to reexamine and to nuance some of the most common preconceptions about both Cioran and translation. We intend to go beyond such reductive generalizations as “Emil Cioran the greatest stylistician of the 20th century”, the “Aphoristicien” or, on the contrary, “Emil Cioran the nihilist and the depressive writer”, by closely analyzing his early Romanian writing. As for the literary translation, we tend to believe that there is no perfect, predefined “recipe” that we can apply to every text. The different translations we analyze confirm that we cannot simply chose one theory or another and apply it indiscriminately; furthermore, these theories, as for example those having to do with source-oriented and target-oriented translation, now seem outmoded. Far from thinking that the theory and the practice of translation are two separate things, we consider that our study, alternating as it does between theory and practice, can prove to be very fruitful.Thus, a double-objective is taking shape. On the one hand, we plan to offer a stylistic analysis of Emil Cioran’s early works and to underline the ways in which his writing evolved between his Romanian and French periods. We intend to examine concretely what changes occurred and in what ways this analysis can help us have a better grasp of Cioran’s complex and shifting work.At the same time, we aim to do a comparative analysis of Cioran’s French translations. This gives us the opportunity to identify the factors influencing the translation process, in keeping with the widely held view associated with Henri Meschonnic, that translations age. The two goals followed simultaneously in our work are clearly visible at each level of the analysis: in the general structure of the thesis as well as in the organization of smaller divisions. Whenever we study a passage from Cioran’s work, we first examine the stylistic aspects of the original and in the next paragraph the quality of the translation. The present work is divided in three major parts. The first -- “Recurrent Figures of Speech in Emil Cioran’s Romanian Works” -- comprises a detailed analysis of the most representative figures of speech in the author’s first stage of writing and their translation. We learn from this that repetition, which plays an important role at this point in Cioran’s writing, underlies most of his other frequently used figures of speech: paraphrase, synonymy, gradation, etc. In the second part, “Cioran’s Images”, we analyze larger units of discourse. We move, not only from smaller units of discourse to larger ones, but also from simpler to more complex language and literary theories. We devote three chapters to three key concepts of our study: “thought images”, “ekphrasis” and “lamentations”. The third part, “From Cioran’s Images to Cioran’s Romanian Image”, plays the role of a synthesis that gathers and develops the conclusions of the preceding analysis. In the last chapter, we compare his Romanian and French books, and we underline the evolution of his writing, not only from the Romanian period to the French, but also from one book to another. Far from placing Emil Cioran in the category of “Aphorists” (“a twentieth-century La Rochefoucauld, more French than the French”, according to Pascale Casanova) or in the company of nihilists, this study wanted to reveal a writer who is always trying to find new compensations on the esthetic level as well as on the rational and cognitive levels and who offers, in addition to a very complex analysis of our emotions, a case study of the way we cope with different affects at different points in our life.

Embora o nome Nabókov remeta tão-somente a escritor norte-americano, criador de Lolita, raro se lembra de sua origem russa. Nem os leitores, nem a crítica literária brasileira associam Nabókov à literatura russa, apesar de ter-se consagrado primeiramente como autor russo e por mais de 20 anos ter escrito nessa língua, com a qual ele se identifica tanto como escritor, tradutor e autotradutor, quanto como professor e teórico. A presente dissertação é o primeiro trabalho a trazer tradução direta do russo da coletânea de contos Primavera em Fialta (1956), obra-prima do momento russo de Nabókov, inédita no Brasil. Propõe-se a adentrar o arcabouço nabokoviano, delinear sua poética e traçado distintivo, ressaltando seus procedimentos estilísticos e lingüísticos. Finalmente, objetiva-se observar o processo tradutório de Nabókov, suscitando questões atreladas às mudanças de paisagem e língua literária e investigando a relação entre escritura, tradução e identidade cultural e artística. / Although Nabokov is usually best remembered as the North-American author of Lolita, his Russian origins are rarely mentioned. Brazilian readers and literary critics never think of linking Nabokov with Russian literature, even though he was first known as a Russian writer, for over two decades, and even though he identified himself as such, as well as being a translator, self-translator, teacher and theoretician. This master thesis is the first one to offer a direct translation from Russian into Portuguese of Spring in Fialta (1956), a remarkable collection of short stories from Nabokov s Russian period, considered a masterpiece, never yet published in Brazil. It will also describe Nabokov´s poetics and stylistic peculiarities, as well as the linguistic process at work in the short stories. This work aims at studying Nabokov´s translation process, raising issues linked with the changes in his literary landscape and language, and observing the relation between writing, translation, as well as cultural and artistic identity.

Esta Tese visa aprofundar algumas questões da poética nabokoviana, a partir de uma tradução inédita do russo para o português brasileiro de capítulos de (Druguíe Beregá), de 1954, uma das variações de sua autobiografia, chamada, na Rússia, de romance. Incluída em seleções e antologias no mundo todo, esta obra de Nabókov possui uma história repleta de matizes linguísticos e estilísticos: um de seus princípios foi um conto-ensaio escrito em francês, Mademoiselle O (1936), recomposto e traduzido para o inglês, tornando-se uma primeira versão em livro de memórias, Conclusive Evidence, ou Speak, Memory (1951, EUA e Inglaterra, respectivamente), revertido e reformulado em russo, por sua vez retransformado em uma versão final, Speak, Memory: An Autobiography Revisited (1967). A comparação entre os textos corrobora a hipótese de que as transformações que se concretizam na recriação de , obra mediadora, são fundamentais para a leitura tanto da última versão em inglês, como também da primeira. Para Nabókov, essa reescritura, além do processo criativo inerente ao ato tradutório, passa a ser uma releitura e revisão de sua própria obra, com alterações que vão além das peculiaridades de cada língua. Dessa forma, faz-se necessário ler, traduzir e examinar cada versão como texto independente. A tradução, em todas as suas formas e manifestações, como mote e como prática, tem papel essencial na obra e na vida de Nabókov. É com ela que ele inicia sua trajetória literária, é por meio dela que ele retorna à Rússia e à língua russa. A relação do escritor com o tradutor e a (auto)tradução é crucial e a Tese tem o propósito de refletir sobre não uma Arte da Tradução nabokoviana, mas Artes da Tradução, já que transformam o tradutor em escritor, o autotradutor em revisor, e o revisor em reescritor. / This dissertation aims to deepen some issues about the Nabokovian poetics, presenting the first Russian translation into Brazilian Portuguese of some chapters of (1954), one of the variations of his autobiography, known as a novel in Russia. Included in selections and anthologies around the world, this work has a history full of linguistic and stylistic nuances: one of the first versions was a story-essay written in French, Mademoiselle O (1936), recomposed and translated into English, becoming a memoir, Conclusive Evidence, or Speak, Memory (1951, USA and England, respectively), reworked in Russian, and then reprocessed into a final version: Speak, Memory: An Autobiography Revisited (1967). A comparison of the texts shows that the transformations performed in recreating , an interposed work, are key to reading the last version in English, as well as the first. For Nabokov, this rewriting, besides the creative process inherent to the act of translation, becomes a reinterpretation and revision of his own work, full of changes beyond the peculiarities of each language. Thus, it is necessary to read, translate and study each version as a autonomous text. Translation in all its forms and expressions, as a theme and as a practice, plays an essential role in Nabokov\'s work and life. It is translating that he began his literary career, it is through it that he returns to Russia and Russian language. The writer\'s relationship with the translator and (self)translation is critical and the dissertation aims to reflect on not a Nabokovian Art of Translation, but multiple Arts of Translation since they transform the translator into a writer, the self-translator into an editor, the editor into a rewriter.

Les migrations planétaires, massivement produites par les renversements historiques et politiques de la fin du siècle dernier, sont en train de bouleverser les ordres nationaux actuels et de soumettre les populations à un nouveau mélange identitaire et linguistique dont résultent des cultures hybrides et la remise en question de la légitimité des canons littéraires nationaux. Les littératures transnationales plurilingues sont en train de dessiner la carte de plus en plus vaste d’un nouvel univers littéraire constitué d’écrivains omniprésents, inclassables, dont la production narrative et poétique échappe aux définitions de genre et met l’accent sur les dynamiques linguistiques inhérentes à ces écritures en transit. Comment s’intègre l’Italie dans cette nouvelle scène littéraire plurilingue ? Avec quels résultats et quelles perspectives ? Après un premier chapitre introductif – un cadre général de la littérature transnationale italophone à partir de ses débuts officiels, à l'aube des années 90 –, cette recherche s'orientera spécifiquement vers l’étude de l'italophonie poétique. En remontant de manière inédite aux débuts des années 60, la production transnationale italophone sera analysée pour la première fois à travers un panorama chronologique et raisonné des voix poétiques, où se dégagent les plus représentatives. Nous mettrons l’accent sur la littérarité des textes, qui seront toujours remis en perspective avec la poésie italienne contemporaine pour délimiter la relation entre les différentes expressions de l’écriture poétique en italien qui vient s’imposer au fil du temps. / The mass planetary migrations set into motion by the historical and political transformations of the last years of the 20th century are disrupting current national status quos, while populations are undergoing a re-mixture of identities and languages that has produced hybrid cultures and, from the strictly literary point of view, a challenge to the legitimacy of national canons. The pluri-language transnational literatures are drawing an ever-wider map of a new literary universe made up of ubiquitous, unclassifiable writers whose production in prose and poetry escapes genre definitions, emphasizing the linguistic dynamics inherent to these writings in transit. How does Italy fit into this new pluri-language literary scenario? With what results and prospects? After a first introductory chapter, in which a general framework of Italian-language transnational literature is presented from its official beginnings at the start of the Nineties until today, my research focuses specifically on poetic Italophony. Locating its birth back in the early Sixties – the decade when the first « compelled » migrations to Italy began –, transnational Italian-language production is for the first time analyzed through a chronologically ordered panorama of poetic voices, against which the most representatives ones are silhouetted. Stress is laid on the literariness of the texts, and Italian contemporary poetry is always present, in perspective, to trace the relationship that is being created over time between the different expressions of poetic writing « in Italian ».

« Je ne peux pas supporter mon vrai nom, je me sens aussitôt coincé » affirme le narrateur de Pseudo, roman que Romain Gary a signé de son pseudonyme Émile Ajar. Il ajoute qu’il a « tout essayé pour [se] fuir » et en particulier tenté d’apprendre des langues très éloignées de la sienne, voire d’inventer sa propre langue. Comme Gary, certains écrivains ont considéré leur langue maternelle ou leur patronyme comme des carcans limitant leurs possibilités. Pour tenter de « tout sentir, de toutes les manières » (expression de Pessoa) ils ont pu changer de langue ou prendre des pseudonymes. Afin d’étudier conjointement le plurilinguisme et la pseudonymie, nous avons choisi un corpus de quatre auteurs du XXe siècle : le poète portugais Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935), le romancier russo-américain Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977), l’écrivain argentin Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) et le romancier français Romain Gary (1914-1980). Tous les quatre se situent au carrefour de plusieurs langues et cultures. Maîtrisant le français et l’anglais en plus de leur langue maternelle, ils ont utilisé l’anglais comme deuxième langue d’écriture et ont pratiqué la traduction et/ou l’autotraduction. De plus, ils ont tous pris des pseudonymes et se sont inventé des doubles d’écrivains fictifs. Le concept pessoen d’hétéronyme (très lié à son plurilinguisme) nous a permis d’éclairer les pratiques des trois autres auteurs. Pour cela, nous avons comparé les principaux hétéronymes de Pessoa avec Bustos Domecq (pseudonyme commun à Borges et à Bioy Casares), Émile Ajar (pseudonyme de Gary, incarné par un homme de paille, Paul Pavlowitch) et Sirine (le double russe de Nabokov). Comme la traduction, l’écriture hétéronymique nécessite une certaine dépersonnalisation. Et comme l’autotraduction, elle oblige un auteur à se confronter à un alter ego. Pour écrire dans une autre langue ou inventer un style nouveau dans la sienne, il faut renoncer à une certaine maîtrise et à une part de soi. L’hypothèse de notre travail est que les changements de langues et/ou de noms effectués par ces auteurs constituent finalement moins un rejet de leur identité qu’une façon détournée de faire route vers soi. En les libérant d’eux-mêmes, les hétéronymes leur ont permis de s’observer avec plus de recul, de commenter leur propre œuvre comme si c’était celle d’un autre et de se confier davantage. Il en va de même pour l’écriture dans une langue seconde qui crée, elle aussi, une certaine distance propice aux confessions et aux expérimentations. / “I cannot stand my real name, I feel immediately stuck” says the narrator of Pseudo, a Romain Gary novel authored under his pseudonym, Émile Ajar. He adds that he “has attempted everything to run away from [himself]”. He tried specially to learn different languages and even to invent his own. Like Gary other writers have considered their mother tongue or their surname as restraints limiting their possibilities. In order to “feel everything in every way” (Pessoa’s expression) they would change their language or use pseudonyms. To jointly study multilingualism and the use of pseudonyms, we focused on four 20th century authors: the Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa (1888-1935), the Russian-American novelist Vladimir Nabokov (1899-1977), the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges (1899-1986) and the French novelist Romain Gary (1914-1980). The writings of all four authors are at the intersection of several languages and cultures. In addition to their mother tongue, they each mastered French and English. They used English as a second language for their writing, were translators and/or self-translators. Additionally, all four took pseudonyms and invented fictitious alter egos. Pessoa’s concept of heteronym (closely connected to his multilingualism) allowed us to shed light on the work of the three other authors. To do this, we compared Pessoa’s main heteronyms with those of Bustos Domecq (pseudonym of Borges and Bioy Casares), Emile Ajar (pseudonym of Gary, embodied as the straw man Paul Pavlowitch) and Sirine (Nabokov’s Russian alter ego). Like translation, heteronymous writing requires some depersonalization. And like self-translation, it forces the author to confront an alter ego. To write in another language or to invent a new style in one’s own language, one must renounce a part of one’s self. This thesis aims to show that for these authors using pseudonyms and writing in different languages represents less of a rejection of their identities than an indirect way to come back to themselves. Freed from themselves by their heteronyms, they can better appreciate who they are, be self-critical and thus they can open their hearts to their readers. Writing in a second language also creates a certain distance that enables them to confess and experiment.

No description available.