La recepció de la narrativa catalana contemporània traduïda a l'alemany: 1975-2009

Entre l'abril de 2007 i l'abril del 2011 vaig gaudir d'un ajut FI al Departament de Traducció i Ciencies del Llenguatge de la Universitat Pompeu Fabra. Gràcies a aquest ajut i en el marc del programa de doctorat en Comunicació Multilingüe vaig poder dur a terme un projecte de recerca sobre la recepció de la narrativa catalana traduïda a l'alemany des de 1975 fins a l’actualitat. El primer resultat d'aquest projecte és el nou treball de recerca, llegit el novembre de 2010, en el qual intento fer un balanç de les obres de narrativa d'autors catalans publicades en alemany durant els darrers 30 anys: a partir del catàleg de totes les obres da narrativa catalana traduïdes en el període estudiat, he establert una tipologia per classificar els textos en generes i per comprovar quins autors i quines obres s'han traduït majoritàriament, per quins autors i per quins generes s'han interessat més els editors alemanys i fins a quin punt es pot considerar que aquestes traduccions representen d'una manera equilibrada narrativa catalana d'aquests anys. En el treball també he analitzat les característiques de les editorials on s'han publicat les obres traduïdes i he intentat avaluar la seva recepció, a partir de la traducció dels títols i els textos de presentació de les obres. Fet aquest primer balanç, ara estic preparant quatre articles que aprofundeixen en temes plantejats al treball de recerca i que junts han de formar la meva tesi doctoral, actualment en curs d'elaboració. A banda de la meva recerca personal, l'ajut FI també m'ha permès formar-me com a investigadora, amb la publicació d'articles, la docència al departament, la participació en congressos i, sobretot, la col•laboració amb el grup de recerca TRILCAT, d'estudis de traducció, recepció i literatura catalana.

Translation and validation of the Ten-Item-Personality Inventory into spanish and catalan

In response to an increasing need for ever-shorter personality instruments, Gosling, Rentfrow, and Swann (2003) developed the Ten-Item-Personality Inventory (TIPI), which measures the dimensions of the Five Factor Model (FFM) using 10 items (two for each dimension) and can be administered in about one minute. In two studies and using a multi-judge (self and observer) and multi-instrument design, we develop Spanish (Castilian) and Catalan versions of the TIPI and evaluate them in terms of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent, discriminant, and content validity, as well as self-observer correlations. Test-retest correlations were strong, and convergence with the NEO-PI-R factors was significant. There were also strong correlations between observer ratings and the participants’ self-ratings. Despite some inconsistencies with respect to the Agreeableness scale, the Catalan translation and both translations into Spanish of the original TIPI demonstrated sufficient psychometric properties to warrant use as a Five Factor personality measure when the use of longer instruments is not convenient or possible. Furthermore, as the first translation of a brief standard Big Five Instrument into Catalan, this work should facilitate future research on personality in the Catalan-speaking population.

Priorities and hierarchical accounts of translation

This paper is a study of the concept of priority and its use together with the notion of hierarchy in academic writing and theoretical models of translation. Hierarchies and priorities can be implicit or explicit, prescribed, suggested or described. The paper starts, chronologically, wtih Nida and Levý’s hierarchical accounts of translation and follows their legacy in scholars as different as Newmark and Gutt. The concept of priorities is hinted at also in didactic models (Nord) as well as in norm-theoretical and accounts of translation (Toury and Chesterman) within Descriptive Translation Studies. All of these authors are analyzed and commented. The paper calls for a more systematic and straightforward account of translational priorities, and proposes a few conceptual tools that stem from this research model, including the concepts of ambition and richness of a translation. Finally, the paper concludes with an adaptation of Lakoff and Johnson’s view of prototypicality and its potential usefulness in research into and the understanding of translation.

Language variation in source texts and their translations: the case of L3 in film translation

In addition to the two languages essentially involved in translation, that of the source text (L1) and that of the target text (L2), we propose a third language (L3) to refer to any other language(s) found in the text. L3 may appear in the source text (ST) or the target text (TT), actually appearing more frequently inSTs in our case studies. We present a range of combinations for the convergence and divergence of L1, L2 and L3, for the case of feature films and their translations using examples from dubbed and subtitled versions of films, but we are hopeful that our tentative conclusions may be relevant to other modalities of translation, audiovisual and otherwise. When L3 appears in an audiovisual ST,we find a variety of solutions whereby L3 is deleted from or adapted to the TT.In the latter case, L3 might be rendered in a number of ways, depending on factors such as the audience’s familiarity with L3, and the possibility that L3 inthe ST is an invented language.

Setting priorities in clinical and health services research: Properties of an adapted and updated method

Objectives: The objectives of this study is to review the set of criteria of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) for priority-setting in research with addition of new criteria if necessary, and to develop and evaluate the reliability and validity of the final priority score. Methods: Based on the evaluation of 199 research topics, forty-five experts identified additional criteria for priority-setting, rated their relevance, and ranked and weighted them in a three-round modified Delphi technique. A final priority score was developed and evaluated. Internal consistency, test–retest and inter-rater reliability were assessed. Correlation with experts’ overall qualitative topic ratings were assessed as an approximation to validity. Results: All seven original IOM criteria were considered relevant and two new criteria were added (“potential for translation into practice”, and “need for knowledge”). Final ranks and relative weights differed from those of the original IOM criteria: “research impact on health outcomes” was considered the most important criterion (4.23), as opposed to “burden of disease” (3.92). Cronbach’s alpha (0.75) and test–retest stability (interclass correlation coefficient = 0.66) for the final set of criteria were acceptable. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for overall assessment of priority was 0.66. Conclusions: A reliable instrument for prioritizing topics in clinical and health services research has been developed. Further evaluation of its validity and impact on selecting research topics is required