TRANSLATION MATTERS Special Issue: Intersemiotic Translation and Multimodality Volume 1, Issue 2, Autumn 2019 Editor Karen Bennett Centre for English, Translation and Anglo-Portuguese Studies (CETAPS) NOVA-FCSH, Lisbon, Portugal Cover Design Mariana Selas Publisher Faculty of Letters, University of Porto ISSN 2184-4585 Academic Advisory Board Jorge Almeida e Pinho (FLUP) Fernando Alves (U. Minho) Alexandra Assis Rosa (FLUL) Jorge Bastos da Silva (FLUP) Rita Bueno Maia (UCP) Rui Carvalho Homem (FLUP) Maria Zulmira Castanheira (FCSH) Rute Costa (FCSH) Gualter Cunha (FLUP) João Ferreira Duarte (FLUL) Elena Galvão (FLUP) Gabriela Gândara (NOVA-FCSH) Maria António Hörster (FLUC) Alexandra Lopes (UCP) John Milton (U. São Paulo) Maeve Olohan (U. Manchester) Hanna Pieta (FLUL) Cornelia Plag (FLUC) Rita Queiroz de Barros (FLUL) Miguel Ramalhete (FLUP) Iolanda Ramos (FCSH) Maria Teresa Roberto (UA) Margarida Vale de Gato (FLUL) Fátima Vieira (FLUP) Editorial Assistant Gisele Dionísio da Silva Book Reviews Editor Elena Zagar Galvão Copyright The articles published in this volume are covered by the Creative Commons “AttributionNonCommercial-NoDerivs” license (see http://creativecommons.org). They may be reproduced in its entirety as long as Translation Matters is credited, a link to the journal’s web page is provided, and no charge is imposed. The articles may not be reproduced in part or altered in form, or a fee charged, without the journal’s permission. Copyright remains solely with individual authors. The authors should let the journal Translation Matters know if they wish to republish. Translation Matters is a free, exclusively online peer-reviewed journal published twice a year. It is available on the website of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Porto http://ler.letras.up.pt. All articles should be submitted by email to the journal email address ([email protected]). See the guidelines for submission at the end of this issue. Requests for book reviews should be sent to [email protected]. PUBLISHED BIANNUALLY ONLINE THE ARTICLES ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THEIR AUTHORS. THE ARTICLES WERE PEER REVIEWED. Translation Matters, 1(2), 2019 https://doi.org/10.21747/21844585/tm TABLE OF CONTENTS Editor’s Introduction The new iconicity: challenges for translation theory and practice Karen Bennett 1-8 ARTICLES Fairy tales retold in words and pictures: two variations on the Snow White theme Anikó Sohár 9-29 Democratizing access to justice: the comic contract as intersemiotic translation Eliisa Pitkäsalo and Laura Kalliomaa-Puha 30-42 The musical power of Salome: Strauss translates Wilde Karen Bennett 43-61 The materiality of music: interplay of lyrics and melody in song translation Riku Haapaniemi and Emma Laakkonen 62-75 Do papel para o grande ecrã: o caso da filosofia kunderiana em The Unbearable Lightness of Being Francisca Narciso Marques 76-92 Na encruzilhada entre multimodalidade e multilinguismo: em busca de um modelo de descrição para legendagem com base no filme Jenseits Der Stille Katrin Pieper 93-116 Carrying advertising messages across media and borders: multilingualism and multimodality in international campaigns Sandra Gonçalves Tuna 117-132 Advertisements as special instances of intersemiotic translation: an analysis of three multimedia campaigns Elsa Simões 133-145 BOOK REVIEW Found in translation Review of Translating across sensory and linguistic borders: intersemiotic journeys between media, M. Campbell and R. Vidal (ed.) Bárbara Sofia Oliveira 146-148 EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION THE NEW ICONICITY: CHALLENGES FOR TRANSLATION THEORY AND PRACTICE For anyone working in Translation Studies, the term “intersemiotic translation” inevitably conjures up Roman Jakobson and his 1959 division of translation into three broad types: 1) intralingual translation or rewording (an interpretation of verbal signs by other signs of the same language); 2) interlingual translation or translation proper (an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language; and 3) intersemiotic translation or transmutation, an “interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs belonging to non-verbal systems” (Jakobson, 2000, p. 114). The notion that non-verbal artefacts or events1 might transport meaning was not unprecedented, of course. Ferdinand de Saussure (1959, pp. 15-17) himself had envisaged a broad science of signs (la sémiologie) into which linguistics might one day be subsumed, and before him, Charles Sanders Peirce (1931) had developed a fully- fledged semiotic theory that went far beyond the verbal in reach.2 However, in the structuralist climate in which Jakobson was writing, when translatability between verbal languages was taken for granted,3 it was difficult to make the case that intersemiotic translation was really translation like any other. Despite valiant attempts by theorists of music, theatre, dance and the visual arts to map the grammatical and lexical structures of verbal language onto their respective systems, no one could really assert with confidence that any of these art forms in fact had the resources to transmit a message with the accuracy and precision of verbal language. As a result, the intersemiotic endeavour petered out and the study of such cross-fertilizations left Translation Studies to be accommodated in other domains: adaptation studies, inter-art studies, intermediality, film/dance studies, media studies etc. Now, however, things have changed. Two major shifts in perception have thrown the whole process into a new light, suggesting that intersemiotic translation might not, after all, be qualitatively different from the inter- or intralingual varieties. The first of these has to do with the way “ordinary” verbal translation is viewed. With the onset of Descriptive Translation Studies in the 1980s, and especially the cultural turn a decade later, the whole notion that there might exist a nugget of meaning that could be extracted from a source text like precious metal from ore and transported unchanged to a new linguistic environment fell into disrepute. Instead, it became clear that “meaning” is a multifaceted, context-dependent and mutable phenomenon which inevitably dissipates and alters during the translation process, losing some layers and gaining others, and occasionally 1 This distinction is made to accommodate both static phenomena like paintings, sculptures and architecture, and dynamic processes that unfold in time, such as music, dance or performances. 2 Peirce’s categorization of the sign into icon, index and symbol is still in use today, as is his notion of semiosis to refer to the generation of meaning through translational processes. 3 “(…) all cognitive experience and its classification is conveyable in any existing language” (Jakobson, 2000, pp. 115-116). On this assumption, linguists like Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), Catford (1965), Newmark (1988) and even Baker (1992) listed strategies that could be employed to overcome the lack of formal equivalence between languages and ensure that the “sense” of the text found adequate expression in the target tongue. 1 Bennett, K. – Editor’s Introduction Translation Matters, 1(2), 2019, pp. 1-8, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21747/21844585/tmint transmuting into something altogether different. In part, this results from the nature of language itself – from the fact that human languages divide up the world differently in order to enable a given culture to better express the meanings that are most significant to it. However, it also derives from the fact that translations are never undertaken in a vacuum and that a text is inevitably moulded, consciously or unconsciously, to serve a new function in a new target culture. As Theo Hermans (1985, p. 11) puts it in the Introduction to The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation: “From the point of view of the target literature, all translation implies a certain degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose”. The second major shift to affect our understanding of translation in general and intersemiotic translation in particular is a new interest in the materiality of the sign (Littau, 2011, 2016), and its correlative, the performative nature of the semiotic event, including translation itself (Bermann, 2014; Robinson, 2017). To some extent, this represents a backlash against the process of disembodiment set in motion over two thousand years ago with the onset of the “transcendental signified” (Derrida, 1998, pp. 20-24),4 and which arguably culminated in the digital revolution of the new millennium. So although all kinds of artefacts and events can now be stored on clouds or downloaded in files so light that they can be transported on a phone, there has also been a movement in the opposite direction, with vinyl making a comeback in the music industry, books issued in luxury editions that are veritable works of art, and performance art proliferating on every street corner. The polarization is also reflected in the practice of translation. Technical translators using CAT tools handle verbal segments so decontextualized that they can be transferred between documents virtually intact, irrespective of purpose or medium; yet these language professionals are also asked to work with texts that assert their materiality forcefully in a way that defies the facile separation of content and form. This iconicity is evident not only in works that self-consciously promote themselves as “art”, but also in everyday rhetorical artefacts like advertisements, websites, children’s