CURRENT CALL FOR PAPERS

Antonio Martínez Pleguezuelos and Jorge J. Sánchez Iglesias (eds.)

SPANISH FROM/TO ROMANCE LANGUAGES: PROXIMITIES, DIFFERENCES AND ENCOUNTERS

 

Deadline for abstract submission (300 words approx.) to revistaclina@usal.es 15th February, 2021.

Deadline for preselection of abstracts submitted: 1st. March, 2021.

Deadline for submission of full papers (accepted abstracts only) on https://revistas.usal.es/index.php/clina/login (6000-8000 words): 1st September, 2021.

Expected date of publication: December 2021.

Languages: Spanish, English.

 

The relationships between Romance languages have been strengthened by several circumstances. The first one, (chrono)logically, was the linguistic proximity between the different extensions of vulgar Latin (if we want to avoid the usual metaphor of the “sibling languages”). This proximity is also often portrayed as geographic —so that they are presented as “languages in contact”—, and this makes it possible to draw a line across most Western Europe which is only interrupted when we consider the regions in Eastern Europe and the expansion of Romance languages into other continents. This proximity has crystallized into constant historical and cultural connections and links, not without their dose of conflict, in which mediation (translation and interpreting) plays a crucial role.

The process of translation/interpreting between Romance languages is a common practice in many fields, with a specific set of graduate and postgraduate teaching programs; and it has been the subject of many academic studies. However, the proximity between languages has in itself shaded the features of this activity, which is generally perceived as a “minor task” due to a common linguistic prejudice: “It is not a superhuman task, for instance, to translate works dating from the same period into languages belonging to the same family. This is the case when contemporary works are translated from one Romance language into another”, said Octavio Paz, to cite only one example.

Indeed, their affinity transforms the group of Romance languages into a privileged field in which to observe the scope of intercomprehension phenomena. This area is supported by educational projects and has been the focus of attention of institutions as an alternative to mediation itself. On the other hand, research on this field generally casts a restricted image, which is often limited to exasperated attempts to compare and verify phenomena related to contrastive linguistics, and particularly interference.

With these elements, that are ceaselessly repeated, we only obtain a picture created with broad brushstrokes, with generalizations that are probably unfair and that often need to be qualified with remarks such as the following:

 

     · When discussing Romance languages, it is always necessary to consider their relative position within the group, in terms of their different degrees of linguistic proximity, their diverse historical and cultural relationships, their unique levels of prestige and the ways in which they may be a minority or have been minoritized, as well as everything that this involves with regard to the mediation process.

     · Linguistic proximity is merely relative when the different mediation modalities are considered. Indeed, written and oral messages pose different problems with different solutions (both regarding mediation and intercomprehension).

     · Considering the global production in any Romance language as something that is “easy” to translate/interpret is a particularly short-sighted prejudice that ignores an entire repertoire of specialty fields, rhetorical patterns, styles, etc., in which linguistic affinity can provide little to no relief at all.

 

This volume wants to provide new perspectives about mediation between Romance languages, with contributions that bring into question, either in general or in specific terms, the aforementioned convoluted web of clichés, while they avoid both anecdotal observations and the risks of generalization. To do so, we will consider one specific example, the case of Spanish (as a source or a target language) and its relationship with the rest of Romance languages. From this perspective, we will welcome proposals focused on any topic that contributes, based on this particular case, to the general perception about intra-Romance mediation, with lines of research including but not limited to the following:

 

     1. Translation between Spanish and the rest of Romance languages: the scope of “area-related studies” in Translation Studies.

     2. The Romance languages area: myth or reality?

     3. Center/s and periphery/ies: distances, exoticism and asymmetries in the Romance language field.

     4. (Publishing) policies and linguistic-cultural proximity.

     5. The field of Romance languages and their confrontation with English as lingua franca.

     6. Translation versus/together with other established disciplines: Romance philology and/or linguistics.

     7. Translation and shaping of the Romance language area: historical perspectives and contemporary development.

     8. From intra-Romance mediation to Translation theory.

     9. Contributions from the (re)translation of (classic) literary works: updating or questioning the canon, the margins of creativity.

     10. Aspects of dialectics between intercomprehension and translation.

     11. Mediation between Romance languages and a cartography of strategies and techniques.

     12. New approaches on translation phenomena: from the dangers of interference to the fear of what is similar (“homoiphobia”).

     13. The assessment/evaluation of intra-Romance mediation: singular approaches.

     14. Contributions for/from automatic translation.

     15. Ultra-European expansion: mediation issues.