Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 27:2 (2014) ► pp.297–322

Distintos enfoques al traducir y su efecto en el receptor

| Universidad de Granada

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.

Keywords: mixed translation approach, reading, domesticating translation approach, foreignizing translation approach

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 8 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.27.2.03cam
References
Andreassen, R., & Braten, I
(2010) Examining the prediction of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests. Journal of Research in Reading, 331, 263–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baddeley, A
(1992) Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Vega, M
(1989) Introducción a la psicología cognitiva. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hirano, K
(2007) Recall protocols as a measure of reading comprehension: Advantages and disadvantages. Bulletin of Joetsu University of Education, 261, 79–86.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klingberg, G
(1986) Children’s fiction in the hands of the translators. Lund: Bloms Boktryckeri.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Leppihalme, R
(1997) Culture bumps: An empirical approach to the translation of allusions. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Marcelo, G
(2007) Traducción de las referencias culturales en la literatura infantil y juvenil. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Nikolajeva, M
(1996) Introduction to the theory of children’s literature. Tallin: Pedagogical University.Google Scholar
Nord, C
(2003) Proper names in translations for children: ‘Alice in Wonderland’ as a case in point. Meta, 48(1-2), 182–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oittinen, R
(2000) Translating for children. Nueva York/Londres: Garland.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, E
(1992) “Kinderliterarisches Übersetzen [The translation of children’s literature]”. Findevogel, 93/94, 4–8.Google Scholar
(2005) Comparative children’s literature. Londres/Nueva York: Routledge.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Puurtinen, T
(1995) Linguistic acceptability in translated children’s literature. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Shavit, Z
(1981) Translation of children’s literature as a function of its position in the literary polysystem. Poetics Today, 2(4), 171–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006) Translation of children’s literature. En G. Lathey (Ed.), The translation of children’s literature: A reader (pp. 25–40). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Venutti, L
(1995) The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. Londres/Nueva York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar