Patrick Zabalbeascoa
Patrick Zabalbeascoa is a Professor in Translation Studies at
the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain. He lectures in
translation theory and audiovisual screen translation, mostly from
English into Spanish and Catalan. His research is focused on translation
studies, with special attention to the television and the cinema. He also
has numerous publications in translation theory, an area in which he
has developed a model of priorities and restrictions, and proposed
alternative approaches to traditional views on so-called translation
techniques, or shifts. Some of his most recent thinking and publications
have to with developing the idea of "mapping" translation solutions
through a system of binary branching, and also "mapping" audiovisual
text components on coordinates defined by an audio/visual axis, and a
verbal / non-verbal axis.
He has worked on several EC funded projects and Thematic Networks.
He is co-director of a Postgraduate Diploma (UPF-BSM) in Audiovisual
Translation.
He is co-director of a Masters Degree (UPF-BSM) in Audiovisual and
Literary Translation.
http://upf.academia.edu/PatrickZabalbeascoa
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4027-5178
https://producciocientifica.upf.edu/CawDOS/jsf/principal/principal_upf.jsf
trafilm.net
http://clipflair.net/
<span id='badgeCont207971' style='width:126px'><script src='http://labs.researcherid.com/mashlets?el=badgeCont207971&mashlet=badge&showTitle=false&className=a&rid=F-4159-2014'></script></span>
the Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona, Spain. He lectures in
translation theory and audiovisual screen translation, mostly from
English into Spanish and Catalan. His research is focused on translation
studies, with special attention to the television and the cinema. He also
has numerous publications in translation theory, an area in which he
has developed a model of priorities and restrictions, and proposed
alternative approaches to traditional views on so-called translation
techniques, or shifts. Some of his most recent thinking and publications
have to with developing the idea of "mapping" translation solutions
through a system of binary branching, and also "mapping" audiovisual
text components on coordinates defined by an audio/visual axis, and a
verbal / non-verbal axis.
He has worked on several EC funded projects and Thematic Networks.
He is co-director of a Postgraduate Diploma (UPF-BSM) in Audiovisual
Translation.
He is co-director of a Masters Degree (UPF-BSM) in Audiovisual and
Literary Translation.
http://upf.academia.edu/PatrickZabalbeascoa
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4027-5178
https://producciocientifica.upf.edu/CawDOS/jsf/principal/principal_upf.jsf
trafilm.net
http://clipflair.net/
<span id='badgeCont207971' style='width:126px'><script src='http://labs.researcherid.com/mashlets?el=badgeCont207971&mashlet=badge&showTitle=false&className=a&rid=F-4159-2014'></script></span>
less
InterestsView All (16)
Uploads
Papers by Patrick Zabalbeascoa
development of Vinay and Darbelnet’s initial proposal (henceforth ‘the initial proposal’). For some people, the study of translation techniques is the cornerstone of translation methodology and translator training; for others it is a theoretical anacronysm. Does this mean that some teachers and textbook writers are not keeping up to date with the latest developments in theoretical studies, or does it mean that the theorists have chosen to ‘sweep the issue under the carpet’ and direct their interests elsewhere? We must be very careful not to oversimplify the answer to this, although the real question is, put bluntly, in what way is technique a useful concept? Possible answers might include (i) to better understand or explain certain phenomena (from the theoretical domain); (ii) as categories and tools for description (within descriptive studies); (iii) to make the learning process of trainees more efficient, or to fill in important terminological gaps for reviewers and critics (within the applied extensions).
In this paper I have argued for a more coherent terminology in the field and proposed terms and definitions to that effect. We have a history and a tradition in Translation
Studies, and these cannot and should not be ignored, nor should they be perpetuated in
the theoretical and pedagogical domains. My answer to this situation is to propose that
the term techniques be given a historical dimension to refer exclusively to Vinay and
Darbelnet’s initial proposal and to similar proposals by other authors such as Newmark.
For the theoretical field, the recommendation is to continue working in establishing
discrete categories along the lines of what is proposed above for equivalence and
compensation. We need to change a single list of overlapping categories such as the
initial proposal, probably for several lists of solution-types (one for types of equivalence, another for types of compensation, etc.) which contain a more coherent set of categories for research and for better communication among scholars.
The conclusion for translator training is that the initial proposal, if used at all,
should be presented with great caution. The purpose of grouping solutions into
solution-types is to provide meaningful samples of options for the trainee and
illustrations of translator behaviour. Ultimately, the future translator will have to deal
with situations and contingencies that have not been presented in class or studied in the
literature, and it is with this in mind that strategies and attitudes are to be worked on.
Strategies and ‘solution-types’ are to be presented as mind-openers, not as a closed set
of categories that act as blinkers in the search for optimal solutions and fully satisfactory translations.