Translation as Writing Across Languages: Samuel Beckett and Fakir Mohan Senapati

Translation as Writing Across Languages: Samuel Beckett and Fakir Mohan Senapati — This paper attempts to demonstrate that translation cannot be divorced from writing, that originality and creativity are not characteristic only of the latter, that translation is not mere reproduction. This is developed in relation to Samuel Beckett's translations of his own works and five translations of a passage of a late nineteenth-century Indian novel. In the case of Samuel Beckett, translation is seen as a way both to begin and to continue the writing process, a way for him to explore one of the principal themes of his work, the relation of writing to language(s). In that of the five translations into English of a passage from the Oriya novel by Fakir Mohan Senapati, Chha Mana Atha Guntha, the differences between them are examined for the purpose of showing the extent to which the practice of translation is always an act of creative writing.Translation as Writing Across Languages: Samuel Beckett and Fakir Mohan Senapati — En prenant pour exemples les traductions par Samuel Beckett de ses propres textes et cinq traductions d'un passage d'un roman indien de la fin du dix-neuvième siècle, cet article veut démontrer que l'on ne peut séparer d'une manière absolue la traduction de l'écriture, que l'originalité et la créativité ne sont pas les attributs de cette dernière seulement, que la traduction ne se réduit pas à une simple reproduction. Dans le cas de Beckett, la traduction a pour fonction de lui permettre de commencer et de continuer à écrire; c'est un moyen pour lui d'explorer un des grands thèmes de son oeuvre, la relation entre l'écriture et la ou les langues. Dans celui des cinq traductions du passage du roman en oriya de Fakir Mohan Senapati, Chha Mana Atha Guntha, les différences entre les versions sont examinées afin de faire voir jusqu'à quel point la traduction est toujours un acte de création

Les codes et les faits: l'article 170 du Code criminel

The difficulties which the interpretation of article 170 of the Criminal Code raises are to a large extent the result of the role language plays in legal discourse, as an intermediary between the legal text and the facts to which it must apply. While language makes possible — through its referential function — the application of the text to particular situations, it also introduces ambiguity into the legal text and leads to the need for interpretation

Cercles St. Pierre, St. Paul Certificate

Certificate granted to Madeleine Giguère from Cercles St. Pierre and St. Paulhttps://digitalcommons.usm.maine.edu/giguere-early-life-and-education/1066/thumbnail.jp