Target. International Journal of Translation Studies - Volume 27, Issue 1, 2015

A defining feature of retranslation is that a previous translation exists, and this earlier text has a first translator. In this article we argue that the figure of the first translator exerts an influence in the retranslation process, and all retranslators are forced to develop a stance towards the predecessor. Taking Harold Bloom’s notion of anxiety of influence in poetry as a starting point, we look at two cases of retranslation that share the same famous first translator, Pentti Saarikoski, analysing how and where the voice of this first translation can be heard in the retranslations. According to Bloom’s taxonomy, there are six modes available to poets. Applying the same taxonomy to our two retranslators, we find that they have resorted to different modes. What remains constant is that the figure of the first translator is an unavoidable function of the retranslation process and needs to be taken into account both by the retranslator and by researchers studying retranslations.

This paper tackles several questions relating to the issue of the translator’s voice in retranslation: how do others’ voices (including other (re)translations) interact with the translator’s voice in the production of a translation? How does the intersubjectively constituted voice of the translator manifest itself in paratexts, in the translated text and, in the case of singer-translators, in the translator’s physical, performing voice? The case discussed is that of Bob Dylan in (re)translation into Norwegian, and it is concluded that different singer-translators involve others in the process in various ways and to varying degrees; that there are great subjective differences in how and to what extent they take other (re)translations of Dylan into account; and that they choose different strategies for displaying their voices in paratexts, texts and performances, differences that can be explained by reference to the singer-translator’s role and status on the cultural scene.

This article is based on a case study of intra- and extratextual voices in six different Finnish retranslations of Daniel Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe. Voice is understood here as the set of textual cues characterizing a subjective or collective identity in a text. The author focuses on what is special about voice in retranslation and how intratextual (a character’s voice) and extratextual voices (translators’ and publishers’ voices) might be related in retranslation. The analysis indicates that a character’s voice as a whole can reflect the retranslator’s voice and the purpose of his/her translation. In addition, translators’ voices can recirculate in retranslation, but they do not necessarily do so if the purpose of the translation, the translator’s choice of source texts, or translation ethics prevents this.

This article explores theoretical dimensions of voice in retranslation in postcolonial situations through a contextualized analysis of extra-textual and intra-textual voices in the English-Canadian translation and retranslation of Prochain épisode, Hubert Aquin’s 1965 political novel on Québec’s independence from Canada. The three decades between the translations are marked by important social, political and cultural changes in both source and target language communities: from the 1960s turmoil with respect to Québec’s aspirations for independence to a certain political fatigue in both groups in the 2000s, from a focus within Québec letters on a national agenda to other aesthetic and cultural concerns, and from a colonial to a postcolonial editorial context in both Anglophone and Francophone literatures in Canada. What may appear as target culture recuperative strategies in the editorial and translatorial positioning of a retranslation may correspond on closer analysis to parallel changes in the source culture reception of the book.