This article was downloaded by:

On: 18 February 2009

Access details: Access Details: Free Access
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Perspectives
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t794297831

CULTURAL MARKERS IN BRAZILIAN TRANSLATION

Francis Henrik Aubert a; Adriana Zavaglia a
a
University of São Paulo, Brazil

Online Publication Date: 09 September 2005

To cite this Article Aubert, Francis Henrik and Zavaglia, Adriana(2005)'CULTURAL MARKERS IN BRAZILIAN
TRANSLATION',Perspectives,13:1,38 — 47
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09076760508668962
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09076760508668962

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 38

CULTURAL MARKERS IN BRAZILIAN TRANSLATION

Francis Henrik Aubert and Adriana Zavaglia, University of São Paulo, Brazil.
henrikaubert@yahoo.com.br and zavaglia@usp.br
Abstract:
This article provides an analysis of culturally-marked referential terms in three passages from
Brazilian literary works and their translation into French, Italian, Norwegian, and English. This
is done in accordance with two theoretical and descriptive matrixes: the Theory of Enunciative
Operations (Culioli 2000) and the Translation Strategies Model (Aubert 1997). Despite the
lexical, grammatical, and semantic differences between the source texts and the translations, as
well as the different meanings they have or potential effects on readers in the target languages,
the analysis seems to confirm the existence of equivalence-regulating mechanisms that render
translation possible.

Key words: language-pairs: Brazilian-French; Brazilian-Italian; Brazilian-Norwegian;

Brazilian-English; literary translation; Brazilian literature; cultural markers.

Introduction
This article addresses some linguistic and cultural problems involved in
translation by means of an analysis of translations of culturally-marked or
culture-bound words for ca�le, fish, and insects present in two major, modern
Brazilian novels.1
Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

The novels are:

(a) João Guimarães Rosa’s Sagarana (1968) and

(b) Mário de Andrade’s Macunaíma (1978).

We examine translations into French, Italian, Norwegian, and English for our
discussion, which is a sequel to previous articles (Aubert and Zavaglia 2003,
2004; Zavaglia 2004), and which is based on the Theory of Enunciative Opera-
tions (Culioli 2000) and on the descriptive Translation Strategies Model (Aubert
1997).
Three dimensions are involved in the current study:

a) a cognitive plane, in which language is conceived as a dynamic activity

enabling humans to construct meanings;
b) a linguistic and textual plane that refers to specific languages (in this case,
Brazilian Portuguese (henceforth “Brazilian”), French, Italian, Norwegian,
and English); and
c) a metalinguistic plane, which can describe, as a simulation, the relation-
ship between the cognitive and the textual levels.

The metalinguistic simulation establishes a set of enunciative operations, in

this case ‘extraction and identification of elements sharing at least one common
feature’. Let us consider these sentences:

(1) Eu vou dar um presente para ela. (Brazilian)

(2) Je vais lui offrir un cadeau. (French)

0907-676X/05/01 0038-10 $20.00 © 2005 F. H. Aubert & A. Zavaglia

Perspectives: Studies in Translatology Vol. 13, No. 1, 2005
 Aubert and Zavaglia: Cultural Markers in Brazilian Translation 39

(3) Le farò un regalo. (Italian)

(4) Jeg skal gi henne en gave. (Norwegian)
(5) I’m offering her a gi�. (English)

In the present context, we can express our analysis using the following meta-
linguistic representation:

(1a) /presente/ P → ppresente

(2a) /cadeau/ P → pcadeau
(3a) /regalo/ P → pregalo
(4a) /gave/ P → pgave
(5a) /gi�/ P → pgi�

These representations enable us to determine an invariant, for instance a gen-

eralization identified as an extractive operation:

/ε/ P → pi

This can be read as follows: from the cognitive representation /ε/, which has
Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

the property P, <be-gi�>, we can extract one occurrence pi, ‘gi�’. The operation
extraction is expressed by the textual units (Linguistic and Textual Plane), re-
spectively as ‘um’, ‘un’, ‘un’, ‘en’, and ‘a’.
In a prior article (Aubert and Zavaglia 2004), our analysis concerned intense-
ly culture-bound words, and it was no surprise that our findings confirmed
the expectation that, whatever their target language, translators tended to use
such translation procedures as loan, calque, explicitation, and adaptation, thus
ensuring that their translation contained an imprint of the linguistic and cul-
tural specificities of the target-text language and culture. The strategies adopted
bore witness to the translators’ creativity, and, concurrently, the specificities of
different target languages and cultures. Nevertheless, when we compared the
source-texts and the translated passages, we found that translators resorted to
similar strategies for the rendition of culturally-marked words, irrespective of
the linguistic distance between different language pairs.
In the current article, we initially classify translation strategies used by the
translators according to the Aubert model (1997), and subsequently we analyse
each passage based on the hypothesis that these passages all pertain to the
same paraphrastic family (as defined in Culioli 2000). Our findings show that,
irrespective of the actual linguistic variation, a single and invariable linguistic-
cognitive process (Cognitive Language Activity) is applied, so that even among
elements that belong to the ‘same class’, or ‘same semantic sphere’, each ele-
ment is also characterised by having distinctive markers within the class (this
feature is herea�er referred to as ‘qualitative differentiation’).
Thus, the passages analysed in Aubert and Zavaglia (2004) are re-examined,
but from a different angle. Here we focus on the translators’ creative efforts and,
consequently, the diversity of strategies that they have employed in translating
the words and terms that refer to Brazilian environment and cultural realities in
the passages discussed. Therefore, this study presents two findings of immedi-
ate interest both to Translation Studies and to linguistics, namely:
 40 2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 1

(a)the frequency of specific translation procedures correlates not only with

the lexical and grammatical constraints as found by contractive analysis
of the source and target languages, but also with the type of text involved
(here, then, literary texts); and
(b)words perceived as specific to the culture of the source text do not neces-
sarily pose near-insurmountable barriers to translation: as far as literary
texts are concerned, they afford translators a wide range of options.

Previous findings
In order to give our readers insight into our method, we first present one of
the three passages analysed in this study. It is from Mário de Andrade’s Ma-
cunaíma (1978). It is first presented in Brazilian and then in translations into
French, Italian, English, and Norwegian (with bold font indicating the segments
analysed and referred to in this article):

Brazilian / Macunaíma B
Então Macunaíma sentou numa barranca do rio e batendo com os pés
n’água espantou os mosquitos. E eram muitos mosquitos, piuns maruins
arurus tatuquiras muriçocas meruanhas mariguis borrachudos varejas,
Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

toda essa mosquitada. (p. 18)

French / Macounaïma
Alors Macounaïma s’assit sur un
javeau et par ces ba�ements de
pieds dans l’eau mit en déroute
les moustiques. Et il y avait de
quoi faire avec ces myriades de
moustiques velus goulus ventrus
poilus pointus mafflus pansus
dodus joufflus, bref toute ce�e
mousticaille! (p. 30)
Norwegian / Macunaíma
Da sa�e Macunaíma seg på en stein
ved elva og plasket med beina for
å skremme bort myggen. Det var
styggelig mye mygg der, alskens
blodtørstige beist, piun og maruin
og aruru og tatuquira, muriçoca,
meruanha, marigui og borrachudo,
vareja og hu�e meg tu!
(p. 14)
Italian / Macunaíma
Allora Macunaíma si sede�e sulla
proda del fiume e si mise a scacciar
le zanzare ba�endo l’acqua con I
piedi. E c’era un subisso di zanzare
piùns, maruìns, arurùs, tatuquiras,
muriçocas, meruanhas, mariguìs,
borrachudos, varejas, tu�o uno
zanzario. (p. 25)
English / Macunaíma
So Macunaíma sat on the riverbank,
splashing his feet in the water to
scare off the mosquitoes. There were
millions of mosquitoes large and
small, gnats, biting flies, midges,
blackflies, sandflies, gadflies,
horseflies, bluebo�les, blowflies,
cockchafers, bugs, ladybirds,
pismires and clegs; every kind of
stinging and biting insect you can
think of. (p. 9)

Despite the obvious differences in the surface structure of textual organization,

we o�en found, in Aubert and Zavaglia (2004), solutions, not ‘at’ the linguistic
level, but ‘by means of’ the linguistic level; in other words, these solutions were
not found in the surface differences (Linguistic and Textual Plane), nor in the
meanings triggered by the culture-bound words, but in the language invariant
 Aubert and Zavaglia: Cultural Markers in Brazilian Translation 41

(Cognitive Language Activity) in the organizations of the units in the different

languages. The metalinguistic representation allows us to identify one and the
same quantitative-qualitative differentiation operations in each text segment in
the source text and the translations. This is illustrated below (from Aubert and
Zavaglia 2004):

Sagarana:
pgalhusos , pgaiolos … pestrelos = Pboiada (Brazilian)
pgalhudoslongicornes , pgaïoloscornesmi-lunes ... pestrêlosfron�aché = Ptroupeau (French)
pdallecornefamificate , pmezzaluna ...pspalancate = Pmandria (Italian)
planghornede , plyrehornede … phvitroses var te = Pboling (Norwegian)
plonghorns , pshorthorns ... pbrindled = Pherd (English)

Macunaíma A:
pacará , ppiracanjuba ... psurubim = Ppeixes (Brazilian)
pacará , ppiracanjouba ... psouroubim = Pmarée (French)
pacarás , ppiracanjubas ... psurubins = Ppesce (Italian)
pacará , piracanjuba ... psurubim = Pfisk (Norwegian)
pmudfish , pmoro cot ... ptigercatfish = Pfish (English)
Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

Macunaíma B:
ppiuns , pmaruins ... pvar ejas = Pmosquitos (Brazilian)
pvelus , pgoulus ... pjoufflus = Pmoustique (French)
ppiùns , pmaruìns ... pvar ejas = Pzanzare (Italian)
ppiun , pmaruin ... pvar eja = Pmygg (Norwegian)

Note that in the English translation of the second passage from Macunaíma,
the identification with P is only partial:

plarge , psmall , pgnats , pbi�ingflies , psandflies , pgadflies , phorseflies , pclegs = Pmosquitoes

p’blackflies , p’midges , p’bluebo�les , p’blowflies , p’cockchafers , p’bugs , p’ladybirds , p’pismires ≠ Pmosquitoes

The reason is that whereas large, small, gnats, biting flies, sandflies, gadflies,
horseflies, and clegs have the semantic property of <be-mosquito> in common
within the representational universe of Anglo-Saxon language and culture,
midges, blackflies, bluebo�les, blowflies, cockchafers, bugs, ladybirds, and
pismires are not textual representatives or notional occurrences of the semantic
property <be-mosquito>.
Furthermore, the number of singular and plural markers, both in the
Brazilian original and in the translations (as loans, calques, explicitations,
and adaptations), indicates that each group that shares a given property is
divided into subgroups. In the sequences transcribed above, each lower case
“p” represents a unit that is, at one and the same time, distinct and yet shares
a common semantic property with a larger group. The higher case “P”, in
turn, represents the common semantic property shared by the relevant “p”s.
Thus, for instance, ‘galhudos’, ‘gaiolos’, ‘estrelos’… are covered by the shared
hyperonym of ‘oxen’, but only ‘galhudos’ are ‘galhudos’, only ‘gaiolos’ are
‘gaiolos’, and so on; ‘acará’, ‘piracanjuba’, ‘aviú’… are fish, but ‘acarás’ are not
 42 2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 1

‘piracanjubas’; ‘piuns’, ‘mariuns’, ‘muriçocas’… are mosquitoes, but ‘piuns’

refer to certain properties that are not shared with ‘maruins’ and ‘muriçocas’;
and so forth.
In another formal and logical metalinguistic construction, the property <be-
galhudo> is termed P and the property <be-gaiolo> is termed P’. In this case,
‘galhudos’ is presented as pi, pj ... pn and ‘gaiolos’ as p’i, p’j ... p’n. If pi, pj ... pn are
identified with P, as instances of P, p’i, p’j ... p’n will not be identified as P, since
they are instances of P’. In metalinguistic terms, we may thus formalise the
quantitative-qualitative differentiation operation as follows (from Aubert and
Zavaglia 2004: 18):

Given /ε/ pi, pj ... pn = P

and /ε/ p’i, p’j ... p’n = P’
/ε/ = variable
If P ≠ P’ /ε/ pi, pj ... pn ≠ /ε/ p’i, p’j ... p’n.

So, although these occurrences share a property at one level, they refer to
differential properties at other levels. A similar metalinguistic description can
be applied to any sequence of the passages we have analysed so far and it
Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

applies both to originals and translations. It therefore formalises the qualitative

differentiation operation.

Culture and translation: translation strategies

The scale of the translation strategies can be summarised as follows:2

Table 1

TRANSLATION DEFINITION
STRATEGIES
Omission The contents of a given passage or word in the source
text are not rendered in the target text.
Transcription Translation of a text segment that derives from a third
language, from the target language, or that is fully
shared by the two languages and cultures (for instance
algebraic formulae).
Loan Reproduction in the target text of a word, phrase, or
segment transferred from the source text, without
modifications.
Calque A loan that is graphically or morphologically adapted to
the target language, but not (yet) confirmed by standard
target-language dictionaries.
Literal translation Also known as word-for-word translation, in which the
source and target text segments are identical in terms of
number of words, grammatical categories, and syntactic
order, and in which the lexical options are those that
generate a context-bound interlinguistic synonymy.
Transposition Similar to literal translation, except that at least one of
the formal criteria for determining the occurrence of a
literal translation is not met.
 Aubert and Zavaglia: Cultural Markers in Brazilian Translation 43

Explicitation An explanation in the target text of information that

is implicit in the source text, usually in the form of an
explanatory description integrated in the target text,
parenthetic comments, appositions, footnotes, end-of-
text glossaries, and the like.
Implicitation Deliberate non-rendition of segments in the source-text
that are considered irrelevant for the purpose of the
target text.
Modulation Semantic shi�s that nevertheless retain a similar
meaning effect.
Adaptation A strategy whereby the translation retains a degree of
intersection with the original meaning effect, but in
which a number of semantic and pragmatic features
are more clearly directed towards the target-language
culture and audience.
Error Contextually unjustifiable denotative changes, resulting
in a zero intersection of meaning.

These categories, partially derived and modified from the »technical

Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

translation processes« (procédés techniques de la traduction) model originally de-

vised by Vinay and Darbelnet (1958, 1977), provide a classification and a subse-
quent comparison of the strategies employed by the translators of the two Bra-
zilian works. The following table presents the absolute and relative frequency
of these strategies in our sample, which contains a total of 142 culture-bound
words and terms:

Table 2: Passages from Sagarana and Macunaíma

STRATEGY English French Italian Norwegian

N % N % N % N %
Omission 9 6.33 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Transcription 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0
Loan 3 2.11 2 1.40 15 10.56 9 6.33
Calque 0 0.0 8 5.63 5 3.52 0 0.0
Literal translation 25 17.60 44 30.98 41 28.87 15 10.56
Transposition 28 19.71 15 10.56 19 13.38 56 39.43
Explicitation 15 10.65 21 14.78 22 15.49 22 15.49
Implicitation 7 4.92 5 3.52 2 1.40 4 2.81
Modulation 39 27.46 37 26.05 36 25.35 30 21.13
Adaptation 11 7.74 10 7.04 1 0.70 1 0.70
Error 5 3.52 0 0.0 1 0.70 5 3.52
TOTAL 142 100 142 100 142 100 142 100

Despite the restricted nature of the phenomena studied, the findings

correspond to what we would expect from the linguistic typologies involved:
the translations from Brazilian into other Romance languages contain
 44 2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 1

between 38% (French) and 43% (Italian) of the strategies that do not call for
morphosyntactical or semantic changes (including literal translation), whereas
the Germanic target languages show markedly lower percentages: 26% in the
English and 17% in the Norwegian translation. The totals for literal translation
are especially consistent with the language typologies: the French and the
Italian translations have approximately three times as many instances of literal
translation as the Norwegian target texts.
The omissions in the English version should not be interpreted as a structural
tendency: in the passages included in our study, they seem to be the outcome of
the translator’s option to replace some of the species of Brazilian mosquitoes in
the passage selected (Macunaíma B), for other insects, thus deleting the original
Brazilian cultural references and replacing them with others.
Loans - i.e., reproductions of the culturally marked words without any
changes - are fairly frequent in the Italian translation (approximately 11%),
and less so in the Norwegian translation (6%). In the French version, on the
other hand, straightforward loans are scarce: they most frequently appear in
combination with explicitations. Thus, ‘galhudos’ (Brazilian), translated as
‘galhudos – longicornes’, represents a hybrid strategy (loan + explicitation),
which, in this study, is counted as an explicitation. On the other hand, the
Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

calques, which are a form of adapted loans, are more frequent in the French
translation, which is in keeping with the French tradition of suggesting the
original pronunciation of loan words by means of specific orthographical
markers.
The Norwegian translation has a very high percentage of transpositions.
This reflects not only the differences in linguistic typology (for instance, the
suffixed article in Norwegian), but likewise the translator’s choice of marking
coordination not by juxtaposition, as in the original, but with the coordinating
conjunction ‘og’ [‘and’], which seems to serve for easier reading of extensive
listing.
Following the same typological pa�ern described in connection with
‘literal translation’, the frequency of transpositions in French and in Italian
are similar (contractions in Brazilian result in two words in French – ‘da’ or
‘de la’; differences in topicalisation and focalisation in Brazilian as opposed to
Italian do so by shi�s of the final sequence to the beginning of the sentence, or
vice-versa). The frequency of explicitations, implications, and modulations are
also relevant. It varies from 35% (in English) to almost 45% (in French), which,
again, is consistent with the text type studied, namely literary texts in literary
translation (Aubert 1997). In all languages, modulation occurs in the hybrid
form of – transposition + modulation. Adaptation, surprisingly infrequent in
all language pairs, is practically irrelevant in Norwegian and Italian, and below
expectations for the text type in French and English. Errors are also scarce, with
a slightly higher frequency in Norwegian and English.
There are two noteworthy oddities in the passages analysed. They relate to
the Norwegian and French translations. In passage B from Macunaíma given
above, the Norwegian translation renders “muitos mosquitos” [‘many mosqui-
toes’] as “styggelig mye migg” [approximately, ‘an awful lot of mosquitoes’],
in which ‘styggelig’ is a negative intensifier. A more adequate rendition would
be ‘was being pestered by a swarm of mosquitoes’, which expresses a shi� of
 Aubert and Zavaglia: Cultural Markers in Brazilian Translation 45

the narrator’s point-of-view. At first glance, one might interpret the Norwegian
translator’s rendition as an addition, since, at this point, the source text does
not indicate whether the presence of many mosquitoes is obnoxious or not.
However, a close reading shows that the translator has inserted ‘styggelig’
immediately before ‘mye’ as an intensifier of the quantity of mosquitoes, whilst
the Brazilian ‘muitos’ intensifies the number of different species of mosquitoes,
as well as the actual number of individual mosquitoes. Thus, the ‘terrible lot’
does not directly refer to ‘mosquito’ (in the sense that ‘mosquitoes are terrible’);
in other words, the intensity applies to the excessive number in Norwegian
– and with a negative overtone, while the Brazilian text refers to both quantity
and quality. Merged in Brazilian “muitos” [‘many’], these two dimensions
are split in Norwegian between “styggelig mye” (quantity) and “alskens” (in
“alskens blodtørstige beist”) in the subsequent phrases.
In regards to the Brazilian and French pair, the Sagarana and Macunaíma
were translated by the same translator, Jacques Thiérot. We would therefore
expect him to adopt a similar approach to both works, consistent with his
idiolect. Surprisingly enough, we found that the translator used strikingly
different strategies in dealing with the culture-bound phenomena in the texts.
In Sagarana, he resorts to loans and calques combined with explicitations, such
Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

as in ‘galhudos’ (Brazilian) – ‘galhudos longicornes’ (French), and in ‘gaiolos’

(Brazilian) ‘gaïolos cornes mi-lunes’ (French). Conversely, in the first passage of
Macunaíma, we find loans and calques without any accompanying explicitation,
and in the second passage of Macunaíma there is an evident combination
of modulation with adaptation, as in ‘piuns’ (Brazilian) rendered as ‘velus’
(French). These findings tend to confirm the ever-changing nature of translation
itself, since any source-text will always allow for fluctuations in the translation
strategies adopted.

Conclusion
Listing the culture-bound words analysed, we get the following
distribution:

Table 3: Strategies for culturally marked words (oxen, fish, and insects)

Language Pair Sagarana Macunaíma A Macunaíma B

Brazilian > Loan + i) Calque Adaptation
French Explicitation ii) Loan
Brazilian > i) Explicitation i) Loan i) Loan
Italian ii) Transposition ii) Calque ii) Calque
+ Explicitation
Brazilian> Explicitation i) Loan; i) Loan +
Norwegian ii) Loan + Transposition
Transposition ii) Loan
Brazilian > i) Explicitation; i) Transposition i) Error
English ii) Omission + Adaptation ii) Adaptation
ii) Omission iii) Transposition +
Adaptation
 46 2005. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 13: 1

This table shows that the most frequently used strategies for translating
culturally-marked words between Brazilian, French, Italian, Norwegian, and
English are explicitation, adaptation, calque, and loan. Whilst calque and loan
are strategies akin to transcription, explicitation and adaptation involve seman-
tic changes (Aubert 2003). As we have discussed elsewhere, in a lexicological
perspective (Zavaglia 2005), the relationship between translation strategies and
language operation seems to take place as follows: the more a formal translation
strategy (e. g. transcription and loan) is possible for a specific word in a given
translation, the more similar the language operation marked by that word.
Reviewing our results, it is evident that linguistic typology is not the only
determining factor for the distribution of the translation strategies. Text
typology, for one, entails a fairly homogenous behaviour, irrespective of the
target language, as indicated by the distribution of modulations.3 Within
the framework of the approach adopted in this article, there are also other
dimensions. We have already pointed out that the organizational scheme:

If P ≠ P’ /ε/ pi, pj ... pn ≠ /ε/ p’i, p’j ... p’n

in the three original passages, is equally marked in the translations of

Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

these passages into French, Italian, Norwegian, and English, despite the
different strategies and the evident linguistic-cultural differences between the
translations. Our results confirm the predominance of adaptation, explicitation,
loan, and calque in the translation of culturally marked words, ‘irrespective’ of
the linguistic typologies of the language pair involved. Thus, the metalinguistic
notation we have presented and analysed, and which is derived from the
metalanguage proposed by Culioli (2000), represents relationships between the
language activity (Cognitive Language Activity) and specific languages in the
passages examined (Linguistic and Textual Plane). They seem to corroborate
our hypothesis of one and the same underlying language operation, such as the
invariant (Cognitive Language Activity), behind the surface structure variation
(Linguistic and Textual Plane). As such, it also illustrates the role of translator
creativity, which can move with a certain degree of liberty between the multiple
linguistic and textual constraints.

Notes
1. We wish to thank the State of São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) for its financial
support of the project, part of which is described in this article (post-doctoral scholarship
– reg. 02/13435-0).
2. For a more detailed description, see Aubert (1997).
3. As discussed in Aubert (1997), modulation is clearly associated with certain text typolo-
gies, especially prose literature and legal texts.

Works cited
Andrade, Mário. 1978. Macunaíma: o herói sem nenhum caráter. 16th edition. São Paulo:
Martins.
Andrade, Mário. 1984. Macunaíma. Translated by E. A. Goodland. London & New York:
Quartet Books.
Andrade, Mário. 1996. Macounaïma: le héros sans aucun caractère. Translated by Jacques
Thiériot. Paris: Stock.
Andrade, Mário. 2002. Macunaíma: l’eroe senza nessun cara�ere. 5th edition. Translated by
Giuliana Segre Giorgi. Milan: Adelphi.
Andrade, Mário. 1997. Macunaíma: helten uten noen karakter. Translated by Anne Elligers.
Oslo: Bokvennen Forlag.
 Aubert and Zavaglia: Cultural Markers in Brazilian Translation 47
Aubert, Francis Henrik. 2003. Traduzindo as diferenças extralingüísticas – procedimentos
e condicionantes. TradTerm (São Paulo) 9. 151-172.
Aubert, Francis Henrik. 1997. Translation modalities: theory and practical results.
Romansk Forum 6. Oslo, UiO, December. 3-28.
Aubert, Francis Henrik & Adriana Zavaglia. 2004. Reflexos e refrações da alteridade na
literatura brasileira traduzida (2): variáveis e invariantes. (Forthcoming at the 4th EST
Proceedings, Lisbon, Portugal).
Aubert, Francis Henrik & Adriana Zavaglia. 2003. Reflexos e refrações da alteridade
na literatura brasileira traduzida (1): as versões de Sagarana para o francês e para o
norueguês. TradTerm (São Paulo) 9. 173-188.
Culioli, Antoine. 2000. Pour une linguistique de l’énonciation: opérations et représentations.
2nd revised edition. Paris: Ophrys. Vol.1.
Rosa, Guimarães. 1968. Sagarana. 10th edition. Rio de Janeiro: Nova Fronteira.
Rosa, Guimarães. 1994. Sagarana. Translated by Silvia La Regina. Milão: Feltrinelli.
Rosa, Guimarães. 1997. Sagarana. Translated by Jacques Thiériot. Paris: Albin Michel.
Rosa, Guimarães. 1966. Sagarana. Translated by Harriet de Onís. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Rosa, Guimarães. 1998. Sagarana – Noveller. Translated by Bård Kranstad. Oslo:
Gyldendal.
Vinay, Jean-Pierre & Jean Darbelnet. 1977. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais:
méthode de traduction. 2nd revised edition. Paris: Didier.
Zavaglia, Adriana. 2004. Lingüística, tradução e literatura: observando a transformação
pela arte. Alfa (Araraquara) 48 # 1. 99-117.
Zavaglia, Adriana. 2005. Modalidades de tradução e operações enunciativas: o caso do
marcador léxico-gramatical UM e suas traduções para o francês. Intercâmbio (São
Downloaded At: 23:48 18 February 2009

Paulo) 14. 1-10.