• Objectius
• Membres del Comitè
• Redacció de la revista VISAT
• Trobada del T&LRC (Juny 2010)

Minutes of the international meeting of the Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee of PEN International

Barcelona, June 17 and 18, 2010

On the 17th and 18th of June 2010, in Barcelona, the Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee of PEN International is gathered, previously convened by its president, Josep-Maria Terricabras, and Catalan PEN.

The following PEN center representatives were registered for attendance at the meeting:

John Ralston Saul, President of PEN INTERNATIONAL
Eugene Schoulgin, Secretary General of PEN INTERNATIONAL
Josep-Maria Terricabras, President of the Translation and Linguistic Rights Committee of PEN INTERNATIONAL
Mohamed Magani , President of PEN Algeria and member of PEN INTERNATIONAL board
Vjera Balen–Heidl, CROATIA
Paul Bilbao Sarria, BASQUE COUNTRY
Philippe Pujàs, FRANCE
Franca Tiberto, ITALIAN SWITZERLAND
Takeaki Hori, JAPAN
Bente Christensen, NORWAY
Sihem Bensedrine / Omar Mestiri, CATALONIA/TUNISIA
Francisco Belard, PORTUGAL
Maria João Reynaud, PORTUGAL
M. do Sameiro Barroso, PORTUGAL
Teresa Salema (Cadete), PORTUGAL
Mohamed Sheriff, SIERRA LEONE
Jozef Banas, SLOVAKIA
Peter Kerlik, SLOVAKIA
Ivo Frbežar, SLOVENIA
Marjan Strojan, SLOVENIA
Glorice Weinstein, ROMAND SWITZERLAND
Kalsang Dhondup, TIBET
Phuntsok Gamtso, TIBET
Tsering Dhondup, TIBET
Markéta Hejkalová, CZECH REPUBLIC
Biel Mesquida, CATALONIA
Dolors Oller, CATALONIA
Simona Skrabec, CATALONIA
Patrícia Gabancho, CATALONIA
Carme Arenas, CATALONIA
Joan Buadas, CATALONIA
Vicent Salvador, CATALONIA
Salem Zenia, CATALONIA/ALGERIA
El-Kaissa Ould-Braham, CATALONIA/ALGERIA
Antònia Vicens, CATALONIA
Sebastià Perelló, CATALONIA
Rhodah Mashavave, CATALONIA/ZIMBABWE


With Josep-Maria Terricabras presiding over the meeting and Simona Škrabec acting as Secretary, as designated by the attendees.

The delegates immediately go on to discuss the points that are transcribed as follows and that constitute the

MEETING AGENDA

1. First session: Presentation and discussion among the delegations.

2. Second session: Presentation by John Ralston Saul, president of PEN International, on “Freedom of Expression: Extent and Limits.” Followed by discussion.

3. Third session: Round table on “Vernacular tongue and linguistic diversity in a territory,” with contributions by Franca Tiberto and Salem Zenia. Patrícia Gabancho moderates.

4. Fourth session: Round table on “Cultural Dissemination and the Market,” with contributions by Markéta Hejkalová, Philippe Pujas and Eugene Schoulgin. Simona Škrabec moderates.

5. Fifth session: Informational briefing from the president, and routine matters.


First session, June 17, 2010, 9:30 to 11:30 am

The Committee president welcomes the attendees and expresses his satisfaction that this meeting can take place in Barcelona, at the seat of the Researchers’ Residence. Sra. Maria Mercè Roca, member of the Parliament of Catalonia, greets those who are present and wishes them a good stay in Barcelona. In her welcome speech, the president of Catalan PEN, Sra. Dolors Oller, introduces some of the topics that will be addressed during the meeting and wonders if the laws of the market might affect the rights of linguistic minorities. She insists on the importance of translation in a world of multicultural relations. She also stresses how cultivating minority languages can allow us to escape standardizing trends.

The president opens the first session with a summary of other PEN center meetings he attended during the previous year in Linz (Austria) and Bled (Slovenia), in which topics related to the question of linguistic diversity and the global market were also discussed. He also refers to the report of the “Universal Periodic Review,” which was presented in Geneva before the UN, and which he attended in order to present a denunciation of the insufficient presence of Catalan in the Spanish judicial system. This experience confirmed for him that states tend to ignore the linguistic problems of non-state languages. This in turn has helped him to understand the difficulties faced by the campaign undertaken years ago to ensure that the UN considers everyone’s linguistic rights a fundamental part of Universal Human Rights.

The president of PEN International, John Ralston Saul, takes the floor to apprise the attendees that just two days prior, on June 15, 2010, in Tunisia, a decree was approved (he refers to article 61a of the Tunisian Penal Code) that prohibits its citizens from criticizing Tunisia in front of foreign organizations and governments. One who does so will be treated as a traitor and this may result in punishment of up to five years in prison. The severe lack of freedom in Tunisia is also confirmed by the Secretary General of PEN International, Eugene Schoulgin. A unanimous decision is made to adopt a RESOLUTION ON TUNISIA BY PEN INTERNATIONAL and condemn this decree. As this restriction of freedom of expression is related to Tunisia’s negotiations with the European Union, PEN International asks the EU to suspend negotiations that aim to grant Tunisia an advanced status or any other privileged relationship. The EU should reexamine its existing agreement with Tunisia and insist that this decree be removed. Europe should accept this ethical challenge. If the EU continues with its negotiations, then this means that it also accepts that a state’s citizens can be threatened with extreme measures to obtain their silence.

After a session of internal work, at 11 am, the text of the resolution is prepared, read before all of the attendees, and unanimously approved. The resolution is sent to the media in four languages (Catalan, Spanish, English and French) and is attached to these minutes.

The president passes on the messages that have been sent to him from members who were not able to attend the meeting. Of these, news has arrived from Macedonia that the “Diversity Project” has expanded and is now called “Poetiki.”

André Marshall from South African PEN has sent a message about their activities aimed at establishing contacts and helping to protect the languages of the native peoples. Their proposal to translate stories existing in the oral tradition into English so that they can be written down, edited, and conserved, is presented and briefly discussed.

After this, Philippe Pujas of France speaks to remind the attendees of the Chirac Foundation initiative. This project does not seek to transcribe oral tradition into another language, but to make recordings in Central Africa and Gabon to conserve this legacy in an audiovisual format. This undertaking is considered an attempt to preserve an extremely fragile memory that probably could not be preserved in any other way.

John Ralston Saul again takes up the question of indigenous languages to present the situation in Canada and the United States. The speakers of these languages have progressively abandoned any attempts to establish their own written literature and have begun to write their works ever more often in English or French. The writing, however, preserves all of the spontaneity of an oral language. Thus there are plays, for example, that end up being almost impossible to read, but on the contrary work perfectly on the stage with a very vibrant expressivity. Ralston Saul is of the view that the influence these authors have on the transformation of the dominant language could be considered a literary movement in itself, breaking with established norms.

Franca Tiberto speaks of the Swiss government initiative that promotes recordings of different Italian dialects in the Alpine valleys to be broadcast on the radio or published on a disc. This proposal has been warmly welcomed.

Markéta Hejkalová of the Czech Republic asserts that the PEN center of her country is committed to the situation of countries without freedom of expression due to their own experience with this state of affairs. This is why they decided as a PEN center to begin a collection of books in translation written by those who could not be published in their own home. The most recent published work is by a Cuban writer. However, they are encountering difficulties, especially of an economic character, since reader interest towards unknown authors is very small. It would be significant if more lines of government aid existed for these projects. A good idea would be for public libraries to buy these books.

The president reveals that a large European translation prize is being prepared. At this point a lively debate begins about public aid for translation in different countries.

In his commentary, Takeaki Hori reminds the listeners, however, that not all difficulties can be easily resolved with a subsidy. Although America and Japan are great literary cultures, between them there are only six or seven truly excellent translators who can take on the challenges of quality literary translation. It is necessary, then, to create the commitments that allow for the construction of a true network, where these literary exchanges can take place, and endow them with a deeper significance. Eugene Schoulgin insists that editors must also take on their share of the responsibility to promote a greater diversity of translated authors. The attendees agree that the work of a translator is not only poorly paid, typically, but often does not receive enough recognition. Schoulgin proposes that all PEN centers admit literary translators as members under the same conditions as authors.


Second session, June 17, 2010, from 11:30 am to 2 pm

In his presentation, “Freedom of Expression: Extent and Limits,” John Ralston Saul deals with our capacity to imagine those who are different from us and to consider the other. He bases this reflection on contemporary Spain, which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the same nation during the time of the dictatorship. But just a few kilometers from here, on the shores of Africa, the situation of freedom of expression is even more precarious. He presents the question of how democratic countries should behave before dictatorial actions, such as the previously mentioned article of the Tunisian penal code, which is presented internationally as a mere administrative measure. The situation in Europe is also ever more problematic because we no longer hold China, Russia or Mexico to certain ethical standards in order to do business with them. He also finds worrisome the increase in populist movements in Europe. Racism has returned to the continent in the form of the immigrant who must return to the place from which he came.
In 400 years Europe has not deviated from the paradigm of a nation state with a sole language and a sole culture that binds all and dominates all. We need to begin thinking in another way. As much as the Tower of Babel teaches that languages are a mistake, we should simply consider that this teaching is what is incorrect. We must feel comfortable in a world full of differences. Canada, for example, must learn that upon their arrival newcomers bring not only their languages, but also their own world view: how to establish family ties, participate in public life, relate to those who are not from their community... All of this is an immense wealth and we must know how to recognize and make the most of it. Certainly, in southern Europe relations between different cultures are slowly opening up and divisions within states are being erased. Once again we have a Mediterranean culture that is, by definition, a mixture of diverse elements. We must recall that in Europe’s civil wars of the twentieth century, 100 million people died. That is too much. The model of a monolithic nation state has expired. One of the best things our epoch has given us is a return to Erasmus, to his conviction that people can live together even though they are different.
We should not fear insecurity, doubt, uncertainty. Maybe the technological explosion that we are experiencing really will provoke the disappearance of nation states. It would be a new Gutenberg revolution. The most important thing is to lose the fear of the other, fear of cultures that we do not know.
To provoke these changes, however, it is necessary that we as writers also think about the way to express ourselves, in language. Writing has become a collection of rigid formulas that often do not allow any kind of innovation; academic life seems to be barren and without creative capacity. Why, for example, does an organization like PEN still produce resolutions in an administrative language that no one would consider a message with meaning? Ralston Saul proposes that we should begin to write Manifestos. We need to reconquer public space for the word.

Following this speech by the President of PEN International, a debate on the various questions that have arisen from his reflections takes place. A decision is made for the PEN network to be better organized in order to be truly capable of producing declarations that could echo in public forums and the media. One possibility would be to create a Press Office in London to allow for the coordination of collaborators and correspondents in different countries, capable of creating more awareness of the current situation. We will have new members, and above all younger members, only if we are capable of showing that PEN is an organization capable of reacting to the situations that appear around us.


Third session, June 17, 2010, from 4 to 6 pm

Patricia Gabancho opens the round table with an introduction to the situation of the Catalan language, with special attention to people who settled in Catalonia from the 1950s on, coming from other places in Spain. She explains, giving examples, how Catalan and Spanish have cohabited in various spaces of public communication, from the schools, to newspapers, literature, or labeling of commercial products, and thus reminds the international attendees of the complexity of these relations.

Franca Tiberto presents, for her part, the presence of the Italian language in Switzerland and notes that even if the Germans know how to speak Italian, they lack awareness of the Italian cultural tradition; in daily life the Italian Swiss dialect is mostly used.

Salem Zenia reads his text, which speaks of the tensions among languages in his country, Algeria. The question of a mother tongue is in this case very complex because many people have adopted French as their only language. As for Amazic, it is considered a dirty, bastardized tongue, and thus even its defenders wanted to “clean” it from outside influences. The price of achieving this objective has been very high because each local group wanted to articulate its own voice. Precisely this tendency toward fragmentation is very convenient for the state, which does not under any circumstances want connections on a national level to grow or for the Amazic language to be able to establish a standard capable of including different dialects. Rather, the Arab dialectal has ever greater influence. Through this language, the pan-Arabist ideology expands as well. Classical Arab is only used as a referential language, to write poetry and in the media. Still, the state does not want to give official status to dialectal Arab, although today it is very different from the classical language. This trend towards the folklorization of cultures and languages has a clear political objective: to weaken their force and make it easy for populations to abandon their territories and allow the exploitation of their economic resources, with nothing in exchange.

The contributions of other delegates follow, briefly presenting the situation in their respective countries. The majority of these presentations have been made available in written form as well, which are attached as supporting documents:
• Salem Zenia, “One’s own Tongue, a Forked Tongue?”
• Maria do Sameiro Barroso, “The Right to be Different Versus the Need to be Understood”
• Marjan Strojan, “Slovenia—A Country at the Crossroads of Linguistic Diversity”

Yan Lian informs the listeners about an initiative of the Independent PEN of China, which has established a poetic translation exchange between China and Slovenia, an elephant and a mouse in terms of the size of the countries. The experience has been extraordinarily enriching because the two literary languages—Mandarin Chinese and standard Slovenian—have had a very different historical evolution. Chinese is written in the same way in all of its vast territory, but even though the writing is always the same, the pronunciation of ideograms, which is to say speech, can be very different. This means that written Chinese is very standardizing. Slovenian, on the other hand, has established its standard by uniting different dialects; thus, the written language has in good part maintained its links with speech, and there is a lot of local color in its literature. For Chinese poets and translators it was a great challenge to retain, in such a formal language as theirs, marks of speech, vernacular, localisms... Next, Yang Lian also presents the web site “PEN for Freedom,” a digital magazine that is published four times a year in collaboration with the Sydney PEN. The first number was dedicated to the tenth anniversary of the Committee for Imprisoned Writers and included the poems of ten Chinese poets who are currently still imprisoned.


Fourth session, June 18, 2010, from 9:30 to 11 am

In the round table on “Cultural Dissemination and the Market,” Markéta Hejkalová, Philippe Pujas, Vicent Salvador and Eugene Schoulgin take part. Moderator Simona Škrabec asked the participants ahead of time to prepare a brief reflection on the dissemination of literature in the international market, and the debate develops from the topics and concerns expressed in these brief reflections.

Philippe Pujas sets forth a fundamental question: What is “cultural diversity”? How do we understand this expression today? As an astute observer, he makes us realize that this expression—so in vogue today—hides the fact that diversity is profoundly threatened. We believe what we are told, make speeches, and fake a false optimism. The models of life, of thought, are more and more similar everywhere. Even that which is perceived as “culturally diverse” is prescribed: the image of diversity is that of the great metropolis with its ethnically diverse populations or the North American ghetto. It is very difficult to fight against such a powerful culture industry—which dominates production, dissemination and above all persuasion—and find space for diversity.

Vicent Salvador asserts that no literature can exist without its context. The history of a given community, the development of a language, the genres that have predominated and the styles that have risen to the forefront: all of this is part of a literary work. For this reason it is so difficult for translators to be able to convey this complex web of relations to another culture.

Markéta Hejkalové affirms that literary translation lives inside of a complex web of relations. For this reason she states that subsidies for the translator are not enough to be able to make the work of “small” literatures known in another country. The great difficulty is to construct a referential network that would permit a quality reception outside of the country of origin, even for cultures with less economic power. The largest cultures—English, French, German, Italian, Spanish and a few more—have at their disposal university programs already established in other countries; they can count on foreign readers who are very familiar with the context of a work; and there are cultural institutes in every important city dedicated to spreading knowledge about this or that country and its authors. The smaller cultures have none of this.

Eugene Schoulguin also notes the importance of institutions that we often consider somewhat irrelevant, as for example the aid that the European Union earmarks for the encouragement of literary exchange between small literatures.

These reflections are attached as supporting documents:

• Philippe Pujas, “To the Risk of Industry”
• Marketa Hejkalova, “Literary Translations and the Market”
• Vicent Salvador, “Literature, Market and Technological Change”

The moderator invites Ivo Frbežar, who has also prepared a text, to read it before the attendees:

• Ivo Frbežar, “The Book in the Diffusion New Cultural Market»

After the round table the discussion is opened to commentaries, which continue to delve deeper into the topics presented. Thus, for example, speakers address the responsibility of editors, who should take on their share of the protection of diversity and should avoid publishing only the great sales successes that standardize everything.

Those from China also stress that subsidies for politically persecuted writers cannot be expected from their country’s government and international networks of support must exist.

Someone also mentions that it would be useful to know in greater detail the situation of translations in countries where there are PEN centers. Simona Škrabec informs everyone that Catalan PEN, on the initiative of the Ramon Llull Institute, participated in a significant research project of PEN International that was done on this question in 2007, consisting of a survey of more than 30 countries and with 8 particularly interesting cases studied in depth (Esther Allen (ed.), To Be or Not to Be Translated, 2007).

Fifth session, June 18, 2010, from 11 am to 2 pm

In the fifth session, dedicated to briefings from the president and to routine matters, Josep-Maria Terricabras explains some important points:

Ten years ago the signing of the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights was achieved (June 6, 1996). Considering, however, the time that has passed, a new campaign is needed to revisit the issue, because there has been a great step backwards in international public opinion. As he noted the first day of the meeting, John Ralston Saul proposes to work in the direction of preparing a “Manifesto of Linguistic Diversity,” written in such a way that it could truly be heard in today’s media.

Terricabras insists, just as he did at the 2009 meeting in Barcelona, that there is little coordination among the different centers and also the international center in London. Also, an improvement in communication within the Committee is needed, creating a forum where specific topics could be discussed. Perhaps one solution would be to develop, from London, a web page that would require an editor responsible for the content and for encouraging participation.

Also suggested is the idea for meetings of the Committee to be organized at a more local level, for example in South America, in the Iberian Peninsula, among the countries of Central Europe, etc.

The preparations for the Congress in Tokyo are briefly discussed and the president asks the attendees if anyone has any important matter that should be presented in relation to the Committee of Translation and Linguistic Rights.

One of the possible proposals for the future would be to create an informational center that could prepare a report or even a database on the current situation in various countries in terms of literary translation. In any case, the Slovakian attendees reflect that this data is already well-studied and accessible, for example, through the National Libraries. The Chinese delegates note that the data is often insufficient and that it would be necessary to analyze what kind of books are translated and to try to find out why.

Philippe Pujas proposes to look into the possibility of having a PEN translation prize. The prize would not go to the translator, but to a specific work. In this way the translation of authors from cultures of less exposure could be encouraged, giving them greater international visibility. Eugene Schoulgin expresses his doubts because more than thirty cultures would have to be considered and that this could produce envy and misunderstanding. He is of the view, as are many other participants, that the prize would have to be for a translator. In this way awareness of the importance of translators’ work would grow. Marjan Strojan, moreover, adds that PEN’s literary prize already exists, which has great prestige, as it is connected to the “World Voices” festival in New York. Schoulguin admits that the recognition that American PEN has achieved is quite large, but complains of the lack of connections with other PEN centers. It would possibly be a good idea for the Committee to establish a closer relationship with the New York center. Everyone is again reminded that the European Union has for some years now been preparing a significant translation prize that will be granted a wide dissemination and perhaps a significant cash amount.

Franca Tiberto suggests that we should also establish a facile communications network so that, in this manner, we could keep ourselves up to date on all severe violations of linguistic rights that occur any place and react immediately. Furthermore, we could seek to found some kind of publication dedicated to the news on linguistic questions. John Ralston Saul adds that we could speak, for example, of all those cultures and languages that are truly in danger of immediate extinction. Schoulgin proposes that this Committee should look for ways to have more literary authors join PEN, which is to say that we should be capable of addressing the creators directly. The Chinese delegates explain that this was, in fact, the reason for founding a digital magazine about persecuted Chinese literature. They have thus been able to open a window to the world, as China is so closed in on itself that its international presence in the literary field is smaller than the Slovenian presence.

Josep Maria Terricabras concludes the meeting by leaving two open questions: How can we ensure that world literature respects the true diversity of literary creation in the world? Also, with so much overproduction of books, should we be more critical towards ourselves and self-limit our own “liberty of expression,” in order to publish only those texts that truly deserve it?

Having no more matters to deal with, the President addresses some words of thanks and bids farewell to all of the participants, and he declares concluded this second meeting in Barcelona, being 2 pm on June 18 of 2010. He then orders that these minutes be prepared and submitted to committee members for approval, in the manner established by the statute.


Barcelona, June 19, 2010

Simona Škrabec,
Secretary

Approved by,
Josep-Maria Terricabras,
President of the Committee