出版社：Department of English of Ateneo de Manila University
其他摘要：This paper studies three annotated translations into Filipino that have been inspired by the controversial historiographical movement called Pantayong Pananaw (from us-for us perspective), which argued for the use of the national language in academic study: San Agustin’s 1720 letter (by Dedina Lapar), Canseco’s 1897 account of Cavite during the Philippine Revolution (by Rhommel Hernandez), and Marx and Engel’s 1848 Communist Manifesto (by Zeus Salazar). In seeking to understand the translational practices that assist in the production and institutionalization of knowledge today, we ask: what transpires in the Filipinization of an account? In which way is translation significant to indigenization of knowledge? How is indigenization illustrated in translation? What uses do notes and annotations have in translation? On the one hand, foreign sources and theory can be appropriated in historiography through translation as it liberates foreign knowledge for use and application in the Filipino setting. Annotations, on the other hand, examine and validate the translated texts within the realities of Philippine culture.
Loading...
