REFLECTIONS ON THE ROLE OF TRANSLATION IN THE CIRCUMPOLAR WORLD: A COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO REGIONS OF THE INUIT HOMELANDS: THE CANADIAN ARCTIC AND GREENLAND

Resumo

A study of translation practices between languages exhibiting markedly asymmetrical indices of power and vitality, such as translations between Euro-origin settler languages and the indigenous languages of the Americas, raises questions of the historic role of translation in indigenous language endangerment while also suggesting the possibility of a positive role for translation in indigenous language revitalization projects. However, few translation scholars deal with issues of endangerment, just as few scholars of endangerment mention translation as a factor in (high or low) language vitality. For instance, the well-known UNESCO 2003 statement of language vitality doesn’t include translation (to or from) languages as one of its nine factors. Those translation scholars concerned with the issue are divided on the role of translation in colonial contact situations. Niranjana (1992) for instance, sees translation as part of the ideological structure of British rule in India, while Cronin (2003) argues that colonized minorities, such as the Irish, developed their language through translation, thereby resisting assimilation. So, both possibilities are theoretically open: translation in colonial contexts may be used either to develop or to restrict minority language vitality. This paper offers a comparative case study of translation and language contact between (i) on the one hand, two major varieties of Inuit Uqausingit (Inuit Language), one called Inuktitut (the majority official language in Canada’s Nunavut Territory) and the other called Kalaallisut (the majority, and only, official language of Kalaaliit Nunaat/ Greenland, a self-governing country associated with the Kingdom of Denmark), and (ii) on the other, English (in Nunavut) and Danish (in Greenland). The case study briefly reveals two different colonial histories, two different translation policies, two different language vitality outcomes, and argues that a key factor in the different outcomes (Inuktitut with “nothing to read” vs. Kalaalisut/Greenlandic with significant translated and indigenous literature) is their very different translation histories.