Translation studies
Translation studies is an academic interdiscipline dealing with the systematic study of the theory, description and application of translation, interpreting, and localization. As an interdiscipline, translation studies borrows much from the various fields of study that support translation. These include comparative literature, computer science, history, linguistics, philology, philosophy, semiotics, and terminology.
The term “translation studies” was coined by the Amsterdam-based American scholar James S. Holmes in his 1972 paper “The name and nature of translation studies”, which is considered a foundational statement for the discipline. Writers in English occasionally use the term "translatology" to refer to translation studies, and the corresponding French term for the discipline is usually traductologie. In the United States, there is a preference for the term "translation and interpreting studies", although European tradition includes interpreting within translation studies.
History
Early studies
Historically, translation studies has long been "prescriptive", to the point that discussions of translation that were not prescriptive were generally not considered to be about translation at all. When historians of translation studies trace early Western thought about translation, for example, they most often set the beginning at the renowned orator Cicero's remarks on how he used translation from Greek to Latin to improve his oratorical abilities—an early description of what Jerome ended up calling sense-for-sense translation. The descriptive history of interpreters in Egypt provided by Herodotus several centuries earlier is typically not thought of as translation studies—presumably because it does not tell translators how to translate. In China, the discussion on how to translate originated with the translation of Buddhist sutras during the Han dynasty.Calls for an academic discipline
In 1958, at the Fourth Congress of Slavists in Moscow, the debate between linguistic and literary approaches to translation reached a point where it was proposed that the best thing might be to have a separate science that was able to study all forms of translation, without being wholly within linguistics or wholly within literary studies. Within comparative literature, translation workshops were promoted in the 1960s in some American universities like the University of Iowa and Princeton.During the 1950s and 1960s, systematic linguistic-oriented studies of translation began to appear. In 1958, the French linguists Jean-Paul Vinay and Jean Darbelnet carried out a contrastive comparison of French and English. In 1964, Eugene Nida published Toward a Science of Translating, a manual for Bible translation influenced to some extent by Harris's transformational grammar. In 1965, J. C. Catford theorized translation from a linguistic perspective. In the 1960s and early 1970s, the Czech scholar Jiří Levý and the Slovak scholars Anton Popovič and František Miko worked on the stylistics of literary translation.
These initial steps toward research on literary translation were collected in James S. Holmes' paper at the Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics held in Copenhagen in 1972. In that paper, "The name and nature of translation studies", Holmes asked for the consolidation of a separate discipline and proposed a classification of the field. A visual "map" of Holmes' proposal was later presented by Gideon Toury in his 1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond.
Before the 1990s, translation scholars tended to form particular schools of thought, particularly within the prescriptive, descriptive and Skopos paradigms. Since the "cultural turn" in the 1990s, the discipline has tended to divide into separate fields of inquiry, where research projects run parallel to each other, borrowing methodologies from each other and from other academic disciplines.
Schools of thought
The main schools of thought on the level of research have tended to cluster around key theoretical concepts, most of which have become objects of debate.Equivalence
Through to the 1950s and 1960s, discussions in translation studies tended to concern how best to attain "equivalence". The term "equivalence" had two distinct meanings, corresponding to different schools of thought. In the Russian tradition, "equivalence" was usually a one-to-one correspondence between linguistic forms, or a pair of authorized technical terms or phrases, such that "equivalence" was opposed to a range of "substitutions". However, in the French tradition of Vinay and Darbelnet, drawing on Bally, "equivalence" was the attainment of equal functional value, generally requiring changes in form. Catford's notion of equivalence in 1965 was as in the French tradition. In the course of the 1970s, Russian theorists adopted the wider sense of "equivalence" as something resulting from linguistic transformations.At about the same time, the Interpretive Theory of Translation introduced the notion of deverbalized sense into translation studies, drawing a distinction between word correspondences and sense equivalences, and showing the difference between dictionary definitions of words and phrases and the sense of texts or fragments thereof in a given context.
The discussions of equivalence accompanied typologies of translation solutions, as in Fedorov and Vinay and Darbelnet. In 1958, Loh Dianyang's Translation: Its Principles and Techniques drew on Fedorov and English linguistics to present a typology of translation solutions between Chinese and English.
In these traditions, discussions of the ways to attain equivalence have mostly been prescriptive and have been related to translator training.
Descriptive translation studies
Descriptive translation studies aims at building an empirical descriptive discipline, to fill one section of the Holmes map. The idea that scientific methodology could be applicable to cultural products had been developed by the Russian Formalists in the early years of the 20th century, and had been recovered by various researchers in comparative literature. It was now applied to literary translation. Part of this application was the theory of polysystems in which translated literature is seen as a sub-system of the receiving or target literary system. Gideon Toury bases his theory on the need to consider translations as "facts of the target culture" for the purposes of research. The concepts of "manipulation" and "patronage" have also been developed in relation to literary translations.Skopos theory
Another discovery in translation theory can be dated from 1984 in Europe and the publication of two books in German: Foundation for a General Theory of Translation by Katharina Reiss and Hans Vermeer, and Translatorial Action by Justa Holz-Mänttäri. From these two came what is known as Skopos theory, which gives priority to the purpose to be fulfilled by the translation instead of prioritizing equivalence.Cultural translation
The cultural turn meant still another step forward in the development of the discipline. It was sketched by Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere in Translation - History - Culture, and quickly represented by the exchanges between translation studies and other area studies and concepts: gender studies, cannibalism, post-colonialism or cultural studies, among others.The concept of "cultural translation" largely ensues from Homi Bhabha's reading of Salman Rushdie in The Location of Culture. Cultural translation is a concept used in cultural studies to denote the process of transformation, linguistic or otherwise, in a given culture. The concept uses linguistic translation as a tool or metaphor in analyzing the nature of transformation and interchange in cultures.
Fields of inquiry
Translation history
Translation history concerns the history of translators as a professional and social group, as well as the history of translations as indicators of the way cultures develop, interact and may die. Some principles for translation history have been proposed by Lieven D'hulst and Pym. Major projects in translation history have included the Oxford History of Literary Translation in English and Histoire des traductions en langue française.Historical anthologies of translation theories have been compiled by Robinson for Western theories up to Nietzsche; by D'hulst for French theories, 1748–1847; by Santoyo for the Spanish tradition; by Edward Balcerzan for the Polish experience, 1440–1974; and by Cheung for Chinese.
Sociologies of translation
The sociology of translation includes the study of who translators are, what their forms of work are and what data on translations can say about the movements of ideas between languages. Languages themselves can therefore be understood as actors in the transfer of translations. Sociology of translation is therefore related to Bourdieu's field theory, in which symbolic capital is transferred between actors. As Bachleitner and Wolf argue, the position of authors and translator in their respective fields based on their accumulated capital, significantly influences the literary transfer and circulation of translations. Hence, sociology of translation asks the following questions:Eine ''Kernfrage der Übersetzungssoziologie lautet also: Welche AkteurInnen und welche Milieus der Zielkultur nehmen sich der übersetzerischen Vermittlung eines bestimmten Texts an? Welche Interessen werden dadurch bedient?''