New Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies

20 October, 2006

Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona (Spain)

Ljuba Tarvi (Tallinn University)

Classification of Translation Models:

A Map or a Matrix?

Problems to discuss

• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?

Problems to discuss

• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?

• What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field?

Problems to discuss

• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?

• What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field?

• What might be the ‘center of gravity’ when delineating the field?

Problems to discuss

• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?

• What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field?

• What might be the ‘center of gravity’ when delineating the field?

• In what way could theory help practice?

Karl Popper’s three worlds

World 1 (W1) - the world of physical objects

Karl Popper’s three worlds

World 1 (W1) - the world of physical objects

World 2 (W2) - the world of mental objects/events

Karl Popper’s three worlds

World 1 (W1) - the world of physical objects

World 2 (W2) - the world of mental objects/events

World 3 (W3) - the world of products of the human mind, including linguistic products

Popper’s worlds: interactions

W2 - W1

__________________

W3 (W1)

Popper’s worlds

W2 (mental objects and events)__________________________

W3 (products of human mind)

Popper’s worlds: interaction

W2 (mental objects and events) __________________________

???

_________________________

W3 (products of human mind)

James Holmes (1988:72)

There would seem to be three major kinds of research in DTS, which may be distinguished by their focus as

product oriented,

function-oriented, and

process-oriented.

Holmes’ three major kinds of research

process-oriented translation psychologyW2

function-oriented translation sociologyfunction

product-oriented comparative translation description

W3

Holmes’ kinds of research & Popper’s worlds

HOLMES: POPPER:process-orientedtranslation psychology W2

function-orientedtranslation sociology function?

product-orientedcomparative description W3

Function

• Literary function is a variable notion of how texts (W3) are connected to the language (W3), its users (W2), and culture (functional space of W2-W3 interaction).

Function

• Literary function is a variable notion of how texts (W3) are connected to the language (W3), its users (W2), and culture (functional space of W2-W3 interaction).

• Function is a dynamic concept considering human agents (and texts produced by them) within cultural (society, ideology, politics, economy, etc.) context.

Interface 1

W2 (mental objects and events)

_______________________

JH: function/sociology

_______________________

W3 (products of human mind)

Interface 2

W2 (mental objects and events)

______________________JH: function/sociology

GT: parts/whole: functional relationship

______________________

W3 (products of human mind)

Interface 3

W2 (mental objects and events)

______________________JH: function/sociology

GT: parts/whole: functional relationship

SWH: linguistic determinism/relativity ______________________

W3 (products of human mind)

Interface 4

W2 (mental objects and events)___________________________

JH: function/sociologyGT: parts/whole: functional relationshipSWH: linguistic determinism/relativity

RF: functional value-driven interaction ___________________________W3 (products of human mind)

A ‘function space’

“A variable quantity regarded in its relation

to one or more other variables in terms of

which it may be expressed, or on the value

of which its own value depends” (TOED, p.

263)

Scheme 1

W2 (mental objects and events)

___________________________

Function space ___________________________

W3 (products of human mind)

Scheme 2

W2 (I individual)

W2 (I functional)

___________________________

Function space ___________________________

W3 (products of human mind)

W3: properties

(1) W3 is autonomous

(2) W3 is timeless

(3) W3 has a history

(4) W3 is internally logical

‘institution’ (e.g., TOT, p. 225)

• establishment, institute, academy, foundation, university, college, school

• custom, tradition, habit, practice, routine, rule, order (of the day), code (of practice), doctrine, dogma

‘institution’ (e.g., TOT, p. 225)

• establishment, institute, academy, foundation, university, college, school

INSTITUTION

• custom, tradition, habit, practice, routine, rule, order (of the day), code (of practice), doctrine, dogma

NORM

Scheme 3

W2 (I individual)W2 (I functional)

___________________________Function space

___________________________W3 (norms)

W3 (institutions)W3 (texts)

Scheme 4

W2 (I individual)W2 (I functional)

__________________________FUNCTION SPACE

___________________________↑ W3 (norms) ↑

↑ W3 (institutions) ↑W3 (texts)

Scheme 5

W2 (I individual)↓ W2 (I functional) ↓

__________________________FUNCTION SPACE

___________________________↑ W3 (norms) ↑

↑ W3 (institutions) ↑W3 (texts)

Scheme 6

W2 (I individual)

__________________________

W2 (I functional)

W3 (norms)

W3 (institutions)

___________________________

W3 (texts)

Ideology - culture

Ideology is the set of ideas, values and beliefs that govern a community by virtue of being regarded as a norm.

(Calzada-Pérez 1997:35)

Culture is an integrated system of learned behavior patterns that are characteristic of the members of any given society.

(Khol 1984:17)

Norms – ideology - culture

culture

ideology

NORMS

NORMS

(1) official standards or levels that organizations are expected to reach

(2) ways of behaving that are considered normal in a particular society

Synonyms: criterion patternaverage yardstickbenchmark rule

Scheme 7

W2 (I individual)

__________________________

W2 (I functional)

W3 (norms)

W3 (institutions)

___________________________

W3 (texts)

Matrix of Translation Studies: Spaces

Source nation

A

W2 (individual)

Intercultural Space

I/T

Target nation

R

W2 (individual)

Source culture

W2 (functional)

Function SpaceInternational relations

Target culture

W2 (functional)

W3 (source norms)

SN

Function SpaceInternational norms

W3 (target norms)

TN

W3 (institutions) Function SpaceInternational institutions

W3 (institutions)

W3 (source language)

ST

Interlinguistic Space W3 (target language)

TT

Matrix of Translation Studies: Actors

A

I/T

R

SN

TN

ST TT

A paradigm: major features

• it is used by a group of researchers (social facet),

• who share the same conceptual values (theoretical facet) and

• the same rules and standards for scientific practice (empirical facet), and

• is open-ended (temporal facet).

James Holmes

Translated!

Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988

James Holmes 1988

A

I/T

PROCESS

R

PROCESS

SN

FUNCTION

TN

FUNCTION

ST

PRODUCT

TT

PRODUCT

Theo Hermans

Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained.

Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1999.

Theo Hermans 1999

A

I/T

R

READER-ORIENTED

SN

CULTURE-BOUND

TN

CULTURE-BOUND

ST

TEXT-ORIENTED

TT

TEXT-ORIENTED

Albrecht Neubert

“Theory and practice of translation studies revisited. 25 years of translator training in Europe.”

In A. Beeby, D. Ensinger & M. Preasas, (Eds.), Investigating Translation. Selected Papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998 (pp. 13-26).

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000.

Albrecht Neubert 2000

A

I/T

R

SN

interdisciplinary

TN

interdisciplinary

ST contrastive-linguistics text-linguistic TT

Andrew Chesterman

“A causal model for translation studies.”

In M. Olohan (Ed.),

Intercultural Faultness. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp. 15-27).

Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2000.

Andrew Chesterman 2000

A

I/T

PROCESS

R

PROCESS

SN

CAUSAL

TN

CAUSAL

ST

PRODUCT

TT

PRODUCT

Juliane House

“How do we know when a translation is good?”

In (eds: Steiner & Yallop) Exploring Translation and Multilingual Language Production: Beyond Content (pp. 127-160).

Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001.

Juliana House 2001

A

I/T

RRESPONSE-BASED

NEO-HERMENEUTIC

SN

LITERATURE-ORIENTED

FUNCTIONALISTIC

POST-MODERNIST TN

STLINGUISTIC-ORIENTED

TTLINGUISTIC-ORIENTED

Tarvi 2006

A

I/T

introspective

accountability

R

readability

SN

applied: education

applied: criticism

applied: tools

research

benchmark

policy

communication

discourse TN

functionalist

polysystem

cultural

ST linguistics

text-linguistic

acceptability TT

Problems discussed

• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?

• What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field?

• What might be the ‘center of gravity’ when delineating the field?

• In what way could theory help practice?

Problems to be discussed

• In what other ways is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?

• What other units of structuring the field can be suggested?

• What other ‘centers of gravity’ can be employed to structure the field?

• Do we need theoretical constructs to help practice?

A Map or a Matrix?

ljuba.tarvi@elisanet.fi