219-7677 10 7500817 John Benjamins Publishing Company Marketing Department / Karin Plijnaar, Pieter Lamers onix@benjamins.nl 201807200853 ONIX title feed eng 01 EUR
806017537 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code BTL 132 Eb 15 9789027265760 06 10.1075/btl.132 13 2017016300 DG 002 02 01 BTL 02 0929-7316 Benjamins Translation Library 132 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Reflections on Translation Theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Selected papers 1993 - 2014</Subtitle> 01 btl.132 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/btl.132 1 A01 Andrew Chesterman Chesterman, Andrew Andrew Chesterman University of Helsinki 01 eng 406 x 396 LAN023000 v.2006 CFP 2 24 JB Subject Scheme TRAN.TRANSL Translation Studies 06 01 Originally published in different journals and collected volumes, these papers in conceptual analysis cover some central topics in translation theory and research: types of theory and hypothesis; causality and explanation; norms, strategies and so-called universals; translation sociology, and ethics. There are critical reviews of Catford’s theory, and of Skopos theory, and of Kundera’s views on literary translation, and detailed analyses of the literal translation hypothesis and the unique items hypothesis. The methodological discussions, which draw on work in the philosophy of science, will be of special relevance to younger researchers, for example those starting work on a doctorate. Some of the arguments and positions defended – for instance on the significant status of conceptual, interpretive hypotheses, and the ideal of consilience – relate to wider ongoing debates, and will interest any scholar who is concerned about the increasing fragmentation of the field and about the future of Translation Studies. Let the dialogue continue! 05 <i>Reflections on Translation Theory</i> ultimately demonstrates the significance of Chesterman’s work to translation theory. He offers an important, questioning voice in the discipline that does not allow anything to be taken for granted. His writing is refreshingly clear, but he is not afraid of complexity when it is necessary. While his style might be relatively straightforward and easy to read, the ideas he grapples with can be quite large and imposing. There is much to learn from reading Chesterman’s work, even if we disagree with it: even then, he points out ways in which we can develop our thinking about translation. Jonathan Evans, University of Portsmouth, in Target 30:1 (2018) 05 This collection of papers brings together more than two decades of writings on translation by one of the leading international Translation Studies experts. The selection reflects the trajectory of Andrew Chesterman’s thinking about the phenomenon of translation, with special emphasis on conceptual analysis and research methodology. He writes about translation theory, hypotheses, norms, causality, explanation and translation ethics in a thoughtful and intellectually stimulating manner. This book is essential reading for scholars and postgraduate students of translation alike. Christina Schäffner, Aston University 05 Chesterman’s new book is valuable and a timely contribution to the field of Translation Studies. The paradox of fragmentation and shared ground will never cease existing as interdisciplinarity expands the research territory of TS while unification consolidates the foundation of the field. With a critical review over what has been achieved in TS, the book is a must-read not only for translation scholars, but also for translators as well as those who are interested in Translation Studies. Pan Hanting and Wang Yuechen, Sun Yat-sen University / Nanyang Technological University, in Babel 64:2 (2018) 05 The volume is logically structured and orderly. The collection indeed inspires and will inspire critical and in-depth thinking. The author does not impose anything on the readers, but constantly keeps them informed of why a particular definition, for example, is preferred and alerts readers of potential weaknesses in his own thinking as well as in the thinking of those who have influenced his ideas about translation. The volume is definitely a valuable and precious contribution to the translation studies literature, which will inspire generations of researchers. Elena Gheorghita, Moldova State University, on Linguist List 29.2612 05 Two decades of the best recent thinking about translation theory and its fundamental concepts. A superb achievement. Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, Copenhagen Business School 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/btl.132.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027258786.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027258786.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/btl.132.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/btl.132.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/btl.132.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/btl.132.hb.png 10 01 JB code btl.132.pre ix x 2 Miscellaneous 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Preface</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.p1 1 41 41 Section header 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section I. Some general issues</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c1 3 16 14 Chapter 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 1. On the idea of a theory</TitleText> 20 description 20 explanation 20 hypothesis 20 metaphor 20 myth 20 structured research programme 20 theory 01 This article is based on a lecture that has been given to several groups of doctoral students at various times and in various places. It outlines five notions of what has been taken to constitute a “theory”: myth, metaphor, model, hypothesis and structured research programme. The most fundamental of these is the hypothesis. These different ideas of what a theory can be are illustrated with examples from Translation Studies. Any theory aims at description and explanation, and these two concepts are also discussed. A final comment takes up the idea that translations themselves are theories, and that a translator is thus a theorist or theoros. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c2 17 24 8 Chapter 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 2. Shared ground in Translation Studies</TitleText> 20 definition 20 essentialism 20 explanation 20 meaning 20 translation effects 01 The authors propose thirty “theses” concerning translation that might be accepted by scholars coming from different philosophical and research backgrounds. The “theses” have to do with the definition of ‘translation’, where we might look for causal explanations, and assumptions about translation effects. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c3 25 33 9 Chapter 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 3. What constitutes “progress” in Translation Studies?</TitleText> 20 applied science 20 empirical science 20 explanation 20 hermeneutic discipline 20 paradigm 20 progress 01 Translation Studies is sometimes taken to be an applied science, sometimes a hermeneutic discipline, and sometimes an empirical human science. Each of these views has a different idea of what would be understood as progress: different criteria. We do not have a shared paradigm in TS, but we might one day arrive at one by bringing together different kinds of explanation. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c4 35 41 7 Chapter 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 4. Towards consilience?</TitleText> 20 bridge concept 20 brief 20 causality 20 consilience 20 effect 20 interdiscipline 20 norm 20 strategy 01 Since Translation Studies is an interdiscipline, there is a risk that it will become fragmented into separate subfields with no connections between them. The paper proposes that in order to prevent this development, we could focus on bridge concepts such as causality, which can show links between textual, cognitive, cultural and sociological approaches to translation. This might promote the ideal of consilience, the unity of all knowledge. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p2 43 93 51 Section header 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section II. Descriptive and prescriptive</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c5 45 54 10 Chapter 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 5. The empirical status of prescriptivism</TitleText> 20 descriptivism 20 effect 20 empiricism 20 hypothesis 20 prescriptivism 01 Many translators evidently think that translation theory has little to contribute to translation practice. One reason for this view may be the shift to a descriptive approach in recent decades, aiming to describe and explain translations but not directly tell translators how to translate. However, traditional prescriptive guidelines can easily be seen as predictive hypotheses concerning translation effects: translate like this, because otherwise I predict that the client will not like it! Descriptive empirical research on the effects of different kinds of translation choices can produce relevant information for translators. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c6 55 70 16 Chapter 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 6. Skopos theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A retrospective assessment</Subtitle> 20 action theory 20 descriptive adequacy 20 explanatory adequacy 20 metaphor 20 prescriptive theory 20 relevance theory 20 skopos 20 value-free science 01 This is a critical assessment of skopos theory, looking at its basic assumptions, its problematic empirical and ontological status (descriptive or prescriptive?), and its conceptual and pedagogical contributions. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c7 71 79 9 Chapter 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 7. Catford revisited</TitleText> 20 Catford 20 data 20 equivalence 20 grammar 20 Halliday 20 linguistics 20 meaning 20 shift 01 The article casts a critical retrospective glance over Catford’s influential contribution to Translation Studies. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of tying a translation theory to a linguistic theory are discussed, together with the problems of building a deductive theory relying mainly on invented examples. Catford’s evident interest in machine translation is noted, and also his incorporation of pragmatic aspects such as relevance. The distinction drawn between equivalence and correspondence is theoretically important, and his analysis of translation shifts has been highly influential on later work. His definition of translation as textual replacement rather than meaning transfer, and his language-bound concept of meaning itself, have been much debated. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c8 81 93 13 Chapter 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 8. The descriptive paradox, or how theory can affect practice</TitleText> 20 descriptive theory 20 Finnish 20 norms 20 practice 20 universals 01 The paper discusses and illustrates the potential tension between theory and the practice that it describes, beginning with the claim by Jean Boase-Beier that theory can affect translation practice. By way of introduction, a comparison is made with the way artists are influenced by theories e.g. of perspective and colour, following Gombrich. With respect to translation practice, three possible channels are proposed whereby theory might affect practice: prescriptive teaching, tacit theory, and descriptive theory. Each of these channels raises problems. Prescriptive theory is mentioned only briefly; most translators nowadays are untrained. More attention is given to tacit, implicit theory, and its role in the practice of (trained or untrained) translators. But the main focus is on the descriptive paradox itself, as manifested in Descriptive Translation Studies. This paradox arises when the act of describing affects the phenomenon described, so that the description itself no longer fits. The author then draws on his own experience of how his explicit knowledge of translation theory may have influenced his translation of a Finnish novel (Canal Grande, by Hannu Raittila; not yet published in English). He is not entirely convinced, however, that he can actually prove the influence of theory in this case. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p3 95 164 70 Section header 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section III. Causality and explanation</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c9 97 121 25 Chapter 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 9. Causes, translations, effects</TitleText> 20 causality 20 laws of translation effect 20 prescriptive statement 20 translation profile 20 translation typology 01 Conceptual analysis has a role to play in translation studies, but it is a means, not an end. An empirical paradigm gives central importance to testable hypotheses. Empirical research on translation profiles should result in a translation typology: one such typology is discussed. Translations have multiple causes, and we can already propose some possible causal laws. Three laws of translation effect are also proposed, and various parameters of effect are discussed, together with the associated problems of sampling and prescriptivism. I argue that prescriptive statements are hypotheses about translation effects; as such, they should be tested like any other hypothesis. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c10 123 135 13 Chapter 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 10. A causal model for Translation Studies</TitleText> 20 causality 20 effect 20 hypothesis 20 model 20 universal 01 Three basic models of translation are used in translation research. The first is a comparative model, which aligns translations either with their source texts or with parallel (untranslated) texts and examines correlations between the two. This model is evident in contrastive studies. The second model is a process model, which maps different phases of the translation process over time. This model is represented by communication approaches, and also by some protocol approaches. The third model is a causal one, in which translations are explicitly seen both as caused by antecedent conditions and as causing effects on readers and cultures. The four standard kinds of hypotheses (interpretive, descriptive, explanatory and predictive) are outlined and illustrated with reference to the phenomenon of retranslation. Only the causal modal can accommodate all four types, and it is hence the most fruitful model for future development in Translation Studies. Descriptive hypotheses (such as statements about universals or laws) can have explanatory force, but almost all causal influences are filtered through the individual translator’s mind, through particular decisions made by the translator at a given time. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c11 137 146 10 Chapter 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 11. Semiotic modalities in translation causality</TitleText> 20 causality 20 Greimas 20 modality 20 subjectivity 20 translation 01 A common feature of much modern translation research is the notion of causality. This is true not only of empirical descriptive research and applied studies, but also of hermeneutic studies, since concepts influence action. Different approaches focus on different kinds and levels of cause and effect. Some focus on the broad socio-cultural context, some on the situational level (translation event), some on the cognitive level (translation act) and some on the linguistic level of the translation product itself (translation profile). Aristotle’s classification of kinds of cause has already been applied in translation studies. This paper proposes an analysis of translation causality, based on Greimas’ modalities of faire, être, devoir, savoir, pouvoir and vouloir. It is argued that the study of causality does not imply a deterministic standpoint; that translation causality must include the translator’s subjectivity; and that the search for regularities in cause-effect relations does not imply a neglect of what is unique about every translation. A causal reading of the modalities of être, devoir, savoir, pouvoir and vouloir as factors influencing the translator’s action (faire) allows us to relate different kinds of causes at different levels, including the individual translator. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c12 147 164 18 Chapter 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 12. On explanation</TitleText> 20 causality 20 explanation 20 generalization 20 unification 01 As Descriptive Translation Studies expands its goals to include explanatory hypotheses in addition to descriptive ones, it has made use of different notions of explanation, all of which are relevant to Gideon Toury’s work. This essay analyses these different notions in the light of some work in the philosophy of science, beginning with the apparent contrast between explanation and understanding. It then focuses on explanation in terms of generalization, causality, and unification. The crucial concept underlying all these is that of a relation. This point of view also allows a characterization of what is meant by explanatory power, and shows how explanation can emerge from description. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p4 165 191 27 Section header 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section IV. Norms</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c13 167 183 17 Chapter 18 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 13. From ‘is’ to ‘ought’</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Laws, norms and strategies in Translation Studies</Subtitle> 20 ethics 20 explanation 20 Jodl 20 law 20 norm theory 20 professional 20 strategy 01 Translation studies need to cater for both description and evaluation. This can be achieved via the study of translation norms. The norms governing translation are: (a) professional norms concerning the translation process (= norms of accountability, communication and target-source relation); and (b) expectancy norms concerning the form of the translation product, based on the expectations of the prospective readership. While general translation laws account for the behaviour of translators in general, normative laws describe the translation behaviour of a subset of translators, namely, competent professionals, who establish the norms. Normative laws originate in rational, norm-directed strategies which are observed to be used by professionals. These laws are empirical, spatio-temporally falsifiable, probabilistic, predictive and explanatory. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c14 185 191 7 Chapter 19 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 14. A note on norms and evidence</TitleText> 20 explanation 20 hypothesis 20 norm 20 normative force 20 regularity 20 testing 01 There are two senses of the concept “norm”: one is descriptive and weakly explanatory, and the other is causal or prescriptive and more strongly explanatory. Studying norms in the causal sense means looking for plausible links between observed regularities and evidence of normative force: this may be found in belief statements, in criticism of norm-breaking, or in norm statements. Norms are explanatory hypotheses, and can be tested in various ways. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p5 193 221 29 Section header 20 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section V. Similarities and differences</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c15 195 199 5 Chapter 21 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 15. On similarity</TitleText> 20 Contrastive Analysis 20 equivalence 20 similarity 20 Tversky, Sovran 01 This short paper outlines some research in logic and pragmatics that sheds interesting light on the concept of similarity. A recent proposal (Sovran 1992) suggests that there are two basic kinds of similarity: divergent and convergent. These seem to be directly relevant to how we conceptualize equivalence in Translation Studies and in Contrastive Analysis, respectively. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c16 201 211 11 Chapter 22 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 16. Problems with strategies</TitleText> 20 equivalence 20 method 20 shift 20 similarity 20 strategy 20 technique 01 The term “translation strategy” has been used by various translation scholars to describe different kinds of textual procedures used by translators. Other terms that have been proposed for these or related concepts include techniques, procedures, shifts, operations, transfers, changes, methods, trajections and transformations. There actually seem to be more terms than concepts. This paper offers a critical analysis of some of the conceptual and terminological problems in this area of translation studies. Distinctions are made between concepts pertaining to result and to process; linguistic vs. cognitive levels; problem-solving vs. routine procedures; and global vs. local strategies. Different systems of strategy classification are briefly compared, and the problem of their operationalization and application is raised, particularly with respect to their use as pedagogical tools. Finally, a terminological and conceptual solution is proposed which takes into account the main distinctions discussed and also shows links between this conceptual field and two other areas of translation studies: translation typology and equivalence typology. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c17 213 221 9 Chapter 23 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 17. The unbearable lightness of English words</TitleText> 20 Contrastive Analysis 20 Finnish 20 salience 20 shifts 20 silence 01 The paper postulates a “rhetorical salience threshold” which may have different heights in different languages. This threshold marks the point at which a given item of information or component of meaning is judged to be salient enough to be worth expressing. In translation, if source and target languages have different salience thresholds, rhetorical adjustments may need to be made which have the effect of “toning down” or “toning up” the salience. If there is no such rhetorical compensation, the translation may sound either “too pompous” or “a bit pathetic”. Evidence is offered which suggests that Finnish and English have different salience thresholds: the English threshold seems lower than the Finnish one. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p6 223 224 2 Section header 24 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section VI. Hypotheses</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c18 225 236 12 Chapter 25 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 18. The status of interpretive hypotheses</TitleText> 20 hermeneutics 20 hypothesis 20 meaning 20 method 01 In the natural sciences the task of the researcher is usually seen as the generation and testing of hypotheses. These hypotheses are taken to be possible answers to questions concerning the description, prediction, and explanation of natural phenomena. But there is also another kind of hypothesis, an interpretive hypothesis. The status of interpretive hypotheses is not as clear as that of descriptive, predictive or explanatory ones. This paper aims to clarify this status, showing the respects in which interpretive hypotheses are like other kinds, and the respects in which they are different. Hermeneutic research methods based on the generation and testing of interpretive hypotheses do not seem fundamentally different from those of traditional empirical sciences. Interpretive hypotheses simply apply to different kinds of data. They can be particularly relevant to the research goal of explanation. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c19 237 249 13 Chapter 26 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 19. Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis</TitleText> 20 hypothesis 20 literal translation 20 research methodology 20 revision 01 This paper examines the well-known literal translation hypothesis and discusses its significance for translation theory. The hypothesis claims that as translators process a given text chunk, they tend to start from a literal version of the target text, and then work towards a freer version. The idea has been implied or explicitly studied by many scholars, and does not seem to have a single source. After some preliminary conceptual analysis an optimal formulation of the hypothesis is proposed. The paper then assesses the hypothesis in terms of the kinds of wider significance any hypothesis can have. The criteria discussed are testability, relations with other hypotheses, applicability, surprise value and explanatory power. Some of Englund Dimitrova’s research (2005) on the hypothesis is discussed. A rather different study, by Lieselott Nordman (2009), is argued to have implications for the broader contextualization of the hypothesis. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p7 251 252 2 Section header 27 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section VII. “Universals”</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c20 253 267 15 Chapter 28 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 20. Beyond the particular</TitleText> 20 fallacy 20 generalization 20 regularity 20 tendency 20 universals 01 Translation scholars have proposed and sought generalizations about translation from various perspectives. This paper discusses three main ways of getting “beyond the particular”: traditional prescriptive statements, traditional critical statements, and the contemporary search for universals in corpus studies. There are a number of problems with each of the approaches. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c21 269 279 11 Chapter 29 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 21. What is a unique item?</TitleText> 20 Tirkkonen-Condit 20 under-representation 20 unique items hypothesis 20 universals 01 The so-called unique items hypothesis claims that translations tend to contain fewer “unique items” than comparable non-translated texts. This is proposed as a potential translation universal, or at least a general tendency. A unique item is one that is in some sense specific to the target language and is presumably not so easily triggered by a source-language item that is formally different; it thus tends to be under-represented in translations. The concept of a unique item is not well-defined, however. Drawing on some earlier work on transfer, contrastive and error analysis, this article offers a critical analysis of the concept, and raises a number of methodological issues concerning research on the topic. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c22 281 294 14 Chapter 30 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 22. Kundera’s sentence</TitleText> 20 Kafka 20 Kundera 20 literal translation 20 Simmel’s stranger 20 style 20 universals 01 This paper is an analysis of Kundera’s essay “Une phrase” (‘A sentence’), where he criticizes French translations of a sentence in Kafka’s novel Das Schloß (‘The castle’). Kundera argues that literary translators must be as literal as possible, sticking close to every detail of the author’s style. I suggest that this position is based on a dubious assumption about the universal effects of stylistic features. I then relate Kundera’s view to some aspects of his life, with reference to Simmel’s sociological concept of the stranger. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c23 295 303 9 Chapter 31 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 23. Universalism in Translation Studies</TitleText> 20 generalization 20 hypothesis testing 20 metaphor 20 terminology, Popper 20 universals 01 It is sometimes said that the way to develop current translation theory is to look at specifically non-Euro-centric and non-Western approaches and learn from them. Against such a position I take a Popperian view. I argue that this proposal is flawed because it commits the genetic fallacy, where an idea or hypothesis is assessed according to its origin. Rather, any hypothesis should be tested as widely as possible, regardless of where it comes from. This includes taking account of the context of discovery. I illustrate my main point with reference to some basic conceptualizations of translation (such as the transfer metaphor), so-called translation universals, and the debate about whether translation studies should have a standardized terminology. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p8 305 343 39 Section header 32 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section VIII. The sociological turn</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c24 307 321 15 Chapter 33 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 24. Questions in the sociology of translation</TitleText> 20 Actor Network Theory 20 context 20 culture 20 model 20 research questions 20 sociology 20 translation practice 01 This paper welcomes the current interest in a sociological approach in Translation Studies, as a way of focusing on part of the wider context of translation. Three sub-areas are distinguished: the sociology of translations as products, the sociology of translators, and the sociology of the translation process. Some current sociological models are outlined, and the notion of a ‘translation practice’ is introduced as a central component in a sociological approach. Actor Network Theory is outlined as a potentially useful framework, and a number of possible research questions are suggested. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c25 323 329 7 Chapter 34 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 25. The name and nature of Translator Studies</TitleText> 20 agent model 20 Holmes 20 policy 20 sociology 20 translator 01 A number of recent research tendencies in Translation Studies focus explicitly on the translator in some way, rather than on translations as texts. These trends might be grouped under the term “Translator Studies”. The article argues that this new focus is inadequately represented in Holmes’ classic map. Evidence of the recent trends is found especially in translation sociology, but also in translation history and in research into the translator’s decision-making processes. A broad outline of Translator Studies would cover sociology, culture and cognition, all looking at the translator’s agency, in different ways. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c26 331 343 13 Chapter 35 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 26. Models of what processes?</TitleText> 20 translation act 20 translation event 20 translation model 20 translation practice 20 translation process 01 Toury (1995, 2012) distinguishes between cognitive translation acts on the one hand, and sociological translation events on the other; a translation act is embedded in a translation event, and both acts and events are seen as processes. He also explains three senses of ‘translation problem’, which relate to different notions of the processes involved in the translation act. The present paper analyses and develops these ideas. It distinguishes between what are here labelled virtual, reverse-engineered and actual processes of translation acts or events, which correlate with Toury’s three senses of ‘translation problem’. A few examples are given of models of each kind of process, both classical and more recent ones. Also discussed is the extent to which the various models are predictive and hence testable. To designate the translation process at the historical and cultural level, alongside the mental act and the situational event, the term ‘translation practice’ is suggested. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p9 345 368 24 Section header 36 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section IX. Translation ethics</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c27 347 361 15 Chapter 37 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 27. Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath</TitleText> 20 commitment 20 ethics 20 excellence 20 MacIntyre 20 oath 20 values 20 virtues 01 Four current models of translation ethics are described, based on the ideas of representation, service, communication, and norms. There are problems with all these models: they are in several respects incompatible, and have different ranges of application. An alternative approach is therefore offered based on Alasdair MacIntyre’s ideas about virtues and the deontic force of excellence in a social practice. This leads to a fifth possible model, an ethics of professional commitment: cf. Maria Tymoczko’s suggestion that translation is a commissive act. At the centre of such a model there might be an official oath, comparable e.g. to the Hippocratic Oath for the medical profession. I end with a proposal for a Hieronymic Oath for translators. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c28 363 368 6 Chapter 38 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 28. An ethical decision</TitleText> 20 [Moster] 20 ethics 20 intervention 20 reception 20 responsibility 20 visibility 01 The article presents and discusses a tricky ethical problem posed by the German translator of a Finnish novel. The case illustrates the complex ways in which potential reader reactions can affect a translator’s decision. The discussion compares how different models of translation ethics would analyse this particular example. There are also implications concerning the translator’s visibility, and the idea of translation as a kind of intervention. 10 01 JB code btl.132.ref 369 389 21 Miscellaneous 39 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02"> References</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.nam 391 394 4 Miscellaneous 40 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Name index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.sub 395 396 2 Miscellaneous 41 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Subject index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20170426 2017 John Benjamins B.V. 02 WORLD 13 15 9789027258786 01 JB 3 John Benjamins e-Platform 03 jbe-platform.com 09 WORLD 21 01 06 Institutional price 00 99.00 EUR R 01 05 Consumer price 00 36.00 EUR R 01 06 Institutional price 00 83.00 GBP Z 01 05 Consumer price 00 30.00 GBP Z 01 06 Institutional price inst 00 149.00 USD S 01 05 Consumer price cons 00 54.00 USD S 273017536 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code BTL 132 Hb 15 9789027258786 13 2017001379 BB 01 BTL 02 0929-7316 Benjamins Translation Library 132 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Reflections on Translation Theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Selected papers 1993 - 2014</Subtitle> 01 btl.132 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/btl.132 1 A01 Andrew Chesterman Chesterman, Andrew Andrew Chesterman University of Helsinki 01 eng 406 x 396 LAN023000 v.2006 CFP 2 24 JB Subject Scheme TRAN.TRANSL Translation Studies 06 01 Originally published in different journals and collected volumes, these papers in conceptual analysis cover some central topics in translation theory and research: types of theory and hypothesis; causality and explanation; norms, strategies and so-called universals; translation sociology, and ethics. There are critical reviews of Catford’s theory, and of Skopos theory, and of Kundera’s views on literary translation, and detailed analyses of the literal translation hypothesis and the unique items hypothesis. The methodological discussions, which draw on work in the philosophy of science, will be of special relevance to younger researchers, for example those starting work on a doctorate. Some of the arguments and positions defended – for instance on the significant status of conceptual, interpretive hypotheses, and the ideal of consilience – relate to wider ongoing debates, and will interest any scholar who is concerned about the increasing fragmentation of the field and about the future of Translation Studies. Let the dialogue continue! 05 <i>Reflections on Translation Theory</i> ultimately demonstrates the significance of Chesterman’s work to translation theory. He offers an important, questioning voice in the discipline that does not allow anything to be taken for granted. His writing is refreshingly clear, but he is not afraid of complexity when it is necessary. While his style might be relatively straightforward and easy to read, the ideas he grapples with can be quite large and imposing. There is much to learn from reading Chesterman’s work, even if we disagree with it: even then, he points out ways in which we can develop our thinking about translation. Jonathan Evans, University of Portsmouth, in Target 30:1 (2018) 05 This collection of papers brings together more than two decades of writings on translation by one of the leading international Translation Studies experts. The selection reflects the trajectory of Andrew Chesterman’s thinking about the phenomenon of translation, with special emphasis on conceptual analysis and research methodology. He writes about translation theory, hypotheses, norms, causality, explanation and translation ethics in a thoughtful and intellectually stimulating manner. This book is essential reading for scholars and postgraduate students of translation alike. Christina Schäffner, Aston University 05 Chesterman’s new book is valuable and a timely contribution to the field of Translation Studies. The paradox of fragmentation and shared ground will never cease existing as interdisciplinarity expands the research territory of TS while unification consolidates the foundation of the field. With a critical review over what has been achieved in TS, the book is a must-read not only for translation scholars, but also for translators as well as those who are interested in Translation Studies. Pan Hanting and Wang Yuechen, Sun Yat-sen University / Nanyang Technological University, in Babel 64:2 (2018) 05 The volume is logically structured and orderly. The collection indeed inspires and will inspire critical and in-depth thinking. The author does not impose anything on the readers, but constantly keeps them informed of why a particular definition, for example, is preferred and alerts readers of potential weaknesses in his own thinking as well as in the thinking of those who have influenced his ideas about translation. The volume is definitely a valuable and precious contribution to the translation studies literature, which will inspire generations of researchers. Elena Gheorghita, Moldova State University, on Linguist List 29.2612 05 Two decades of the best recent thinking about translation theory and its fundamental concepts. A superb achievement. Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, Copenhagen Business School 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/btl.132.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027258786.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027258786.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/btl.132.hb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/btl.132.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/btl.132.hb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/btl.132.hb.png 10 01 JB code btl.132.pre ix x 2 Miscellaneous 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Preface</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.p1 1 41 41 Section header 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section I. Some general issues</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c1 3 16 14 Chapter 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 1. On the idea of a theory</TitleText> 20 description 20 explanation 20 hypothesis 20 metaphor 20 myth 20 structured research programme 20 theory 01 This article is based on a lecture that has been given to several groups of doctoral students at various times and in various places. It outlines five notions of what has been taken to constitute a “theory”: myth, metaphor, model, hypothesis and structured research programme. The most fundamental of these is the hypothesis. These different ideas of what a theory can be are illustrated with examples from Translation Studies. Any theory aims at description and explanation, and these two concepts are also discussed. A final comment takes up the idea that translations themselves are theories, and that a translator is thus a theorist or theoros. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c2 17 24 8 Chapter 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 2. Shared ground in Translation Studies</TitleText> 20 definition 20 essentialism 20 explanation 20 meaning 20 translation effects 01 The authors propose thirty “theses” concerning translation that might be accepted by scholars coming from different philosophical and research backgrounds. The “theses” have to do with the definition of ‘translation’, where we might look for causal explanations, and assumptions about translation effects. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c3 25 33 9 Chapter 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 3. What constitutes “progress” in Translation Studies?</TitleText> 20 applied science 20 empirical science 20 explanation 20 hermeneutic discipline 20 paradigm 20 progress 01 Translation Studies is sometimes taken to be an applied science, sometimes a hermeneutic discipline, and sometimes an empirical human science. Each of these views has a different idea of what would be understood as progress: different criteria. We do not have a shared paradigm in TS, but we might one day arrive at one by bringing together different kinds of explanation. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c4 35 41 7 Chapter 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 4. Towards consilience?</TitleText> 20 bridge concept 20 brief 20 causality 20 consilience 20 effect 20 interdiscipline 20 norm 20 strategy 01 Since Translation Studies is an interdiscipline, there is a risk that it will become fragmented into separate subfields with no connections between them. The paper proposes that in order to prevent this development, we could focus on bridge concepts such as causality, which can show links between textual, cognitive, cultural and sociological approaches to translation. This might promote the ideal of consilience, the unity of all knowledge. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p2 43 93 51 Section header 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section II. Descriptive and prescriptive</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c5 45 54 10 Chapter 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 5. The empirical status of prescriptivism</TitleText> 20 descriptivism 20 effect 20 empiricism 20 hypothesis 20 prescriptivism 01 Many translators evidently think that translation theory has little to contribute to translation practice. One reason for this view may be the shift to a descriptive approach in recent decades, aiming to describe and explain translations but not directly tell translators how to translate. However, traditional prescriptive guidelines can easily be seen as predictive hypotheses concerning translation effects: translate like this, because otherwise I predict that the client will not like it! Descriptive empirical research on the effects of different kinds of translation choices can produce relevant information for translators. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c6 55 70 16 Chapter 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 6. Skopos theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A retrospective assessment</Subtitle> 20 action theory 20 descriptive adequacy 20 explanatory adequacy 20 metaphor 20 prescriptive theory 20 relevance theory 20 skopos 20 value-free science 01 This is a critical assessment of skopos theory, looking at its basic assumptions, its problematic empirical and ontological status (descriptive or prescriptive?), and its conceptual and pedagogical contributions. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c7 71 79 9 Chapter 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 7. Catford revisited</TitleText> 20 Catford 20 data 20 equivalence 20 grammar 20 Halliday 20 linguistics 20 meaning 20 shift 01 The article casts a critical retrospective glance over Catford’s influential contribution to Translation Studies. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of tying a translation theory to a linguistic theory are discussed, together with the problems of building a deductive theory relying mainly on invented examples. Catford’s evident interest in machine translation is noted, and also his incorporation of pragmatic aspects such as relevance. The distinction drawn between equivalence and correspondence is theoretically important, and his analysis of translation shifts has been highly influential on later work. His definition of translation as textual replacement rather than meaning transfer, and his language-bound concept of meaning itself, have been much debated. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c8 81 93 13 Chapter 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 8. The descriptive paradox, or how theory can affect practice</TitleText> 20 descriptive theory 20 Finnish 20 norms 20 practice 20 universals 01 The paper discusses and illustrates the potential tension between theory and the practice that it describes, beginning with the claim by Jean Boase-Beier that theory can affect translation practice. By way of introduction, a comparison is made with the way artists are influenced by theories e.g. of perspective and colour, following Gombrich. With respect to translation practice, three possible channels are proposed whereby theory might affect practice: prescriptive teaching, tacit theory, and descriptive theory. Each of these channels raises problems. Prescriptive theory is mentioned only briefly; most translators nowadays are untrained. More attention is given to tacit, implicit theory, and its role in the practice of (trained or untrained) translators. But the main focus is on the descriptive paradox itself, as manifested in Descriptive Translation Studies. This paradox arises when the act of describing affects the phenomenon described, so that the description itself no longer fits. The author then draws on his own experience of how his explicit knowledge of translation theory may have influenced his translation of a Finnish novel (Canal Grande, by Hannu Raittila; not yet published in English). He is not entirely convinced, however, that he can actually prove the influence of theory in this case. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p3 95 164 70 Section header 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section III. Causality and explanation</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c9 97 121 25 Chapter 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 9. Causes, translations, effects</TitleText> 20 causality 20 laws of translation effect 20 prescriptive statement 20 translation profile 20 translation typology 01 Conceptual analysis has a role to play in translation studies, but it is a means, not an end. An empirical paradigm gives central importance to testable hypotheses. Empirical research on translation profiles should result in a translation typology: one such typology is discussed. Translations have multiple causes, and we can already propose some possible causal laws. Three laws of translation effect are also proposed, and various parameters of effect are discussed, together with the associated problems of sampling and prescriptivism. I argue that prescriptive statements are hypotheses about translation effects; as such, they should be tested like any other hypothesis. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c10 123 135 13 Chapter 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 10. A causal model for Translation Studies</TitleText> 20 causality 20 effect 20 hypothesis 20 model 20 universal 01 Three basic models of translation are used in translation research. The first is a comparative model, which aligns translations either with their source texts or with parallel (untranslated) texts and examines correlations between the two. This model is evident in contrastive studies. The second model is a process model, which maps different phases of the translation process over time. This model is represented by communication approaches, and also by some protocol approaches. The third model is a causal one, in which translations are explicitly seen both as caused by antecedent conditions and as causing effects on readers and cultures. The four standard kinds of hypotheses (interpretive, descriptive, explanatory and predictive) are outlined and illustrated with reference to the phenomenon of retranslation. Only the causal modal can accommodate all four types, and it is hence the most fruitful model for future development in Translation Studies. Descriptive hypotheses (such as statements about universals or laws) can have explanatory force, but almost all causal influences are filtered through the individual translator’s mind, through particular decisions made by the translator at a given time. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c11 137 146 10 Chapter 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 11. Semiotic modalities in translation causality</TitleText> 20 causality 20 Greimas 20 modality 20 subjectivity 20 translation 01 A common feature of much modern translation research is the notion of causality. This is true not only of empirical descriptive research and applied studies, but also of hermeneutic studies, since concepts influence action. Different approaches focus on different kinds and levels of cause and effect. Some focus on the broad socio-cultural context, some on the situational level (translation event), some on the cognitive level (translation act) and some on the linguistic level of the translation product itself (translation profile). Aristotle’s classification of kinds of cause has already been applied in translation studies. This paper proposes an analysis of translation causality, based on Greimas’ modalities of faire, être, devoir, savoir, pouvoir and vouloir. It is argued that the study of causality does not imply a deterministic standpoint; that translation causality must include the translator’s subjectivity; and that the search for regularities in cause-effect relations does not imply a neglect of what is unique about every translation. A causal reading of the modalities of être, devoir, savoir, pouvoir and vouloir as factors influencing the translator’s action (faire) allows us to relate different kinds of causes at different levels, including the individual translator. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c12 147 164 18 Chapter 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 12. On explanation</TitleText> 20 causality 20 explanation 20 generalization 20 unification 01 As Descriptive Translation Studies expands its goals to include explanatory hypotheses in addition to descriptive ones, it has made use of different notions of explanation, all of which are relevant to Gideon Toury’s work. This essay analyses these different notions in the light of some work in the philosophy of science, beginning with the apparent contrast between explanation and understanding. It then focuses on explanation in terms of generalization, causality, and unification. The crucial concept underlying all these is that of a relation. This point of view also allows a characterization of what is meant by explanatory power, and shows how explanation can emerge from description. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p4 165 191 27 Section header 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section IV. Norms</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c13 167 183 17 Chapter 18 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 13. From ‘is’ to ‘ought’</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Laws, norms and strategies in Translation Studies</Subtitle> 20 ethics 20 explanation 20 Jodl 20 law 20 norm theory 20 professional 20 strategy 01 Translation studies need to cater for both description and evaluation. This can be achieved via the study of translation norms. The norms governing translation are: (a) professional norms concerning the translation process (= norms of accountability, communication and target-source relation); and (b) expectancy norms concerning the form of the translation product, based on the expectations of the prospective readership. While general translation laws account for the behaviour of translators in general, normative laws describe the translation behaviour of a subset of translators, namely, competent professionals, who establish the norms. Normative laws originate in rational, norm-directed strategies which are observed to be used by professionals. These laws are empirical, spatio-temporally falsifiable, probabilistic, predictive and explanatory. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c14 185 191 7 Chapter 19 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 14. A note on norms and evidence</TitleText> 20 explanation 20 hypothesis 20 norm 20 normative force 20 regularity 20 testing 01 There are two senses of the concept “norm”: one is descriptive and weakly explanatory, and the other is causal or prescriptive and more strongly explanatory. Studying norms in the causal sense means looking for plausible links between observed regularities and evidence of normative force: this may be found in belief statements, in criticism of norm-breaking, or in norm statements. Norms are explanatory hypotheses, and can be tested in various ways. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p5 193 221 29 Section header 20 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section V. Similarities and differences</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c15 195 199 5 Chapter 21 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 15. On similarity</TitleText> 20 Contrastive Analysis 20 equivalence 20 similarity 20 Tversky, Sovran 01 This short paper outlines some research in logic and pragmatics that sheds interesting light on the concept of similarity. A recent proposal (Sovran 1992) suggests that there are two basic kinds of similarity: divergent and convergent. These seem to be directly relevant to how we conceptualize equivalence in Translation Studies and in Contrastive Analysis, respectively. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c16 201 211 11 Chapter 22 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 16. Problems with strategies</TitleText> 20 equivalence 20 method 20 shift 20 similarity 20 strategy 20 technique 01 The term “translation strategy” has been used by various translation scholars to describe different kinds of textual procedures used by translators. Other terms that have been proposed for these or related concepts include techniques, procedures, shifts, operations, transfers, changes, methods, trajections and transformations. There actually seem to be more terms than concepts. This paper offers a critical analysis of some of the conceptual and terminological problems in this area of translation studies. Distinctions are made between concepts pertaining to result and to process; linguistic vs. cognitive levels; problem-solving vs. routine procedures; and global vs. local strategies. Different systems of strategy classification are briefly compared, and the problem of their operationalization and application is raised, particularly with respect to their use as pedagogical tools. Finally, a terminological and conceptual solution is proposed which takes into account the main distinctions discussed and also shows links between this conceptual field and two other areas of translation studies: translation typology and equivalence typology. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c17 213 221 9 Chapter 23 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 17. The unbearable lightness of English words</TitleText> 20 Contrastive Analysis 20 Finnish 20 salience 20 shifts 20 silence 01 The paper postulates a “rhetorical salience threshold” which may have different heights in different languages. This threshold marks the point at which a given item of information or component of meaning is judged to be salient enough to be worth expressing. In translation, if source and target languages have different salience thresholds, rhetorical adjustments may need to be made which have the effect of “toning down” or “toning up” the salience. If there is no such rhetorical compensation, the translation may sound either “too pompous” or “a bit pathetic”. Evidence is offered which suggests that Finnish and English have different salience thresholds: the English threshold seems lower than the Finnish one. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p6 223 224 2 Section header 24 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section VI. Hypotheses</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c18 225 236 12 Chapter 25 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 18. The status of interpretive hypotheses</TitleText> 20 hermeneutics 20 hypothesis 20 meaning 20 method 01 In the natural sciences the task of the researcher is usually seen as the generation and testing of hypotheses. These hypotheses are taken to be possible answers to questions concerning the description, prediction, and explanation of natural phenomena. But there is also another kind of hypothesis, an interpretive hypothesis. The status of interpretive hypotheses is not as clear as that of descriptive, predictive or explanatory ones. This paper aims to clarify this status, showing the respects in which interpretive hypotheses are like other kinds, and the respects in which they are different. Hermeneutic research methods based on the generation and testing of interpretive hypotheses do not seem fundamentally different from those of traditional empirical sciences. Interpretive hypotheses simply apply to different kinds of data. They can be particularly relevant to the research goal of explanation. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c19 237 249 13 Chapter 26 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 19. Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis</TitleText> 20 hypothesis 20 literal translation 20 research methodology 20 revision 01 This paper examines the well-known literal translation hypothesis and discusses its significance for translation theory. The hypothesis claims that as translators process a given text chunk, they tend to start from a literal version of the target text, and then work towards a freer version. The idea has been implied or explicitly studied by many scholars, and does not seem to have a single source. After some preliminary conceptual analysis an optimal formulation of the hypothesis is proposed. The paper then assesses the hypothesis in terms of the kinds of wider significance any hypothesis can have. The criteria discussed are testability, relations with other hypotheses, applicability, surprise value and explanatory power. Some of Englund Dimitrova’s research (2005) on the hypothesis is discussed. A rather different study, by Lieselott Nordman (2009), is argued to have implications for the broader contextualization of the hypothesis. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p7 251 252 2 Section header 27 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section VII. “Universals”</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c20 253 267 15 Chapter 28 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 20. Beyond the particular</TitleText> 20 fallacy 20 generalization 20 regularity 20 tendency 20 universals 01 Translation scholars have proposed and sought generalizations about translation from various perspectives. This paper discusses three main ways of getting “beyond the particular”: traditional prescriptive statements, traditional critical statements, and the contemporary search for universals in corpus studies. There are a number of problems with each of the approaches. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c21 269 279 11 Chapter 29 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 21. What is a unique item?</TitleText> 20 Tirkkonen-Condit 20 under-representation 20 unique items hypothesis 20 universals 01 The so-called unique items hypothesis claims that translations tend to contain fewer “unique items” than comparable non-translated texts. This is proposed as a potential translation universal, or at least a general tendency. A unique item is one that is in some sense specific to the target language and is presumably not so easily triggered by a source-language item that is formally different; it thus tends to be under-represented in translations. The concept of a unique item is not well-defined, however. Drawing on some earlier work on transfer, contrastive and error analysis, this article offers a critical analysis of the concept, and raises a number of methodological issues concerning research on the topic. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c22 281 294 14 Chapter 30 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 22. Kundera’s sentence</TitleText> 20 Kafka 20 Kundera 20 literal translation 20 Simmel’s stranger 20 style 20 universals 01 This paper is an analysis of Kundera’s essay “Une phrase” (‘A sentence’), where he criticizes French translations of a sentence in Kafka’s novel Das Schloß (‘The castle’). Kundera argues that literary translators must be as literal as possible, sticking close to every detail of the author’s style. I suggest that this position is based on a dubious assumption about the universal effects of stylistic features. I then relate Kundera’s view to some aspects of his life, with reference to Simmel’s sociological concept of the stranger. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c23 295 303 9 Chapter 31 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 23. Universalism in Translation Studies</TitleText> 20 generalization 20 hypothesis testing 20 metaphor 20 terminology, Popper 20 universals 01 It is sometimes said that the way to develop current translation theory is to look at specifically non-Euro-centric and non-Western approaches and learn from them. Against such a position I take a Popperian view. I argue that this proposal is flawed because it commits the genetic fallacy, where an idea or hypothesis is assessed according to its origin. Rather, any hypothesis should be tested as widely as possible, regardless of where it comes from. This includes taking account of the context of discovery. I illustrate my main point with reference to some basic conceptualizations of translation (such as the transfer metaphor), so-called translation universals, and the debate about whether translation studies should have a standardized terminology. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p8 305 343 39 Section header 32 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section VIII. The sociological turn</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c24 307 321 15 Chapter 33 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 24. Questions in the sociology of translation</TitleText> 20 Actor Network Theory 20 context 20 culture 20 model 20 research questions 20 sociology 20 translation practice 01 This paper welcomes the current interest in a sociological approach in Translation Studies, as a way of focusing on part of the wider context of translation. Three sub-areas are distinguished: the sociology of translations as products, the sociology of translators, and the sociology of the translation process. Some current sociological models are outlined, and the notion of a ‘translation practice’ is introduced as a central component in a sociological approach. Actor Network Theory is outlined as a potentially useful framework, and a number of possible research questions are suggested. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c25 323 329 7 Chapter 34 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 25. The name and nature of Translator Studies</TitleText> 20 agent model 20 Holmes 20 policy 20 sociology 20 translator 01 A number of recent research tendencies in Translation Studies focus explicitly on the translator in some way, rather than on translations as texts. These trends might be grouped under the term “Translator Studies”. The article argues that this new focus is inadequately represented in Holmes’ classic map. Evidence of the recent trends is found especially in translation sociology, but also in translation history and in research into the translator’s decision-making processes. A broad outline of Translator Studies would cover sociology, culture and cognition, all looking at the translator’s agency, in different ways. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c26 331 343 13 Chapter 35 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 26. Models of what processes?</TitleText> 20 translation act 20 translation event 20 translation model 20 translation practice 20 translation process 01 Toury (1995, 2012) distinguishes between cognitive translation acts on the one hand, and sociological translation events on the other; a translation act is embedded in a translation event, and both acts and events are seen as processes. He also explains three senses of ‘translation problem’, which relate to different notions of the processes involved in the translation act. The present paper analyses and develops these ideas. It distinguishes between what are here labelled virtual, reverse-engineered and actual processes of translation acts or events, which correlate with Toury’s three senses of ‘translation problem’. A few examples are given of models of each kind of process, both classical and more recent ones. Also discussed is the extent to which the various models are predictive and hence testable. To designate the translation process at the historical and cultural level, alongside the mental act and the situational event, the term ‘translation practice’ is suggested. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p9 345 368 24 Section header 36 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section IX. Translation ethics</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c27 347 361 15 Chapter 37 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 27. Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath</TitleText> 20 commitment 20 ethics 20 excellence 20 MacIntyre 20 oath 20 values 20 virtues 01 Four current models of translation ethics are described, based on the ideas of representation, service, communication, and norms. There are problems with all these models: they are in several respects incompatible, and have different ranges of application. An alternative approach is therefore offered based on Alasdair MacIntyre’s ideas about virtues and the deontic force of excellence in a social practice. This leads to a fifth possible model, an ethics of professional commitment: cf. Maria Tymoczko’s suggestion that translation is a commissive act. At the centre of such a model there might be an official oath, comparable e.g. to the Hippocratic Oath for the medical profession. I end with a proposal for a Hieronymic Oath for translators. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c28 363 368 6 Chapter 38 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 28. An ethical decision</TitleText> 20 [Moster] 20 ethics 20 intervention 20 reception 20 responsibility 20 visibility 01 The article presents and discusses a tricky ethical problem posed by the German translator of a Finnish novel. The case illustrates the complex ways in which potential reader reactions can affect a translator’s decision. The discussion compares how different models of translation ethics would analyse this particular example. There are also implications concerning the translator’s visibility, and the idea of translation as a kind of intervention. 10 01 JB code btl.132.ref 369 389 21 Miscellaneous 39 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02"> References</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.nam 391 394 4 Miscellaneous 40 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Name index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.sub 395 396 2 Miscellaneous 41 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Subject index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20170426 2017 John Benjamins B.V. 02 WORLD 08 860 gr 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 01 WORLD US CA MX 21 33 16 01 02 JB 1 00 99.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 104.94 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 16 02 02 JB 1 00 83.00 GBP Z 01 JB 2 John Benjamins North America +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 01 US CA MX 21 16 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 149.00 USD 539017538 03 01 01 JB John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 JB code BTL 132 Pb 15 9789027258793 13 2017001379 BC 01 BTL 02 0929-7316 Benjamins Translation Library 132 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Reflections on Translation Theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Selected papers 1993 - 2014</Subtitle> 01 btl.132 01 https://benjamins.com 02 https://benjamins.com/catalog/btl.132 1 A01 Andrew Chesterman Chesterman, Andrew Andrew Chesterman University of Helsinki 01 eng 406 x 396 LAN023000 v.2006 CFP 2 24 JB Subject Scheme TRAN.TRANSL Translation Studies 06 01 Originally published in different journals and collected volumes, these papers in conceptual analysis cover some central topics in translation theory and research: types of theory and hypothesis; causality and explanation; norms, strategies and so-called universals; translation sociology, and ethics. There are critical reviews of Catford’s theory, and of Skopos theory, and of Kundera’s views on literary translation, and detailed analyses of the literal translation hypothesis and the unique items hypothesis. The methodological discussions, which draw on work in the philosophy of science, will be of special relevance to younger researchers, for example those starting work on a doctorate. Some of the arguments and positions defended – for instance on the significant status of conceptual, interpretive hypotheses, and the ideal of consilience – relate to wider ongoing debates, and will interest any scholar who is concerned about the increasing fragmentation of the field and about the future of Translation Studies. Let the dialogue continue! 05 <i>Reflections on Translation Theory</i> ultimately demonstrates the significance of Chesterman’s work to translation theory. He offers an important, questioning voice in the discipline that does not allow anything to be taken for granted. His writing is refreshingly clear, but he is not afraid of complexity when it is necessary. While his style might be relatively straightforward and easy to read, the ideas he grapples with can be quite large and imposing. There is much to learn from reading Chesterman’s work, even if we disagree with it: even then, he points out ways in which we can develop our thinking about translation. Jonathan Evans, University of Portsmouth, in Target 30:1 (2018) 05 This collection of papers brings together more than two decades of writings on translation by one of the leading international Translation Studies experts. The selection reflects the trajectory of Andrew Chesterman’s thinking about the phenomenon of translation, with special emphasis on conceptual analysis and research methodology. He writes about translation theory, hypotheses, norms, causality, explanation and translation ethics in a thoughtful and intellectually stimulating manner. This book is essential reading for scholars and postgraduate students of translation alike. Christina Schäffner, Aston University 05 Chesterman’s new book is valuable and a timely contribution to the field of Translation Studies. The paradox of fragmentation and shared ground will never cease existing as interdisciplinarity expands the research territory of TS while unification consolidates the foundation of the field. With a critical review over what has been achieved in TS, the book is a must-read not only for translation scholars, but also for translators as well as those who are interested in Translation Studies. Pan Hanting and Wang Yuechen, Sun Yat-sen University / Nanyang Technological University, in Babel 64:2 (2018) 05 The volume is logically structured and orderly. The collection indeed inspires and will inspire critical and in-depth thinking. The author does not impose anything on the readers, but constantly keeps them informed of why a particular definition, for example, is preferred and alerts readers of potential weaknesses in his own thinking as well as in the thinking of those who have influenced his ideas about translation. The volume is definitely a valuable and precious contribution to the translation studies literature, which will inspire generations of researchers. Elena Gheorghita, Moldova State University, on Linguist List 29.2612 05 Two decades of the best recent thinking about translation theory and its fundamental concepts. A superb achievement. Arnt Lykke Jakobsen, Copenhagen Business School 04 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475/btl.132.png 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_jpg/9789027258786.jpg 04 03 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/475_tif/9789027258786.tif 06 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_front/btl.132.pb.png 07 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/125/btl.132.png 25 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/1200_back/btl.132.pb.png 27 09 01 https://benjamins.com/covers/3d_web/btl.132.pb.png 10 01 JB code btl.132.pre ix x 2 Miscellaneous 1 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Preface</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.p1 1 41 41 Section header 2 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section I. Some general issues</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c1 3 16 14 Chapter 3 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 1. On the idea of a theory</TitleText> 20 description 20 explanation 20 hypothesis 20 metaphor 20 myth 20 structured research programme 20 theory 01 This article is based on a lecture that has been given to several groups of doctoral students at various times and in various places. It outlines five notions of what has been taken to constitute a “theory”: myth, metaphor, model, hypothesis and structured research programme. The most fundamental of these is the hypothesis. These different ideas of what a theory can be are illustrated with examples from Translation Studies. Any theory aims at description and explanation, and these two concepts are also discussed. A final comment takes up the idea that translations themselves are theories, and that a translator is thus a theorist or theoros. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c2 17 24 8 Chapter 4 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 2. Shared ground in Translation Studies</TitleText> 20 definition 20 essentialism 20 explanation 20 meaning 20 translation effects 01 The authors propose thirty “theses” concerning translation that might be accepted by scholars coming from different philosophical and research backgrounds. The “theses” have to do with the definition of ‘translation’, where we might look for causal explanations, and assumptions about translation effects. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c3 25 33 9 Chapter 5 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 3. What constitutes “progress” in Translation Studies?</TitleText> 20 applied science 20 empirical science 20 explanation 20 hermeneutic discipline 20 paradigm 20 progress 01 Translation Studies is sometimes taken to be an applied science, sometimes a hermeneutic discipline, and sometimes an empirical human science. Each of these views has a different idea of what would be understood as progress: different criteria. We do not have a shared paradigm in TS, but we might one day arrive at one by bringing together different kinds of explanation. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c4 35 41 7 Chapter 6 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 4. Towards consilience?</TitleText> 20 bridge concept 20 brief 20 causality 20 consilience 20 effect 20 interdiscipline 20 norm 20 strategy 01 Since Translation Studies is an interdiscipline, there is a risk that it will become fragmented into separate subfields with no connections between them. The paper proposes that in order to prevent this development, we could focus on bridge concepts such as causality, which can show links between textual, cognitive, cultural and sociological approaches to translation. This might promote the ideal of consilience, the unity of all knowledge. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p2 43 93 51 Section header 7 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section II. Descriptive and prescriptive</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c5 45 54 10 Chapter 8 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 5. The empirical status of prescriptivism</TitleText> 20 descriptivism 20 effect 20 empiricism 20 hypothesis 20 prescriptivism 01 Many translators evidently think that translation theory has little to contribute to translation practice. One reason for this view may be the shift to a descriptive approach in recent decades, aiming to describe and explain translations but not directly tell translators how to translate. However, traditional prescriptive guidelines can easily be seen as predictive hypotheses concerning translation effects: translate like this, because otherwise I predict that the client will not like it! Descriptive empirical research on the effects of different kinds of translation choices can produce relevant information for translators. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c6 55 70 16 Chapter 9 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 6. Skopos theory</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">A retrospective assessment</Subtitle> 20 action theory 20 descriptive adequacy 20 explanatory adequacy 20 metaphor 20 prescriptive theory 20 relevance theory 20 skopos 20 value-free science 01 This is a critical assessment of skopos theory, looking at its basic assumptions, its problematic empirical and ontological status (descriptive or prescriptive?), and its conceptual and pedagogical contributions. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c7 71 79 9 Chapter 10 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 7. Catford revisited</TitleText> 20 Catford 20 data 20 equivalence 20 grammar 20 Halliday 20 linguistics 20 meaning 20 shift 01 The article casts a critical retrospective glance over Catford’s influential contribution to Translation Studies. Some of the strengths and weaknesses of tying a translation theory to a linguistic theory are discussed, together with the problems of building a deductive theory relying mainly on invented examples. Catford’s evident interest in machine translation is noted, and also his incorporation of pragmatic aspects such as relevance. The distinction drawn between equivalence and correspondence is theoretically important, and his analysis of translation shifts has been highly influential on later work. His definition of translation as textual replacement rather than meaning transfer, and his language-bound concept of meaning itself, have been much debated. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c8 81 93 13 Chapter 11 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 8. The descriptive paradox, or how theory can affect practice</TitleText> 20 descriptive theory 20 Finnish 20 norms 20 practice 20 universals 01 The paper discusses and illustrates the potential tension between theory and the practice that it describes, beginning with the claim by Jean Boase-Beier that theory can affect translation practice. By way of introduction, a comparison is made with the way artists are influenced by theories e.g. of perspective and colour, following Gombrich. With respect to translation practice, three possible channels are proposed whereby theory might affect practice: prescriptive teaching, tacit theory, and descriptive theory. Each of these channels raises problems. Prescriptive theory is mentioned only briefly; most translators nowadays are untrained. More attention is given to tacit, implicit theory, and its role in the practice of (trained or untrained) translators. But the main focus is on the descriptive paradox itself, as manifested in Descriptive Translation Studies. This paradox arises when the act of describing affects the phenomenon described, so that the description itself no longer fits. The author then draws on his own experience of how his explicit knowledge of translation theory may have influenced his translation of a Finnish novel (Canal Grande, by Hannu Raittila; not yet published in English). He is not entirely convinced, however, that he can actually prove the influence of theory in this case. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p3 95 164 70 Section header 12 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section III. Causality and explanation</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c9 97 121 25 Chapter 13 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 9. Causes, translations, effects</TitleText> 20 causality 20 laws of translation effect 20 prescriptive statement 20 translation profile 20 translation typology 01 Conceptual analysis has a role to play in translation studies, but it is a means, not an end. An empirical paradigm gives central importance to testable hypotheses. Empirical research on translation profiles should result in a translation typology: one such typology is discussed. Translations have multiple causes, and we can already propose some possible causal laws. Three laws of translation effect are also proposed, and various parameters of effect are discussed, together with the associated problems of sampling and prescriptivism. I argue that prescriptive statements are hypotheses about translation effects; as such, they should be tested like any other hypothesis. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c10 123 135 13 Chapter 14 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 10. A causal model for Translation Studies</TitleText> 20 causality 20 effect 20 hypothesis 20 model 20 universal 01 Three basic models of translation are used in translation research. The first is a comparative model, which aligns translations either with their source texts or with parallel (untranslated) texts and examines correlations between the two. This model is evident in contrastive studies. The second model is a process model, which maps different phases of the translation process over time. This model is represented by communication approaches, and also by some protocol approaches. The third model is a causal one, in which translations are explicitly seen both as caused by antecedent conditions and as causing effects on readers and cultures. The four standard kinds of hypotheses (interpretive, descriptive, explanatory and predictive) are outlined and illustrated with reference to the phenomenon of retranslation. Only the causal modal can accommodate all four types, and it is hence the most fruitful model for future development in Translation Studies. Descriptive hypotheses (such as statements about universals or laws) can have explanatory force, but almost all causal influences are filtered through the individual translator’s mind, through particular decisions made by the translator at a given time. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c11 137 146 10 Chapter 15 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 11. Semiotic modalities in translation causality</TitleText> 20 causality 20 Greimas 20 modality 20 subjectivity 20 translation 01 A common feature of much modern translation research is the notion of causality. This is true not only of empirical descriptive research and applied studies, but also of hermeneutic studies, since concepts influence action. Different approaches focus on different kinds and levels of cause and effect. Some focus on the broad socio-cultural context, some on the situational level (translation event), some on the cognitive level (translation act) and some on the linguistic level of the translation product itself (translation profile). Aristotle’s classification of kinds of cause has already been applied in translation studies. This paper proposes an analysis of translation causality, based on Greimas’ modalities of faire, être, devoir, savoir, pouvoir and vouloir. It is argued that the study of causality does not imply a deterministic standpoint; that translation causality must include the translator’s subjectivity; and that the search for regularities in cause-effect relations does not imply a neglect of what is unique about every translation. A causal reading of the modalities of être, devoir, savoir, pouvoir and vouloir as factors influencing the translator’s action (faire) allows us to relate different kinds of causes at different levels, including the individual translator. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c12 147 164 18 Chapter 16 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 12. On explanation</TitleText> 20 causality 20 explanation 20 generalization 20 unification 01 As Descriptive Translation Studies expands its goals to include explanatory hypotheses in addition to descriptive ones, it has made use of different notions of explanation, all of which are relevant to Gideon Toury’s work. This essay analyses these different notions in the light of some work in the philosophy of science, beginning with the apparent contrast between explanation and understanding. It then focuses on explanation in terms of generalization, causality, and unification. The crucial concept underlying all these is that of a relation. This point of view also allows a characterization of what is meant by explanatory power, and shows how explanation can emerge from description. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p4 165 191 27 Section header 17 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section IV. Norms</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c13 167 183 17 Chapter 18 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 13. From ‘is’ to ‘ought’</TitleText> <Subtitle textformat="02">Laws, norms and strategies in Translation Studies</Subtitle> 20 ethics 20 explanation 20 Jodl 20 law 20 norm theory 20 professional 20 strategy 01 Translation studies need to cater for both description and evaluation. This can be achieved via the study of translation norms. The norms governing translation are: (a) professional norms concerning the translation process (= norms of accountability, communication and target-source relation); and (b) expectancy norms concerning the form of the translation product, based on the expectations of the prospective readership. While general translation laws account for the behaviour of translators in general, normative laws describe the translation behaviour of a subset of translators, namely, competent professionals, who establish the norms. Normative laws originate in rational, norm-directed strategies which are observed to be used by professionals. These laws are empirical, spatio-temporally falsifiable, probabilistic, predictive and explanatory. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c14 185 191 7 Chapter 19 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 14. A note on norms and evidence</TitleText> 20 explanation 20 hypothesis 20 norm 20 normative force 20 regularity 20 testing 01 There are two senses of the concept “norm”: one is descriptive and weakly explanatory, and the other is causal or prescriptive and more strongly explanatory. Studying norms in the causal sense means looking for plausible links between observed regularities and evidence of normative force: this may be found in belief statements, in criticism of norm-breaking, or in norm statements. Norms are explanatory hypotheses, and can be tested in various ways. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p5 193 221 29 Section header 20 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section V. Similarities and differences</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c15 195 199 5 Chapter 21 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 15. On similarity</TitleText> 20 Contrastive Analysis 20 equivalence 20 similarity 20 Tversky, Sovran 01 This short paper outlines some research in logic and pragmatics that sheds interesting light on the concept of similarity. A recent proposal (Sovran 1992) suggests that there are two basic kinds of similarity: divergent and convergent. These seem to be directly relevant to how we conceptualize equivalence in Translation Studies and in Contrastive Analysis, respectively. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c16 201 211 11 Chapter 22 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 16. Problems with strategies</TitleText> 20 equivalence 20 method 20 shift 20 similarity 20 strategy 20 technique 01 The term “translation strategy” has been used by various translation scholars to describe different kinds of textual procedures used by translators. Other terms that have been proposed for these or related concepts include techniques, procedures, shifts, operations, transfers, changes, methods, trajections and transformations. There actually seem to be more terms than concepts. This paper offers a critical analysis of some of the conceptual and terminological problems in this area of translation studies. Distinctions are made between concepts pertaining to result and to process; linguistic vs. cognitive levels; problem-solving vs. routine procedures; and global vs. local strategies. Different systems of strategy classification are briefly compared, and the problem of their operationalization and application is raised, particularly with respect to their use as pedagogical tools. Finally, a terminological and conceptual solution is proposed which takes into account the main distinctions discussed and also shows links between this conceptual field and two other areas of translation studies: translation typology and equivalence typology. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c17 213 221 9 Chapter 23 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 17. The unbearable lightness of English words</TitleText> 20 Contrastive Analysis 20 Finnish 20 salience 20 shifts 20 silence 01 The paper postulates a “rhetorical salience threshold” which may have different heights in different languages. This threshold marks the point at which a given item of information or component of meaning is judged to be salient enough to be worth expressing. In translation, if source and target languages have different salience thresholds, rhetorical adjustments may need to be made which have the effect of “toning down” or “toning up” the salience. If there is no such rhetorical compensation, the translation may sound either “too pompous” or “a bit pathetic”. Evidence is offered which suggests that Finnish and English have different salience thresholds: the English threshold seems lower than the Finnish one. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p6 223 224 2 Section header 24 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section VI. Hypotheses</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c18 225 236 12 Chapter 25 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 18. The status of interpretive hypotheses</TitleText> 20 hermeneutics 20 hypothesis 20 meaning 20 method 01 In the natural sciences the task of the researcher is usually seen as the generation and testing of hypotheses. These hypotheses are taken to be possible answers to questions concerning the description, prediction, and explanation of natural phenomena. But there is also another kind of hypothesis, an interpretive hypothesis. The status of interpretive hypotheses is not as clear as that of descriptive, predictive or explanatory ones. This paper aims to clarify this status, showing the respects in which interpretive hypotheses are like other kinds, and the respects in which they are different. Hermeneutic research methods based on the generation and testing of interpretive hypotheses do not seem fundamentally different from those of traditional empirical sciences. Interpretive hypotheses simply apply to different kinds of data. They can be particularly relevant to the research goal of explanation. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c19 237 249 13 Chapter 26 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 19. Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis</TitleText> 20 hypothesis 20 literal translation 20 research methodology 20 revision 01 This paper examines the well-known literal translation hypothesis and discusses its significance for translation theory. The hypothesis claims that as translators process a given text chunk, they tend to start from a literal version of the target text, and then work towards a freer version. The idea has been implied or explicitly studied by many scholars, and does not seem to have a single source. After some preliminary conceptual analysis an optimal formulation of the hypothesis is proposed. The paper then assesses the hypothesis in terms of the kinds of wider significance any hypothesis can have. The criteria discussed are testability, relations with other hypotheses, applicability, surprise value and explanatory power. Some of Englund Dimitrova’s research (2005) on the hypothesis is discussed. A rather different study, by Lieselott Nordman (2009), is argued to have implications for the broader contextualization of the hypothesis. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p7 251 252 2 Section header 27 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section VII. “Universals”</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c20 253 267 15 Chapter 28 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 20. Beyond the particular</TitleText> 20 fallacy 20 generalization 20 regularity 20 tendency 20 universals 01 Translation scholars have proposed and sought generalizations about translation from various perspectives. This paper discusses three main ways of getting “beyond the particular”: traditional prescriptive statements, traditional critical statements, and the contemporary search for universals in corpus studies. There are a number of problems with each of the approaches. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c21 269 279 11 Chapter 29 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 21. What is a unique item?</TitleText> 20 Tirkkonen-Condit 20 under-representation 20 unique items hypothesis 20 universals 01 The so-called unique items hypothesis claims that translations tend to contain fewer “unique items” than comparable non-translated texts. This is proposed as a potential translation universal, or at least a general tendency. A unique item is one that is in some sense specific to the target language and is presumably not so easily triggered by a source-language item that is formally different; it thus tends to be under-represented in translations. The concept of a unique item is not well-defined, however. Drawing on some earlier work on transfer, contrastive and error analysis, this article offers a critical analysis of the concept, and raises a number of methodological issues concerning research on the topic. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c22 281 294 14 Chapter 30 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 22. Kundera’s sentence</TitleText> 20 Kafka 20 Kundera 20 literal translation 20 Simmel’s stranger 20 style 20 universals 01 This paper is an analysis of Kundera’s essay “Une phrase” (‘A sentence’), where he criticizes French translations of a sentence in Kafka’s novel Das Schloß (‘The castle’). Kundera argues that literary translators must be as literal as possible, sticking close to every detail of the author’s style. I suggest that this position is based on a dubious assumption about the universal effects of stylistic features. I then relate Kundera’s view to some aspects of his life, with reference to Simmel’s sociological concept of the stranger. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c23 295 303 9 Chapter 31 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 23. Universalism in Translation Studies</TitleText> 20 generalization 20 hypothesis testing 20 metaphor 20 terminology, Popper 20 universals 01 It is sometimes said that the way to develop current translation theory is to look at specifically non-Euro-centric and non-Western approaches and learn from them. Against such a position I take a Popperian view. I argue that this proposal is flawed because it commits the genetic fallacy, where an idea or hypothesis is assessed according to its origin. Rather, any hypothesis should be tested as widely as possible, regardless of where it comes from. This includes taking account of the context of discovery. I illustrate my main point with reference to some basic conceptualizations of translation (such as the transfer metaphor), so-called translation universals, and the debate about whether translation studies should have a standardized terminology. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p8 305 343 39 Section header 32 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section VIII. The sociological turn</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c24 307 321 15 Chapter 33 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 24. Questions in the sociology of translation</TitleText> 20 Actor Network Theory 20 context 20 culture 20 model 20 research questions 20 sociology 20 translation practice 01 This paper welcomes the current interest in a sociological approach in Translation Studies, as a way of focusing on part of the wider context of translation. Three sub-areas are distinguished: the sociology of translations as products, the sociology of translators, and the sociology of the translation process. Some current sociological models are outlined, and the notion of a ‘translation practice’ is introduced as a central component in a sociological approach. Actor Network Theory is outlined as a potentially useful framework, and a number of possible research questions are suggested. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c25 323 329 7 Chapter 34 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 25. The name and nature of Translator Studies</TitleText> 20 agent model 20 Holmes 20 policy 20 sociology 20 translator 01 A number of recent research tendencies in Translation Studies focus explicitly on the translator in some way, rather than on translations as texts. These trends might be grouped under the term “Translator Studies”. The article argues that this new focus is inadequately represented in Holmes’ classic map. Evidence of the recent trends is found especially in translation sociology, but also in translation history and in research into the translator’s decision-making processes. A broad outline of Translator Studies would cover sociology, culture and cognition, all looking at the translator’s agency, in different ways. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c26 331 343 13 Chapter 35 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 26. Models of what processes?</TitleText> 20 translation act 20 translation event 20 translation model 20 translation practice 20 translation process 01 Toury (1995, 2012) distinguishes between cognitive translation acts on the one hand, and sociological translation events on the other; a translation act is embedded in a translation event, and both acts and events are seen as processes. He also explains three senses of ‘translation problem’, which relate to different notions of the processes involved in the translation act. The present paper analyses and develops these ideas. It distinguishes between what are here labelled virtual, reverse-engineered and actual processes of translation acts or events, which correlate with Toury’s three senses of ‘translation problem’. A few examples are given of models of each kind of process, both classical and more recent ones. Also discussed is the extent to which the various models are predictive and hence testable. To designate the translation process at the historical and cultural level, alongside the mental act and the situational event, the term ‘translation practice’ is suggested. 10 01 JB code btl.132.p9 345 368 24 Section header 36 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Section IX. Translation ethics</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.c27 347 361 15 Chapter 37 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 27. Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath</TitleText> 20 commitment 20 ethics 20 excellence 20 MacIntyre 20 oath 20 values 20 virtues 01 Four current models of translation ethics are described, based on the ideas of representation, service, communication, and norms. There are problems with all these models: they are in several respects incompatible, and have different ranges of application. An alternative approach is therefore offered based on Alasdair MacIntyre’s ideas about virtues and the deontic force of excellence in a social practice. This leads to a fifth possible model, an ethics of professional commitment: cf. Maria Tymoczko’s suggestion that translation is a commissive act. At the centre of such a model there might be an official oath, comparable e.g. to the Hippocratic Oath for the medical profession. I end with a proposal for a Hieronymic Oath for translators. 10 01 JB code btl.132.c28 363 368 6 Chapter 38 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Paper 28. An ethical decision</TitleText> 20 [Moster] 20 ethics 20 intervention 20 reception 20 responsibility 20 visibility 01 The article presents and discusses a tricky ethical problem posed by the German translator of a Finnish novel. The case illustrates the complex ways in which potential reader reactions can affect a translator’s decision. The discussion compares how different models of translation ethics would analyse this particular example. There are also implications concerning the translator’s visibility, and the idea of translation as a kind of intervention. 10 01 JB code btl.132.ref 369 389 21 Miscellaneous 39 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02"> References</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.nam 391 394 4 Miscellaneous 40 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Name index</TitleText> 10 01 JB code btl.132.sub 395 396 2 Miscellaneous 41 <TitleType>01</TitleType> <TitleText textformat="02">Subject index</TitleText> 02 JBENJAMINS John Benjamins Publishing Company 01 John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam/Philadelphia NL 04 20170426 2017 John Benjamins B.V. 02 WORLD 08 725 gr 01 JB 1 John Benjamins Publishing Company +31 20 6304747 +31 20 6739773 bookorder@benjamins.nl 01 https://benjamins.com 01 WORLD US CA MX 21 24 13 01 02 JB 1 00 36.00 EUR R 02 02 JB 1 00 38.16 EUR R 01 JB 10 bebc +44 1202 712 934 +44 1202 712 913 sales@bebc.co.uk 03 GB 21 13 02 02 JB 1 00 30.00 GBP Z 01 JB 2 John Benjamins North America +1 800 562-5666 +1 703 661-1501 benjamins@presswarehouse.com 01 https://benjamins.com 01 US CA MX 21 1 13 01 gen 02 JB 1 00 54.00 USD