This chapter explores the burgeoning intersection of periodical studies and translation studies and highlights the potential for cross-fertilization between these disciplines. The authors trace the increasing scholarly attention to newspapers, magazines, and other serialized press items as not just repositories of translated texts but as dynamic assemblages fostering transcultural exchanges. Moreover, they shed light on translation as a fundamental periodical practice in the print and digital realm, while periodical actors are shown to assume importance as translational actors. The chapter provides an overview of key concepts and methodological approaches and advocates for future collaborative work that considers the materiality of periodicals, transnational media ecologies, and the pedagogical opportunities offered by interdisciplinary cooperation.

African studies and translation studies both revolve around language and language-related practices as objects of study, but from two very different perspectives, with different methodologies and research histories. This chapter seeks to discuss each discipline’s approach to translation in the form of a transdisciplinary dialogue between African studies and translation studies. It suggests that to build the grounds for mutual understanding and exchange between the two disciplines it is necessary to go back to preconceived notions which have been effective both in conceptualizations of translation and research methods scrutinizing translational phenomena. For this purpose, the chapter concentrates on notions of language, more specifically language boundaries which prove to be constitutive in most conceptualizations of translation. For this it discusses concepts of border, bordering, and border thinking and suggests to switch the perspective from language to the people and their categorization as speakers of a given language. To focus on the self-assignment and external assignment of speakers to “their languages”, thus on the processes and agents involved in a constant negotiation of language boundaries, the paper introduces the concept of language-related human differentiation. At the same time, the negotiation process itself is conceptualized as translational, which implies that translation is constitutive of language boundaries both in theory and in practice. The discussion draws on field work conducted in two research projects in African studies and translation studies respectively.

This chapter is structured as a dialogue between two scholars from different disciplines, each exploring the potential of concepts and methods from translation studies to shed light on the formation, circulation and reception of transnational memories, while also considering how insights from memory studies can highlight the multidirectional engagements and local embedding of memories originating from diverse contexts in cultural practices of translation. The interdisciplinary exchange prompts reflection on the specific formats and mechanisms through which memories “travel” via translation across geographical, cultural and linguistic boundaries, as well as their subsequent “instantiation” in particular locales, where they are reshaped through interactions with local repertoires, audiences, and agendas.

Our focus is on how translation-as-transformation acts as a driving force behind the evolution and preservation of memory. This entails engaging with the ethical implications of translating local histories and narratives for global consumption. Through an analysis of various media forms — including testimony, literature, film, and museums — we examine how the dynamic interplay between interlingual and cultural translation unlocks the mnemonic potential of a given text or narrative. Approaching memory through a translational lens ultimately compels us to challenge conventional notions of authenticity, native language and stable originals, and to question the presumed unidirectionality of transfer processes.

At first glance, translation studies and geography might seem to be two disciplines with relatively little to say to each other. However, this dialogue between scholars affiliated with each discipline shows that there are considerable areas of overlap between the two fields. Writing from their disciplinary positions, the authors show how “translation” and “space” have been encountered in geography and translation studies, reflect on their own personal motivations for “crossing” disciplinary boundaries, and discuss some of the key conceptual and practical puzzles posed by translation and spatial thinking in their respective disciplines. In the process, this chapter provides a useful point of departure for scholars interested in moving between these two disciplines.

Cognitive theories in translation and interpreting studies explore how memory, working memory components, and cognitive load affect these tasks. In this chapter, we first review several theoretical frameworks from cognitive linguistics and their relevance to translation and interpreting studies. We then examine cognitive aspects of interpreting, including the argument that interpreters, as expert language users, may exhibit cognitive advantages over monolinguals and, to a lesser extent, “ordinary” bilinguals. On this backdrop, we delve into cognition in translation, drawing insights from psycholinguistic research, along with cognitive processes in multimodal contexts, such as audiovisual translation, with a focus on how sensory modalities interact. Finally, we outline interdisciplinary research directions for future exploration.

The authors agreed to structure their entry as a genuine dialogue. The authors explain in two opening sections why they believe that opening a border crossing between the academic provinces of translation studies and cultural semiotics can bring mutual benefits. The correspondence proper starts right after these opening remarks. In their exchanges, Torop and Stecconi clarify to each other and to their readers what “interdisciplinarity” can mean in their respective areas of study and for the purpose of their dialogue. They then discuss Torop’s notion of “total translation”. Finally, the authors conclude their contribution with a spirited debate about how exactly a border between the notions of translation and adaptation could be traced.

In this chapter, Dionysios Kapsaskis (DK) and Tessa Dwyer (TD) discuss a range of historical, theoretical and practical issues at the intersection of film and translation. Drawing from their respective core disciplines — translation studies for Kapsaskis and film studies for Dwyer — as well as from an expanding body of cross disciplinary writings and other sources, they examine questions such as the following: the role of translation in the development of cinema as a modern art form and the possibility of a translational history of film; the critical affordances of what may be called “a translational lens into film,” bringing into focus the cinematic representation of (linguistic) difference but also the asymmetrical relations of power in the distribution and reception of films across borders; and the impact of translation automation technologies on audiovisual translation and translators. Looking at both mainstream and “errant” film translation practices, Kapsaskis and Dwyer debate the paradoxical role of film translation as both an enabling mechanism for the expression of audience particularity and an instrument of homogenization and perpetuation of myths of universality that have surrounded cinema since its inception.

This chapter explores the intersections between anthropology and translation studies, emphasizing their shared concern with “translation” as a conceptual, methodological, and heuristic tool. The chapter sets out to examine notions of translation within anthropology, particularly its role in addressing the crisis of representation and its implications for anthropologists’ efforts to portray (close and distant) cultural realities. It then moves to showcasing how translation studies adopted anthropological positions on translation, such as those related to the writing culture debate and how this reception has informed the field’s so-called cultural turn. In a final part, drawing on relational art projects as a case study, the authors illustrate how translation functions as a practice of meaning-making, fostering alliances across diverse actors and disciplines. The chapter concludes by advocating for continued interdisciplinary exchanges, positioning translation as a dynamic lens for understanding cultural interactions, ethical dilemmas, and collaborative forms of knowledge production.

This chapter explores the interdisciplinary dialogue between imagology and translation studies, examining how cultural and national images (mental images, that is, not necessarily visual images) are transferred, transformed, and recontextualized across linguistic and geocultural boundaries. Drawing on the authors’ respective expertise, it traces the historical development, methodological frameworks, and institutional status of both fields, highlighting their convergences and divergences. Imagology, traditionally rooted in comparative literature, is conceptualized as a lens or selection principle for analyzing discursive representations of ethnotypes and geocultural spaces. Translation studies, with its more established disciplinary infrastructure, increasingly engages with imagological approaches to investigate how translation mediates cultural memory and identity.

The chapter emphasizes the diachronic and intertextual nature of both disciplines, illustrating how translations function as cultural artifacts that co-construct meaning and reflect ideological shifts. The authors demonstrate the complex negotiation of auto-images, hetero-images, and translated images, and address the challenges posed by media diversification, non-narrative genres, and the politicization of image-building, particularly in contexts like cultural diplomacy.

Critically engaging with concepts such as hybridity, geocultural space, and intersectionality, the chapter questions essentialist and nation-based frameworks while acknowledging their persistent influence. It advocates for a reflective, historically grounded approach to image analysis, warning against ideological overreach and emphasizing the need for methodological transparency. Ultimately, the chapter argues that imagology and translation studies, through their shared focus on cultural transfer and representation, offer valuable insights into the dynamics of identity construction in a globalized yet increasingly identity-conscious world.

This chapter highlights the paradoxical and sinuous history of the relationship between philosophy and translation studies. After a long period of mutual self-isolation as regards their respective discourses on translation, both disciplines are gradually developing a new dynamic and displaying a mature openness to having an interdisciplinary dialogue. This essay argues in favour of further enhancing the permeability of disciplinary boundaries by investigating the phenomenon of translation together, i.e., as a joint attempt at academic cooperation in action: a translation scholar (Cercel) and a philosopher (Grondin) discuss a hot topic within current debates in translation studies, namely the intriguing question of the ontological status of a translation as the original. We profile the state and premises of the debate, examine the conditions under which a translation can indeed be considered the original and formulate a (hypo)thesis concerning a key point in defining the ontology of translation as the (new) original.

The global language industry, of which translation is a critical part, is expanding and changing rapidly. Its complexity and dynamic diversity reveal a composite of actors and perspectives that include those of language service providers and vendors, language and translation technology developers, project managers, quality control experts, terminologists, translators, interpreters, revisers, posteditors, transcreators, localizers, and a wide range of specializations within these professional profiles. In this chapter, we bring perspectives of translation studies and the language industry into dialogue and attempt to disentangle their symbiotic relationships and mutual impacts on each other as translation activity undergoes transformation in the age of artificial intelligence. How have they defined and adapted to each other as they’ve evolved, both in concept and in practice? How do they respectively understand the role of translators and the purpose of translation and recognize its value as a product and/or service? Are there theoretical, conceptual, or methodological approaches from both that are potentially beneficial to each? With deep roots in antiquity, translation continues to be a fundamental anchor for flows of information and communication in today’s technologizing and globalizing world, and the language industry is transforming our understanding of translators and the practices and underlying concept of translation. A more constant, collaborative dialogue between the language industry and academic translation studies promises even more insights.

This chapter is the result of a co-writing process during which the three authors, two from international business and one from translation studies have engaged in cross-disciplinary dialogue to identify past and potential future interactions between the two disciplines they represent. Through a review of key contributions and an indicative citation analysis, the chapter highlights the joint work that already exists, identifies the core contributors and provides an analysis of the awareness of translation studies in international business research and vice versa. On this basis, the authors suggest some avenues that future international business-cum-translation studies research can follow to increase its visibility across the disciplinary boundaries and discuss current common interests in the two fields with a view to forging these into a joint research agenda.

Museums are major sites of translation in which the production of multilingual interpretive resources is crucial to fulfilling the museum’s institutional purpose in the global heritage milieu. Equally, from the perspective of translation studies research, the academe has in recent years shown increasing interest in the museum as a less-understood site of translation. However, there has hitherto been relatively little dialogue between translation studies and museum practice. This chapter presents an exchange between a university-based researcher in museum translation and a senior museum translation practitioner from one of China’s premier museums. It focuses on the role of the translator, a role which has been under-theorized, and for which the practitioner perspective is particularly important to better understanding how the translator approaches museum-based translation practice. The exchange calls for greater dialogue and collaboration, both in practical training and research, in ways that can be of genuine benefit to both communities.

This chapter explores the conceptual and methodological intersections between travel writing and translation studies, arguing that travel is inherently a form of translation — linguistic, cultural, ideological, and affective. Through a dialogic structure, the authors examine how travel texts mediate otherness, construct identity, and negotiate values through processes of selection, representation, and aestheticisation. Drawing on historical examples from the heyday of modern travelling — from Trollope and Dickens to Douglass and Lowell — the authors highlight the hybrid, subjective, and often politicized nature of travel narratives. Emphasizing translation as a metonymic and transformative act, the chapter situates travel writing within broader discourses of globalization, colonialism, and epistemic transfer. Ultimately, it advocates for interdisciplinary collaboration between translation studies and travel writing studies to better understand the dynamics of cultural mobility and representation.

This chapter explores how translation and fashion are not just interconnected but entangled with one another. It does so through a conversation on this topic between the two authors, each representing their respective fields (translation studies for Zwischenberger and fashion theory for Calefato). Taking transdisciplinarity as both a method and a target of research, they discuss how each engages with the other’s object of study. Delving into concepts from both fields such as the clothed body, look, and style, and translation as a transformative movement between all sorts of sign-systems, they discuss the role of translation in fashion theory and fashion in translation studies and how the act of imitation in fashion can be compared to the relationship between the “original” and the “copy” in Translation Studies.

Religious studies and religious practice depend on translation for their existence. The theoretical work of Nida during the second half of the twentieth century within the context of translating religious texts greatly influenced the emergence of translation studies as a discipline. We describe the theoretical, conceptual and methodological input, benefit and impact of each discipline on the other and demonstrate that both disciplines benefit from the widening of translation to include translating nonverbal sign systems into verbal or other nonverbal signs and vice versa. Two important dimensions receive attention: one in which a religion translates its own indigenous tradition to constrain meaning; and one in which a religion translates for itself the god-talk of others.

Starting from the idea that translation concepts and practices have an untapped potential to bridge the gap between medicine and the social/human sciences (Ødemark and Engebretsen 2022), and recognising the need to reintroduce the human element that has been eroded in both medicine and translation (Montalt 2021), this chapter aims to initiate a dialogue between translational medicine and medical translation, playing on similarities and differences, and to discuss what the two can learn from each other. This comparative approach highlights areas of convergence and divergence, ultimately enabling us to advocate a broader, more interdisciplinary interpretation of translation that encompasses linguistic, cultural and ethical aspects, as well as knowledge circulation and implementation.

Historically, the conceptual topos of translatio established the ties between the translation studies (including the practice of translation) and rhetoric. Now, as we argue here, the philosophical concept of semantic excess — that in language, meaning is never fixed nor absolute — is the essential touchstone tying them together. For example, Benjamin and Perelman are intensely engaged in semantic excess in language, and in particular its slippery temporality: for Benjamin, this appears in the fragmentary nature of translation, and for Perelman’s New Rhetoric Project (with Olbrechts-Tyteca), in such confused notions as justice and democracy. Semantic excess not only binds the two disciplines, but clarifies their central dynamic as one of mobility and displacement.

This chapter explores the burgeoning intersection of periodical studies and translation studies and highlights the potential for cross-fertilization between these disciplines. The authors trace the increasing scholarly attention to newspapers, magazines, and other serialized press items as not just repositories of translated texts but as dynamic assemblages fostering transcultural exchanges. Moreover, they shed light on translation as a fundamental periodical practice in the print and digital realm, while periodical actors are shown to assume importance as translational actors. The chapter provides an overview of key concepts and methodological approaches and advocates for future collaborative work that considers the materiality of periodicals, transnational media ecologies, and the pedagogical opportunities offered by interdisciplinary cooperation.

African studies and translation studies both revolve around language and language-related practices as objects of study, but from two very different perspectives, with different methodologies and research histories. This chapter seeks to discuss each discipline’s approach to translation in the form of a transdisciplinary dialogue between African studies and translation studies. It suggests that to build the grounds for mutual understanding and exchange between the two disciplines it is necessary to go back to preconceived notions which have been effective both in conceptualizations of translation and research methods scrutinizing translational phenomena. For this purpose, the chapter concentrates on notions of language, more specifically language boundaries which prove to be constitutive in most conceptualizations of translation. For this it discusses concepts of border, bordering, and border thinking and suggests to switch the perspective from language to the people and their categorization as speakers of a given language. To focus on the self-assignment and external assignment of speakers to “their languages”, thus on the processes and agents involved in a constant negotiation of language boundaries, the paper introduces the concept of language-related human differentiation. At the same time, the negotiation process itself is conceptualized as translational, which implies that translation is constitutive of language boundaries both in theory and in practice. The discussion draws on field work conducted in two research projects in African studies and translation studies respectively.

This chapter is structured as a dialogue between two scholars from different disciplines, each exploring the potential of concepts and methods from translation studies to shed light on the formation, circulation and reception of transnational memories, while also considering how insights from memory studies can highlight the multidirectional engagements and local embedding of memories originating from diverse contexts in cultural practices of translation. The interdisciplinary exchange prompts reflection on the specific formats and mechanisms through which memories “travel” via translation across geographical, cultural and linguistic boundaries, as well as their subsequent “instantiation” in particular locales, where they are reshaped through interactions with local repertoires, audiences, and agendas.

Our focus is on how translation-as-transformation acts as a driving force behind the evolution and preservation of memory. This entails engaging with the ethical implications of translating local histories and narratives for global consumption. Through an analysis of various media forms — including testimony, literature, film, and museums — we examine how the dynamic interplay between interlingual and cultural translation unlocks the mnemonic potential of a given text or narrative. Approaching memory through a translational lens ultimately compels us to challenge conventional notions of authenticity, native language and stable originals, and to question the presumed unidirectionality of transfer processes.

At first glance, translation studies and geography might seem to be two disciplines with relatively little to say to each other. However, this dialogue between scholars affiliated with each discipline shows that there are considerable areas of overlap between the two fields. Writing from their disciplinary positions, the authors show how “translation” and “space” have been encountered in geography and translation studies, reflect on their own personal motivations for “crossing” disciplinary boundaries, and discuss some of the key conceptual and practical puzzles posed by translation and spatial thinking in their respective disciplines. In the process, this chapter provides a useful point of departure for scholars interested in moving between these two disciplines.

Cognitive theories in translation and interpreting studies explore how memory, working memory components, and cognitive load affect these tasks. In this chapter, we first review several theoretical frameworks from cognitive linguistics and their relevance to translation and interpreting studies. We then examine cognitive aspects of interpreting, including the argument that interpreters, as expert language users, may exhibit cognitive advantages over monolinguals and, to a lesser extent, “ordinary” bilinguals. On this backdrop, we delve into cognition in translation, drawing insights from psycholinguistic research, along with cognitive processes in multimodal contexts, such as audiovisual translation, with a focus on how sensory modalities interact. Finally, we outline interdisciplinary research directions for future exploration.

The authors agreed to structure their entry as a genuine dialogue. The authors explain in two opening sections why they believe that opening a border crossing between the academic provinces of translation studies and cultural semiotics can bring mutual benefits. The correspondence proper starts right after these opening remarks. In their exchanges, Torop and Stecconi clarify to each other and to their readers what “interdisciplinarity” can mean in their respective areas of study and for the purpose of their dialogue. They then discuss Torop’s notion of “total translation”. Finally, the authors conclude their contribution with a spirited debate about how exactly a border between the notions of translation and adaptation could be traced.

In this chapter, Dionysios Kapsaskis (DK) and Tessa Dwyer (TD) discuss a range of historical, theoretical and practical issues at the intersection of film and translation. Drawing from their respective core disciplines — translation studies for Kapsaskis and film studies for Dwyer — as well as from an expanding body of cross disciplinary writings and other sources, they examine questions such as the following: the role of translation in the development of cinema as a modern art form and the possibility of a translational history of film; the critical affordances of what may be called “a translational lens into film,” bringing into focus the cinematic representation of (linguistic) difference but also the asymmetrical relations of power in the distribution and reception of films across borders; and the impact of translation automation technologies on audiovisual translation and translators. Looking at both mainstream and “errant” film translation practices, Kapsaskis and Dwyer debate the paradoxical role of film translation as both an enabling mechanism for the expression of audience particularity and an instrument of homogenization and perpetuation of myths of universality that have surrounded cinema since its inception.

This chapter explores the intersections between anthropology and translation studies, emphasizing their shared concern with “translation” as a conceptual, methodological, and heuristic tool. The chapter sets out to examine notions of translation within anthropology, particularly its role in addressing the crisis of representation and its implications for anthropologists’ efforts to portray (close and distant) cultural realities. It then moves to showcasing how translation studies adopted anthropological positions on translation, such as those related to the writing culture debate and how this reception has informed the field’s so-called cultural turn. In a final part, drawing on relational art projects as a case study, the authors illustrate how translation functions as a practice of meaning-making, fostering alliances across diverse actors and disciplines. The chapter concludes by advocating for continued interdisciplinary exchanges, positioning translation as a dynamic lens for understanding cultural interactions, ethical dilemmas, and collaborative forms of knowledge production.

This chapter explores the interdisciplinary dialogue between imagology and translation studies, examining how cultural and national images (mental images, that is, not necessarily visual images) are transferred, transformed, and recontextualized across linguistic and geocultural boundaries. Drawing on the authors’ respective expertise, it traces the historical development, methodological frameworks, and institutional status of both fields, highlighting their convergences and divergences. Imagology, traditionally rooted in comparative literature, is conceptualized as a lens or selection principle for analyzing discursive representations of ethnotypes and geocultural spaces. Translation studies, with its more established disciplinary infrastructure, increasingly engages with imagological approaches to investigate how translation mediates cultural memory and identity.

The chapter emphasizes the diachronic and intertextual nature of both disciplines, illustrating how translations function as cultural artifacts that co-construct meaning and reflect ideological shifts. The authors demonstrate the complex negotiation of auto-images, hetero-images, and translated images, and address the challenges posed by media diversification, non-narrative genres, and the politicization of image-building, particularly in contexts like cultural diplomacy.

Critically engaging with concepts such as hybridity, geocultural space, and intersectionality, the chapter questions essentialist and nation-based frameworks while acknowledging their persistent influence. It advocates for a reflective, historically grounded approach to image analysis, warning against ideological overreach and emphasizing the need for methodological transparency. Ultimately, the chapter argues that imagology and translation studies, through their shared focus on cultural transfer and representation, offer valuable insights into the dynamics of identity construction in a globalized yet increasingly identity-conscious world.

This chapter highlights the paradoxical and sinuous history of the relationship between philosophy and translation studies. After a long period of mutual self-isolation as regards their respective discourses on translation, both disciplines are gradually developing a new dynamic and displaying a mature openness to having an interdisciplinary dialogue. This essay argues in favour of further enhancing the permeability of disciplinary boundaries by investigating the phenomenon of translation together, i.e., as a joint attempt at academic cooperation in action: a translation scholar (Cercel) and a philosopher (Grondin) discuss a hot topic within current debates in translation studies, namely the intriguing question of the ontological status of a translation as the original. We profile the state and premises of the debate, examine the conditions under which a translation can indeed be considered the original and formulate a (hypo)thesis concerning a key point in defining the ontology of translation as the (new) original.

The global language industry, of which translation is a critical part, is expanding and changing rapidly. Its complexity and dynamic diversity reveal a composite of actors and perspectives that include those of language service providers and vendors, language and translation technology developers, project managers, quality control experts, terminologists, translators, interpreters, revisers, posteditors, transcreators, localizers, and a wide range of specializations within these professional profiles. In this chapter, we bring perspectives of translation studies and the language industry into dialogue and attempt to disentangle their symbiotic relationships and mutual impacts on each other as translation activity undergoes transformation in the age of artificial intelligence. How have they defined and adapted to each other as they’ve evolved, both in concept and in practice? How do they respectively understand the role of translators and the purpose of translation and recognize its value as a product and/or service? Are there theoretical, conceptual, or methodological approaches from both that are potentially beneficial to each? With deep roots in antiquity, translation continues to be a fundamental anchor for flows of information and communication in today’s technologizing and globalizing world, and the language industry is transforming our understanding of translators and the practices and underlying concept of translation. A more constant, collaborative dialogue between the language industry and academic translation studies promises even more insights.

This chapter is the result of a co-writing process during which the three authors, two from international business and one from translation studies have engaged in cross-disciplinary dialogue to identify past and potential future interactions between the two disciplines they represent. Through a review of key contributions and an indicative citation analysis, the chapter highlights the joint work that already exists, identifies the core contributors and provides an analysis of the awareness of translation studies in international business research and vice versa. On this basis, the authors suggest some avenues that future international business-cum-translation studies research can follow to increase its visibility across the disciplinary boundaries and discuss current common interests in the two fields with a view to forging these into a joint research agenda.

Museums are major sites of translation in which the production of multilingual interpretive resources is crucial to fulfilling the museum’s institutional purpose in the global heritage milieu. Equally, from the perspective of translation studies research, the academe has in recent years shown increasing interest in the museum as a less-understood site of translation. However, there has hitherto been relatively little dialogue between translation studies and museum practice. This chapter presents an exchange between a university-based researcher in museum translation and a senior museum translation practitioner from one of China’s premier museums. It focuses on the role of the translator, a role which has been under-theorized, and for which the practitioner perspective is particularly important to better understanding how the translator approaches museum-based translation practice. The exchange calls for greater dialogue and collaboration, both in practical training and research, in ways that can be of genuine benefit to both communities.

This chapter explores the conceptual and methodological intersections between travel writing and translation studies, arguing that travel is inherently a form of translation — linguistic, cultural, ideological, and affective. Through a dialogic structure, the authors examine how travel texts mediate otherness, construct identity, and negotiate values through processes of selection, representation, and aestheticisation. Drawing on historical examples from the heyday of modern travelling — from Trollope and Dickens to Douglass and Lowell — the authors highlight the hybrid, subjective, and often politicized nature of travel narratives. Emphasizing translation as a metonymic and transformative act, the chapter situates travel writing within broader discourses of globalization, colonialism, and epistemic transfer. Ultimately, it advocates for interdisciplinary collaboration between translation studies and travel writing studies to better understand the dynamics of cultural mobility and representation.

This chapter explores how translation and fashion are not just interconnected but entangled with one another. It does so through a conversation on this topic between the two authors, each representing their respective fields (translation studies for Zwischenberger and fashion theory for Calefato). Taking transdisciplinarity as both a method and a target of research, they discuss how each engages with the other’s object of study. Delving into concepts from both fields such as the clothed body, look, and style, and translation as a transformative movement between all sorts of sign-systems, they discuss the role of translation in fashion theory and fashion in translation studies and how the act of imitation in fashion can be compared to the relationship between the “original” and the “copy” in Translation Studies.

Religious studies and religious practice depend on translation for their existence. The theoretical work of Nida during the second half of the twentieth century within the context of translating religious texts greatly influenced the emergence of translation studies as a discipline. We describe the theoretical, conceptual and methodological input, benefit and impact of each discipline on the other and demonstrate that both disciplines benefit from the widening of translation to include translating nonverbal sign systems into verbal or other nonverbal signs and vice versa. Two important dimensions receive attention: one in which a religion translates its own indigenous tradition to constrain meaning; and one in which a religion translates for itself the god-talk of others.

Starting from the idea that translation concepts and practices have an untapped potential to bridge the gap between medicine and the social/human sciences (Ødemark and Engebretsen 2022), and recognising the need to reintroduce the human element that has been eroded in both medicine and translation (Montalt 2021), this chapter aims to initiate a dialogue between translational medicine and medical translation, playing on similarities and differences, and to discuss what the two can learn from each other. This comparative approach highlights areas of convergence and divergence, ultimately enabling us to advocate a broader, more interdisciplinary interpretation of translation that encompasses linguistic, cultural and ethical aspects, as well as knowledge circulation and implementation.

Historically, the conceptual topos of translatio established the ties between the translation studies (including the practice of translation) and rhetoric. Now, as we argue here, the philosophical concept of semantic excess — that in language, meaning is never fixed nor absolute — is the essential touchstone tying them together. For example, Benjamin and Perelman are intensely engaged in semantic excess in language, and in particular its slippery temporality: for Benjamin, this appears in the fragmentary nature of translation, and for Perelman’s New Rhetoric Project (with Olbrechts-Tyteca), in such confused notions as justice and democracy. Semantic excess not only binds the two disciplines, but clarifies their central dynamic as one of mobility and displacement.