Cover not available
Discussion published In:
Target
Vol. 16:1 (2004) ► pp.143–156
Discussion

Shared culture?

Reflections on recent trends in Translation Studies

 | University of Tampere / Academy of Finland
Ever since the “cultural turn” in Translation Studies it has been commonplace to state that translation is an act of cultural mediation. However, the concept of culture as such has remained elusive. A number of questions remain unanswered: How can we define a culture? What kind of empirical evidence is needed to prove the existence of a particular culture? Looking for answers, I start with a personal note, with my own previous attempt at conceptualizing translators’ work in the European Commission by defining the EU institutions as a (multilingual and institutional) culture of its own. Responses to this model convey varying views of the concept of culture. By analyzing and contextualizing these responses it is my aim to provide some answers to the question of what kind of a construction culture is. The results of the analysis are then used to reflect on recent developments in Translation Studies.
Keywords: culture, EU translation, cultural studies, linguistics, self-reflexivity, critical discourse analysis, Critical Translation Studies
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The (mine)field
  • 3.Explosive material
    • 3.1The insider experience
    • 3.2Clashing theories
    • 3.3Why the confusion?
  • 4.Ways out of the minefield
    • 4.1New words?
    • 4.2New categorisations?
  • 5.Critical Translation Studies
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 February 2005
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16.1.09kos
References (38)
References
Arrojo, Rosemary. 1998. “The revision of the traditional gap between theory & practice & the empowerment of translation in postmodern times”. The translator 4:1. 25–48.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1996. “Linguistics and cultural studies: Complementary or competing paradigms in Translation Studies?” Angelika Lauer, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Johann Haller and Erich Steiner, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1996. 9–19.Google Scholar
Bassnett-McGuire, Susan. 1980. Translation Studies. London and New York: Methuen.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bassnett, Susan. 1998. “The translation turn in cultural studies”. Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere, eds. Constructing cultures: Essays on literary translation. Clevedon: Multiligual Matters, 1998. 123–140.Google Scholar
Brisset, Annie. 1990/2000. “The search for a native language: Translation and cultural identity”, tr. Rosalind Gill and Roger Cannon. Lawrence Venuti, ed. The Translation Studies reader. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. 343–375.Google Scholar
Brownlie, Siobhan. 2003. “Distinguishing some approaches to translation research: The issue of interpretative constraints”. The translator 9:1. 39–64.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Calzada Pérez, María. 2001. “A three-level methodology for descriptive-explanatory Translation Studies”. Target 13:2. 203–239.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. “Introduction”. María Calzada Pérez, ed. Apropos of ideology: Translation Studies on ideology—Ideologies in Translation Studies. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2003. 1–22.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew and Rosemary Arrojo. 2000. “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12:1. 151–160.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew and Emma Wagner. 2002. Can theory help translators?: A dialogue between the ivory tower and the wordface. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Crisafulli, Edoardo. 2002. “The quest for an eclectic methodology of translation description”. Theo Hermans, ed. Crosscultural transgressions: Research models in Translation Studies II1. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2002. 26–43.Google Scholar
Delabastita, Dirk. 2003. “Translation Studies for the 21st century: Trends and perspectives”. Génesis 31/2003. 7–24.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of grammatology, tr. Gayatri Spivak. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins Univeristy Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Godard, Barbara. 1984. “Translating and sexual difference”. Resources for feminist research 13:3. 13–16.Google Scholar
Hall, Stuart. 1992. Kulttuurin ja politiikan murroksia (Collected writings in Finnish). Juha Koivisto, Timo Uusitupa, Mikko Lehtonen and Lawrence Grossberg, eds. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil. 2000. Communication across cultures. Exeter: University of Exeter Press.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo and Ubaldo Stecconi. 2002. “Translators as hostages of history” (17–18 April 2002). [URL]. Viewed 20.2.2003.
House, Juliane. 2002. “Universality versus culture specificity in translation”. Alessandra Riccardi, ed. Translation Studies: Perspectives for an emerging discipline. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. 92–109.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2000a. “Institutional illusions: Translating in the EU Commission”. The translator 6:1. 49–65.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000b. Beyond ambivalence: Postmodernity and the ethics of translation. Tampere: Tampere University. [Acta Univeristatis Tamperensis 477. (Diss.)]. Also available in [URL].
Lefevere, André and Susan Bassnett. 1990. “Introduction: Proust’s grandmother and the thousand and one nights. The cultural turn in Translation Studies”. Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere, eds. Translation, history and culture. London and New York: Routledge, 1990. 1–13.Google Scholar
Niranjana, Tejaswini. 1992. Siting translation: History, post-structuralism, and the colonial context. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nordland, Rasmus. 2002. “Equality and power in EU language work”. Perspectives 10:1. 31–54.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2002. “On cooperation”. Maeve Olohan, ed. Intercultural faultlines: Research models in Translation Studies I1. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2002. 181–192.Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 1995. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Silverman, Sydel. 2002. “Foreword”. Richard G. Fox and Barbara J. King, eds. Anthropology beyond culture. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2002. xv–xix.Google Scholar
Simeoni, Daniel. 2000. “When in doubt, contextualize...”. Target 12:2. 337–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 2002. “Adieu, culture: A new duty arises”. Richard G. Fox and Barbara J. King, eds. Anthropology beyond culture. Oxford and New York: Berg, 2002. 37–60.Google Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 1999. Translation in a postcolonial context: Early Irish literature in English translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Tymozcko, Maria. 2000. “Translation and political engagement: Activism, social change and the role of translation in geopolitical shifts”. The translator 6:1. 23–47.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 2002. “Connecting the two infinite orders: Research methods in Translation Studies”. Theo Hermans, ed. Crosscultural transgressions: Research models in Translation Studies II1. Manchester: St. Jerome, 2002. 9–25.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The translator’s invisibility: A history of translation. London and New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference. London and New York: Routledge   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuorinen, Erkka. 2001. “Kielitoisintoja Euroopasta—EU-kääntämisen erityispiirteitä” [Language versions from Europe—on the special features of EU translation]. Riitta Oittinen and Pirjo Mäkinen, eds. Alussa oli käännös. Tampere: Tampere University Press, 2001. 109–130.Google Scholar
Wagner, Emma, Svend Bech and Jesús M. Martínez. 2002. Translating for the European Union institutions. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Cited by (9)

Cited by nine other publications

Berezovskaya, Yadviga L. & Olesia I. Sharafutdinova
2018. LINGUISTIC AND CULTURAL ASPECT OF FOREIGN TEXTS (BASED ON THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE). Bulletin of the South Ural State University series Linguistics 15:4 ► pp. 57 ff. DOI logo
Vandepitte, Sonia
2017. Recognizing Social Aspects of Translation. In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ► pp. 165 ff. DOI logo
Davies, Eirlys E.
2012. Translation and Intercultural Communication: Bridges and Barriers. In The Handbook of Intercultural Discourse and Communication, ► pp. 367 ff. DOI logo
Jagosh, Justin & J. Donald Boudreau
2009. Lost and Found in Translation: An Ecological Approach to Bilingual Research Methodology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8:2 ► pp. 102 ff. DOI logo
Van Doorslaer, Luc
2009. The Indicative Power of A Key Word System. A Quantitative Analysis of the Key Words in the Translation Studies Bibliography. Meta 50:4 DOI logo
Abdallah, Kristiina & Kaisa Koskinen
2008. Managing Trust: Translating and the Network Economy. Meta 52:4 ► pp. 673 ff. DOI logo
Martín de León, Celia
2008. Skopos and beyond. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 20:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Tahir-Gürçağlar, Şehnaz
2008. Chaos Before Order: Network Maps and Research Design in DTS. Meta 52:4 ► pp. 724 ff. DOI logo
Straub, Jürgen, Werner Nothdurft, Hartmut Rosa, Norbert Ricken, Nicole Balzer, Klaus Jonas, Marianne Schmid Mast, Hans-Herbert Kögler, Mary Snell-Hornby, Gabriele Cappai, Martin Fuchs, Werner Nothdurft, Thorsten Bonacker & Lars Schmitt
2007. Grundbegriffe. In Handbuch interkulturelle Kommunikation und Kompetenz, ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.