Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 16:2 (2004) ► pp.201–226

A nonlinear approach to translation

| University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain)
The main concern of this article is to approach translation from the view of nonlinear dynamics. Thus, it makes use of theories related to such a type of dynamics (chaos theory and complexity science). This concern develops on two levels: firstly, the article argues that the abandonment of the traditional conception of translation and the raising of the current one actually agree with the evolution perceived in a great number of domains, such an evolution pointing to the rejection of deterministic positions. Secondly, it also defends the view that the translation process is entirely typical of the processes of nonlinear dynamics. Accordingly, key notions from nonlinear dynamics (such as sensitivity to initial conditions, phase transition, attractor or edge of chaos) are shown to apply to the nature of translation.
Keywords: translation, Translation Studies, nonlinear dynamics, chaos theory, complexity science, edge of chaos, unpredictability
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linear and nonlinear dynamics
  • 3.From traditional to modern Translation Studies
  • 4.The translation process as a nonlinear system
    • 4.1Chaos and initial conditions: Information and meaning
    • 4.2Initial conditions and unpredictability of the target text
    • 4.3The emergence of the target text as a phase transition
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 October 2005
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.16.2.02lon
References (53)
References
Bassnett-McGuire, Susan. 1980. Translation Studies. New York: Methuen. [Revisited ed.: London-New York: Routledge, 1991.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de. 1991. “Complexity and linguistics in the evolution of three paradigms”. Theoretical linguistics 17:1–3. 43–73.Google Scholar
Bernárdez, Enrique. 1995. Teoría y epistemología del texto. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 2002. “Semiotic modalities in translation causality”. Across language and cultures 3/21. 145–158.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Jack and Ian Stewart. 1995. The collapse of chaos. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Cooper, David. 1999. Linguistic attractors: The cognitive dynamics of language acquisition and change. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Folkart, Barbara. 1989. “Translation and the arrow of time”. TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 2/11. 19–50.Google Scholar
Gell-Mann, Murray. 1994. The quark and the jaguar: Adventures in the simple and the com¬plex. New York-San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Gleick, James. 1987. Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Brian. 1994. How the leopard changed its spots: The evolution of complexity. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil. 2001. Teaching and researching translation. Harlow, Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hayles, Katherine. 1990. Chaos bound: Orderly disorder in contemporary literature and science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herdina, Philip and Ulrike Jessner. 2002. A dynamic model of multilingualism: Perspectives of change in psycholinguistics. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, James S. 1972. “The name and nature of Translation Studies”. Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Copenhagen. [Version in Holmes 1988: 67–80.]Google Scholar
Holmes, James. 1978. “The future of translation theory: A handful of theses”. International Symposium on Achievements in the Theory of Translation, Moscow and Yerevan. [Quoted from the version in Holmes 1988: 99–102.]Google Scholar
Holmes, James S.. 1988. Translated!: Papers on literary translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Hurtado Albir, Amparo. 2001. Traducción y traductología: Introducción a la traductología. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Kauffman, Stuart. 1995a. At home in the universe: The search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 1995b. “What is life? Was Schrödinger right?”. Michael Murphy and Luke O’Neill, eds. What is life?: The next fifty years Speculations on the future of biology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. 83–114.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. Investigations. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, David. 2001. Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lefevere, André. 1992. Translating, rewriting, and the manipulation of literary fame. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lewin, Roger. 1992. Complexity: Life at the edge of chaos. New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard. 1998. Gene, organismo e ambiente. Roma: Guis. Laterza & Figli.Google Scholar
Longa, Víctor M. 2001. “Sciences of complexity and language origins: An alternative to natural selection”. Journal of literary semantics 30:1. 1–17.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. “Traducción, complejidad y dinámica no lineal”. To appear in Verba.
Lorenz, Edward. 1963. “Deterministic nonperiodic flow”. Journal of the atmospheric sciences 201. 130–141.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. The essence of chaos. London: University College of London Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mainzer, Klaus. 1994. Thinking in complexity. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayoral Asensio, Roberto. 2001. Aspectos epistemológicos de la traducción. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy. 2001. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and applications. London-New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.. 1964. Toward a science of translating, with special reference to principles and procedures involved in Bible translating. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
. 2001. Contexts in translating. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles Taber. 1969. The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Prigogine, Ilya and Isabelle Stengers. 1984. Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in translation history. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Rabadán, Rosa. 1991. Equivalencia y traducción: problemática de la equivalencia translémica inglés-español. León: Universidad de León.Google Scholar
Riccardi, Alessandraed. 2002. Translation Studies: Perspectives on an emerging discipline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rossi, Paolo. 1997. La nascita della scienza moderna in Europa. Roma-Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude. 1949. “The mathematical theory of communication”. Shannon and Weav¬er 1949: 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shannon, Claude and Warren Weaver. 1949. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Peter. 1998. Explaining chaos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stewart, Ian. 1989. Does God play dice?: The mathematics of chaos. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
. 1999. Life’s other secret: The new mathematics of the living world. London: Penguin Books. [first published in the USA by John Wiley & Sons, 1998.]Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004a. “Probabilistic explanations in Translation Studies: Welcome as they are, would they qualify as universals?”. Anna Mauranen and Pekka Kujamäki, eds. Translation universals—Do they exist? Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 15–32.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004b. “Probabilistic explanations in Translation Studies: Universals—or a challenge to the very concept?”. Gyde Hansen, Kirsten Malmkjær and Daniel Gile, eds. Claims, changes and challenges in Translation Studies: Selected contributions from the EST Congress, Copenhagen 2001. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004. 15–25.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Waldrop, Mitchell. 1992. Complexity: The emerging science at the edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Weaver, Warren. 1949. “Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communication”. Shannon and Weaver 1949 29–125.Google Scholar
Wilson, Edward. 1998. Consilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram. 1996. Knowledge and skills in translator behavior. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Kopp, Ruth Katharina
2015. Salevsky, Heidemarie & Ina Müller. 2011. Translation as Systemic Interaction. A New Perspective and a New Methodology. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 27:3 ► pp. 501 ff. DOI logo
Pym, Anthony
2015. Translating as risk management. Journal of Pragmatics 85 ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo
Lange, Anne
2012. Performative Translation Options Under The Soviet Regime. Journal of Baltic Studies 43:3 ► pp. 401 ff. DOI logo
Sung-Gi Jon
2010. Poétique du traduire et science humaine du traduire. Etudes de la Culture Francaise et de Arts en France 33:null ► pp. 431 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 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.