Cover not available
Article published In:
Twenty Years EST: Same place, different times
Edited by Michael Boyden
[Target 26:2] 2014
► pp. 185–205

Translation Studies in Europe—reasons for it, and problems to work on

| Universitat Rovira i Virgili
As a social and political context for research on translation, the European Union offers pertinent commitments to multilingualism, inclusive territorial democracy, transparent governance and the welfare state, with enough public funding to pursue these aims seriously. All these features concern translation, not only to the extent that they create social demands for translations but more importantly in that they give our research an ethical and political dimension, in addition to the demands of various markets. However, when the consequences of these commitments are compared with actual European research and public policies concerning translation, several shortcomings become apparent. The comparison suggests that future tasks for Translation Studies in Europe should include: (1) serious attention to far more than the large territorial languages; (2) enhanced exchange with neighboring disciplines, especially with scholars working on language acquisition; (3) an acceptance that translated communication should concern involvement and interaction, in addition to public information; (4) a questioning of the Western translation form as the model best suited to interactive cross-lingual governance; and (5) experimentation with technologies that stimulate citizen involvement.
Keywords: European Union, Translation Studies, language policy, interdisciplinarity, communicative involvement
Article outline
  • 1.Five reasons for studying translation in Europe
    • 1.Europe invests financially in the model of a multicultural and multilingual society
    • 2.Europe has developed a workable model of territorial democracy
    • 3.Europe has relatively transparent public administrations
    • 4.Europe has developed a workable model of the welfare state
    • 5.Europe is relatively rich, still
  • 2.Five reasons why Translation Studies has to be improved in Europe
    • 1.A multilingualism for whom?
    • 2.Whose territory?
    • 3.Transparent to whom?
    • 4.Information or action?
    • 5.Technology to look backwards or forwards?
  • 3.En guise de conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 June 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.2.02pym
References (40)
References
Coulmas, Florian. 1991. “European Integration and the Idea of a National Language.” In A Language Policy for the European Community. Prospects and Quandaries, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 1–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Cambridge University Press. Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
Edelenbos, Peter, Richard Johnstone, and Angelika Kubanek. 2006. The Main Pedagogical Principles Underlying the Teaching of Languages to Very Young Learners. Languages for the Children of Europe. Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 study. European Commission.Google Scholar
Eurobarometer. 2006. Special Eurobarometer 243. Europeans and Their Languages. Accessed February 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2012. Special Eurobarometer 386. Europeans and Their Languages. Accessed February 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
European Commission. 2003. Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006. COM(2003)449. Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2005a. A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism. Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2005b. Action Plan to Improve Communicating Europe by the Commission. Directorate General for Communication. Accessed February 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2007a. Key Competences for Lifelong Learning – A European Framework. Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2007b. Report of the High Level Group on Multilingualism. Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2008. Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment. Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2009a. Study on the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity. Final Report. Public Services Contract n° EACEA/2007/3995/2. Accessed February 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2009b. Web Translation as a Genre. Brussels: Directorate General for Translation, European Commission.Google Scholar
2010. Étude portant sur la contribution de la traduction à la société multilingue dans l’Union européenne. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed February 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2011a. First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2011b. Lingua Franca. Chimera or Reality? Directorate General for Translation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed February 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2012a. Crowdsourcing Translation. Directorate General for Translation. Accessed February 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2012b. Intercomprehension. Directorate General for Translation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
2012c. The Status of the Translation Profession in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Eurydice. 2005. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2005. Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Accessed February 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2008. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2008. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
2012. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2012. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA P9 Eurydice and Policy Support). Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. “Multiculturalism and the Liberal State.” Stanford Law Review 47 (5): 849–853. [URL] DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Brian. 1976. “The Importance of Natural Translation.” Working Papers in Bilingualism (Toronto) 121: 96–114. [URL]Google Scholar
Hobsbawm, Eric. 1990. Nations and Nationalism since 1780. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kade, Otto. 1968. Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
1977. “Zu einigen Grundpositionen bei der theoretischen Erklärung der Sprachmittlung als menschlicher Tätigkeit.” In Vermittelte Kommunikation, Sprachmittlung, Translation, ed. by Otto Kade, 27–43. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Knapp, Karlfried, and Annelie Knapp-Potthoff. 1985. “Sprachmittlertätigkeit in der interkulturellen Kommunikation.” In Interkulturelle Kommunikation, ed. by Jochen Rehbein, 450–463. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2006. “‘Going Social’? On Pathways and Paradigms in Interpreting Studies.” In Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Zuzana Jettmarová, 215–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Podkalicka, Aneta Monika. 2007. Lost in Translation? Language Policy, Media and Community in the EU and Australia: Some Lessons from the SBS. PhD diss. Queensland University of Technology. [URL]Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2006. “Globalization and the Politics of Translation Studies.” Meta 51 (4): 744–757. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. “Translation vs. Language Learning in International Institutions. Explaining the Diversity Paradox.” Cultus 1 (1): 70–83.Google Scholar
2012. “Translation as an Instrument for Multilingual Democracy.” Paper Presented to the Multilingual 2.0? Symposium, University of Arizona, April 13-15, 2012. [URL]
2013. On Translator Ethics. Principles for Mediation between Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie. 1998. Über die Sprache hinaus. Beiträge zur Translationswissenschaft. Heidelberg: TextConText Verlag.Google Scholar
Strubell, Miquel, Sergi Vilaró, Glyn Williams, and Gruffudd Owain Williams. 2007. The Diversity of Language Teaching in the European Union. Report to the European Commission, DG EAC. Accessed January 2013. [URL]Google Scholar
Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. 1998. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
Wilss, Wolfram. 1999. Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century: Focus on German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zarate, Geneviève, Aline Gohard-Radenkovic, Denise Lussier, and Hermine Penz, eds. 2004. Cultural Mediation and the Teaching and Learning of Languages. Strasbourg: European Centre for Modern Languages. [URL]Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan & Honghua Wang
2018. Conclusion. In Research on Translator and Interpreter Training [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 191 ff. DOI logo
Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan & Honghua Wang
2018. Research on Interpreter Training: A Review of Studies in the New Millennium. In Research on Translator and Interpreter Training [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Brunelière, Jean-François
2016. Autos franceses en Brasil: como dos mundos diferentes (la industria y la traductología) son (están) relacionados. Mutatis Mutandis. Revista Latinoamericana de Traducción 9:1 ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Katan, David
2013. Intercultural Mediation. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 4], ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 september 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.