As many scholars have observed, the status of translation has long suffered from being considered derivative, by contrast with ‘original’ literary writing, which is considered to be creative. Indeed, the importance of the concept of creativity to Translation Studies is partly due to its use by scholars and critics with a view to improving the status of translation by showing that it is, indeed, “creative”. Several different approaches have been adopted. Some scholars have focused on fields of translation activity in which creativity is generally supposed to be important, such as Literary translation, Poetry translation, the translation of wordplay and, more recently, transcreation, adaptation and multimodal translation (see Multimodality and audiovisual translation). There have been studies of the work of writers, such as Samuel Beckett, Joseph Brodsky or James Joyce, who translate their own work. This Self-translation is perceived by some critics as intrinsically more creative than translation ‘proper’, just as writers who translate have often been analysed as using Translation strategies and tactics which differ from those of professional translators. Some scholars have argued that creativity is an intrinsic part of the translating process. Creativity is understood by others as a choice on the translator’s part, a function of the translator’s agency (see also Agents of translation), and therefore paradoxically something which potentially sets (creative) writing and translation apart from translation “proper”. Eugenia Loffredo and Manuela Perteghella have usefully pointed out that distinctions between ‘original’ and ‘derivative’ writing are themselves cultural constructs and increasingly untenable in a postmodern critical era (2006: 3–6); if translation is a mode of writing, then it cannot be separated from the broader concept of literary writing itself: both are ‘creative writing’.
1996“Corpus-based Translation Studies: The challenges that lie ahead.”In Terminology, LSP and Translation: Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, Harold Somers (ed.), 175–186. Amsterdam: John BenjaminsTSB.
2000“Towards a methodology for investigating the style of a literary translator.”Target 12 (2): 241–266. TSB
1997“Créativité et traduction.”Target 9 (1): 85–100. TSB
Bastin, Georges L
2003“Aventures et mésaventures de la créativité chez les debutants.”Meta 48 (3): 347–360. TSB
2009“Translational creativity: How to measure the unmeasurable.”In Behind the Mind: Methods, Models and Results in Translation Process Research, Susanne Göpferich, Arnt Lykke Jakobsen & Inger M. Mees (eds), 39–59. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
Gambier, Yves & Gottlieb, Henrik
2001“Multimedia, multilingua: Multiple challenges.”In (Multi)media Translation: Concepts, Practices and Research, Yves Gambier & Henrik Gottlieb (eds), viii–xx. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
1999Translation in Systems: Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome. TSB
Holman, Michael & Boase-Beier, Jean
1999“Introduction: Writing, rewriting and translation. Through constraint to creativity.”In The Practices of Literary Translation: Constraints and Creativity, Michael Holman & Jean Boase-Beier (eds), 1–17. Manchester: St. Jerome.
2001Lexis and Creativity in Translation: A Corpus-based Study. Manchester: St. Jerome. TSB
1991“Creativity in the translation process: Empirical approaches.”In Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the 1st James S. Holmes Symposium in Translation Studies, Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart & Ton Naaijkens (eds), 91–101. Amsterdam: Rodopi. TSB
Loffredo, Eugenia & Perteghella, Manuela
2006“Introduction.”In Translation and Creativity: Perspectives on Creative Writing and Translation Studies, Eugenia Loffredo & Manuela Perteghella (ed.), 1–16. London: Continuum.