Translation strategies and tactics

Yves Gambier

Table of contents

Translation Studies (TS) borrows considerably from other disciplines, with the risk of having an incoherent terminology: multiplication of so-called synonyms (e.g., translation, adaptation, hts.4.introlocalisation), polysemy (e.g., culture, function, equivalence), and unclear or inaccurate concepts (e.g., similarity, system, text, mother tongue). Strategy is one of those ambiguous terms in TS: it is not only used in different ways, but it also seems to be in competition with a dozen other terms (in English): procedures, techniques, operations, changes, shifts, methods, replacements, etc. Are we dealing with a unique concept behind those different names or with different concepts expressed by terms offered as almost synonyms?

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Chesterman, Andrew
1997Memes of Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Crossref logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
2005“Problems with strategies”, in New Trends in Translation Studies. In honour of K.Klaudy, A. Károly & Àgota Fóris (eds), 17–28. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Gambier, Yves
2009“Stratégies et tactiques en traduction et interprétation”, in Efforts and Models in Interpreting and Translation Research,, Gyde Hansen, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast & A. Chesterman (eds), 63–82. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins  TSB Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Gile, Daniel
2009 (2nd edition). Basic concepts and models for interpreter and translator training. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Crossref logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta
1993“Investigating translation strategies”, in Recent Trends in Empirical Translation Research, Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit & John Laffling (eds), 99–120. Joensuu: University of Joensuu.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Kalina, Silvia
1998Strategische Prozesse beim Dolmetschen: Theoretische Grundlagen, Empirishce Fallstudien, Didatiksche Konsequenzen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1991Translation Performance, Translation Process and Translation Strategies. A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tübingen: Narr.  BoPGoogle Scholar
2002“A model for the analysis of translation processes within a framework of systemic linguistic”, Cadernos de Tradução 10 (2): 97–112. http://​www​.periodicos​.ufsc​.br​/index​.php​/traducao​/article​/view​/6146​/5704 [Accessed on 13 April 2010].  TSBGoogle Scholar
Molina, Lucía & Hurtado Albir, Amparo
2002“Translation techniques revisited. A dynamic and functional approach.” Meta 47 (4): 498–512. Crossref logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Muñoz, Martin
2000“Translation Strategies: Somewhere Over the Rainbow”, in Investigating Translation, Allison Beeby (eds), 129–138. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1995/1988A textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Nida, Eugen
1964Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: Brill.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1991Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-oriented Text Analysis. Amsterdam & Atlanta: Rodopi.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2004Introducing Interpreting Studies. London: Routlege.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Setton, Robin
1999Simultaneous Interpretation. A cognitive-pragmatic analysis. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins. Crossref logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul & Darbelnet, Jean
1958Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Paris: Didier. Translated and edited in English by J.C. Sager & M.J. Hamel 1995 Comparative Stylistics of French and English. A Methodology for Translation. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: J. Benjamins  TSBGoogle Scholar