Conceptual Work and the "Translation" Concept

Sandra L. Halverson

Abstract

The concept of "translation" is required to carry a considerable load at several levels of inquiry. It functions as a causal element in sociological theories, and as a methodological tool, when used extensionally. Most importantly, it is the concept which in some way structures the field which we take as our object of inquiry. As such, it has particular functions in serving as a basis for generalizations and as a means of determining category membership. In response to what are perceived as difficulties in some of these areas, some scholars have hinted that the concept of "translation" might be fruitfully viewed as a prototype category. In this paper, I review the philosophical and empirical arguments which support such a move, and outline some of the programmatic consequences. The focus is on the resolution of current conceptual problems, and on the theoretical and metatheoretical implications.

Table of contents

In a paper which in many ways is a forerunner to the present one, I argued that major philosophical differences underlie much of the past, and some of the present theoretical dissension in the field of Translation Studies (Halverson 1997 [ p. 2 ]). I also argued that what evidence there is of a rapprochement has suggested that scholars are falling down on the side of relativity, which I believe to be the lesser of two evils, though still problematic in the long run. As has been pointed out so many times before, a complete surrender to the strongest form of relativity leaves us quite unsatisfied in our efforts to account for, or motivate, the comparability of concepts and theories and the ultimate selection of one over the other (see Lakatos and Musgrave 1970, Putnam 1981, Shapere 1981, Laudan 1990). In short, concepts whose validity is completely relative to a particular constellation—either a real-world, time-space one, or a theoretical one—do not provide an adequate basis for scientific generalizations; one of the major pieces of work that we need our concepts to do is not getting done.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Aitchison, Jean
1994Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence
1987 “The Instability of Graded Structure: Implications for the Nature of Concepts”. Ulric Neisser, ed. Concepts and Conceptual Development: Eco-logical and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1987 101–140.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate
1987Norms of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William
1990 “Connectionism and the Philosophy of Mind: An Overview”. William Lycan, ed. Mind and Cognition: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell 1990 252–273.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent
1968Tzeltal Numeral Classifiers. The Hague: Mouton. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay
1969Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent, Dennis E. Breedlove and Peter H. Raven
1974Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger
1958 “How Shall a Thing Be Called?Psychological Review 65. 14–21.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1965Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1993a “Theory in Translation Theory”. The New Courant 1. 69–79.Google Scholar
1993b “From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies”. Target 5:1. 1–20.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 29 ]
Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay
1981 “Prototype Semantics: The English Word lie”. Language 57:1. 26–44.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D.A.
1990 “Prototype Theory and Lexical Semantics”. Savas L. Tsohatzidis, ed. Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. London and New York: Routledge 1990 382–402.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel
1995Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques
1985 “Des Tour de Babel”. Joseph F. Graham, ed. Difference in Transla-tion. Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press 1985 165–207.Google Scholar
Dobrovol’skij, Dimitri
1996 “Idioms of Fear: A Cognitive Approach”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk 1996 : 13–26.Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul, Wallace V. Friesen, and P. Ellsworth
1972Emotion in the Human Face. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar
1990 “Translation and Transfer”. Poetics Today 11:1. 73–78. (1 1981)   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Janet
1996 “The Translator Investigated”. The Translator 2:1. 65–79.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.
1994The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian
ed. 1981Scientific Revolutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
1997 “The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies: Much Ado About Something”. Target 9:1. 207–233.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1998 “Translation Studies and Representative Corpora: Establishing Links between Translation Corpora, Theoretical/Descriptive Categories and a Concep-tion of the Object”. Meta 43:4. 494–514.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1999 “Image Schemas, Metaphoric Processes and the ‘Translate’ Concept”. Metaphor and Symbol 14:3. 199–219.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
forthcoming. “Prototype Effects in the ‘Translation’ Category“. Paper presented at the Second International Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies. Granada, Spain, 23-26 September 1998.   Crossref logo
Harris, Brian
1977 “The Importance of Natural Translation”. Working Papers on Bilingualism 12.
1992 “Natural Translation: A Reply to Hans P. Krings”. Target 4:1. 97–103.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo
1991 “Translational Norms and Correct Translations”. Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens, eds. 1991 Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi 1991 155–169.Google Scholar
1997 “Translation as Institution”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Zusanna Jettmarová and Klaus Kindl, eds. Translation as Intercultural Communication: Selected Papers from the EST Conference—Prague 1995. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins 1997 3–20.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas
1985 “Waking Up from the Boolean Dream, or, Subcognition as Computation”. Metamagical Themas. New York: Basic Books 1985 631–665.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1959 “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”. Reuben A. Brower, ed. On Translation, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1959 232–239.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark
1987The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, Werner
1995 “The Concept of Equivalence and the Object of Translation Studies”. Target 7:2. 191–222.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 30 ]
Krings, Hans P.
1986Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Franzözischlernern. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas
1970The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
1977The Essential Tension. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit
1995 “Think-Aloud Protocol Analysis in Translation Studies”. TTR VIII:2. 177–199.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre
1970 “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs”. Lakatos and Musgrave 1970 : 91–196. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre and Alan Musgrave
1970Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1987Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1988 “Cognitive Semantics”. Umberto Eco, Marco Santambroglio and Patrizia Violi, eds. Meaning and Mental Representations. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press 1988 119–154.Google Scholar
1993 “Modern Theory of Metaphor”. Andrew Ortony, ed. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1993 202–251.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry
1981 “A Problem-Solving Approach to Scientific Progress”. Hacking 1981 : 144–155.Google Scholar
1990Science and Relativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Mandelblit, Nili
1996 “The Cognitive View of Metaphor and Its Implications for Translation Theory”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1996 : 483–495.Google Scholar
Myers, Dan
1994 “The Chinese Morpheme gong”. Cognitive Linguistics 5:3. 261–280.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1997Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
The Oxford English Dictionary
1989 Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Paulussen, Hans
1997 “Parallel Corpora for Cognitive Contrastive Analysis”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszcayk 1997 : 501–509.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary
1981Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1992 “The Relations Between Translation and Material Text Transfer”. Target 4:2. 171–189.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1995a “Material Text Transfer as a Key to the Purposes of Translation”. Albrecht Neubert, Gregory Shreve and Klaus Gommlich, eds. Basic Issues in Translation Studies: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference. Kent Forum on Translation Studies. Ohio: The Institute for Applied Linguistics 1995 337–345.Google Scholar
1995b “European Translation Studies, Une Science qui dérange, and Why Equivalence Needn’t Be a Dirty Word”. TTR VIII:1. 153–176.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1997 “Koller’s ‘Äquivalenz’ Revisited: Review of Werner Roller’s Einführing in die Übersetzungswissenschaft”. The Translator 3:1. 71–79.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Rey, Georges
1983 “Concepts and Stereotypes”. Cognition 15. 237–262.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor
1973 “Natural Categories”. Cognitive Psychology 4. 328–350.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1975a ”Cognitive Reference Points”. Cognitive Psychology 7. 532–547.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1975b “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104. 192–233.[ p. 31 ]Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
1977 “Human Categorization”. Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology. London: Academic.Google Scholar
1978 “Principles of Categorization”. Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd, eds. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1978 27–48.Google Scholar
1981 “Prototype Classification and Logical Classification: The Two Systems.” E. Scholnick, ed. New Trends in Cognitive Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates 1981 73–86.Google Scholar
Shapere, Dudley
1981 “Meaning and Scientific Change”. Hacking 1981 : 28–59.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve
1990From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Thelen, Marcel and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk
eds. 1996Translation and Meaning, Part 3. Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht, School of Translation and Interpreting, Maastricht.Google Scholar
Thelen, Marcel and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszcayk
eds. 1997Translation and Meaning Part 4. Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht, School of Translation and Inter-preting.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
1997 “Towards a Prototypical Definition of Translation”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1997 : 89–96.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1980In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
1986 “Translation: A Cultural-Semiotic Perspective”. Thomas Sebeok, ed. Enyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 2 1986 1111–1124.Google Scholar
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam-Philadel-phia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M.
1991Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
1996The Literary Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch
1991The Embodied Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
1990 “‘Prototypes Save’: On the Uses and Abuses of ‘Prototype’ in Linguistics and Related Fields”. Savas L. Tsohatzidis, ed. Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. London: Routledge 1990 347–367.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig
1953Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar