Implications of Research into Translator Invisibility

Basil Hatim
Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

Abstract

Espousal of the cultural model in translation studies has been one of the more exciting developments in recent years. In this paper, an influential ap-proach representing this trend (outlined in Venuti 1995 and related publications) is assessed and its many strengths indicated. Also discussed are issues which have been seen as weaknesses in the model (e.g. the minimal reliance on textual evidence and the lack of a consistent methodology). A number of proposals, primarily informed by critical linguistics and contrastive rhetoric, are put forward in an attempt to fill some of the gaps. English and Arabic provide the language pair for a set of analytic procedures which focus on the teaching of literary translation.

Table of contents

The relationship between linguistics and translation studies has never been an easy one. This tension has in part been engendered by a clash of expectations regarding, on the one hand, what the theoretical linguist can or cannot do for the translator and, on the other hand, what the translator perceives as relevant to the problems at hand. For a long time, linguists had hoped that the translation [ p. 203 ]process would be amenable to the ‘rigour’ of their descriptive, system-oriented models of analysis. But, particularly in the earlier stages of its development, the linguistic approach turned out to be rather ill-equipped for the task; for example, little or no regard for meaning was shown, except of course within such highly decontextualized domains as ‘lexical fields’. Translators, for their part, have had their sights fixed on a different set of priorities: craft knowledge is systematically valued, often at the expense of theoretical comment and analytic reflection. This attitude was exacerbated by what was generally seen as the failure of linguistics to deliver: earlier approaches to linguistics all but failed to convince the practitioner that what they had to say about the translation process was in any way meaningful.

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

Al-Hakeem, Tawfiq
1973The Sultan’s Dilemma, tr. Dennis Johnson-Davies in a collection entitled Fate of a Cockroach. London: Heinemann Educational.Google Scholar
1978The Sultan’s Dilemma, tr. Mohammed Badawi. Cairo: The American University of Cairo Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona
1996 “Linguistics and Cultural Studies: Complementary or Competing Paradigms in Translation Studies?Angelica Lauer , Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast , Johann Haller and Erich Steiner, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch: Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 70. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Gunter Narr 1996 9–19.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de
1978Factors in a Theory of Poetic Translating. Assen: van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de and Wolfgang Dressier
1981Introduction to Textlinguistics. London: Longman. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Donald
1994 “Translating the Commune: Cultural Politics and the Historical Specificity of the Anarchist Text”. TTR VII: 1. 47–76.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles and Félix Guattari
1987A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1989Language and Power. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1992Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Fawcett, Peter
1995 “Translation and Power Play”. The Translator 1:2. 177–192.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 222 ]
Fowler, Roger , Bob Hodge , Gunther Kress and Tony Trew
1979Language and Control. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gregory, Michael
1980 “Perspectives on Translation from the Firthian Tradition”. Meta 25:4. 455–466.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Michael and Susanne Carroll
1978Language and Situation: Language Varieties and Their Social Contexts. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
1978Language as a Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan
1989Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil
1997Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. Exeter: University Press.Google Scholar
forthcoming 1. Teaching and Researching Translation and Interpreting. London: Longman.
forthcoming 2. “A Socio-Textual Definition of Culture from a Translation Perspective”. Diraasaat (University of Jordan).
Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason
1990Discourse and the Translator. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1997The Translator as Communicator. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
1977 “A Model for Assessing Translation Quality”. Meta 22:2. 103–109.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Barbara
1990 “Orality and Discourse Structure in Modern Standard Arabic”. Mushira Eid, ed. Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics I. Amsterdam: John Benjamins 1990 215–233.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Robert
1966 “Cultural Thought Patterns in Inter-Cultural Education”. Language Learning 16/1 and 16/2. 1–20.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kress, Gunther
1989Linguistic Processes in Socio-Cultural Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kress, Gunther and Robert Hodge
1979Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mahfouz, Naguib
1956Bayn al-Qasrayn. Cairo. (Translated as Palace Walk by W.M. Hutchins and O.E. Kenny. New York: Anchor Books 1990.)Google Scholar
Martin, J.R.
1985Factual Writing. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
Munif, Abdul Rahman
1973Al-Ashjar wa Ightiyal al-Shaykh Marzouq. (An extract entitled “The Trees” appeared in Modern Arab Short Stories. London: The Iraqi Cultural Centre 1980.)Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina
1971Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik: Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von Übersetzungen. München: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1980In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence
, ed. 1992Rethinking Translation: Discourse, Subjectivity, Ideology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
1995The Translator’s Invisibility. London: Routledge.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996 “Translation, Heterogeneity, Linguistics”. TTR IX:1. 91–115.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 “American Tradition”. Mona Baker, ed. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge 1998 305–316. Google Scholar