Towards a meta-theoretical model for translation: A multidimensional approach

Piotr Blumczynski and Ghodrat Hassani

Abstract

In this study, we propose a meta-theoretical model for translation. In doing so, we start from a critique of bivalent thinking – rooted in classical logic – exposing unidimensionality as its fundamental weakness. We then consider how this problem has traditionally been addressed by proposing continua. While recognising their cognitive, heuristic and didactic values, we argue that despite the promise of alleviating strict polarisation symptomatic of binarisms, continua are still unidimensional and thus counterproductive to theorising that seeks to capture translational complexity. As a way out of this impasse, building on the premises of fuzzy logic and the understanding that translation is a non-zero-sum concept, we suggest that theoretical concepts be couched in terms of multidimensionality (that is, contrasted with numerous oppositions, rather than a single one, as is the case with polar thinking). Finally, we suggest how our proposed approach can be translated into a practice of theorising.

Keywords:
Publication history
Table of contents

This article is a reaction to a certain methodological crisis which both of us started to notice independently of one another, working as researchers, translators, and translator trainers in two cultural contexts as different as Ireland and Iran. Consequently, we aim to make here a methodological point which crosses many historical and geographical boundaries and concerns a broad range of theoretical approaches in translation studies. We believe that we have identified an issue affecting no single theory in particular but rather a widespread manner of theorising: that is why we point to meta-theoretical implications. The selection of examples evoked to support our claims may seem somewhat haphazard (though we would prefer the term ‘random’, as in ‘random sampling’); indeed, we refer to various frameworks which are not always closely connected to one another but our argument does not depend on any potential parallels between them except for a widely shared meta-theoretical commitment to a certain kind of logic. John Ellis in his book Language, Thought, and Logic argues that “the most important steps in any theoretical enquiry are the initial ones” (1993, 14), and it is precisely these first, spontaneous, perhaps habitual, steps of logic that we are concerned with here. However, in order to present our critique of the problem and suggest a way of addressing it, we first need to outline its context.

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

Abbott, Edwin A.
(1884) 1992 Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Appiah, Kwame Anthony
1993 “Thick Translation.” Callaloo 16 (4): 808–819. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Arduini, Stefano, and Siri Nergaard
2011 “Translation: A New Paradigm.” Translation 1 (inaugural issue): 8–15.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona
2009 “Resisting State Terror: Theorizing Communities of Activist Translators and Interpreters.” In Globalization, Political Violence and Translation, edited by Esperanca Bielsa and Christopher W. Hughes, 222–242. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Reframing Conflict in Translation.” In Critical Readings in Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, 115–129. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barańczak, Stanisław
1990 “Mały, lecz maksymalistyczny manifest translatologiczny.” Teksty Drugie 3: 7–66.Google Scholar
Bennett, Bo
2012Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies. Sudbury, MA: eBookIt.com.Google Scholar
Blumczyński, Piotr
2010 “Pilnikiem, kluczem, czy siekierą? O tłumaczeniu Lema na angielski.” In Lem in tłumacze, edited by Elżbieta Skibińska and Jacek Rzeszotnik, 79–92. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka.Google Scholar
Blumczynski, Piotr
2016Ubiquitous Translation. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Catford, John C.
1965A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay on Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chaume, Frederic
2012Audiovisual Translation: Dubbing. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
1991On Definiteness, with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Colina, Sonia
2008 “Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist Approach.” The Translator. 14 (1): 97–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Corcoran, John
1995 “Laws of Thought.” In Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Robert Audi, 423–424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael
2009 “Response to Translation Studies Forum: Cultural Translation.” Translation Studies 2 (2): 216–219.Google Scholar
Danaher, James
2004 “The Laws of Thought.” The Philosopher LXXXXII (1). http://​www​.the​-philosopher​.co​.uk​/lawsofthought​.htm
Delabastita, Dirk
2010 “Histories and Utopias. On Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility .” The Translator 16 (1): 125–134. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari
(1987) 2004 A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
de Vries, Lourens
2015 “Views of Orality and the Translation of the Bible.” Translation Studies 8 (2): 141–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryden, John
(1680) 1992 “On Translation.” In Theories of Translation. An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, edited by Reiner Schulte and John Biguenet, 17–31. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, John M.
1993Language, Thought, and Logic. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan
2009How Words Mean. Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Farahmand, Mehrdad
2014 “Sholokhov and Iranian Translators’ Error” [شولوخوف و خطای مترجمان ایرانی]. http://​www​.bbc​.co​.uk​/persian​/arts​/2014​/02​/140221​_mf​_sholokhov​.shtml
Flood, Alison
2011 “First Ever Direct English Translation of Solaris Published.” Guardian, June 15 2011 https://​www​.theguardian​.com​/books​/2011​/jun​/15​/first​-direct​-translation​-solaris
Geertz, Clifford
1973The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gentzler, Edwin
2012Translation and Identity in the Americas: New Directions in Translation Theory. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Godayol, Pilar
2002Spazi di frontiera. Genere e traduzione. Translated by Annarita Taronna. Bari: Palomar.Google Scholar
2013 “Metaphors, Women and Translation: from les belles infidèles to la frontera .” Gender and Language 7 (1): 97–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
1997 “The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies: Much Ado about Something.” Target 9 (2): 207–233. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Henitiuk, Valerie
2008 “ ‘Easyfree Translation?’ How the Modern West Knows Sei Shônagon’s Pillow Book .” Translation Studies 1 (1): 2–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo
1999Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
1997Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ibsch, Elrud
2010 “Why We Need Binarism to Go beyond It.” Neohelicon 37 (2): 463–468. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
The Inclusive New Testament
1994Brentwood, MD: Priests for Equality.Google Scholar
Israel, Hephzibah
2010 “Translating the Bible in Nineteenth-Century India: Protestant Missionary Translation and the Standard Tamil Version.” In Critical Readings in Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, 176–190. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman
1959 “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, edited by Reuben Brower, 232–239. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koller, Werner
1995 “The Concept of Equivalence and the Object of Translation Studies.” Target 7 (2): 191–222. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa
2000Beyond Ambivalence. Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Kosko, Bart
1993Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno
2005Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław
1970Solaris. Translated (from the French) by Joanna Kilmartin and Steve Cox. New York: Walker.Google Scholar
Marais, Kobus
2014Translation Theory and Development Studies: A Complexity Theory Approach. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meylaerts, Reine, and Maud Gonne
2014 “Transferring the City – Transgressing Borders: Cultural Mediators in Antwerp (1850–1930).” Translation Studies 7 (2): 133–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brian
2017 “Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies.” Translation Studies 10 (3): 329–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1988Approaches to Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A.
1964Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A., and Charles Taber
1982The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Pirie, Madsen
2006How to Win Every Argument. The Use and Abuse of Logic. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Perec, Georges
1969La Disparition. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar
1994A Void (orig. La Disparition ). Translated into English by Gilbert Adair. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony
1995 “Schleiermacher and the Problem of Blendlinge.” Translation and Literature 4 (1): 5–30. http://​usuaris​.tinet​.cat​/apym​/on​-line​/intercultures​/blendlinge​.pdf
2014Exploring Translation Theories. Second edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Robinson, Douglas
2016 “Editor’s Introduction: Pushing Hands with Martha Cheung.” In The Pushing Hands of Translation and Its Theory, edited by Douglas Robinson, 1–15. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich
(1813) 2012 “On the Different Methods of Translating.” Translated by Susan Bernofsky. In The Translation Studies Reader. Third edition. Edited by Lawrence Venuti, 43–63. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur
(1864) 2008 The Art of Controversy. Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders, edited by Axel Wendelberger. Megaphone eBooks. http://​www​.wendelberger​.com​/downloads​/Schopenhauer​_EN​.pdf
Snell-Hornby, Mary
2006The Turns of Translation Studies. New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1998The Argument Culture. Stopping America’s War on Words. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Torresi, Ira
2013 “The Polysystem and the Postcolonial: The Wondrous Adventures of James Joyce and His Ulysses across Book Markets.” Translation Studies 6 (2): 217–231. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
(1995) 2012 Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria
(1999) 2014 Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
2010 “Ideology and the Position of the Translator: In What Sense Is a Translator ‘in between’?” In Critical Readings in Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, 215–228. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence
(1995) 2008 The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation. Second edition. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013Translation Changes Everything. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zadeh, Lotfi
1965 “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and Control 8: 338–353. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 “Second Foreword.” In Linguistic Fuzzy Logic Methods in Social Sciences, edited by Badredine Arfi, ix–x. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar