Defining patterns in Translation Studies: Revisiting two classics of German Translationswissenschaft

Gernot Hebenstreit

Abstract

A definition can be seen as a central working tool for researchers, since it leads to a new conceptual construction. At the same time a multitude of definitions, especially if competing with each other, is quite often perceived as a typical symptom of fields of research that have not yet developed their theories to the necessary level of sophistication. A relatively young field of research, Translation Studies and its proponents have repeatedly been the target of criticism in that respect, i.e. working with concepts whose definitions do not comply with commonly accepted standards of definition. That kind of critique serves as the starting point for this paper, which tries to analyze definitions in two seminal publications in the history of German Übersetzungswissenschaft, representing two opposing approaches to translation, namely Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung by Otto Kade (1968) and Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie by Hans J. Vermeer and Katharina Reiß (1984). The paper gives an account of standards of definition, commonly found in philosophy of science and terminology, addresses central aspects of scientific concepts (theoryboundness, types of concepts, determinacy, vagueness) and presents the findings of a study focusing on defining patterns.

Keywords
Table of contents

Over the last years, metatheoretical issues seem to have been receiving an increasing amount of interest from Translation Studies scholars, a development reflected in an ever-broadening variety of activity. Thus we can choose from a growing [ p. 198 ]range of new or newly revised editions of introductions to Translation Studies (for the English and German markets : Gentzler 2001, Hatim 2001, Prunc 2002, Salevsky 2002, Stolze 2001, Hatim and Munday 2004, Katan 2004, and of course the monographs from the St. Jerome series Translation theories explained), as well as guides to research methodology (Williams and Chesterman 2002, partly Hatim 2001). Probably of greater interest to scholars in the field are specialized conferences like Research models and Translation Studies (Manchester 2000) or Translation theory and methodology (Saarbrücken 2004) and of course publications focusing explicitly on theoretical models and methodological issues (cf. the discussion on “Shared grounds in Translation Studies” in Target in 2000 and 2001, Olohan 2000, Hermans 2002, Prunc 2004). Although Translation Studies may still be a “relatively young” academic field, these findings mark some kind of consolidation of the field. It seems no longer necessary to limit metatheoretical discussions to a discourse of emancipation from linguistics and literature studies. Instead it is considered more worthwhile to take a systematic, evaluative look at what has been achieved so far (cf. Hebenstreit 2007).

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.

[ p. 212 ]References

Albert, Sándor
2001Übersetzung und Philosophie: Wissenschaftsphilosophische Probleme der Übersetzungstheorie—Die Fragen der Übersetzung von philosophischen Texten. Wien: Ed. Praesens.Google Scholar
Albrecht, Jörn
1973Linguistik und Übersetzung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Romanistische Arbeitshefte, 4.]   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2005Übersetzung und Linguistik. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. [Grundlagen der Übersetzungsforschung, 2.]Google Scholar
Arntz, Reiner Heribert Picht and Felix Mayer
2002Einführung in die Terminologiearbeit. 4. Auflage. Hildesheim, Zürich and New York: Olms. [Studien zu Sprache und Technik, 2.]Google Scholar
Balzer, Wolfgang
1997Die Wissenschaft und ihre Methoden: Grundsätze der Wissenschaftstheorie. Ein Lehrbuch. Freiburg and München: Alber.Google Scholar
Beaugrande, Robert de
1991 “Communication and freedom of access to knowledge as an agenda for the special purpose language movement”. Fachsprache 13:3–4. 98–109.Google Scholar
Bessé, Bruno de
1997 “Terminological definitions”. Wright and Budin. 1997. 63–79. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Blanchon, Élisabeth
1997 “Point de vue sur la définition”. Meta 42:1. 168–173.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Budin, Gerhard
1993Wie (un)verständlich ist das Soziologendeutsch?: Begriffliche und textuelle Strukturen in den Sozialwissenschaften. Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang. [Werkstattreihe Deutsch als Fremdsprache, 42.]Google Scholar
1996Wissensorganisation und Terminologie: Die Komplexität und Dynamik wissenschaftlicher Informations- und Kommunikationsprozesse. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. [Forum für Fachsprachen-Forschung, 28.]Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Ingetraut
1976 “Über Gegenstände, Begriffe, Definitionen und Benennungen: Zur möglichen Neufassung von DIN 2330”. Muttersprache 86:2. 81–117.Google Scholar
1978 “A referent-oriented, analytical concept theory of interconcept”. International classification 5:3. 142–151.Google Scholar
1985 “Begriffsbeziehungen und Definitionstheorie”. Infoterm 1985 137–148.Google Scholar
De Vries, Robbé Pieter F. and Frank J. Flier
1994 “Towards a common vocabulary for classification and definition”. Terminology 1:1. 97–102.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
DIN 2330
1993Begriffe und Benennungen: Allgemeine Grundsätze. Berlin and Köln: Beuth.Google Scholar
Gabriel, Gottfried
1980 “Definition”. Mittelstraß 1980. 439–442. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Galinski, Christian and Heribert Picht
1997 “Graphic and other semiotic forms of knowledge representation in terminology management”. Wright and Budin 1997. 42–61.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Gentzler, Edwin
2001Contemporary translation theories. 2nd edition. Clevedon etc.: Multilingual Matters. [Topics in translation, 21.]Google Scholar
Gesché, Véronique
1997 “Evaluation des définitions d’ouvrages”. Meta 42:2. 374–392.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra
1999 “Conceptual work and the ‘Translation’ concept”. Target 11:1. 1–31.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2002 “Cognitive models, prototype effects and ‘Translation’: The role of cognition in translation (meta) theory”. Across languages and cultures 3:1. 21–44.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hatim, Basil
2001Teaching and researching translation. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Hatim, Basil and Jeremy Munday
2004Translation: An advanced resource book. London/New York: Routledge. [Routledge applied linguistics.] Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hebenstreit, Gernot
2005Die Terminologie(n) translationswissenschaftlicher Theorien: Eine deskriptive, begriffsorientierte Untersuchung. University of Graz. [Dissertation.][ p. 213 ]Google Scholar
2007 “Prozesse begrifflichen Wandels—terminologische Methoden für eine Theoriegeschichte der Translationswissenschaft”. Judith Muráth and Ágnes Oláh-Hubai, eds. Interdisziplinäre Aspekte des Übersetzens und Dolmetschens / Interdisciplinary aspects of translation and interpreting. Wien: Praesens 2007 445–455.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo
ed. 2002Crosscultural transgressions: Research models in Translation Studies II. Historical and ideological issues. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Infoterm
ed. 1985Terminologie und benachbarte Gebiete 1965–1985 Wien, Köln and Graz: Böhlau.Google Scholar
Kade, Otto
1968Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: VEB Enzyklopädie. [Beiheft zur Zeitschrift Fremdsprachen, 1.]Google Scholar
Katan, David
2004Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and mediators. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
L’Homme, Marie-Claude, Ulrich Heid and Juan C. Sager
2003 “Terminology during the past decade (1994–2004): An editorial statement”. Terminology. 9:2. 151–161.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Laurén, Christer Johan Myking and Heribert Picht
1998Terminologie unter der Lupe: Vom Grenzgebiet zum Wissenschaftszweig. Wien: TermNet. [IITF Series, 9.]Google Scholar
Mittelstraß, Jürgen
ed. 1980Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie 1:A–G. Mannheim, Wien and Zürich: Bibliographisches Institut Wissenschaftsverlag.Google Scholar
Müller, Ina
ed. 2004Und sie bewegt sich doch...: Translationswissenschaft in Ost und West. Festschrift für Heidemarie Salevsky zum 60. Geburtstag. New York, Oxford and Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy
2001Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and applications. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ndi-Kimbi, Augustin
1994 “Guidelines for terminological definitions: The adherence to and deviation from existing rules in BS/ISO 2382. Data Processing and Information Technology Vocabulary”. Terminology1:2. 327–350.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve
ed. 2000Intercultural faultlines: Research models in Translation Studies I: Textual and cognitive aspects. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Pawlowski, Tadeusz
1980Begriffsbildung und Definition. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Pearson, Jennifer
1998Terms in context. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. [Studies in corpus linguistics, 1.]   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Pozzi, María
2002 “The ‘concept’ and the ‘object’ in terminology science”. Terminology science and research 13:1–2. 33–41. [IITF Journal.]Google Scholar
Prunč, Erich
2002Einführung in die Translationswissenschaft 1: Orientierungsrahmen. 2nd edition. Graz: Institut für Translationswissenschaft. [Graz Translation Studies, 3.]Google Scholar
2004 “Zum Objektbereich der Translationswissenschaft”. Müller 2004. 263–285.Google Scholar
Rahmstorf, Gerhard
1993 “Role and representation of terminological definitions”. Schmitz 1993. 39–49.Google Scholar
Reiß, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Linguistische Arbeiten, 147.]   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Riggs, Fred, Matti Mälkiä and Gerhard Budin
1997 “Descriptive terminology in the social sciences”. Wright and Budin 1997. 184–196. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Sager, Juan C.
1990A practical course in terminology processing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Salevsky, Heidemarie
2002Translationswissenschaf: Ein Kompendium. Frankfurt am Main etc.: Peter Lang.[ p. 214 ]Google Scholar
Schmitz, Klaus-Dirk
ed. 1993TKE’93. Terminology and knowledge engineering: Proceedings. Third international congress on terminology and knowledge engineering. 25–27 August 1993. Frankfurt am Main: INDEKS-Verlag.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Michael
1993Übersetzung und Bearbeitung: Zur Differenzierung und Abgrenzung des Übersetzungsbegriffs. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. [Tübinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 389.]Google Scholar
Stolze, Radegundis
2001Übersetzungstheorien: Eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. [Narr Studienbücher.]Google Scholar
Tamás, György
1964Die wissenschaftliche Definition. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.Google Scholar
Temmerman, Rita
1998/1999Why traditional terminology theory impedes a realistic description of categories and terms in the life sciences”. Terminology 5:1. 77–92.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Weissenhofer, Peter
1995Conceptology in terminology theory, semantics and word-formation: A morpho-conceptually based approach to classification as exemplified by the English baseball terminology. Wien: TermNet. [IITF-Series, 6.]Google Scholar
Williams, Jenny and Andrew Chesterman
2002The map: A beginner’s guide to doing research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Wright, Sue Ellen and Gerhard Budin
eds. 1997Handbook of terminology management 1: Basic aspects of terminology management. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Wüster, Eugen
1959/60 “Das Worten der Welt, schaubildlich und terminologisch dargestellt”. Sprachforum 3:3–4. 183–204.Google Scholar
1985Einführung in die allgemeine Terminologielehre und terminologische Lexikographie. 2nd edition. Copenhagen: LSP Centre, Copenhagen School of Economics.[ p. 215 ]Google Scholar