The terminology of translation: Epistemological, conceptual and intercultural problems and their social consequences

Josep Marco
Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain

Abstract

This article focuses on three kinds of problems besetting the terminology of translation. Firstly, the weak epistemological status of Translation Studies as a discipline does not favour consensus among specialists. Secondly, conceptual difficulties arise from the fact that the relationship between concepts and terms is far from univocal: conceptual similarities are clouded by terminological differences, and conceptual differences lurk beneath apparent synonymy. Thirdly, both conceptual and terminological practices are often rooted in different national traditions and may be school-specific. These three sets of problems are interrelated, and they are shown at work in a concept that has often been referred to as technique or shift. They have not only inward—academic and theoretical—but also outward—social and professional—consequences, as the social projection of professional translators vis-à-vis other professions may depend to a certain extent on their ability to use an acknowledged terminology. The same may be true of the translation scholar community.

Keywords:
Table of contents

Mayoral, drawing on the work of several epistemologists but, singularly, Monserrat (1983), refers to a number of parameters which “serve to determine the degree of maturity or scientificity of a discipline” (2001: 45):

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

Catford, John C.
1965A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew
2005 “Problems with strategies”. Kristina Károly and Ágosta Fóris, eds. New trends in Translation Studies: In honour of Kinga Klaudy. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó 2005 17–28.Google Scholar
2006 “Similarity analysis and the translation profile”. Unpublished paper given at the conference The study of language and translation, held at the Hogeschool Gent (Belgium), 12–14 January 2006.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean
1980L’ analyse du discours comme méthode de traduction. Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
1993La traduction raisonnée: Manuel d’initiation à la traduction professionnelle de l’anglais vers le français. Ottawa: Éditions de l’Université d’Ottawa.Google Scholar
Delisle, Jean, Hannelore Lee-Jahnke and Monique C. Cormier
eds. 1999Terminologie de la Traduction / Translation terminology / Terminología de la traducción / Terminologie der Übersetzung. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
García Yebra, Valentín
1982Teoría y práctica de la traducción. Madrid: Gredos.[ p. 268 ]Google Scholar
Hurtado Albir, Amparo
2001Traducción y Traductología: Introducción a la Traductología. Madrid: Cátedra.Google Scholar
Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. van
1989 “Translation and original: Similarities and dissimilarities, I”. Target 1:2. 151–181.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1990 “Translation and original: Similarities and dissimilarities, II”. Target2:1. 69–95.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levý, Jiří
1969Die literarische Übersetzung: Theorie einer Kunstgattung. Frankfurt and Bonn: Athenäum.Google Scholar
Mason, Ian
1994 “Techniques of translation revisited: A text-linguistic review of ‘borrowing’ and ‘modulation’”. Amparo Hurtado Albir, ed. Estudis sobre la traducció. Castelló: Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I 1994 61–72.Google Scholar
Mayoral, Roberto
2001Aspectos epistemológicos de la traducción. Castelló: Servei de Publicacions de la Universitat Jaume I.Google Scholar
Molina Martínez, Lucía and Amparo Hurtado Albir
2002 “Translation techniques revisited: A dynamic and functionalist approach”. Meta 47:4. 498–512.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monserrat, Javier
1983Epistemología evolutiva y teoría de la ciencia. Madrid: Universidad Pontificia de Comillas.Google Scholar
Monzó Nebot, Esther
2002La professió del traductor jurídic i jurat: Descripció sociológica del profesional i anàlisi discursiva del transgènere. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I. [Ph.D. dissertation published electronically at http://​www​.tdx​.cesca​.es​/TDX​-1227102–130850/.]Google Scholar
2006 “¿Somos profesionales?: Bases para una sociología de las profesiones aplicada a la traducción”. Arturo Parada and Óscar Díaz Fouces, eds. Sociology of translation. Vigo: Universidad de Vigo 2006 155–176.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy
1998 “A computer-assisted approach to the analysis of translation shifts”. Meta 43:4. 142–156.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1988A textbook of translation. London: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. and Charles R. Taber
1969The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1991Text analysis in translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
1997Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Popovič, Anton
1970 “The concept ‘Shift of Expression’ in translation analysis”. James S Holmes, Frans de Haan and Anton Popovič, eds. The nature of translation. The Hague: Mouton 1970 78–87.Google Scholar
Shuttleworth, Mark and Moira Cowie
1997Dictionary of Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Vázquez-Ayora, Gerardo
1977Introducción a la Traductología. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet
1958Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Zabalbeascoa, Patrick
2000 “From techniques to types of solutions”. Allison Beeby, Doris Ensinger and Marisa Presas, eds. Investigating translation. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2000 117–127.[ p. 269 ]CrossrefGoogle Scholar