Discussion
Is Translation Studies too much about translation? A reply to Jan Blommaert

Michael Boyden

Table of contents

Jan Blommaert’s rejoinder to the special issue of Target on “Heterolingualism in/and translation” (volume 18:1 [2006]), guest-edited by Reine Meylaerts, has provided us with a stimulating incentive to enter into what he himself tags a “transdisciplinary dialogue” regarding the role of translation in an increasingly diversified world society. I am of the opinion that Blommaert’s somewhat polemical attempt at an “indexical conversion” of the theory and method of Translation Studies from the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis, or at least his ethnographically inspired version of it, poses an interesting and no doubt necessary challenge to the field as it exists today. My aim in this short rejoinder to the rejoinder is to pick up some of the leads that Blommaert has thrown out and reflect on their usefulness for the discipline of Translation Studies at the start of the twenty-first century.

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

Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere
1990Translation, history and culture. London and New York: Pinter. Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan
2005Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2006 “How legitimate is my voice?: A rejoinder.” Target 18:1. 163–176.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre
1991Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
Cutter, Martha J.
2005Lost and found in translation: Contemporary ethnic American writing and the politics of language diversity. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques
1976Of grammatology, tr. Gayatri C. Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Mary
1986How institutions think. Cyracuse, NY: Cyracuse University Press. Google Scholar
Giddens, Anthony
1992The consequences of modernity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Google Scholar
Grice, H. Paul
1975 “Logic and conversation”. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan. Speech acts: Syntax and semantics 3. New York: Academic Press 1975 41–58. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Grutman, Rainier
1993 “Mono vs. stereo: Bilingualism’s double face.” Visible language 27:1–2. 206–227.Google Scholar
2006 “Refraction and recognition: Literary multilingualism in translation.” Target 18:1. 17–47.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell
1996Ethnography, linguistics, narrative inequality: Toward an understanding of voice. London: Taylor & Francis. Google Scholar
Luhmann, Niklas
1997Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft, erster Teilband. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott
1967Sociological theory and modern society. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
Sercombe, Peter, Mark Garner, and Christina Raschka
2006 “Editors’ introduction to ‘Sociolin guistic research—Who wins?: Research on, with or for speakers of minority languages’.” Journal of multicultural and multilingual development. 27:1. 1–3.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri C
1993Outside in the teaching machine. London and New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
[ p. 157 ]