Introduction
A discipline looking back and looking forward: An introduction

Elke Brems, Reine Meylaerts and Luc van Doorslaer
HU Brussel – CETRA | KU Leuven – CETRA | KU Leuven – CETRA & Stellenbosch University

Table of contents

There is no doubt that self-reflection and meta-reflection are characteristic of every dynamic and developing scholarly discipline. Nevertheless, it is arguable that meta-reflection is exceptionally clearly present in Translation Studies (see Gambier: this issue). Some scholars may get the impression that the discipline, despite its perceived successful development over recent decades, is caught in a more or less permanent state of doubt and uncertainty. Or is this just a more negative perception of the very features that others consider signs of the dynamics of the discipline? After several paradigm changes and even more turns, after fights about scholarly territories and methodological renewal, after intra- and interdisciplinary discussions, after the question whether localizing knowledge embarrasses or rather complements globalizing research etc., Translation Studies continues to produce a large number of publications dealing with the struggle of defining itself and its object, with the borderlines of both the discipline and the object, with ways of interacting with related (sub)disciplines.

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

Angelelli, Claudia V
2006 “Minding the gaps: new directions in Interpreting Studies”. Brian James Baer, ed. Translation and Interpreting Studies. Special Issue 1:1. 41–67.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bernal Merino, Miguel
2006 “On the translation of video games”. JoSTrans 6. 22–36.Google Scholar
Chan, Sin-wai
2007 “Taking a technological turn: the making of A Dictionary of Translation Technology”. Journal of Translation Studies 10:1. 113–130.Google Scholar
Cheung, Martha
2011 “Reconceptualizing translation — some Chinese endeavours”. Meta 56:1. 1–19.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cunico, Sonia
ed 2001Training translators and interpreters in the new millennium. Portsmouth: University of Portsmouth.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael
Delabastita, Dirk
2003 “Translation Studies for the 21st century: trends and perspectives”. Génesis 3. 7–24.Google Scholar
Díaz Cintas, Jorge
2003 “Audiovisual translation in the third millennium”. Gunilla Anderman and Margaret Rogers eds. Translation today: trends and perspectives. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 2003 192–204. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dollerup, Cay
2008 “Translation in the global-local tension”. Wang Ning and Sun Yifeng eds. Translation, globalisation and localisation: a Chinese perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters 2008 31–49. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doorslaer, Luc van
2005 “The indicative power of a key word system: a quantitative analysis of the key words in the Translation Studies Bibliography”. Meta 50:4. http://​id​.erudit​.org​/iderudit​/019858ar doi:  Crossref
Drugan, Joanna, & Chris Megone
2011 “Bringing ethics into translator training: an integrated, inter-disciplinary approach”. Mona Baker and Carol Maier eds.. Ethics and the curriculum: critical perspectives. Special Issue of The Translator and Interpreter Trainer 5: 1. 189–211.Google Scholar
Gambier, Yves and Luc van Doorslaer
eds. 2009The Metalanguage of Translation. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. [Benjamins Current Topics 20].   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
eds. 2011Translation Studies Bibliography (online, 8th release, approx. 22,000 items). Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins. www​.benjamins​.nl​/online​/tsb
Gentzler, Edwin
2003 “Interdisciplinary connections”. Perspectives 11:1. 11–24.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmes, J. S.
1988 “The name and nature of Translation Studies”. J S Holmes, ed. Translated! Papers on literary translation and translation studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi 1988 67–80.Google Scholar
Inghilleri, Moira
2005 “The sociology of Bourdieu and the construction of the ‘object’ in Translation and Interpreting Studies”. Moira Inghilleri ed.Bourdieu and the sociology of translation and interpreting. Special Issue of The Translator 11:2. 125–145.Google Scholar
Kaindl, Klaus
1997 “Von Hauptdarstellern und Statisten: Zur Rolle des Textes im translation-swissenschaftlichen Handlungsspiel”. Nadja Grbić and Michaela Wolf eds.Text, Kultur, Kommunikation: Translation als Forschungsaufgabe. Tübingen: Stauffenburg 1997 53–65.Google Scholar
Kaindl, Klaus, Franz Pöchhacker & Mary Snell-Hornby
eds. 1994Translation Studies: an interdiscipline. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Maier, Carol
2007 “The translator as an intervenient being”. Jeremy Munday ed. Translation as intervention. London & New York: Continuum. 1–17.Google Scholar
[ p. 14 ]
Mazur, Iwona
2009 “The metalanguage of localization: theory and practice”. Gambier and van Doorslaer 2009 145– CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Meylaerts, Reine
2009 “Et pour les Flamands, la même chose”: quelle politique de traduction pour quelles minorités linguistiques?”. Meta 54:1. 7–21.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
O’Hagan, Minako
2006 “Teletranslation revisited: futurama for screen translators”. Mary Carroll, Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast and Sandra Nauert eds. Audiovisual translation scenarios. http://​www​.euroconferences​.info​/proceedings​/2006​_Proceedings​/2006​_proceedings​.html
Paulsen Christensen, Tina
2011 “Studies on the mental processes in translation memory-assisted translation: the state of the art”. Leona Van Vaerenbergh and Klaus Schubert eds. Special Issue of Trans-Kom 4:2. 137–160.Google Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz
2007 “Critical linking up”. Cecilia Wadensjö, Birgitta Englund Dimitrova and Anna-Lena Nilsson eds. The Critical Link 4. Professionalisation of interpreting in the community. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2007 11–26.Google Scholar
Pokorn, Nike K.
2009 “In defence of fuzziness”. Gambier and van Doorslaer 2009 135–144. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina
2009 “Doctoral training programmes: research skills for the discipline or career management skills?”. Gyde Hansen, Andrew Chesterman and Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast eds. Efforts and models in interpreting and translation research: a tribute to Daniel Gile. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins 2009 109–126.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shreve, Gregory M. and Erik Angelone
eds. 2010Translation and Cognition. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
2006The turns of Translation Studies: new paradigms or shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja
2002 “Process research: state of the art and where to go next?”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen eds. Special Issue of Translation and cognition 3:1. 5–19.Google Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria
2007Enlarging translation, empowering translators. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
2009 “Why translators should want to internationalize Translation Studies”. Martha P. Y. Cheung ed. Chinese discourses on translation: positions and perspectives. Special Issue of The Translator 15:2. 401–421.Google Scholar
Wilss, Wolfram
2004 “Translation Studies: the state of the art”. Meta 49:4. 777–785.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar