Instrumental thinking in Translation Studies

Dilek Dizdar
Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz

Abstract

This paper concentrates on instrumental thinking to analyse the conceptualization of translation in praxis and theory. First, instrumental thinking is introduced as a general mode of thinking which can be traced across different academic disciplines. A critical position is adopted with reference to Horkheimer/ Adorno and Bourdieu. Based on Bourdieu’s work on “the state of the unthought” and the “pre-constructed,” some examples from academic discourse are discussed to foreground how a certain type of instrumental thinking is linked to market-oriented politics and how this shapes concepts in academic discourse as well. It is argued that the effects of the instrumental can be found on several levels in Translation Studies and that these levels are interrelated. These include the ways translation is understood and approached in practice by interaction partners involved in translation and interpreting processes, in the discourses on translation and interpretation in fields outside academia, and in scholarly work on translation.

Keywords
Table of contents

A market-driven perspective on translation and the teaching of translators and interpreters has been gaining ground in the European departments in which translators and interpreters are trained. This perspective often serves as a non-refutable common-sense basis for institutional decisions, such as those concerning the design of translation and interpreting curricula. In the last decade, the Bologna process influenced the structure of the programs significantly. The follow-up documents of the Bologna Declaration (1999) show that the European Union continues to have a strong interest in linking higher education to the needs of the market. In the Bucharest Communiqué (2012), for example, mobility, employability and quality are identified as “three key priorities” to foreground the “importance of higher [ p. 207 ]education for Europe’s capacity to deal with the economic crisis and to contribute to growth and jobs” (Bologna Process). In Germany, this development directly follows or even coincides with efforts to consolidate Translation Studies as an independent discipline. Before, translation research and training was in the care of Applied Linguistics departments; therefore, it already had a strong practiceoriented design. There was little theory and fundamental research that was institutionally anchored in Translation Studies. Instead, TS grew out of a combination of linguistics with the scholar’s experience in the practice of translation and/or interpreting. The crucial point is that there was very little time between the independence of Translation Studies from Applied Linguistics and the call for marketorientation as articulated by the EU institutions. Germany is just an example, and, rather than being an exception, it seems to be part of a general inclination towards the market. There are numerous symptoms of this development, such as the increasing use and teaching of technologies to accelerate the translation process, increase efficiency, competitiveness and employability. There is no question that the students need to be prepared for the jobs on the market. From the perspective of Translation Research, however, we have to ask how this market-oriented thinking affects research on translation and shapes its institutions. Another related question would be whether and how translation as a phenomenon and the way it is handled in everyday life interacts with the instrumental view. In other words, what are the relations between the pragmatics of translation, where it is dealt with as an instrument, and the discourses on translation (in Translation Studies and in other fields) in which instrumental thinking dominates?

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

Bahadır, Şebnem.
2007Verknüpfungen und Verschiebungen. Dolmetscherin, Dolmetschforscherin, Dolmetschausbilderin. Berlin: Frank und Timme.Google Scholar
The Bologna Process – Towards the Higher Education Area.
Boyden, Michael.
2011 “Beyond ‘Eurocentrism’? The Challenge of Linguistic Justice Theory to Translation Studies.” Translation and Interpreting Studies 6 (2): 174–188. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre.
1992 “The Practice of Reflexive Sociology.” In An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, ed. by Pierre Bourdieu, and Loïc J.D. Wacquant, 216–260. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques.
1990 “The Force of Law. ‘The Mystical Foundation of Authority’.” Translated by Mary Quaintance. Cardozo Law Review 11: 919–1045.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques, and François Ewald.
2001 “A Certain ‘Madness’ Must Watch Over Thinking. Refusing to Build a Philosophical System, Derrida Privileges Experience and Writes Out of ‘Compulsion.’ A Dialogue Around Traces and Deconstructions.” Translated by Denise Egéa-Kuehne. In Derrida & Education, ed. by Gert J. Biesta, and Denise Egéa-Kuehne, 55–76. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dizdar, Dilek.
2012 “General Translation Theory.” In Handbook of Translation Studies. Vol. 3, ed. by Yves Gambier, and Luc van Doorslaer, 52–58. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Drexel, Ingrid.
2003 “The Concept of Competence – an Instrument of Social and Political Change.” In Two Lectures. Working Paper 26, 5–15. Bergen: Stein Rokkan Centre for Social Studies. Accessed September 2, 2012 https://​bora​.uib​.no​/bitstream​/handle​/1956​/1381​/N26​-03%5B1%5D​.pdf​?sequence​=1Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel.
1980 “The Confession of the Flesh.” Translated by Colin Gordon, et al. In Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, ed. by Colin Gordon, 194–228. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Göpferich, Susanne, and Riitaa Jääskeläinen.
2009 “Process Research into the Development of Translation Competence: Where Are We and Where Do We Need to Go?Across Languages and Cultures 10 (2): 169–191. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Heller, Lavinia.
2013Translationswissenschaftliche Begriffsbildung und das Problem der performativen Unauffälligkeit von Translation. Berlin: Frank und Timme.Google Scholar
Herbert, Ulrich.
2009 “Bürokratie des Kreativen. Perspektiven und Desiderate der Förderpolitik für die Geisteswissenschaften.” Zeitenblicke8 (1). Accessed September 4, 2012 http://​www​.zeitenblicke​.de​/2009​/1​/herbert​/index​_htmlGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo.
1999Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
[ p. 222 ]
2009 “Translation, Ethics, Politics.” In The Routledge Companion to Translation Studies, ed. by Jeremy Munday, 93–105. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max.
1974 (1947). Eclipse of Reason. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor Adorno.
2002 (1947). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Translated by Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Kelletat, Andreas.
2004 “Interkulturelle Germanistik und Übersetzerausbildung. Vortrag auf dem Germanistentreffen Deutschland – Indien – Indonesien – Philippinen – Taiwan – Thailand – Vietnam (Bangkok, 3.-8. Oktober 1999).” In Reden ist Silber. Zur Ausbildung im Übersetzen und Dolmetschen. Universitätsreden 1994 bis 2003, ed. by Andreas Kellekat, 120–126. Vaasa: Saxa.Google Scholar
Krämer, Sibylle.
2008 “Medien, Boten, Spuren. Wenig mehr als ein Literaturbericht.” In Was ist ein Medium?, ed. by Stefan Münker, and Alexander Roesler, 65–90. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Malmkjaer, Kirsten.
2009 “What is Translation Competence?Revue française de linguistique appliquée 14 (1): 121–134. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Menke, Christoph.
2007 “Subjektivität und Gelingen: Adorno – Derrida.” In Politische Philosophie und Dekonstruktion: Beiträge zur politischen Theorie im Anschluss an Jacques Derrida, ed. by Andreas Niederberger, and Markus Wolf, 61–76. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.   Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha.
2010Not for Profit. Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony.
2003 “Redefining Translation Competence in an Electronic Age: In Defence of a Minimalist Approach.” Meta 48 (4): 481–497. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Prototapa v. Turkey.
Rosa, Hartmut.
2013Beschleunigung unf Entfremdung. Entwurf einer Kritischen Theorie spätmoderner Zeitlichkeit. Translated by Robin Celikates. Berlin: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Rubio-Marín, Ruth.
2003 “Language Rights: Exploring the Competing Rationales.” In Language Rights and Political Theory, ed. by Will Kymlicka, and Allen Patten, 52–79. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
PACTE.
2005 “Investigating Translation Competence: Conceptual and Methodological Issues.” Meta 50 (2): 609–619. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
2007 “Zum Wesen der Übersetzungskompetenz – Grundlagen für die experimentelle Validierung eines Ük-Modells.” In Quo vadis Translatologie? Ein halbes Jahrhundert universitäre Ausbildung von Dolmetschern und Übersetzen in Leipzig. Rückschau, Zwischenbericht und Perspektiven aus der Außensicht, ed. by Gerd Wotjak, 327–342. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Sandrini, Peter.
2005 “Translationstechnologie – Überblick und Aussicht.” In Translatologie – Neue Ideen und Ansätze. Innsbrucker Ringvorlesungen zur Translationswissenschaft IV, ed. by Lew Zybatow, 203–220. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Schwandt, Thomas A.
2007 “First Words.” In Knowledge Production. Research Work in Interesting Times, ed. by Bridget Somekh, and Thomas A. Schwandt, 1–5. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sterne, Jonathan.
2003 “Bourdieu, Technique and Technology.” Cultural Studies 17 (3/4): 367–389. Crossref logoGoogle Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn.
2007 “Measures of Usefulness: A Diatribe.” In Research Work in Interesting Times, ed. by Bridget Somekh, and Thomas A. Schwandt, 9–23. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence.
2008The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
[ p. 223 ]
Vermeer, Hans J.
2006Versuch einer Intertheorie der Translation. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Wirth, Uwe.
2008 “Die Frage nach dem Medium als Frage nach der Vermittlung.” In Was ist ein Medium?, ed. by Stefan Münker, and Alexander Roesler, 65–90. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar