Review article
Translation Theory Revisited Andrew Benjamin. Translation and the Nature of Philosophy: A New Theory of Words.
London and New York: Routledge, 1989. 193 pp. ISBN 0-415-04485-5 £ 8.95.

Raymond van den Broeck
K.V.H. & U.I.A. Antwerpen

Table of contents

Among the branches of translation studies, theory has certainly become the most unpopular one these last few years. The general aversion towards theorizing in our field manifests itself in various ways and on several occasions; even to the point where many of those within the discipline who may rightly call themselves theorists tend to abjure any theoretical claims for the time being and prefer to regard themselves as promoters of the descriptive branch. This tendency is manifest in Target, for example. In at least two of the theoretical contributions published in the first two volumes, the respective authors voice their unmistakable displeasure with translation theory. Wolfgang Lörscher (1989), to begin with, examines the theory in search of adequate models reflecting the process of translation, but finds none. The result of his critical survey is that, apart from "idealized schematic arrangements showing the interrelations among those components which are, in all likelihood, involved in the process" (p. 43), none of the models suggested so far is deemed able to offer a psychologically valid reconstruction of that process. Under the paradoxical and highly suggestive title "A Theoretical [ p. 112 ]Account of Translation—Without a Translation Theory" Ernst-August Gutt (1990), for his part, argues that translation can be accounted for naturally within the relevance theory of communication developed by Sperber and Wilson, there being no need for a distinct general theory of translation. Each of these two articles calls into question that branch of translation studies whose main objective James S Holmes (1988: 71) characterized as establishing "general principles" by means of which the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience, "can be explained and predicted". Translation theory, in that light, would be either hopelessly deficient or simply superfluous: in either case it turns out to be a dead loss.

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. 120 ]References

Broeck, Raymond van den
1988 “Translation Theory after Deconstruction”. Linguistica Antverpiensia 22. 266–288.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August
1990 “A Theoretical Account of Translation—Without a Translation Theory”. Target 2:2. 135–164.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo
1985 “Introduction: Translation Studies and a New Paradigm”. Theo Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm 1985 7–15.Google Scholar
Holmes, James S.
1988Translated: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1989 “Models of the Translation Process: Claim and Reality”. Target 1:1. 43–68.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mounin, Georges
1963Les problèmes théoriques de la traduction. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1980In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
1991 “What Are Descriptive Translation Studies into Translation Likely to Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions?”. Kitty M. Van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens, eds. Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi 1991 179–192.Google Scholar