On Similarity

Andrew Chesterman

Table of contents

It is widely agreed these days that translation equivalence, whatever it is, is better conceived of as a kind of similarity rather than as a sameness. Yet little note seems to have been taken so far of philosophical and psychological research into the concept of sameness, and how people make judgements of similarity. (True, Wittgenstein's notion of family resemblances has been taken up by several translation scholars.) A recent article on the concept of similarity (Sovran 1992) raises a number of points that seem of direct relevance to translation theory.

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

Chesterman, Andrew
Forthcoming. Contrastive Functional Analysis.   Crossref
Goodman, Nelson
1972 “Seven Strictures on Similarity”. Nelson Goodman. Problems and Projects. Indianapolis, IN.: Bobbs-Merrill 1972 437–447.Google Scholar
[ p. 163 ]
Kelly, Louis G.
1979The True Interpreter. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sovran, Tamar
1992 “Between Similarity and Sameness”. Journal of Pragmatics 18:4. 329–344.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1995Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, Amos
1977 “Features of Similarity”. Psychological Review 84. 327–352.   CrossrefGoogle Scholar