Translation studies

Christina Schäffner

1. Introduction

Translation and interpreting have existed for many centuries. The earliest reports date
from 3000 BC in ancient Egypt and are naturally on interpreting, the oral mode of
delivery; this predates translation, which came into being with the development of
writing systems. One of the oldest forms of evidence of translation is the Rosetta stone
which dates from 196 BC and has inscriptions in Egyptian hieroglyphics, Egyptian
demotic characters and in Greek.
Throughout history, translators have contributed to the development of alpha-
bets and of national languages (for example, Bible translators played a decisive role in
the development of the vernacular in their nations), to the development of national
literatures, to the dissemination of knowledge and the advancement of science, to the
transmission of cultural values (cf. Delisle & Woodsworth 1995). The purposes of
translation activities have been manifold, and they have been initiated and used with
good or bad intentions in mind. For example, the flourishing translation activity at
the School of Toledo (Spain) in the 12th and 13th centuries was instrumental in trans-
mitting the philosophical and scientific achievements of the Greek and Arab world
to medieval Europe. The huge bulk of technical and scientific translation in the 20th
century has played a decisive role in technological and social progress. On the other
hand, during the Crusades, translations of religious texts of Islam were studied by the
‘defenders of the Christian faith’ in order to find information about the intellectual
strengths and weaknesses of the ‘enemy’.
In carrying out their work, translators began to reflect about what they were
doing. They had in front of them an original text which was produced in an original
language, and which they wanted to rewrite in another language. In this attempt, they
encountered problems, above all differences in the linguistic structures of the two lan-
guages concerned. Translators solved such problems by creating new terms to convey
the new concepts they encountered, by borrowing terms from the source language,
or by introducing new syntactic structures, thus stretching the resources of their own
languages. In doing this, translators often struggled with a dilemma, i.e. whether they
should give priority to the content or to the form of the text, to the actual wording or
to the message? Admiration for the original work and thus the attempt at its faith-
ful recreation or imitation came into conflict with the wish to create something new
which would be used in place of the original. Often it was argued that all translation
 Translation studies 307

is betrayal, or at best a poor compromise, aptly reflected in the old adage traduttore
traditore.
Throughout history, there have always been advocates of a literal translation and
those of a free translation. The preference for one of these two methods was deter-
mined by the dominant philosophy of the time and/or underlying conceptions of how
the translation will be used. There are examples of translators arguing about specific
choices they made, or defending them against accusations of mistranslation, of doing
damage to the holy original. For example, in his famous Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen
(1530) (Circular Letter on Translation), Martin Luther defended his translations of the
Bible into German against accusations made by Catholic officials that he had falsified
the Holy Scriptures (cf. Störig 1963).
Very free translations were common at the time of Enlightenment (17th and 18th
centuries). The main aim was to produce texts which are beautiful, easy to understand,
and which should read like a contemporary original text. This principle was in corre-
spondence with the mission of disseminating scholarship and knowledge. In order to
please the readers and conform to the taste of the time, translators changed or modi-
fied the original text, deleted entire sections or added new information.
In the 19th century, translators and scholars who valued the original text as a
unique piece of work (or art), with both form and content being an inseparable whole,
began to question the very possibility of translation. Because ideas and expressions,
i.e. thoughts and words, were equated, Humboldt and Schleiermacher, among oth-
ers, argued that translation meant solving an impossible task. Schleiermacher pro-
posed two different methods of translating by which either the reader would be moved
towards the author, or the author would be moved towards the reader. In the first case,
the translation would be very close to the linguistic format of the source text, and in
the second case, the translation would be adapted to the style of the target language
with which the reader is familiar (cf. Venuti 1995: 99ff, Schleiermacher 2004).
Based on his considerations, Schleiermacher called for a theory of translation. But
it was not until the middle of the 20th century that such a theory began to emerge. This
was related to the increasing need for translation and interpreting in a variety of new
domains, and to the beginning of systematic training of translators and interpreters
in institutions. The first university programmes aiming at training professional trans-
lators and/or interpreters were set up in the 1940s, for example, at the University of
Geneva in 1941, Vienna in 1943, Mainz/Germersheim in 1946, Georgetown in 1949.
Since then their number has grown considerably worldwide. The formalization of the
training and the emergence of the field of Translation Studies have gone hand in hand,
the one complementing the other.
In short; there is a long tradition of thought and an enormous body of opinion
about translation. In the past, the views and/or doctrines expressed by translators
were mainly comments on specific problems they had encountered, or philosophical
308 Christina Schäffner

reflections on translatability, but they were not based on an elaborate theory of trans-
lation. With the development of Translation Studies as an academic discipline in the
second half of this century, theoretical principles have been formulated which are the
basis for the description, observation, and teaching of translation. In dealing with
translation and interpreting as subjects of both theoretical and practical concern,
scholars have come up with a vast body of data. However, there is no unified theory
and no agreement on central concepts of the discipline. What we have instead is a
multiplicity of different approaches, each of which is focussing on specific aspects,
looking at the product or the process of translation from a specific angle, and using or
avoiding specific terminology (for an overview see Gentzler 1993; Baker 1998; Baker
& Saldanha 2009; Kittel et al. 2004, and the contributions in Venuti 2004).
Different approaches will now be presented. Their main arguments, contribu-
tions and shortcomings will be characterised, and some major representatives will be
named. By illustrating these approaches, some major developments in the field can be
shown, but it cannot be a comprehensive account. The presentation will concentrate
on Translation Studies (for a survey of Interpreting Studies see, for example, the spe-
cial issue of Target 1995, also Pöchhacker & Shlesinger 2002), and it will suffer from a
Eurocentric focus (for the tradition of translation studies in other regions of the world,
cf. Baker & Saldanha 2009: Part II).

2. Linguistic approaches

The more intensive and systematic reflection on the nature of translation in the second
half of the 20th century was very much influenced by (applied) linguistics. Translation
was described as a linguistic phenomenon, as an operation performed on languages,
more precisely: as a process of linguistic transcoding. Consequently, translation stud-
ies too was conceived as a sub-discipline of linguistics. In the 1950s/1960s, linguistics
had become established as an academic discipline and it had developed specific meth-
ods with which to study its object systematically and with scientific rigour. This was
also expected of the description of translation, which is reflected in the labels ‘science
of translation’ (e.g. Nida 1964), or ‘Übersetzungswissenschaft’ (e.g. Wilss 1977; Koller
1979), although in the meantime this term has been largely replaced by the more mod-
est ‘Translation Studies’ (cf. Holmes 1988). A linguistic theory of translation (Catford
1965) was thus the application of linguistics, especially structuralist linguistics, to
translation as a form of mediated communication.
Since the language switch was considered to be the determining characteristic
feature of translation, the aim of translation studies was to give a precise description of
the systematic relations between signs and combinations of signs in the two languages,
i.e. the source language (SL) and the target language (TL). Any difference between SL
 Translation studies 309

and TL that became obvious in a translation was attributed to the differences in the
two linguistic systems. In this way, translation problems were identified and explained
from a linguistic perspective. Key concepts of linguistic approaches are reproduction
of the SL-text, invariance of the message, faithfulness, equivalence. The following defi-
nition is a clear example of this view:

Translation is the operation which consists in transferring from one language to

another all the meaning elements of a text, and nothing but these elements, making
sure that in the target language they preserve both their relative importance and also
their tonality, and taking account of the differences between the cultures of the source
and target languages. (Darbelnet 1977, cited in Newmark 1989: 133)

The relationship between the SL-text and the TL-text was defined as equivalence, and
this term was equally applied to smaller units of the text, i.e. the units of translation
(the smallest segments of the SL-text for which equivalent segments can be substi-
tuted in the TL-text, e.g. morphemes, words, phrases). The term ‘equivalence’ has
probably been the most controversial term in Translation Studies (cf. Snell-Hornby
1988: 13ff, Halverson 1997). It has been rejected by some translation scholars (see
below) who argue that equivalence means identity of meaning, which a translation
can never achieve. Linguistics-based approaches to translation are indeed concerned
with transferring meanings, and they use the relation of equivalence to set translation
apart from other forms of interlingual communication, based on the degree of mean-
ing correspondence between the structures of SL-text and TL-text. Such differences
are also reflected in the terminology, e.g. translation (proper) and adaptation (Koller
1979), semantic translation and communicative translation (Newmark 1981), overt
and covert translation (House 1977).
A good translation is expected to be “as literally accurate as possible” (Newmark
1991: 111), and producing accurate translations can be made easier by a description
and application of the systematic correspondences between SL and TL. Most linguis-
tics-oriented translation studies in the 1960s/1970s had therefore also the purpose of
setting up methods of translation, or translation procedures. Highly influential in this
respect have been the seven methods of translation of the Stylistique comparée (Vinay
& Darbelnet 1958), set up on the basis of a comparison of the lexical and syntactic
structures of English and French.
Linguistic approaches, however, have not been restricted to a narrow conception
of equivalence as sameness of meaning at the level of linguistic units. Koller, for exam-
ple, defined the equivalence relationship between SL-text and TL-text with respect to:

i. extralinguistic facts/state of affairs (denotative equivalence)

ii. form of verbalisation, including connotations, style (connotative equivalence)
iii. text norms and language norms (text-normative equivalence)
310 Christina Schäffner

iv. TL-text audience (pragmatic equivalence)

v. specific aesthetic, formal, characteristic features of text (formal-aesthetic equiva-
lence) (cf. Koller 1979: 215f)

Already in the 1960s, Nida had argued that the TL-text should have the same effect on
its audience as the ST had on its audience. Based on Bible translations into a number of
‘exotic’ languages and the comprehension problems caused by cultural barriers, he dif-
ferentiated between formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence
means concern “that the message in the receptor language should match as closely as
possible the different elements in the source language”. In contrast, a “translation of
dynamic equivalence aims at complete naturalness of expression, and tries to relate the
receptor to modes of behavior relevant within the context of his own culture; …” (Nida
1964: 159). For Bible translation, dynamic equivalence is advocated.
In the 1960s and 1970s, studies conducted within a linguistic approach to transla-
tion concentrated on systematic relations between units of the language systems, but
largely ignored aspects of their contextual use. A chosen TL-form may well be correct
according to the rules of the language system, but this does not necessarily mean that
the text as a whole appropriately fulfils its communicative function in the TL-situation
and culture. Since we do not translate words or grammatical forms, but texts with
a specific communicative function, the limitations of a narrow linguistic approach
soon became obvious. Thus, a logical development was that in the 1970s, insights and
approaches of textlinguistics, a new (sub-)discipline in the area of (applied) linguistics,
were adopted to translation studies.

3. Textlinguistic approaches

The text had not been ignored in linguistic approaches, as can be seen in the definition
of equivalence as a relation between texts. However, in listing ‘potential equivalent
relations’ between units in SL and TL, linguistic approaches could not provide crite-
ria for a translator’s decision as to the most appropriate TL-form, or they remained
rather vague. Textlinguistics defines the text as the basic unit of communication and
therefore as the primary object of research. This idea was applied to Translation Stud-
ies: the text itself was considered to be the unit of translation, and translation was
no longer defined as transcoding linguistic signs, but as retextualising the SL-text.
The focus changed from reproducing meanings to producing texts, as illustrated in
Neubert’s definition of translation as “source-text induced target-text production”
(Neubert 1985: 18).
The basic assumption of a textlinguistic approach to translation is that SL- and
TL-text not only differ in their sentence structures, which are determined by the
 Translation studies 311

respective linguistic systems, but also in regularities beyond the sentence boundar-
ies. The syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic dimensions of texts are studied in their
interrelationships, and more attention is devoted to the fact that translators are always
dealing with a text in a situation and in a culture, where they (are meant to) fulfil a spe-
cific function. Based on regularities that are identified in texts, textlinguistic research
attempts to categorise texts into text types, genres, text-classes. There is, however,
sometimes some terminological confusion in that ‘text type’ and ‘genre’ are used syn-
onymously (cf. Trosborg 1997). In German textlinguistic literature, there is normally
a differentiation between Texttyp and Textsorte with a different theoretical basis for
their categorisation. Texttyp (text type) is understood as a category for a more abstract,
theoretical classification of texts, whereas Textsorte (or Textklasse, i.e. genre, text class)
is a label used for an empirical classification of texts as they exist in a human society.
Genres are characterised as global linguistic patterns which have historically devel-
oped in a linguistic community for fulfilling specific communicative tasks in specific
situations. They reflect the effective, conscious and situationally appropriate choice of
linguistic means, and they may be more or less conventionalised. Genre conventions
are culture-specific and can change over time, which makes genres relevant for Trans-
lation Studies.
One of the first translation scholars to point out the importance of a categorisa-
tion of texts for translation purposes was Reiß (1971). The aim of her translation-ori-
ented text typology was to derive strictly objective criteria for assessing the quality of
translations. Based on Bühler’s three functions of language, Darstellung (description,
representation), Ausdruck (expression), and Appell (appeal), Reiß derived three corre-
sponding dimensions of language (logical, aesthetic, dialogic) and three correspond-
ing text types (informative, expressive, appellative). These three text types were linked
to translation methods. According to Reiß, for the informative text type (examples
of which are report, textbook) the aim is invariance of content, and the translation
is successful when the information has been transmitted in full. In the case of the
expressive text type (e.g. novel, poem), the aim is an analogy of the artistic form, and
the translation method is called identifying. For the appellative, or operative text type
(e.g. advertising, propaganda leaflet), the aim is identity of the behavioural reactions,
and the translation method is adaptation. Reiß’s text typology has often been criticised
as too rigid, and her translation methods as too prescriptive, for example by Snell-
Hornby (1988), who applies prototype theory to a text typology to demonstrate that
text types do not display clear-cut features.
Reiß’s text types (Texttyp in German) can be realised by different text varieties
(Textsorte in German). For example, a private letter would belong to the informative
text type, whereas a begging letter would belong to the operative text type. However,
Reiß does not devote much space to translation problems of these varieties. More
recently, textlinguistic approaches to translation have been concerned with setting up
312 Christina Schäffner

prototypes of genres, or genre profiles (Textsortenprofile in Göpferich 1995), based on

a systematic comparison and description of genres in SL and TL. In this context, the
notion of ‘parallel texts’ has been introduced, which are defined as “L2 and L1 texts of
equal informativity which have been produced in more or less identical communica-
tive situations” (Neubert 1985: 75). They are useful for assessing how identical com-
municative functions are expressed in specific genres of SL and TL. Resulting genre
profiles are meant to provide some orientation for the production and reception of
texts and, thus, for translators. They can serve as models for the retextualisation of the
SL-text according to the TL conventions. In other words, knowledge of cross-cultural
similarities and/or differences regarding genres and genre conventions is crucial to
the translator in order to produce appropriate TL-texts (cf. also Hatim & Mason 1990,
1997).
In recent years, an increasing number of studies have investigated the characteris-
tic features of genres, both at macro- and micro-level, from a translational perspective
(e.g. Göpferich 1995, and the contributions in Trosborg 1997). Genre profiles are use-
ful for translation practice and translator training, but also limited. On the one hand,
not all genres are highly conventionalised and therefore more readily predictable as to
their structure. And on the other hand, a large portion of texts contain both constant
and variable elements, which textlinguistic Translation Studies must be aware of in
their attempt to discover text type-specific translation regularities, as Wilss (1996: 21)
points out.
The point stressed by textlinguistic approaches, that translators always deal with
a text in a situation and in a culture, was developed further with the specific focus on
the purpose of the text, particularly by German translation scholars. These approaches
have become known as functionalist approaches.

4. Functionalist approaches

Functionalist approaches were largely motivated by the needs of both practical transla-
tion activities and translator training. The main argument is that texts are produced
and received with a specific purpose, or function, in mind. The starting point for any
translation is therefore not the (linguistic surface structure of the) source text, but the
purpose of the target text (referred to as prospective view). Scholars working within a
functionalist approach prefer to speak of source text (ST) and target text (TT), instead
of source-language and target-language text, because they want to demonstrate that
translation is not only a linguistic activity. By adopting a prospective view of transla-
tion, they consciously set themselves apart from the retrospective view of linguistic
approaches which focus on reproducing the source text. This changed perspective can
be illustrated by the following definitions:
 Translation studies 313

I understand translating roughly as a procedure initiated by a commission consisting

of a set of (verbal and non-verbal) instructions (plus additional material) to prepare
an (oral or written) ‘target-text’ for transcultural interacting on the basis of ‘source-
text’ material. (Vermeer 1996: 6)
Translation is the production of a functional target text maintaining a relationship
with a given source text that is specified according to the intended or demanded
function of the target text (translation skopos). (Nord 1991: 28)

Functionalist approaches were initiated in principle by Vermeer in the late 1970s

with his Skopos theory (derived from the Greek word skopós, meaning purpose, aim,
goal, objective). The basic assumptions are as follows: translation is a specific kind of
communicative action; each action has a specific purpose (or aim, or function, these
terms are often used interchangeably), and therefore, the most decisive criterion for
any translation is its purpose (Skopos). A text is information offered (Information-
sangebot) by the text producer to a text receiver (this view is sometimes criticised as a
dethronement of the SL-text). A translation, i.e. a target text, is information offered in
a target language and culture about information offered in a source language and its
culture. Since language and culture are interdependent, translation is transfer between
cultures, it is a specific kind of culture-determined text production (cf. Vermeer 1978;
Reiß & Vermeer 1991). The Skopos of the ST and the Skopos of the TT can be either
identical or different (cf. equifunctional and heterofunctional translation in Nord
1997). In other words, the long-standing debate about literal versus free translation,
or translation versus adaptation, becomes superfluous, since all forms, whether literal
translation, communicative translation, adaptation, are all equally valid translational
procedures, depending on the purpose of the TT. Functionalist approaches argue
that the first step in each translating activity is the analysis of the specific translation
assignment, to be followed by a translation-oriented analysis of the source text. Key
notions of this approach, such as translation brief (or assignment, commission), initia-
tor, client, functional appropriateness, clearly demonstrate the different orientation.
Another functionalist approach is the theory of translatorial action (translato-
risches Handeln) developed by Holz-Mänttäri (1984). She shares many of her basic
assumptions with those of Skopos theory, but develops her arguments consistently
within an action frame. She defines translation as a complex action designed to
achieve a particular purpose, as an action that is realised by an expert in a network of
translatorial actions involving the initiator, the client and the translator. Holz-Mänttäri
introduces a specific terminology (in German), for example, Botschaftsträger (‘mes-
sage transmitter’, literally: ‘message conveyor’) instead of text, translatorisches Handeln
(‘translatorial action’) instead of translation. She argues that the verb ‘translate’ requires
a grammatical object, a reference to the ‘what’ that is (to be) translated, thus orienting
the attention in a retrospective way and giving prominence to the source text. Her own
prospective view is summarised in the following definition:
314 Christina Schäffner

Translational action is the process of producing a message transmitter of a certain

kind, designed to be employed in superordinate action systems in order to coordinate
actional and communicative cooperation.
(Holz-Mänttäri 1984: 17, quoted in Nord 1997: 13)

It has been argued that an approach to translation which states that the aim justifies
the means ignores ethical concerns and produces ‘mercenary experts’ (Pym 1996: 338).
Nord (1997) countered such criticism by introducing the notion of ‘loyalty’ into func-
tionalism to highlight the responsibility of translators towards all partners in the trans-
lational interaction, i.e. original author, target text addressees, clients. By stressing the
role of the translator as an expert in interlingual and intercultural communication
(which requires linguistic, cultural, subject- or domain-specific, text-typological, and
[re]search competence), functionalist approaches assign a higher status to translators,
which, in turn, requires of them to take on responsibility for the products of their
work.
A prospective view, which is frequently accompanied by a rejection of the term
‘equivalence’ (as defined in the narrow sense of identity of meaning) is also typical
of much work that comes under the labels of ‘Descriptive Translation Studies’ and
‘Cultural Studies’, with both approaches being predominantly concerned with literary
translation.

5. Descriptive Translation Studies and Cultural Studies

Scholars working within these approaches have also moved far away from the tradi-
tional view that translation is replacement or substitution of linguistic units in one lan-
guage by equivalent units in another language. Instead, they focus on social, cultural,
and communicative practices, in short: on pragmatic aspects. Translation is described
as the result of a socially contexted behavioural type of activity (Toury 1980), as can be
illustrated by the following quotations:
… the (prospective) systemic position and function of a translation determines its
appropriate surface realization (= textual-linguistic make-up) which in turn governs
the strategies whereby a target text (or parts thereof) is derived from its original, and
hence the relationships which hold them together. […] features are retained, and
reconstructed in target-language material, not because they are ‘important’ in any
inherent sense, but because they are assigned importance, from the recipient vantage
point. (Toury 1995: 12/13)

Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) describe translations as facts of target systems.

For example, through comparative descriptions of translations of the same source text,
either in one single language or in various languages, it has been shown how social
 Translation studies 315

and historical conditions, primarily in the recipient socio-culture, had influenced the
translational behaviour. Based on his descriptive analyses, Toury introduced the con-
cept of ‘norms’ into Translation Studies. Translational norms are understood as inter-
nalised behavioural constraints which embody the values shared by a community, and
translation is thus defined as norm-governed behaviour (Toury 1995, see also Schäff-
ner 1998).
In the process of translating, target texts are brought into line with the system of
norms that govern the literary system in a culture. In a literary polysystem (cf. poly-
system theory, Even-Zohar 1978), translations are competing with original texts and
genres for prestige and power. Depending on the position of translated literature in a
polysystem, translational behaviour will be governed either by target culture norms
(usually if translated literature is in a peripheral position) or by source culture norms
(if translated literature is in a central position). Translations are adapted, or ‘refracted’,
to their audience (Lefevere 2004). From the target text perspective, therefore, “all
translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose”
(Hermans 1985: 11), hence the name ‘Manipulation School’ (cf. Snell-Hornby 1988;
Hermans 1999).
DTS reflects a more socioculturally oriented concept of translation, which is also
evident in the way Holmes formulated the two main objectives of ‘Translation Stud-
ies’: (i) to describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest
themselves in the world of our experience, and (ii) to establish general principles by
means of which these phenomena can be explained and predicted (Holmes 1988: 71).
Since the early 1990s, the discipline of Translation Studies has been inspired to
a considerable extent by Cultural Studies, anthropology, poststructuralist, postmod-
ern, and postcolonial theories. Bassnett and Lefevere speak of the ‘cultural turn’ in
Translation Studies, stressing that “translation has been a major shaping force in the
development of world culture” (Bassnett & Lefevere 1990: 12). These approaches fol-
low a number of different tendencies and agendas. But in spite of this, as Arrojo states,
they share as “common ground a radical distrust of the possibility of any intrinsically
stable meaning that could be fully present in texts … and, thus, supposedly recoverable
and repeated elsewhere without the interference of the subjects, as well as the cultural,
historical, ideological or political circumstances involved” (Arrojo 1998: 25). A central
argument, then, is that translation practices the difference between signifier and signi-
fied, as expressed, for example, in the following definition:
Translation is a process by which the chain of signifiers that constitutes the source-
language text is replaced by a chain of signifiers in the target language which the
translator provides on the strength of an interpretation. (Venuti 1995: 17)

Venuti criticises the dominant Anglo-American tradition of fluency and transparency

in translation as “forcible replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the
316 Christina Schäffner

foreign text with a text that will be intelligible to the target-language reader” (Venuti
1995: 18). In its place he argues for the development of a “theory and practice of trans-
lation that resists dominant target-language cultural values so as to signify the linguis-
tic and cultural difference of the foreign text” (Venuti 1995: 23). His key concepts are
‘domestication’ and ‘foreignisation’ as the two opposed translation methods, fluency
and resistancy as corresponding translation strategies, which go hand in hand with the
translator’s invisibility or visibility, and ethnocentrism versus democratic geopolitical
relations as the underlying cultural political agendas. Venuti’s arguments for favouring
foreignisation, which are reflected in the following quotation, are developed largely on
the basis of literary texts.
A translated text should be the site where a different culture emerges, where a
reader gets a glimpse of a cultural other, and resistancy, a translation strategy based
on an aesthetic of discontinuity, can best preserve that difference, that otherness,
by reminding the reader of the gains and losses in the translation process and the
unbridgeable gaps between cultures. (Venuti 1995: 306)

Whereas traditional approaches advocated a respect for and a faithful rendering of the
meanings of a text, approaches inspired by Cultural Studies see translation as a form of
regulated transformation and as a socio-political practice. Translation, via a method of
foreignisation, thus becomes a form of political action and engagement. Consequently,
the traditional conception of the translator as an invisible transporter of meanings,
has been replaced by that of the visible interventionist. As Arrojo argues, “the transla-
tor’s visibility in the target text is no longer an embarrassment to be avoided, … [but]
becomes the focal point of translation scholarship in postmodern times, opening up
new fertile areas for research” (Arrojo 1998: 42). Such areas which have recently seen
extensive research are, for example, the study of translation and power (e.g. Álvarez &
Vidal 1996; Tymoczko & Gentzler 2002, and in the context of postcolonial theories
also Niranjana 1992; Tymoczko 1999), translation and identity (e.g. Venuti 1994;
Cronin 2006), translation and gender (e.g. Simon 1996), translation and ideology (e.g.
Caldaza Pérez 2003), translation and ethics (e.g. the special issue of The Translator
7: 2, 2001), translation and conflict (e.g. Baker 2006), and translation and politics (e.g.
Schäffner & Bassnett 2010).

6. Psycholinguistic approaches to translation, machine (assisted)

translation, corpus studies, (multi)media translation,
sociological approaches

Other, more recent developments have added to the insights into the phenomenon
of translation. One of them, largely initiated by Krings (1986) is the study of the
translation process. The most frequently used research method here is the analysis
 Translation studies 317

of think-aloud protocols (TAPs). While translating a text, translators are asked to

verbalise every action and every thought. On the basis of the transcribed recordings,
translation scholars systematised the strategies employed (both at macro- and micro-
level), set up types of strategies (e.g. Lörscher 1991), and discovered differences in
the use of these strategies between professional translators and students of transla-
tion, i.e. between experts and novices (e.g. Tirkkonen-Condit & Jääskeläinen 2000).
Some studies combined TAPs with video taping the translation process (e.g. Séguinot
1989). Initially, TAPs of individual translators were analysed, but later on this method
was also extended to record discussions of teams of translators, mostly students, thus
tracing characteristic features of creativity in the translation process (e.g. Kußmaul
1997, 2000). Despite certain limitations, such studies into the cognitive processes of
translation have found a way into the previously inaccessible ‘black box’ and revealed
important insights into what happens in the heads of translators (see also the contribu-
tions in Danks et al. 1997).
Machine translation, although not a recent approach, has not experienced a con-
tinuous development. The first attempts date back to the early 1950s, although the
initial enthusiasm had soon to be abandoned. The first programmes were based on a
limited understanding of translation as substitution (cf. linguistic approaches above),
in other words, on a notion of equivalence as indicating a relationship of absolute sym-
metry and equality, which would allow reversibility. After a period of stagnation in the
1960s, research is now focussing on machine assisted translation (MAT), that is, on
the interaction between a human translator and the computer, although also research
into machine translation proper is still going on. Most of the current MAT research is
conducted with a practical purpose in mind, and software has been provided to make
the daily work of the practising translator more efficient, effective, and reliable. In
addition to setting up term banks, glossaries, specialist dictionaries, the most recent
software goes beyond the level of the term, for example, multilingual concordance
systems or translation memory systems (cf. Freigang 1998; Somers 1998, also Sager
1994 for a survey of the extensive use of computers in today’s translation industry).
On the other hand, analysing translations that are the result of MAT processes, can tell
translation scholars more about achievements and (current) limitations in modelling
the translation process. Or, in the words of Neubert & Shreve (1992: 28), “the effec-
tive software design of computer-assisted translation environments requires empirical
studies of translation behavior”.
Another recent development that needs computers to deal with the huge amount of
data is the application of corpus studies to translation (e.g. Baker 1995; Laviosa 1997).
Baker (1995) defines three types of corpora that are relevant for Translation Studies.
Firstly, multilingual corpora (i.e. sets of monolingual corpora in different languages)
can provide insights into the linguistic structures of the two languages concerned.
Secondly, parallel corpora (i.e. original STs in language A and their translated versions
318 Christina Schäffner

in language B) “allow us to establish, objectively, how translators overcome difficulties

of translation in practice” (Baker 1995: 231, note that ‘parallel text’ is defined differ-
ently in textlinguistic approaches). Thirdly, comparable corpora (i.e. a set of original
texts in language A and a separate set of translations into language A from whatever
source language) would “allow us to capture patterns which are either restricted to
translated text or which occur with a significantly higher or lower frequency in trans-
lated text than they do in originals” (Baker 1995: 235). Research using electronic
corpora is providing a growing amount of data which can be used to test theoretical
assumptions and to help scholars to find out whether translations are characterized by
specific features (universals, cf. Mauranen & Kujamäki 2004).
More recently, research has been intensified in the domain of (multi)media.
Research into sub-titling, dubbing, website translation, etc. (e.g. Gambier & Gottlieb
2001; Orero 2004; Dias-Cintas & Ramael 2008) has gone beyond the technical issues
involved and has put more emphasis on ideological and institutional aspects. For
example, dubbing is a practice that occurs more frequently in non-democratic societ-
ies since dubbing, in contrast to sub-titling, does not give the audience access to the
original text. In the case of news translation, we see a complex set of practices in which
every step is governed by wider cultural and economic factors (e.g. by the demands of
the target audience, the time constraints, editorial policies – see also the special issue
of the journal Language and Intercultural Communication 2005 on Global News Trans-
lation; Bielsa & Bassnett 2009).
In the context of (multi)media translation and globalization (e.g. Cronin 2003;
Pym 2004), the very term ‘translation’ itself is problematised. For example, in software
translation, ‘translation’ is used in a narrower sense for meaning transfer in contrast to
‘localisation’ which is defined as making a product (including a text) linguistically, cul-
turally and technically appropriate to the target locale (country/region and language)
where it will be used.
In the last years, the institutions and the agents that play a role in producing,
disseminating and receiving translations have moved into the centre of Translation
Studies research, including a focus on their power and ideological positions. For this
research into translation as a socially regulated practice, theories and concepts from
sociology, in particular, Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and habitus, have been intro-
duced to account for the social nature of translation as a communicative practice.
Such sociological approaches investigate the role of social contexts and constraints as
well as the relationship between translators’ behaviour and their position in the social
environment and as agents in a network of power relations (see the contributions in
Wolf & Fukari 2007 and in Milton & Bandia 2008). Studying translation as a socially
determined phenomenon thus also requires studying it within the larger social context
and in interaction with other social (sub-)fields (see e.g. Koskinen 2008 for an ethno-
graphic study of translating institutions).
 Translation studies 319

7. Conclusion

As any discipline, Translation Studies has undergone a development (cf. Snell-Hornby

2006). Originally, it had been understood as a sub-discipline of (applied) linguistics,
and, consequently, the methods that were applied to the study of translation were those
that had been developed in linguistics, and later textlinguistics, pragmatics (e.g. Hickey
1998), and discourse analysis. In the course of time, different views and approaches
emerged to supplement the existing approaches, and, thus, Translation Studies has
alternatively been understood as part of comparative literature (or even vice versa,
comparative literature was defined as part of translation studies, cf. Lefevere & Bassnett
1990: 12), or as a sub-discipline of Cultural Studies. In addition to these views that see
Translation Studies as a sub-discipline of some other academic discipline, there is, on
the one hand, the extreme view that there is no need to establish Translation Studies
because it can be subsumed under Sperber & Wilson’s relevance theory (Gutt 1991),
and, on the other hand, the position that Translation Studies is indeed an independent
discipline in its own right. This view has increasingly gained ground, but since insights
and methods from various other disciplines are of relevance as well, Translation Stud-
ies is often characterised as an interdiscipline (cf. Snell-Hornby et al. 1992).
What we see today then, is an ever increasing recognition of Translation Stud-
ies as an academic discipline. There is a growing body of literature, including spe-
cific journals (e.g. Target, The Translator, TTR, Perspectives, Translation Studies) as
well as Handbooks and Encyclopedias (Baker 1998; Baker & Saldanha 2009; Snell-
Hornby et al. 1998; Kittel et al. 2004). There are professional and academic bodies,
both at national and international level, for example the European Society for Transla-
tion Studies (EST) which was founded in 1992, and the International Association for
Translation and Intercultural Studies (IATIS), founded in 2004.
There has been a lot of research over the past sixty years, and translation scholars
have become interested in more and more issues. Modern Translation Studies is con-
cerned with a wide variety of topics, such as analyses of translation products, transla-
tion processes as cognitive acts, translation practices in socio-political settings, the
functions and effects of translations (as products) in the receiving cultures, and the
status and power of translation and translators in socio-historical contexts. In other
words, the focus is on social, cultural, communicative and sociological practices, on
the cultural and ideological significance of translating and of translations, on the
external politics of translation, on the relationship between translation behaviour and
socio-cultural factors.
Translation Studies is not a homogeneous discipline and does not have its uni-
fied metalanguage (Gambier & van Doorslaer 2009). Different approaches exist side
by side, using specific concepts and methodologies (cf. the debate on ‘shared ground’,
initiated by representatives of the empirical-descriptive and the postmodernist
320 Christina Schäffner

approaches to translation research, Chesterman & Arrojo 2000 and responses in the
subsequent issues of the journal Target). Each approach contributes valuable insights
to the complex phenomenon of translation, and in future research in Translation Stud-
ies will in all probability continue to be characterised by interdisciplinary approaches.

Reference

Álvarez, R. & M. Carmen-África Vidal (eds.) (1996) Translation, power, subversion. Multilingual
Matters.
Arrojo, R. (1998) The revision of the traditional gap between theory and practice and the empower-
ment of translation in postmodern times. The Translator 4: 25–48.
Baker, M. (1995) Corpora in translation studies: An overview and suggestions for future research.
Target 7: 223–243.
Baker, M. (ed.) (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Routledge.
Baker, M. (2006) Translation and Conflict: A Narrative Account, Routledge.
Baker, M. a& G. Saldanha (eds.) (2009) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. (2nd edition).
Routledge.
Bassnett, S. (ed.) (2005) Special Issue on Global News Translation. Language and intercultural com-
munication. 5 (2).
Bassnett, S. & A. Lefevere (eds.) (1990) Translation, History and Culture. Pinter.
Bielsa, E. & S. Bassnett (2009) Translation in Global News. Routledge.
Caldaza Perez, M. (ed.) (2003) Apropos of Ideology. Translation Studies on Ideology – Ideologies in
Translation Studies. St. Jerome.
Catford, J.C. (1965) A linguistic theory of translation. Oxford University Press.
Chesterman, A. & R. Arrojo (2000). Shared Ground in Translation Studies. Target 12: 151–160.
Cronin, M. (2003) Translation and Globalization. Routledge.
Cronin, M. (2006) Translation and Identity, Routledge.
Danks, J.H. et al. (eds.) (1997) Cognitive processes in translation and interpreting. Sage.
Darbelnet, J. (1977) Niveaux de la traduction. Babel 23: 6–17.
Delisle, J. & J. Woodsworth (eds.) (1995) Translators through history. John Benjamins, UNESCO
Publishing.
Dias-Cintas, J. & A. Ramael (eds.) (2008) Audiovisual Translation: Subtitling. St Jerome.
Even-Zohar, I. (1978) Papers in historical poetics. Tel Aviv: Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
Freigang, K.-H. (1998) Machine-aided translation. In M. Baker (ed.): 134–136.
Gambier, Y. & H. Gottlieb (eds.) (2001) (Multi)Media Translation. John Benjamins.
Gambier, Y. & L. Van Doorslaer (eds) (2009) The Metalanguage of Translation. John Benjamins.
Gentzler, E. (1993) Contemporary Translation Theories. Routledge.
Göpferich, S. (1995) Textsorten in Naturwissenschaft und Technik. Pragmatische Typologie – Kontrast-
ierung – Translation. Narr.
Gutt, E. (1991) Translation and relevance. Blackwell.
Halverson, S. (1997) The concept of equivalence in translation studies: Much ado about something.
Target 9: 207–233.
Hatim, B. & I. MASON (1990) Discourse and the translator. Longman.
——— (1997) The translator as communicator. Routledge.
Hermans, T. (ed.) (1985) The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation. Croom Helm.
 Translation studies 321

——— (1999) Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained.

St.Jerome.
Hickey, L. (ed.) (1998) The pragmatics of translation. Multilingual Matters.
Holmes, J. (1988) Translated! Papers on literary translation and translation studies. Rodopi.
Holz-Mänttäri, J. (1984) Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
House, J. (1977) A model for translation quality assessment. Narr.
Kittel, H. et al. (eds.) (2004) Übersetzung – Translation – Traduction. An International Encyclopedia
of Translation Studies, v. Vol. 1. de Gruyter.
Koller, W. (1979). Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Quelle & Meyer.
Koskinen, K. (2008) Translating Institutions: An ethnographic study of EU translation. St. Jerome.
Krings, H.P. (1986) Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur
Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Narr.
Kussmaul, P. (1995) Training the translator. John Benjamins.
——— (2000) Kreatives Übersetzen. Stauffenburg.
Laviosa, S. (1997) How comparable can ‘comparable corpora’ be? Target 9: 289–319.
Lefevere, A. (2004) Mother Courage’s cucumbers: text, system and refraction in a theory of literature.
In L. Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader (2nd edition): 239–255. Routledge.
Lefevere, A. & S. Bassnett (1990) Introduction: Proust’s grandmother and the Thousand and one
nights: The ‘cultural turn’ in translation studies. In S. Bassnettt & A. Lefevere (eds.) Translation,
history and culture: 1–13. Pinter.
Lörscher, W. (1991) Translation performance, translation process, and translation strategies. Narr.
Mauranen, A. & P. Kujamäki (eds.) (2004) Translation Universals. Do they exist? John Benjamins.
Milton, J. & P. Bandia (eds.) (2008) Agents of Translation. John Benjamins.
Neubert, A. (1985) Text and translation. Enzyklopädie.
Neubert, A. & G.M. Shreve (1992) Translation as text. Kent State University Press.
Newmark, P. (1981) Approaches to translation. Pergamon.
——— (1989) Communicative and semantic translation. In A. Chesterman (ed.) Readings in transla-
tion theory: 116–140. Oy Finn Lectura Ab.
——— (1991) About translation. Multilingual Matters.
Nida, E. (1964) Toward a science of translating: With special reference to principles and procedures
involved in Bible translating. E.J. Brill.
Niranjana, T. (1992) Siting Translation: History, Post-Structuralism, and the Colonial Context. Univer-
sity of California Press.
Nord, C. (1991) Text analysis in translation. Rodopi.
——— (1997) Translating as a purposeful activity. Functionalist approaches explained. St. Jerome.
Orero, P. (ed.) (2004) Topics in Audiovisual Translation. John Benjamins.
Pöchhacker, F. & M. Shlesinger (eds.) (2002) The Interpreting Studies Reader. Routledge.
Pym, A. (1996) Material text transfer as a key to the purposes of translation. In A. Neubert, G. Shreve
& K. Gommlich (eds.) Basic issues in Translation Studies. Proceedings of the fifth international
conference Kent Forum on Translation Studies II: 337–346. Kent State University Institute of
Applied Linguistics.
——— (ed.) (2001) Special Issue on The Return to Ethics. The Translator 7:2.
——— (2004) The Moving Text. Localization, Translation, and Distribution. John Benjamins.
Reiß, K. (1971) Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Hueber.
Reiß, K. & H.J. Vermeer (1991) Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Niemeyer.
Sager, J. (1994) Language engineering and translation: Consequences of automation. John Benjamins.
Schäffner, C. (ed.) (1998) Translation and norms. Multilingual Matters.
322 Christina Schäffner

Schäffner, C. & S. Bassnett (eds.) (2010). Political Discourse, Media and Translation. Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Schleiermacher, F. On the different methods of translating. In L. Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies
Reader. (2nd edition): 43–63. Routledge.
Seguinot, C. (ed.) (1989) The translation process. H.G. Publications, York University.
Simon, S. (1996) Gender in translation. Cultural identity and the politics of transmission. Routledge.
Somers, H. (1998) Machine translation. In M. Baker (ed.), 136–149.
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988) Translation studies. An integrated approach. John Benjamins.
——— (2006) The Turns of Translation Studies. John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby, M., F. Pöchhacker & K. Kaindl (eds.) (1992) Translation studies. An interdiscipline.
John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby, M., H.G. Hönig, P. Kussmaul & P.A. Schmitt (eds.) (1998) Handbuch Translation.
Stauffenburg.
Sperber, D. & D. Wilson (1986) Relevance: Communication and cognition. Blackwell.
Störig, H.J. (ed.) (1963) Das Problem des Übersetzens. Deutsche Buchgemeinschaft.
Target (1995) Special Issue on Interpreting Research. 7:1.
Tirkkonen-Condit, S. & R. Jääskeläinen (eds.) (2000) Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Transla-
tion and Interpreting. John Benjamins.
Toury, G. (1980) In search of a theory of translation. The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
——— (1995) Descriptive translation studies and beyond. John Benjamins.
Trosborg, A. (1997) Text typology: Register, genre and text type. In A. Trosborg (ed.) Text typology
and translation: 3–23. John Benjamins.
Tymoczko, M. (1999) Translation in a Postcolonial Context. St. Jerome.
Tymoczko, M. & E. Gentzler (eds.) (2002) Translation and Power. University of Massachusetts Press.
Venuti, L. (1994) Translation and the formation of cultural identities. Current Issues in Language and
Society 1: 201–217.
——— (1995) The translator’s invisibility. Routledge.
——— (ed.) (2004) The Translation Studies Reader, 2nd ed. Routledge.
Vermeer, H.J. (1978) Ein Rahmen fÜr eine allgemeine Translationstheorie. Lebende Sprachen 23:
99–102.
——— (1996) A skopos theory of translation (Some arguments for and against). TEXTconTEXT.
Vinay, J.-P. & J. Darbelnet (1958) Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais. Méthode de traduc-
tion. Didier.
Wills, W. (1977) Übersetzungswissenschaft. Probleme und Methoden. Klett.
——— (1996) Knowledge and skills in translator behavior. John Benjamins.
Wolf, M. & A. Fukari (eds.) (2007) Constructing a Sociology of Translation. John Benjamins.