New Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies 20 October, 2006 Universitat Rovira i Virgili,...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
1
Transcript of New Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies 20 October, 2006 Universitat Rovira i Virgili,...
New Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies
20 October, 2006
Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona (Spain)
Ljuba Tarvi (Tallinn University)
Classification of Translation Models:
A Map or a Matrix?
Problems to discuss
• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?
Problems to discuss
• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?
• What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field?
Problems to discuss
• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?
• What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field?
• What might be the ‘center of gravity’ when delineating the field?
Problems to discuss
• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?
• What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field?
• What might be the ‘center of gravity’ when delineating the field?
• In what way could theory help practice?
Karl Popper’s three worlds
World 1 (W1) - the world of physical objects
Karl Popper’s three worlds
World 1 (W1) - the world of physical objects
World 2 (W2) - the world of mental objects/events
Karl Popper’s three worlds
World 1 (W1) - the world of physical objects
World 2 (W2) - the world of mental objects/events
World 3 (W3) - the world of products of the human mind, including linguistic products
Popper’s worlds: interactions
W2 - W1
__________________
W3 (W1)
Popper’s worlds
W2 (mental objects and events)__________________________
W3 (products of human mind)
Popper’s worlds: interaction
W2 (mental objects and events) __________________________
???
_________________________
W3 (products of human mind)
James Holmes (1988:72)
There would seem to be three major kinds of research in DTS, which may be distinguished by their focus as
product oriented,
function-oriented, and
process-oriented.
Holmes’ three major kinds of research
process-oriented translation psychologyW2
function-oriented translation sociologyfunction
product-oriented comparative translation description
W3
Holmes’ kinds of research & Popper’s worlds
HOLMES: POPPER:process-orientedtranslation psychology W2
function-orientedtranslation sociology function?
product-orientedcomparative description W3
Function
• Literary function is a variable notion of how texts (W3) are connected to the language (W3), its users (W2), and culture (functional space of W2-W3 interaction).
Function
• Literary function is a variable notion of how texts (W3) are connected to the language (W3), its users (W2), and culture (functional space of W2-W3 interaction).
• Function is a dynamic concept considering human agents (and texts produced by them) within cultural (society, ideology, politics, economy, etc.) context.
Interface 1
W2 (mental objects and events)
_______________________
JH: function/sociology
_______________________
W3 (products of human mind)
Interface 2
W2 (mental objects and events)
______________________JH: function/sociology
GT: parts/whole: functional relationship
______________________
W3 (products of human mind)
Interface 3
W2 (mental objects and events)
______________________JH: function/sociology
GT: parts/whole: functional relationship
SWH: linguistic determinism/relativity ______________________
W3 (products of human mind)
Interface 4
W2 (mental objects and events)___________________________
JH: function/sociologyGT: parts/whole: functional relationshipSWH: linguistic determinism/relativity
RF: functional value-driven interaction ___________________________W3 (products of human mind)
A ‘function space’
“A variable quantity regarded in its relation
to one or more other variables in terms of
which it may be expressed, or on the value
of which its own value depends” (TOED, p.
263)
Scheme 1
W2 (mental objects and events)
___________________________
Function space ___________________________
W3 (products of human mind)
Scheme 2
W2 (I individual)
W2 (I functional)
___________________________
Function space ___________________________
W3 (products of human mind)
W3: properties
(1) W3 is autonomous
(2) W3 is timeless
(3) W3 has a history
(4) W3 is internally logical
‘institution’ (e.g., TOT, p. 225)
• establishment, institute, academy, foundation, university, college, school
• custom, tradition, habit, practice, routine, rule, order (of the day), code (of practice), doctrine, dogma
‘institution’ (e.g., TOT, p. 225)
• establishment, institute, academy, foundation, university, college, school
INSTITUTION
• custom, tradition, habit, practice, routine, rule, order (of the day), code (of practice), doctrine, dogma
NORM
Scheme 3
W2 (I individual)W2 (I functional)
___________________________Function space
___________________________W3 (norms)
W3 (institutions)W3 (texts)
Scheme 4
W2 (I individual)W2 (I functional)
__________________________FUNCTION SPACE
___________________________↑ W3 (norms) ↑
↑ W3 (institutions) ↑W3 (texts)
Scheme 5
W2 (I individual)↓ W2 (I functional) ↓
__________________________FUNCTION SPACE
___________________________↑ W3 (norms) ↑
↑ W3 (institutions) ↑W3 (texts)
Scheme 6
W2 (I individual)
__________________________
W2 (I functional)
W3 (norms)
W3 (institutions)
___________________________
W3 (texts)
Ideology - culture
Ideology is the set of ideas, values and beliefs that govern a community by virtue of being regarded as a norm.
(Calzada-Pérez 1997:35)
Culture is an integrated system of learned behavior patterns that are characteristic of the members of any given society.
(Khol 1984:17)
Norms – ideology - culture
culture
ideology
NORMS
NORMS
(1) official standards or levels that organizations are expected to reach
(2) ways of behaving that are considered normal in a particular society
Synonyms: criterion patternaverage yardstickbenchmark rule
Scheme 7
W2 (I individual)
__________________________
W2 (I functional)
W3 (norms)
W3 (institutions)
___________________________
W3 (texts)
Matrix of Translation Studies: Spaces
Source nation
A
W2 (individual)
Intercultural Space
I/T
Target nation
R
W2 (individual)
Source culture
W2 (functional)
Function SpaceInternational relations
Target culture
W2 (functional)
W3 (source norms)
SN
Function SpaceInternational norms
W3 (target norms)
TN
W3 (institutions) Function SpaceInternational institutions
W3 (institutions)
W3 (source language)
ST
Interlinguistic Space W3 (target language)
TT
Matrix of Translation Studies: Actors
A
I/T
R
SN
TN
ST TT
A paradigm: major features
• it is used by a group of researchers (social facet),
• who share the same conceptual values (theoretical facet) and
• the same rules and standards for scientific practice (empirical facet), and
• is open-ended (temporal facet).
James Holmes
Translated!
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988
James Holmes 1988
A
I/T
PROCESS
R
PROCESS
SN
FUNCTION
TN
FUNCTION
ST
PRODUCT
TT
PRODUCT
Theo Hermans
Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained.
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1999.
Theo Hermans 1999
A
I/T
R
READER-ORIENTED
SN
CULTURE-BOUND
TN
CULTURE-BOUND
ST
TEXT-ORIENTED
TT
TEXT-ORIENTED
Albrecht Neubert
“Theory and practice of translation studies revisited. 25 years of translator training in Europe.”
In A. Beeby, D. Ensinger & M. Preasas, (Eds.), Investigating Translation. Selected Papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998 (pp. 13-26).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000.
Albrecht Neubert 2000
A
I/T
R
SN
interdisciplinary
TN
interdisciplinary
ST contrastive-linguistics text-linguistic TT
Andrew Chesterman
“A causal model for translation studies.”
In M. Olohan (Ed.),
Intercultural Faultness. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp. 15-27).
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2000.
Andrew Chesterman 2000
A
I/T
PROCESS
R
PROCESS
SN
CAUSAL
TN
CAUSAL
ST
PRODUCT
TT
PRODUCT
Juliane House
“How do we know when a translation is good?”
In (eds: Steiner & Yallop) Exploring Translation and Multilingual Language Production: Beyond Content (pp. 127-160).
Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001.
Juliana House 2001
A
I/T
RRESPONSE-BASED
NEO-HERMENEUTIC
SN
LITERATURE-ORIENTED
FUNCTIONALISTIC
POST-MODERNIST TN
STLINGUISTIC-ORIENTED
TTLINGUISTIC-ORIENTED
Tarvi 2006
A
I/T
introspective
accountability
R
readability
SN
applied: education
applied: criticism
applied: tools
research
benchmark
policy
communication
discourse TN
functionalist
polysystem
cultural
ST linguistics
text-linguistic
acceptability TT
Problems discussed
• Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?
• What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field?
• What might be the ‘center of gravity’ when delineating the field?
• In what way could theory help practice?
Problems to be discussed
• In what other ways is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?
• What other units of structuring the field can be suggested?
• What other ‘centers of gravity’ can be employed to structure the field?
• Do we need theoretical constructs to help practice?
A Map or a Matrix?