Consilience or fragmentation in Translation Studies today?
- DOI
- 10.5922/2225-5346-2019-1-1
- Pages
- 9-20
Abstract
Translation Studies has branched out into a heterogeneous interdiscipline during the past few decades. This development is not only the result of the emergence of different kinds of translation practices, research questions and new technologies, but also of different epistemological and ontological assumptions about the object of study. Four major areas are outlined: linguistic, cultural, cognitive and sociological. Connections between them are briefly discussed, but the main tendency has been one of fragmentation. Perhaps this does not matter?
Reference
Abdallah, K., 2012. Translators in Production Networks. Reflections on agency, quality and ethics. Joensuu: Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.
Arrojo, R., 2002. Lessons learned from Babel. Target, 14 (1), pp. 137—143.
Bartsch, R., 1987. Norms of Language. London: Longman.
Bassnett, S. and Lefevere, A., 1996. Constructing Cultures. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Chesterman, A., 1997. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Chesterman, A., 2005. Consilience in Translation Studies. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 51, pp. 19—32.
Chesterman, A., 2008. On explanation. In: A. Pym et al. (eds.). Beyond Descriptive Studies. Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 363—379.
Chesterman, A., 2009. The Name and Nature of Translator Studies. Hermes, 42, pp. 13—22.
Chesterman, A. and Arrojo, R., 2000. Shared ground in Translation Studies. Target, 12 (1), pp. 151—160.
Delabastita, D., 2003. Translation Studies for the 21st century. Trends and perspectives. Génesis. Revista cientifica do ISAI, 3, pp. 7—24, available at: http://www. academia.edu/4222581/Translation_Studies_for_the_21st_century_Trends_and_ perspectives (accessed 8 August 2018).
Ehrensberger-Dow, M. and O’Brien, S., 2015. Ergonomics of the Translation Workplace: Potential for Cognitive Friction. Translation Spaces, 4 (1), pp. 98—118.
Fenton, S. and Moon, P., 2002. The translation of the Treaty of Waitangi: a case of disempowerment. In: M. Tymoczko and E. Gentzler (eds.). Translation and Power. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 25—44.
Gambier, Y. and Munday, J., 2014. A conversation between Yves Gambier and Jeremy Munday about transcreation and the future of the professions. Cultus: the Intercultural Journal of Mediation and Communication, 7, pp. 20—36.
Gambier, Y. and van Doorslaer, L. (eds.), 2016. Border Crossings. Translation Studies and Other Disciplines. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
García, A. M., Mikulan Е., Ibáñez, А., 2016. A neuroscientific toolkit for translation studies. In: R. M. Martín (ed.). Reembedding Translation Processing Research. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 21—46.
Gile, D., 2005. Liberal arts and empirical science. European Society for Translation Studies, available at: http://www.est-translationstudies.org/resources/research_ issues_index.html (accessed 22 June 2018).
Gorlée, D. L., 1994. Semiotics and the Problem of Translation: With Special Reference to the Semiotics of Charles S. Peirce. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Gutt, E.-A., 1991. Translation and Relevance. Cognition and context. London: Routledge.
Halverson, S., 1998. Concepts and Categories in Translation Studies. Bergen: University of Bergen.
Harris, B., n. d. Blog on Unprofessional Translation, available at: http://unprofes sionaltranslation.blogspot.fi (accessed 23 June 2018).
Jääskeläinen, R., 2002. Think-aloud protocol studies into translation. An annotated bibliography. Target, 14 (1), pp. 107—136.
Kaindl, K., 2004. Übersetzungswissenschaft im interdisziplinären Dialog. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Kinnunen, T. Koskinen, К. (eds.), 2010. Translators’ Agency. Tampere: Tampere University Press, available at: http://urn.fiurn:isbn:978-951-44-8082-9 (accessed 23 June 2018).
Krings, H. P., 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Französischlernern. Tübingen: Narr.
Leppihalme, R., 2000. Foreignizing strategies in drama translation. The case of the Finnish Oleanna. In: A. Chesterman, N. Gallardo San Salvador and Y. Gambier (eds.). Translation in Context. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 153—162.
Malmkjær, K., 2000. Relative stability and stable relativity. Target, 12 (2), pp. 341—345.
Mauranen, A. and Kujamäki, P. (eds.), 2004. Translation Universals. Do they Exist? Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Muñoz, M. R., 2014. A blurred snapshot of advances in translation process research. MonTI, Special Iss. 1: Minding Translation, pp. 49—84, available at: https:// dti.ua.es/es/documentos/monti/monti-especial-1-portada-indice.pdf (accessed 23 June 2018).
Pym, A., 2003. Localization and the humanization of technical discourse. Across Languages and Cultures, 4 (2), pp. 205—216.
Pym, A., 2016. Translation Solution Types for Many Languages — Histories of a Flawed Dream. London: Bloomsbury.
Reiß, K. and Hans, J. V., 1984. Grundlegung einer Allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Risku, H., 2014. Translation process research as interaction research: From mental to socio-cognitive processes. MonTI, Special Iss. 1: Minding Translation, pp. 331—353.
Rojo Lopez, A. M. and Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (eds.), 2013. Cognitive Linguistics and Translation. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rushdie, S., 1992. Imaginary Homelands: Essays and Criticism 1981—1991. London: Granta.
Snell-Hornby, M., Pöchhacker, F. and Kaindl, K. (eds.), 1994. Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby, M., 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Toury, G., 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Tymoczko, M., 2004. Difference in similarity. In: S. Arduini and R. Hodgson (eds.), Similarity and Difference in Translation. Rimini: Guaraldi, pp. 27—43.
Wilson, E. O., 1998. Consilience. The Unity of Knowledge. London: Little, Brown and Company.
Wolf, M. and Fukari, A. (eds.), 2007. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.