translation

Three major problems in modem translation ideology were identified and the researcher proposed changes necessary for advancements in the development of translation theories and translation technology. Traditionally, the development in translation theory has created a translation ideology that has focused on the faithfulness and the accuracy of target texts in representing the source texts, encouraging translators and interpreters to become neutral conduits in the language-transferring process. Based on related literature, Bakhtin's Dialogic Model, and Speech Act Theory, I identified three problems in the current translation ideology: (a) an overemphasis on Conduit Model; (b) simplification on the roles of translators; and ( c) Quixotism in finding the "best" translation. I suggested that the development of translation theories and ideologies should move toward the Dialogic Model suggested by Bakhtin, which emphasizes the co-construction of contexts and meanings of all participants involved in the communicative process. I proposed a normative approach, which focuses on the practice of translation and interpretation, in developing translation theories, and Studies of Translation and Interpretation, Vo!.7

翻譯學研究集刊 [Studies of Translation and Interpretation], 2003

Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation, 2004

The paper begins with an observation of the paradoxical status of Chinese as a lesstranslated source language but a much-translated target language, and that of Chinese translation studies as a much studied subject in China but a little-noted branch of translation studies in the world. It then analyzes the implications of the two current conceptions of Chinese translation studies: either (1) as a self-contained system of "translation studies in China", with China construed as a geopolitical body; or (2) as an open system of "Chinese language/culture-related translation studies", with the Chinese as a nation, a linguistic and cultural entity in an anthropological sense. It points out that the fi rst, exclusive conception has for too long kept Chinese translation studies from advancing a positive engagement with translation studies in other traditions, encouraging polarization of Chinese and non-Chinese translation studies into two opposite systems; while the secon...

Political Methods: Qualitative & Multiple Methods eJournal, 2016

The purpose of this research article is to draw researchers’ attention towards comparative study of, and for, translation(s) of translation and interpretation(s) of interpretation. This idea comes from the experience of crossing the various types of borders, such as physical, political, social, economic, post-colonial, etc. In other words, what happen to words, expressions, texts, translations, interpretations, etc. when they cross borders from one context, place, or state to another in time and space? Responding to this issue in terms of translation, one might say that some elements of the original text might lose their meanings, and others might also state that new implications would be given or attached to the translated text because of cultural differences. Accordingly, some elements of an identity have been lost, and other new ones have been acquired in time and space. This can be also seen and felt in a reader or traveler before and after navigating. The topic of this article ...

Accessibility. Methodology. Technology… Translation Studies have grown so exponentially and have developed so many branches and sub-branches, disciplines and sub-disciplines that it has become virtually impossible to follow the current development in the once rather " closed " field with quite clear methodology mainly based on Descriptive TS and quite a limited number of scholars interested in such research. The rapid development of the discipline can surely serve as a model academic success story. The four decades since it was properly named have seen both an enormous growth of infrastructure with the establishment of countless TS research and university bodies, journals, associations, etc. and productive advancement of its branches and subsequent diversification of the field. However, the very speed with which TS was built, has resulted in the fact that approaches or, to borrow from Snell-Hornby, paradigms and viewpoints, connected with various stages of the establishment of the discipline from the field-defensive stances to the voices confidently opening the discipline towards post-translation studies, co-exist. The challenge the discipline is facing today is an ontological one – TS needs to redefine itself in order to account for the changes in the research and development sector in its complex relationship with the world. What to

Abstract The translation activity, which began to transform into a discipline with James Holmes’s, seminal paper entitled "The Name and Nature of Translation Studies" in 1972 has increasingly established relationship with such disciplines as linguistics, literature, sociology, philosophy, anthropology, archeology, and so on. In terms of this relationship between Translation Studies and these disciplines, this academic field of study has also evolved into an inter-disciplinary branch of science over time. As a result, scholars have introduced many different theories and approaches under linguistic, cultural, sociological and technological revolutions and turns within TS. The foundations of translation studies have begun to be established in this way. Upon considering overall TS literature, one can see that most of the translation theories and approaches are actually western-centered. In fact, it may be because the West is in a sense more advanced than the East in terms of scientific developments. But did only the Western approaches have an impact on the translation in terms of its gaining a scientific status? What is the position of far eastern countries like China on translation and translation studies? What is the contribution of both west and far eastern scholars to the far east in the advancement of translation studies? Have the far eastern scholars ever put forward any theories or approaches to contribute to the translation process, its function, and production, like their counterparts in the west or have they at least conducted studies in this respect? In this geography, what kind of translation problems do scholars deal with and what are the similarities and differences between East and West? Based on these questions, the study questions the place of translation studies and translation theories in the far eastern countries such as China and makes a scrutinization on how they are received in these geographies. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the emergence of new paradigms in order to support the progressive structure of translation studies in parallel with the translation needs in the far east. Key Words: Translation studies, translation theories, translation approaches, far east, China.

Linguist List, 2005

The volume, resulting form a one-day seminar held at Aston University in February 2002, is a collection of papers about the differences and the synergies between Translation Studies (TS) and Interpreting Studies (IS). The discussion investigates and compares the disciplines or subdisciplines (cfr Gile, p. 23) from different points of view: historical, (how they were born and developed), situational, ideological, cultural and sociological. Daniel Gile takes all these questions in the first and the main contribution of the book: he gives an overview of the history of research in translation and interpreting, he reviews the differences between translating and several forms of interpreting, he explores the causes of differences, also highlightening also their deep common basis.

Journal of Cultural and Religious Studies, 2021

This article is devoted to the study of one of the most important questions of philology-translation which throughout its centuries-long and rich history has been considered a sphere of philological activity of utmost significance providing an exceptional possibility for recoding and bringing philological and cultural traditions within the reach of people at large. Through the application of a variety of methods (linguo-stylistic, linguo-poetic, and comparative), the author attempts to study the process of translation, the clash of difficulties inevitably arising in that process, and offers solutions that will help recreate the vitality of the original and the uniqueness of linguistic thinking. Emphasis on the importance of the consideration of intra-and inter-linguistic correlations of language units in the original work of literature drives the author to the conclusion that the most reliable approach to literary translation is to be guided by the principle of "metaphoric displacement".

2003

To facilitate cross-cultural understanding is often considered a distinct aspect of the general purpose and function of translation, as the popular metaphor of translation as a bridge testifies. But is cross-cultural understanding as straight forward and unproblematic as this metaphor implies? In this paper, the question of the nature and limits of cross-cultural understanding will be examined from a specific perspective. It is the perspective of someone engaged in the compilation of an anthology, in English translation, of the views, statements, discussions and records about translation – as an activity and as a cultural practice – in China, from ancient times to the Revolution of 1911. Topics to be reflected on include the rationale for undertaking the anthology project, principles of selection, and the problems encountered in the process of conceptualization and implementation of the project, specifically the problems of representation, mediation and intervention. Tentative ways of dealing with these problems will also be discussed. In so doing, the author hopes to explore, with a measure of self-reflexiveness and as a tentative first step, the nature and limits of the kind of understanding she hopes to facilitate through the compilation of this anthology. Also discussed will be the more general question of what can be done if cross-cultural understanding, especially of the kind brought about by works of translation, is never an innocent matter and is always mediated in nature.

Recent trends in Translation Studies advocate a focus on translation as a form of intercultural communication. Yet in some cases there seems to be a lack of awareness as regards the theoretical problems involved in every cultural approach to translation. The aim of this article is to highlight some aspects of these problems by bringing to the fore the interconnections between the question of translation and the general issue of culture. More specifically, the emphasis will be put on the interpretive dimension of translation and the peculiarities of the translator's interpretive moves within different worlds of significations. The approach outlined here draws on insights from the works of Clifford Geertz, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and Cornelius Castoriadis, and the conclusions to be reached will inevitably point to the rejection of some deep-seated metaphors about translation, such as the meaning transfer metaphor.