Translation equivalent but different, impossible but necessary, interlingual or intercultural: conceptualizing translation

Vazmur Zag

doi:10.51708/apptrans.v14n2.1305

Authors

Vazmur Zag
vazmur.zag@nb.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University–New Brunswick, New Brunswick, United States

Keywords:

broadening, conceptualizing translation, constellation, equivalent, interlingual

Abstract

In this study I will try to outline a common emancipatory program for the politically-engaged translator based on the work of these thinkers. We will pay special attention to the counter-hegemonic potential of translation as developed by our authors and to the concept of “constellation” advanced by Santos in his works. Another chief concern will be to explore the divide between these two different concepts of translation (interlingual and “cultural”), trying to answer several pressing questions. Can these different notions be unified in such a way that the insights from these thinkers can be reconciled with mainstream translation theory? Do we run the risk of diluting the concept of translation to such an extent, in this constant conceptual broadening, that it ceases to have any solid foundation?

References

Beeby, A. (2017). Choosing an empirical-experimental model for investigating translation competence: The PACTE model. In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp. 43-55).

Benoist, F., & Grand-Perret, T. (1997). Co-translational degradation of apolipoprotein B100 by the proteasome is prevented by microsomal triglyceride transfer protein: synchronized translation studies on HepG2 cells treated with an inhibitor of microsomal triglyceride transfer protein. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 272(33), 20435-20442. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.272.33.20435

Coban, F. (2015). Analysis and training of the required abilities and skills in translation in the light of translation models and general theories of translation studies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 197, 707-714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.074

Costales, A. F. (2013). Crowdsourcing and collaborative translation: Mass phenomena or silent threat to translation studies?. Hermeneus: Revista de la Facultad de Traducción e Interpretación de Soria, (15), 85-110.

El-dali, H. M. (2011). Towards an understanding of the distinctive nature of translation studies. Journal of King Saud University-Languages and Translation, 23(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksult.2010.01.001

Fernández, E. S. (2011). Translation Studies and the cognitive theory of metaphor. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association, 9(1), 262-279.

García, A. M., Mikulan, E., & Ibáñez, A. (2016). A neuroscientific toolkit for translation studies. Reembedding translation process research, 21-46.

Holmes, J. S. (1988). Translated!: papers on literary translation and translation studies (No. 7). Rodopi.

House, J. (2006). Text and context in translation. Journal of pragmatics, 38(3), 338-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.021

Janssens, M., Lambert, J., & Steyaert, C. (2004). Developing language strategies for international companies: The contribution of translation studies. Journal of World Business, 39(4), 414-430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2004.08.006

Kim, M. (2007). Translation error analysis: A systemic functional grammar approach. In Across boundaries: International perspectives on translation studies (pp. 161-175). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Liao, M. H. (2018). Museums and creative industries: The contribution of Translation Studies. Journal of Specialised Translation, 29, 45-62.

Locher, M. A., & Sidiropoulou, M. (2021). Introducing the special issue on the pragmatics of translation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.03.007

Malamatidou, S. (2017). Corpus triangulation: Combining data and methods in corpus-based translation studies. Routledge.

Olohan, M. (2002). Corpus linguistics and translation studies: Interaction and reaction. na.

Risku, H. (2002). Situatedness in translation studies. Cognitive systems research, 3(3), 523-533. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1389-0417(02)00055-4

Schäffner, C. (2004). Metaphor and translation: some implications of a cognitive approach. Journal of pragmatics, 36(7), 1253-1269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012

Xu, M., Huang, C., & You, X. (2016). Reasoning patterns of undergraduate theses in translation studies: An intercultural rhetoric study. English for Specific Purposes, 41, 68-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.09.002

Zanettin, F. (2013). Corpus methods for descriptive translation studies. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 95, 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.618

Zanettin, F. (2014). Translation-driven corpora: Corpus resources for descriptive and applied translation studies. Routledge.