Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 11:1 (1999) ► pp.1–31

Conceptual Work and the "Translation" Concept

| University of Bergen
The concept of "translation" is required to carry a considerable load at several levels of inquiry. It functions as a causal element in sociological theories, and as a methodological tool, when used extensionally. Most importantly, it is the concept which in some way structures the field which we take as our object of inquiry. As such, it has particular functions in serving as a basis for generalizations and as a means of determining category membership. In response to what are perceived as difficulties in some of these areas, some scholars have hinted that the concept of "translation" might be fruitfully viewed as a prototype category. In this paper, I review the philosophical and empirical arguments which support such a move, and outline some of the programmatic consequences. The focus is on the resolution of current conceptual problems, and on the theoretical and metatheoretical implications.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1.Concepts and Categories
    • 1.2.Market Investigations
  • 2.Prototype Concepts
    • 2.1.Prototype Effects
    • 2.2.Sources of Prototype Effects
  • 3.Prototypical Translation
    • 3.1.Prototype Effects
      • 3.1.1.Theoretical Discourse and Prototype Effects
      • 3.1.2.Testing for Prototype Effects
    • 3.2.The Source of These Effects
  • 4.A Cost-Benefit Analysis
    • 4.1.Costs
    • 4.2.Benefits (Savings)
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 November 1999
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.1.02hal
References (74)
References
Aitchison, Jean. 1994. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Barsalou, Lawrence. 1987. “The Instability of Graded Structure: Implications for the Nature of Concepts”. Ulric Neisser, ed. Concepts and Conceptual Development: Eco-logical and Intellectual Factors in Categorization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 101–140.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 1987. Norms of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bechtel, William. 1990. “Connectionism and the Philosophy of Mind: An Overview”. William Lycan, ed. Mind and Cognition: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. 252–273.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent. 1968. Tzeltal Numeral Classifiers. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berlin, Brent and Paul Kay. 1969. Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, Brent, Dennis E. Breedlove and Peter H. Raven. 1974. Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1958. “How Shall a Thing Be Called?” Psychological Review 651. 14–21.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1965. Social Psychology. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1993a. “Theory in Translation Theory”. The New Courant 11. 69–79.Google Scholar
. 1993b. “From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies”. Target 5:1. 1–20.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coleman, Linda and Paul Kay. 1981. “Prototype Semantics: The English Word lie”. Language 57:1. 26–44.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D.A. 1990. “Prototype Theory and Lexical Semantics”. Savas L. Tsohatzidis, ed. Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. London and New York: Routledge, 1990. 382–402.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1995. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1985. “Des Tour de Babel”. Joseph F. Graham, ed. Difference in Transla-tion. Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press, 1985. 165–207.Google Scholar
Dobrovol’skij, Dimitri. 1996. “Idioms of Fear: A Cognitive Approach”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk 1996 : 13–26.Google Scholar
Ekman, Paul, Wallace V. Friesen, and P. Ellsworth. 1972. Emotion in the Human Face. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. “Translation and Transfer”. Poetics Today 11:1. 73–78. (1 1981)   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Janet. 1996. “The Translator Investigated”. The Translator 2:1. 65–79.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1994. The Poetics of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian, ed. 1981. Scientific Revolutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 1997. “The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies: Much Ado About Something”. Target 9:1. 207–233.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. “Translation Studies and Representative Corpora: Establishing Links between Translation Corpora, Theoretical/Descriptive Categories and a Concep-tion of the Object”. Meta 43:4. 494–514.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “Image Schemas, Metaphoric Processes and the ‘Translate’ Concept”. Metaphor and Symbol 14:3. 199–219.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. forthcoming. “Prototype Effects in the ‘Translation’ Category“. Paper presented at the Second International Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies. Granada, Spain, 23-26 September 1998.   DOI logo
Harris, Brian. 1977. “The Importance of Natural Translation”. Working Papers on Bilingualism 121.
. 1992. “Natural Translation: A Reply to Hans P. Krings”. Target 4:1. 97–103.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 1991. “Translational Norms and Correct Translations”. Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens, eds. 1991. Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1991. 155–169.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Translation as Institution”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Zusanna Jettmarová and Klaus Kindl, eds. Translation as Intercultural Communication: Selected Papers from the EST Conference—Prague 1995. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1997. 3–20.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hofstadter, Douglas. 1985. “Waking Up from the Boolean Dream, or, Subcognition as Computation”. Metamagical Themas. New York: Basic Books, 1985. 631–665.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1959. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation”. Reuben A. Brower, ed. On Translation, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959. 232–239.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The Body in the Mind: The Bodily Basis of Meaning, Imagination, and Reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koller, Werner. 1995. “The Concept of Equivalence and the Object of Translation Studies”. Target 7:2. 191–222.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krings, Hans P. 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Struktur des Übersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Franzözischlernern. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. 1977. The Essential Tension. Chicago: Chicago University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kussmaul, Paul and Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit. 1995. “Think-Aloud Protocol Analysis in Translation Studies”. TTR VIII:2. 177–199.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programs”. Lakatos and Musgrave 1970 : 91–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre and Alan Musgrave. 1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1988. “Cognitive Semantics”. Umberto Eco, Marco Santambroglio and Patrizia Violi, eds. Meaning and Mental Representations. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1988. 119–154.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Modern Theory of Metaphor”. Andrew Ortony, ed. Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. 202–251.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1981. “A Problem-Solving Approach to Scientific Progress”. Hacking 1981 : 144–155.Google Scholar
. 1990. Science and Relativism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mandelblit, Nili. 1996. “The Cognitive View of Metaphor and Its Implications for Translation Theory”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1996 : 483–495.Google Scholar
Myers, Dan. 1994. “The Chinese Morpheme gong”. Cognitive Linguistics 5:3. 261–280.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
The Oxford English Dictionary. 1989. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Paulussen, Hans. 1997. “Parallel Corpora for Cognitive Contrastive Analysis”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszcayk 1997 : 501–509.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1981. Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1992. “The Relations Between Translation and Material Text Transfer”. Target 4:2. 171–189.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995a. “Material Text Transfer as a Key to the Purposes of Translation”. Albrecht Neubert, Gregory Shreve and Klaus Gommlich, eds. Basic Issues in Translation Studies: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference. Kent Forum on Translation Studies. Ohio: The Institute for Applied Linguistics, 1995. 337–345.Google Scholar
. 1995b. “European Translation Studies, Une Science qui dérange, and Why Equivalence Needn’t Be a Dirty Word”. TTR VIII:1. 153–176.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, 1997. “Koller’s ‘Äquivalenz’ Revisited: Review of Werner Roller’s Einführing in die Übersetzungswissenschaft”. The Translator 3:1. 71–79.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rey, Georges. 1983. “Concepts and Stereotypes”. Cognition 151. 237–262.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. “Natural Categories”. Cognitive Psychology 41. 328–350.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975a. ”Cognitive Reference Points”. Cognitive Psychology 71. 532–547.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1975b. “Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 1041. 192–233.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1977. “Human Categorization”. Studies in Cross-Cultural Psychology. London: Academic.Google Scholar
. 1978. “Principles of Categorization”. Eleanor Rosch and Barbara B. Lloyd, eds. Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978. 27–48.Google Scholar
. 1981. “Prototype Classification and Logical Classification: The Two Systems.” E. Scholnick, ed. New Trends in Cognitive Representation: Challenges to Piaget’s Theory. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1981. 73–86.Google Scholar
Shapere, Dudley. 1981. “Meaning and Scientific Change”. Hacking 1981 : 28–59.Google Scholar
Sweetser, Eve. 1990. From Etymology to Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thelen, Marcel and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk, eds. 1996. Translation and Meaning, Part 31. Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht, School of Translation and Interpreting, Maastricht.Google Scholar
Thelen, Marcel and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszcayk, eds. 1997. Translation and Meaning Part 41. Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht, School of Translation and Inter-preting.Google Scholar
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja. 1997. “Towards a Prototypical Definition of Translation”. Thelen and Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 1997 : 89–96.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
. 1986. “Translation: A Cultural-Semiotic Perspective”. Thomas Sebeok, ed. Enyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter 21, 1986. 1111–1124.Google Scholar
. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam-Philadel-phia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. 1991. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
1996. The Literary Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch. 1991. The Embodied Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1990. “‘Prototypes Save’: On the Uses and Abuses of ‘Prototype’ in Linguistics and Related Fields”. Savas L. Tsohatzidis, ed. Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization. London: Routledge, 1990. 347–367.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (37)

Cited by 37 other publications

Dam, Helle V. & Karen Korning Zethsen
2024. Professionals’ views on the concepts of translation: the challenge of categorisation. The Translator ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Pöchhacker, Franz
2024. Is machine interpreting interpreting?. Translation Spaces DOI logo
Asscher, Omri
2023. The position of machine translation in translation studies. Translation Spaces 12:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Grbić, Nadja
2023. Who is an interpreter?. In Introducing New Hypertexts on Interpreting (Studies) [Benjamins Translation Library, 160], ► pp. 148 ff. DOI logo
Torres-Simón, Ester, Susana Valdez, Hanna Pięta & Rita Menezes
2023. Is indirect translation a friend or a foe of sustainable development?. Translation Spaces 12:2 ► pp. 204 ff. DOI logo
Zanettin, Federico
2021. News Media Translation, DOI logo
Dybiec-Gajer, Joanna & Riitta Oittinen
2020. Introduction: Travelling Beyond Translation—Transcreating for Young Audiences. In Negotiating Translation and Transcreation of Children's Literature [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Scarpa, Federica
2020. Introducing Specialised Translation. In Research and Professional Practice in Specialised Translation, ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
OLGUN, Gökçe Mine & Suna AĞILDERE
2019. Göstergelerarasi çeviri bağlamında bir özgün eser: Enis Batur’un Acı Bilgi Fugue Sanatı Üzerine Bir Roman Denemesi adlı eserinin incelenmesi. RumeliDE Dil ve Edebiyat Araştırmaları Dergisi ► pp. 425 ff. DOI logo
Torres-Simón, Ester
2019. The concept of translation in Wikipedia. Translation Studies 12:3 ► pp. 273 ff. DOI logo
Gambier, Yves
2018. Chapter 1.1. Concepts of translation. In A History of Modern Translation Knowledge [Benjamins Translation Library, 142], ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Ločmele, Gunta
2018. Translating and Networking in Virtual Learning Environments. In Multilingual Writing and Pedagogical Cooperation in Virtual Learning Environments [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ], ► pp. 243 ff. DOI logo
Belle, Marie-Alice
2017. Interdisciplinarité et réciprocité : mise en contexte théorique. In Pour une interdisciplinarité réciproque, ► pp. 7 ff. DOI logo
Korning Zethsen, Karen & Aage Hill-Madsen
2017. Intralingual Translation and Its Place within Translation Studies – A Theoretical Discussion. Meta 61:3 ► pp. 692 ff. DOI logo
Chou, Isabelle C., Hari Venkatesan & Yuanjian He
2016. Family resemblance in translation: a legacy revisited. Perspectives 24:2 ► pp. 278 ff. DOI logo
González Núñez, Gabriel
2016. On translation policy. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 28:1 ► pp. 87 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A.
2016. What is (not) web localization in translation studies. The Journal of Internationalization and Localization 3:1 ► pp. 38 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez-Crespo, Miguel A. & Nitish Singh
2016. International business, marketing and translation studies. In Border Crossings [Benjamins Translation Library, 126], ► pp. 245 ff. DOI logo
Karas, Hilla
2016. Intralingual intertemporal translation as a relevant category in translation studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 28:3 ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Krein-Kühle, Monika
2014. Translation and Equivalence. In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ► pp. 15 ff. DOI logo
Sun, Sanjun
2014. Rethinking translation studies. Translation Spaces 3 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
D'hulst, Lieven
2012. (Re)locating translation history: From assumed translation to assumed transfer. Translation Studies 5:2 ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Jiménez Bellver, Jorge
2012. Julio César Santoyo. La traducción medieval en la Península Ibérica (siglos III-XV). León, Universidad de León, Área de publicaciones, 2009, 534 p.. TTR : traduction, terminologie, rédaction 25:1 ► pp. 276 ff. DOI logo
Yeong-Houn Yi
2012. Onomasiological Approach to the History of the Concept of Translation in Korean: Exploration into the Annals of the Joseon Dynasty (2). The Journal of Translation Studies 13:1 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
Yeong-Houn Yi
2015. A Comparative Approach to Translation Concept in Korea, China and Japan. The Journal of Translation Studies 16:5 ► pp. 61 ff. DOI logo
Martín de León, Celia & Maris Presas
2011. Metaphern als Ausdruck subjektiver Theorien zum Übersetzen. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 23:2 ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Adamska-Salaciak, A.
2010. Examining Equivalence. International Journal of Lexicography 23:4 ► pp. 387 ff. DOI logo
Tymoczko, Maria
2009. Translation, Ethics and Ideology in a Violent Globalizing World. In Globalization, Political Violence and Translation, ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Hebenstreit, Gernot
2007. Defining patterns in Translation Studies. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 19:2 ► pp. 197 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, S.L.
2006. Translational Equivalence. In Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
Pym, Anthony
2004. Propositions on cross-cultural communication and translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 16:1 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Sandra, Halverson
2002. Cognitive Models, Prototype Effects and 'Translation'. Across Languages and Cultures 3:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2000. The Fault Line in Our Common Ground. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 12:2 ► pp. 356 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2004. Assumed translation. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 16:2 ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2010. Translation. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 1], ► pp. 378 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2014. Reorienting Translation Studies: Cognitive Approaches and the Centrality of the Translator. In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2016. Memes of Translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 123], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.