Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 31:3 (2019) ► pp.328–351

Towards a meta-theoretical model for translation

A multidimensional approach

ORCID logo | Queen’s University Belfast
| Damghan University
In this study, we propose a meta-theoretical model for translation. In doing so, we start from a critique of bivalent thinking – rooted in classical logic – exposing unidimensionality as its fundamental weakness. We then consider how this problem has traditionally been addressed by proposing continua. While recognising their cognitive, heuristic and didactic values, we argue that despite the promise of alleviating strict polarisation symptomatic of binarisms, continua are still unidimensional and thus counterproductive to theorising that seeks to capture translational complexity. As a way out of this impasse, building on the premises of fuzzy logic and the understanding that translation is a non-zero-sum concept, we suggest that theoretical concepts be couched in terms of multidimensionality (that is, contrasted with numerous oppositions, rather than a single one, as is the case with polar thinking). Finally, we suggest how our proposed approach can be translated into a practice of theorising.
Keywords: binary, classical logic, continuum, dimension, fuzzy logic, multidimensional, translation theory, zero-sum thinking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Bivalent thinking
  • 3.From bivalence to polarity
  • 4.The promise of the continuum
  • 5.Zero-sum thinking and simultaneous category membership
  • 6.Beyond unidimensionality
  • 7.Multidimensional thinking
  • 8.Towards a practice of theorising
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 15 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17031.blu
References (66)
References
Abbott, Edwin A. (1884) 1992. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. 1993. “Thick Translation.” Callaloo 16 (4): 808–819. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arduini, Stefano, and Siri Nergaard. 2011. “Translation: A New Paradigm.” Translation 11 (inaugural issue): 8–15.Google Scholar
Baker, Mona. 2009. “Resisting State Terror: Theorizing Communities of Activist Translators and Interpreters.” In Globalization, Political Violence and Translation, edited by Esperanca Bielsa and Christopher W. Hughes, 222–242. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Reframing Conflict in Translation.” In Critical Readings in Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, 115–129. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Barańczak, Stanisław. 1990. “Mały, lecz maksymalistyczny manifest translatologiczny.” Teksty Drugie 31: 7–66.Google Scholar
Bennett, Bo. 2012. Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies. Sudbury, MA: eBookIt.com.Google Scholar
Blumczyński, Piotr. 2010. “Pilnikiem, kluczem, czy siekierą? O tłumaczeniu Lema na angielski.” In Lem in tłumacze, edited by Elżbieta Skibińska and Jacek Rzeszotnik, 79–92. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka.Google Scholar
Blumczynski, Piotr. 2016. Ubiquitous Translation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Catford, John C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay on Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chaume, Frederic. 2012. Audiovisual Translation: Dubbing. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1991. On Definiteness, with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Colina, Sonia. 2008. “Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist Approach.” The Translator. 14 (1): 97–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corcoran, John. 1995. “Laws of Thought.” In Cambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Robert Audi, 423–424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Michael. 2009. “Response to Translation Studies Forum: Cultural Translation.” Translation Studies 2 (2): 216–219.Google Scholar
Danaher, James. 2004. “The Laws of Thought.” The Philosopher LXXXXII (1). [URL]
Delabastita, Dirk. 2010. “Histories and Utopias. On Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility .” The Translator 16 (1): 125–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari. (1987) 2004. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
de Vries, Lourens. 2015. “Views of Orality and the Translation of the Bible.” Translation Studies 8 (2): 141–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dryden, John. (1680) 1992. “On Translation.” In Theories of Translation. An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, edited by Reiner Schulte and John Biguenet, 17–31. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ellis, John M. 1993. Language, Thought, and Logic. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Vyvyan. 2009. How Words Mean. Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Farahmand, Mehrdad. 2014. “Sholokhov and Iranian Translators’ Error” [شولوخوف و خطای مترجمان ایرانی]. [URL]
Flood, Alison. 2011. “First Ever Direct English Translation of Solaris Published.” Guardian, June 15, 2011. [URL]
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gentzler, Edwin. 2012. Translation and Identity in the Americas: New Directions in Translation Theory. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godayol, Pilar. 2002. Spazi di frontiera. Genere e traduzione. Translated by Annarita Taronna. Bari: Palomar.Google Scholar
. 2013. “Metaphors, Women and Translation: from les belles infidèles to la frontera .” Gender and Language 7 (1): 97–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 1997. “The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies: Much Ado about Something.” Target 9 (2): 207–233. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henitiuk, Valerie. 2008. “‘Easyfree Translation?’ How the Modern West Knows Sei Shônagon’s Pillow Book .” Translation Studies 1 (1): 2–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 1999. Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
House, Juliane. 1997. Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Ibsch, Elrud. 2010. “Why We Need Binarism to Go beyond It.” Neohelicon 37 (2): 463–468. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Inclusive New Testament . 1994. Brentwood, MD: Priests for Equality.Google Scholar
Israel, Hephzibah. 2010. “Translating the Bible in Nineteenth-Century India: Protestant Missionary Translation and the Standard Tamil Version.” In Critical Readings in Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, 176–190. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jakobson, Roman. 1959. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, edited by Reuben Brower, 232–239. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 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
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2000. Beyond Ambivalence. Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation. Tampere: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
Kosko, Bart. 1993. Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lem, Stanisław. 1970. Solaris. Translated (from the French) by Joanna Kilmartin and Steve Cox. New York: Walker.Google Scholar
Marais, Kobus. 2014. Translation Theory and Development Studies: A Complexity Theory Approach. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meylaerts, Reine, and Maud Gonne. 2014. “Transferring the City – Transgressing Borders: Cultural Mediators in Antwerp (1850–1930).” Translation Studies 7 (2): 133–151. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2017. “Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies.” Translation Studies 10 (3): 329–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1988. Approaches to Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene A., and Charles Taber. 1982. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.Google Scholar
Pirie, Madsen. 2006. How to Win Every Argument. The Use and Abuse of Logic. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Perec, Georges. 1969. La Disparition. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar
. 1994. A Void (orig. La Disparition ). Translated into English by Gilbert Adair. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1995. “Schleiermacher and the Problem of Blendlinge.” Translation and Literature 4 (1): 5–30. [URL]
. 2014. Exploring Translation Theories. Second edition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Robinson, Douglas. 2016. “Editor’s Introduction: Pushing Hands with Martha Cheung.” In The Pushing Hands of Translation and Its Theory, edited by Douglas Robinson, 1–15. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. (1813) 2012. “On the Different Methods of Translating.” Translated by Susan Bernofsky. In The Translation Studies Reader. Third edition. Edited by Lawrence Venuti, 43–63. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, Arthur. (1864) 2008. The Art of Controversy. Translated by Thomas Bailey Saunders, edited by Axel Wendelberger. Megaphone eBooks. [URL]
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The Argument Culture. Stopping America’s War on Words. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
Torresi, Ira. 2013. “The Polysystem and the Postcolonial: The Wondrous Adventures of James Joyce and His Ulysses across Book Markets.” Translation Studies 6 (2): 217–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon. (1995) 2012. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. (1999) 2014. Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2010. “Ideology and the Position of the Translator: In What Sense Is a Translator ‘in between’?” In Critical Readings in Translation Studies, edited by Mona Baker, 215–228. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. (1995) 2008. The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation. Second edition. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Translation Changes Everything. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Zadeh, Lotfi. 1965. “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and Control 81: 338–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. “Second Foreword.” In Linguistic Fuzzy Logic Methods in Social Sciences, edited by Badredine Arfi, ix–x. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Kokkola, Sari
2024. The invisible ubiquity of philosophy in translation studies: towards a re-articulation of the discipline’s relationship with philosophy. Translation Studies 17:2 ► pp. 216 ff. DOI logo
Hu, Bei
2023. Chapter 10. Flowing to the reception side. In Translation Flows [Benjamins Translation Library, 163], ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
İŞCEN, İsmail
2022. ÇEVİRİ OLGUSU VE GÖZLEMLENEBİLİR NESNE SENTEZİ. Mersin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi 5:2 ► pp. 30 ff. DOI logo
Martín Ruano, Maria Rosario
2022. De evoluciones y retos en la investigación traductológica del siglo XXI. TRANS: Revista de Traductología 26:1 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Zwischenberger, Cornelia & Alexa Alfer
2022. Translaboration. Translation in Society 1:2 ► pp. 200 ff. DOI logo
García, Álvaro Marín
2021. Bridging the epistemological gap. Cognitive Linguistic Studies 8:2 ► pp. 462 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.