Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 19:1 (2007) ► pp.21–44

Exploring literary translation practice

A focus on ethos

| Lessius Hogeschool, Antwerp
This article discusses findings from an ethnographic study of literary translation practice in the Netherlands and Belgium. The article focuses on one aspect of translation practice, namely translatorial ethos. It is argued that the forms of translatorial ethos visible in the data are complex in that they have a bearing both on textual and institutional practice and relations at one and the same time. More specifically, it is also argued that these complex professional stances and positionings need to be taken into account if we are to gain a better understanding of translational norms (Toury 1995, 2000 and Chesterman 1993) or translational habitus (Simeoni 1998). Furthermore, it is argued in a more general sense that linguistic ethnography can provide clear indications of patterns of translational practice and therefore forms a useful means of inquiry in the context of translation studies.
Keywords: linguistic ethnography, translation practice, positioning, translational norms, habitus
Article outline
  • 1Introduction
    • 1.1A thematic analysis of the interviewee data: Orders of salience
    • 1.2Ethos: A working definition
      • 1.2.1Of cannibals and adventurers.
      • 1.2.2Of bulldozers and antennae.
      • 1.2.3On developing the craft.
      • 1.2.4Skin to skin: Orders of readership.
      • 1.2.5The impassioned insane.
      • 1.2.6Protecting little children.
      • 1.2.7Setting tasks for typewriters.
      • 1.2.8The paradoxes of profession and persuasion.
    • 1.3Ethical orientations: An overview and a conclusion
  • References
  • Electronic sources
Published online: 2 August 2007
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.19.1.03fly
References (34)
References
Bassnett Susan and Harish Trivedi, eds. 1999. Postcolonial translation: Theory and practice. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1980. Le sens pratique. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.Google Scholar
Chesterman Andrew. 1993. “From ’is’ to ’ought’: Translation laws, norms and strategies”. Target 5:1. 1–20.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cronin Michael. 2002. “Babel’s standing stones: Language, translation and the exsomatic”. Crossings: An electronic journal of art and technology 2:1 ISSN 1649-0460. Available at: [URL]
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1979. “Polysystem theory”. Poetics today 1:1–2 (Autumn). 287–310.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar and Gideon Toury, eds. 1981. Translation theory and intercultural relations. Poetics today 2:4 (Summer-Autumn).Google Scholar
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem studies. [= Poetics today 11:1]. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
. 1997. “The making of culture repertoire and the role of transfer”. Target 9:2. 355–363.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “The position of translated literature within the literary polysystem”. Venuti 200 : 192–197.Google Scholar
. 2005. Papers in culture research. Electronic Book, available from Even-Zohar’s Website at [URL]
Flynn, Peter. 2004. “Skopos theory: An ethnographic enquiry”. Perspectives: Studies in translatology 2004:4. 270–285.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006 A linguistic ethnography of literary translation: Irish poems and Dutch-speaking translators. Ghent University: unpublished doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
Goodwin, Charles. 1994. “Professional vision”. American anthropologist 96:3. 606–633.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1987. “Discourse genres in a theory of practice”. American ethnologist 141. 668–692.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996. Language and communicative practice. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, Joyce M. and Robert Allen, eds. 1991. The Oxford encyclopedic English dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth and Paul Drew. 2005. “Figurative pivots: The use of Figurative expressions in pivotal topic transitions”. Research on language and social interaction 381. 35–61.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1975. The raw and the cooked. New York: Harper&Row Publishers.Google Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth and Jonathan Yovel. 2000. “Metalinguistic awareness”. Jef Verschueren, Jan-Ola Östman, Jan Blommaert and Chris Bulcaen. eds. Handbook of pragmatics 200. Amsterdam&Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2000. 1–26Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1997. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in translation history. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, Bambi, Paul V. Kroskrity and Katryn A. Woolard. 1998. Language ideologies: Practice and theory. Oxford&New York: Oxford University Press. [Oxford Studies in Anthropological Linguistics.]Google Scholar
Simeoni, Daniel. 1998. “The pivotal status of the translator’s habitus”. Target 10:1. 1–39.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Collins Cobuild English dictionary. London: Harper Collins.
The new Oxford dictionary of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toury, Gideon. 1981 “Translated literature—System, norm, performance: Towards a TT-approach to literary translation”. Even-Zohar and Toury 1981 : 9–27.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. “The nature and role of norms in translation”. Venuti 2000 : 198–212Google Scholar
Tymoczko, Maria. 1999. Translation in a postcolonial context: Early Irish literature in English translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence, 1998. The scandals of translation: Towards an ethics of difference. London&New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
, ed. 2000. The Translation Studies reader. London&New York: Routledge.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vieira, Else Ribeiro Pires. 1994. “A postmodern translation esthetics in Brazil”. Mary Snell-Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl. eds. Translation Studies: An interdiscipline. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1994. 65–72.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Electronic sources
Slembrouck, Stef. 1998–2003. WHAT IS MEANT BY DISCOURSE ANALYSIS? At: [URL] (24.03.2006) [URL] (04.05.2006) [URL]
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Lees, Christopher
2021. The translation landscape of Thessaloniki’s Kastra neighbourhood. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 33:3 ► pp. 464 ff. DOI logo
Lindqvist, Yvonne
2021. Chapter 7. Institutional consecration of fifteen Swedish translators – ‘star translators’ or not?. In Literary Translator Studies [Benjamins Translation Library, 156], ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Arzık-Erzurumlu, Özüm
2020. Interpreting during the Cold War era in Turkey. Translation and Interpreting Studies 15:3 ► pp. 419 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Chuan
2019. Negotiating identity roles during the process of online collaborative translation: An ethnographic approach. Translation Studies 12:2 ► pp. 231 ff. DOI logo
Behiels, Lieve
2018. Éthos des traducteurs et langues cibles : les traductions d’oeuvres spirituelles espagnoles aux Pays-Bas méridionaux au XVIe et XVIIe siècle. TTR 29:1 ► pp. 185 ff. DOI logo
Biernacka-Licznar, Katarzyna & Natalia Paprocka
2016. Children's Books in Translation: An Ethnographic Case-Study of Polish Lilliputian Publishers' Strategies. International Research in Children's Literature 9:2 ► pp. 179 ff. DOI logo
Flynn, Peter
2010. Ethnographic approaches. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 1], ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 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.