Cover not available
Article published In:
Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts
Vol. 8:3 (2022) ► pp.211–231

Translation Studies fifty years on

| The University of Leicester
This article summarizes the argument that James Stratton Holmes made fifty years ago for an independent discipline that would deal with translational matters, and which, he suggested, should be named Translation Studies. The article, further, outlines the structure that Holmes proposed for the discipline of Translation Studies before presenting a number of the most significant developments that have occurred and investigations undertaken in the fifty years since Holmes made his prophetic intervention, within sub-disciplinary areas that very closely remain those that he outlined.
Keywords: translation description, translation theory, applied translation studies, translation product, translation process, translation function, translation medium, translation teaching, translation technology, translation policy, translation criticism, translational stylistics, subtitling, post-editing, relevance, norms, metaphor translation
Article outline
  • 1.What’s in a name?
  • 2.The two branches of pure translation studies
    • 2.1Descriptive translation studies
    • 2.2Theoretical translation studies
  • 3.Applied translation studies
    • 3.1Translation teaching
    • 3.2Translation aids
    • 3.3Translation policy
    • 3.4Translation criticism
  • 4.Summary of Holmes’ account of translation studies
  • 5.Developments in the descriptive branch of pure translation studies
    • 5.1Developments oriented towards the translation product
      • 5.1.1Stylistics
      • 5.1.2Subtitling
      • 5.1.3Post-editing
    • 5.2Developments oriented towards the translation function
      • 5.2.1Translation in societies
      • 5.2.2Translation and their users
    • 5.3Developments oriented towards the translation process
  • 6.Developments in the theoretical branch of pure translation studies
    • 6.1Research focusing on the translation medium
    • 6.2Research focusing on the translation area and era
    • 6.3Research focusing on the translation rank
      • 6.3.1“Angst”
      • 6.3.2“Geist”
    • 6.4Research focusing on the translation text type
    • 6.5Research focusing on specific translation challenges
  • 7.Developments in the teaching of translation
  • References
Published online: 13 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.00092.mal
References (71)
References
Abdullatief, Muhammad J. H. 2018. “Cultural Satirical Features in Translation: The Pessoptimist as a case study.” In Key Cultural Texts in Translation, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, Adriana Serban, and Fransiska Louwagie, 275–297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.” In Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. by Mona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1996. “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The Challenges that lie Ahead”. In Terminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, ed. by Harold Sommers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernardini, Silvia, and Dorothy Kenny. 2020. “Corpora”. In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. by Mona Baker, 110–115. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blum-Kulka, Shoshanna. 1986. “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” In Interlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, ed. by Juliana House, and Shoshanna Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
Boase-Beier, Jean. 2004. “Translation and Style.” Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 13(1): 9–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Stylistic Approaches to Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
. 2020. Translation and Style. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boase-Beier, Jean, and Marian de Vooght, eds. 2019. Poetry of the Holocaust: An Anthology. Todmorden: Arc Publications.Google Scholar
Boase-Beier, Jean, and Michael Holman, eds. 1998. The Practices of Literary Translation: Constraints and Creativity. Manchester: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Boase-Beier, Jean, Peter Davies, Andrea Hammel, and Marion Winters, eds. 2017. Translating Holocaust Lives. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Boria, Monica, Ángeles Carreres, María Norriega-Sánchez, and Marcus Tomalin, eds. 2020. Translation and Multimodality: Beyond Words. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bundgaard, Kristine, and Tina Paulsen Christensen. 2019. “Is the Concordance Feature the New Black? A Workplace Study of Translators’ Interaction with Translation Resources while Post-editing TM and MT Matches.” The Journal of Specialised Translation 311: 14–37.Google Scholar
Carl, Michael, Silke Gutermuth, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra. 2015. “Post-editing Machine Translation: Efficiency, Strategies, and Revision Processes in Professional Translation Settings.” In Post-editing Machine Translation: A Usability Test for Professional Translation Settings, ed. by Aline Ferreira, and John W. Schwieter, 145–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charlston, David. 2014. “Translatorial Hexis: The Politics of Pinkard’s Translation of Hegel’s Phenomenology .” Radical Philosophy 1861(Jul/Aug): 11–22.Google Scholar
. 2018. “Hegel’s Phenomenology: A Comparative Analysis of Translatorial Hexis .” In Key Cultural Texts in Translation, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, Adriana Serban, and Fransiska Louwagie, 221–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Choi, Jinsil. 2022. Government Translation in South Korea: A Corpus Based Study. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dagut, Menachem B. 1976. “Can Metaphor Be Translated?.” Babel 22 (1): 21–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dickins, James. 2005. “Two Models for Metaphor Translation.” Target 17 (2): 227–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders, and Herbert A. Simon. 1980. “Verbal Reports as Data.” Psychological Review 871: 215–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1984. Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
González Núñez, Gabriel. 2022. “Translation Studies and Public Policy.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Translation, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 181–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, Paul. 1957. “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review 661: 377–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1990. “A Theoretical Account of Translation – without a Translation Theory.” Target 2(2): 135–164. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hagström, Warren O. 1965. The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Hempel, Carl G. 1967. Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 1996. “The Translator’s Voice in Translated Narrative.” Target 8(1): 23–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmes, James S. 1972/1988. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” Expanded version of a paper presented at the Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Copenhagen, 1972. In Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies with an Introduction by Raymond van den Broeck. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988, pp. 67–80.Google Scholar
Holmes, James. 1988. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies with an Introduction by Raymond van den Broeck. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hubscher-Davidson, Séverine, and Michael Borodo, eds. 2012. Global Trends in Translator and Interpreter Training: Mediation and Culture. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke. 1998. “Logging Time Delay in Translation.” In LSP Texts and the Process of Translation, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 73–101. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Working Papers in Translation.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Logging Target Text Production with Translog .” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Research Methods in Translation – Translog.” In Computer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, ed. by Kirk P. H. Sullivan, and Eva Lindgren, 95–105. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
. 2017. “Translation Process Research.” In The Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. by John W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 21–49. Malden: John Wiley and Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Lasse Schou. 1999. “Translog Documentation.” In Probing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. by Gyde Hansen, 151–186. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lowrie, Walter. translator. 1946. Kierkegard’s The Concept of Dread. Oxford: Geoffrey Cumberledge.Google Scholar
Malmkjær, Kirsten. 2003. “What Happened to God and the Angels? An Exercise in Translational Stylistics.” Target 15(1): 39–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. “Translational Stylistics.” Language and Literature 13(1): 13–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. “Angst and Repetition in Danish Literature and its Translation: From Kierkegaard to Kristensen and Høeg.” In Palgrave Handbook of Literary Translation ed. by Jean Boase-Beier, 251–268. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meylaerts, Reine. 2017. “Studying Language and Translation Policies in Belgium: What Can we Learn from a Complexity Theory Approach?.” Parallèles 29(1): 45–59.Google Scholar
Mossop, Brian. 2007. “Empirical Studies of Revision: What we Know and Need to Know.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 81: 5–20.Google Scholar
Munday, Jeremy S. 2007. Style and Ideology in Translation: Latin American writing in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Newmark, Peter. 1990. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Nida, Eugene. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nietzke, Jean, Silvia Hansen-Schirra and Carmen Canfora (2019). “Risk management and post-editing competence.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 311, 239–259.Google Scholar
O’Hagan, Minako, and David Ashworth. 2002. Translation-mediated Communication in a Digital World: Facing the Challenges of Globalization and Localization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olohan, Maeve. 2017. “Technology, Translation and Society: A Constructivist, Critical Theory Approach.” Target 29(2): 264–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 1994. “Twelfth-century Toledo and Strategies of the Literalist Trojan Horse.” Target 6(1): 43–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. “What Technology Does to Translating.” Translation & Interpreting 3(1): 1–9.Google Scholar
Reiss, Katharina. 1971. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich: Max Hueber.Google Scholar
Sakamoto, Akiko. 2022. “Translation and Technology.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Translation, ed. by Kirsten Malmkjær, 55–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl. 2017. “Language Processing and Translation.” In Empirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Silvia Hansen Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hofmann, 117–154. Berlin: Language Sciences Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina. 2004. “Metaphor and translation: Some Implications of a Cognitive Approach.” Journal of Pragmatics 36(7): 1253–1269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Finding Space under the Umbrella: The Euro Crisis, Metaphors, and Translation.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation 17b1: 250–270.Google Scholar
Schäffner, Christina, and Mark Shuttleworth. 2013. “Metaphor in Translation: Possibilities for Process Research.” Target 25(1): 93–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shuttleworth, Mark. 2011. “Translational Behaviour at the Frontiers of Scientific Knowledge: A Multilingual Investigation into Popular Science Metaphor in Translation.” The Translator 17(2): 301–323. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1813. “Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens” Lecture delivered to the Royal Academy of Sciences, Berlin, June 24 1813.
Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. 1986. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Taibi, Mustapha, and Uldis Ozolins. 2016. Community Translation. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1980. “Translated Literature: System, Norm, Performance: Toward a TT-oriented Approach to Literary Translation.” In Search of a Theory of Translation, 51–62. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Reprinted in: Poetics Today (1981), 2(4): 9–27.Google Scholar
. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van den Broeck, Raymond. 1988. “Introduction.” In Holmes, James S. Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies with an Introduction by Raymond van den Broeck, 1–5. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
, ed. 2017. Teaching Translation: Programs, Courses, Pedagogies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans Josef. 1978. “Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie.” Lebende Sprachen 23(3): 99–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vienne, Jean. 1994. “Toward a Pedagogy of ‘Translation in Situation’.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 2(1): 51–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet. 1958/2000. Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Translated and edited by Juan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber. 1990. “Outline of Relevance Theory.” Hermes: Journal of Linguistics 51: 40–56.Google Scholar
Øverås, Linn. 1998. “In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.” Meta 43(4): 571–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar