PANEL 3
SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO TRANSLATION STUDIES
Chair: Tenglong Wan, University of Leeds
Eurocentrism in Translation Studies: The Parameters of a Debate
Ahd Othman (University of Bristol, UK)
This paper lays out the parameters of the debate on Eurocentrism in Translation Studies. First popularized by Egyptian-French social scientist Samir Amin, in his L’eurocentrisme (1988), ‘Eurocentrism’ gradually became a ubiquitous term in many Translation Studies (TS) debates, publications and conferences. Still very lively within TS, as this paper argues, calls to counter ‘Eurocentric’ tendencies have both theoretical and ethical implications for the discipline. The paper thus gives an ad hoc definition of Eurocentrism, and argues that the concept is best understood as a form of ideology, based on a set of beliefs and values that are embedded within a narrative. It then reviews the status quo of the debate and concludes that Eurocentrism seems to contribute to a number of problems in TS, and that these, as the literature suggests, could be countered by pushing the field towards more ‘internationalization’ – which could be achieved by incorporating more data from the ‘non-West’ (e.g. Tymoczko, 2014), giving more visibility to ‘non-Western’ theories on the international stage, and/or invoking ‘non-Western’ theories to ‘provincialize’ Western theories in the field (Kothari, 2014). The paper also highlights the embeddedness of the Eurocentrism debate in larger discussions about the nature of TS, where it stands, as a discipline, on the universalism-relativism spectrum, and the apparent gap “between
those who approach translation studies from the perspective of postmodern cultural studies and textual theories and those who see it more as an empirical, descriptive field” (Chesterman and Arrojo, 2000). Finally, it presents the criticism addressed to anti-Eurocentrism from both proponents and sceptics, and argues that some of the main strands of critique regard reductively dichotomous terminology used in the debate, ‘trendiness’ and failure to introduce any real change to the discipline and, ultimately, the reproduction of problematic Eurocentric approaches by anti-Eurocentric alternatives.
Non-Native Translation in Central Europe: Between Past and Present
Tomáš Duběda (Charles University, Czech Republic)
This paper tackles the role of non-native translation (i.e. translation into a language other than the translator’s mother tongue, also known as L2 translation) in Central Europe. It considers sociological, economic and historical aspects of this particular form of translation, which is mainly symptomatic of languages of limited diffusion, but may be observed Europe-wide (Schmitt 1998; Kelly et al. 2003). Surprisingly perhaps, non-native translation has to date received only scant attention in the scientific community.
When examining published market surveys carried out in the countries of Central Europe (Ličko 2014; Pavlović 2007; Svoboda 2016; Whyatt et Kościuczuk 2013), we identify several common features: a high demand for translations into major European languages, a shortage of native translators into these languages, and a considerable degree of tolerance towards non-native translation. Literary translation, however, is affected by this trend only marginally.
The sociological approach is complemented by a text-oriented analysis, which is based on a sample of 160 translations (EN/FR <=> CS) assessed for quality (Duběda 2018). I consider the revisability and practical usability of these translations, applying the concepts of suboptimality (Prunč 2000) and risk management (Pym 2015).
From a historical perspective, I endeavour to explain how the international isolation of these countries during the Cold War, their hasty opening to the West in the 1990s, their membership in the European Union, and the growing global hegemony of English forged the translation market and the attitudes of its stakeholders.
Despite the increasing mobility of translation services, non-native translation is not bound to disappear. One of the factors of its viability is the use of translation technologies (CAT and MT tools), in which directionality plays a less determining role.
Human-Computer Interaction in Translation: Literary Translators on their Roles and Technology
Paola Ruffo (Heriot-Watt University, UK)
The configuration of translation as a form of Human-Computer Interaction (O’Brien, 2012) has highlighted the need for Translation Studies to acknowledge and address human issues derived from the complexity of said interaction (Kenny, 2017). This becomes even more compelling in light of the overall ‘sense of confusion’ (Cronin, 2013: 1) surrounding the future of the translation profession and its human agents. In this regard, Littau (2016) advocates for a rediscovery of the ways in which materiality and ideality mutually and symbiotically shape each other, in that if we are to explore translation in contemporary society and culture, then we are to study the interplay between the two. Defined as ‘the last bastion of human translation’ by Toral and Way (2014: 174), literary translation appears to be postponing the encounter with materiality, despite a growing body of research on the application of translation technologies to its workflow. This paper reports on a doctoral research project that operates within this framework, exploring the dynamic, mutual and social construction of human-computer interaction in literary translation. The study adopts a socio-technological framework inspired by Pinch and Bijker’s 1984 Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) model in order to collect literary translators’ perceptions of their own role in society and their attitudes towards technology via means of a questionnaire. Results show that (1) perceptions of role and attitudes towards technology mutually influence each other and that (2) the adoption of a proactive and collaborative approach between different social groups could benefit the process of technological innovation in literary translation.
“Perhaps it All Got Lost in Translation?” : Digital Storefronts and the Competing Paratextual Framings of Look Who’s Back
Peter Freeth (University of Leeds, UK)
In the monograph Translation and Paratexts (2018), Kathryn Batchelor re-defines Genette’s paratext theory (1997) for use within translation studies contexts, thereby moving away from Genette’s problematic focus on authorial responsibility and defining paratextuality in relation to a physical book. Consequently, Batchelor’s broader definition of paratextuality facilitates the inclusion of new data sets within the paratextual corpora used by translation studies scholars, such as digital or reader-created materials, and promotes the inclusion of interdisciplinary approaches to paratextual research within translation studies contexts. This paper, therefore, builds upon this work by using Batchelor’s re-evaluated paratext theory (2018:142) to investigate the conflict between official- and reader-created paratexts in a digital paratextual space. By raising issues such as the translator’s visibility and the text’s original cultural context within their paratexts, this paper investigates how readers can use digital storefronts such as Amazon to reject the paratextual framings offered by publishers and so construct competing paratextual narratives. This argument is centred around a case study of the Amazon UK webpage for the translated novel Look Who’s Back (Vermes, 2014), which compares the paratextual framing presented by the customer reviews to that of the publisher’s paratexts featured on the Amazon page. As such, this paper demonstrates how digital spaces, such as Amazon, present rich resources for investigations into the framing, circulation and reception of translated literature and highlights the increasing need for translation studies scholars to utilise source materials from outside of the discipline’s established traditions, such as digital storefronts, within their research.