This week’s readings were an informative look at the origin and the approximate structure of the Translation Studies discipline. Holmes’s influential 1972 article is a useful, if limited, examination of the various components of the nascent discipline as it existed at the time. Venuti’s introduction from the 2012 Reader adds important nuances and additional consideration to Holmes’s earlier description, and also sheds light on some trends and historical shifts within the discipline. In my opinion, however, the most interesting and the most significant point raised by the three texts was Pym’s comment on the 1958 debate in the Soviet Union, and what followed. He describes the schism between the “literary people” and the “linguists” who both wanted to have the final say in how translation should be studied. In 1958 they came to a compromise, realizing that both methods could effectively be used in conjunction in order to study the works and processes relating to translation. The key here, however, is that the idea never left Russia. This groundbreaking discovery, which directly applies to the transposition of ideas between languages, had limited impact for exactly that reason.
This illustrates the central challenge, but also the possible greatest strength of Translation Studies. Every discipline, to a greater or lesser extent, is limited by the difficulties of cross-cultural and multi-lingual collaboration. I, for instance, study French history, and even in this common language pair it is astounding how frequently a historian writing in English will be ignorant of someone writing on the same topic in French. Translation Studies is uniquely positioned to overcome the challenges inherent in the fragmented global academy. As Holmes noted, the discipline was, in 1972, a long way from developing a General Theory of Translation Studies, and even his six partial theories were far from adequate. I have the impression that this is still the case today. Yet Translation Studies, with its unique assets, should be leading the way in international collaboration toward academic consensus, Venuti’s insistence that works of Translation Studies theory must be written in English notwithstanding. At its best, as TS develops, (as, for instance, translation aids, machine translation, and foreign-language teaching improve) the discipline promises to facilitate its own maturation, not to mention that of other disciplines.
Matt Robertshaw
14 September, 2017
Thank you for these comments Matt, you raise very pertinent points and I also think that it is shocking that we are only starting to learn about the Soviet translation theories that had the potential of contributing greatly to the development of recent western thinking on translation. The idea of having to write in English is a very problematic one - for anyone interested in the subject, I would like to direct you to Sebnem Susam Saraeva's work on the Western bias/slant of translation theory. I am sure you will specifically enjoy her response to Andrew Chesterman's position piece on universalism in translation published in Translation Studies journal in 2014.
ReplyDeleteOne further comment - please bear in mind that although these are written in an informal blog style (and I did enjoy reading your response very much) you still need to observe academic conventions and use both in-text references and a bibliography at the end.