Search

This introduction presents an overview of the key concepts discussed in the subsequent chapters of this book. The book reflects on the present and future of Translation Studies following the incorporation of terms and perspectives from industrial technology discourses and practices into the discipline. It examines the current status of translation technologies training in translation and interpreting curricula in undergraduate degrees in Spain. The book provides a state-of-the-art review of translation competence, translation revision competence and post-editing competence models, analysing their similarities and differences in the light of recent research on revision and PE training. It proposes a pedagogical approach to future-proofing the translation profession in the 2020s.

This chapter suggests reconceptualising the role of the translator within the context of a translator as an adaptive expert, here understood in terms of creativity and the uniquely human ability to narrate – and proposes a procedure to foster this ability. Narrativity in translation has long been either undervalued or problematized (e.g. Baker, 2006). Yet, if we take as a given that the translation profession is at a crossroads (Katan, 2016; Massey & Ehrensberger-Dow, 2017), due in part to the advances in neural machine translation (NMT), then one way in which the translator may assert their added value is to focus attention on their uniquely human ability to knowingly create meaningful texts. The general thesis developed, is that while machines may successfully translate texts in the sense of copying or transcribing text from one language to another, the creation of texts meaningful for a particular readership in a particular moment is a uniquely homo sapiens or rather, as we shall see, a homo fictus or narrans ability. I will suggest that this ability can be enhanced through learning elements of the structure of narrativity and also through an adoption of the Metamodel (cf. Bandler & Grinder, 1975; Katan & Taibi, 2021) - all of which will help to further distinguish the human from the machine.

This paper focuses on an aspect of collaboration hitherto little explored; yet, as mentioned elsewhere, one that has been “hiding in plain sight” (Katan & Jemielity 2021; Vashee 2021): the translator plus. The plus refers to the fact that translation is viewed as only part of the translator’s profile, and it is this plus that improves their status and their pay (especially in the premium market). We distinguish between two forms of collaboration. First, there is the relatively-well documented “horizontal collaboration”, which encompasses all collaborations between translators (working in teams), between translator and experts, focus groups, proofreaders and so on. Secondly, there is a form of “vertical collaboration”. This type of collaboration entails active interaction, collaboration or ‘closelaboration’ (Levine 1991: 47) with the author, the commissioner and all other agents involved in the translation process – and where possible from the early stages. This means, for example, that in certain cases the source text may also be questioned and modified. The result is a move away from the habitus of a language expert whose services are commissioned, and whose work finishes with the translation, to a translator who is consulted, and who discusses options and alternatives. The translator is now an integral part of a collaborative circle. Bourdieu’s habitus theory will be used to discern those capitals most likely to move the translator from the end of the vertical chain towards the collaborative circle. To support our arguments we will refer to (1) a group of recognised translators plus and their published comments on the subject (2) personal experience working as translator of museum material (3) two global surveys of translator perception of their habitus.

‘Translating across cultures’ and ‘cultural proficiency’ have become buzz words in translating and interpreting. Back in 1996, Mona Baker warned that many scholars had already begun to adopt a “‘cultural’ perspective ... a dangerously fashionable word that almost substitutes for rigour and coherence” (Baker 1996: 17). Anthropologists, who were the traditional custodians of the field complained that “Everyone is into culture now” (Kuper 1999: 2). Indeed, ‘culture’ became “top look-up” according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary in 2014. Its (over)use has led some anthropologists to seriously jettison the term (Agar 2006). As one anthropologist is reported to have stated, “studying culture today is like studying snow in the middle of an avalanche” (in Agar 2006: 2). In translation, the term took central stage with “the cultural turn in translation studies” (Snell-Hornby 1990:84; 2006: 50-60). The ‘cultural turn’ itself began life much earlier in the field of Cultural Studies, a discipline focussing on contemporary ideologies, politics and how the media manipulates thought. For this discipline, ‘cultural translation’ involves analyzing the dynamics of conflicting models of reality and how they effect or suffer change as a result of contact both at an individual level and at the level of communities. Translation Studies also began to interest itself in the effects or changes as a result of intervention on the text, as well summed up by translation theorist Susan Bassnett (2014: 25): “In the same way that the surgeon, operating on the heart, cannot neglect the body that surrounds it, so the translator treats the text in isolation from the culture at his or her peril.” For linguists this means that understanding the text in question, whether original (source) or translated (target) is not only a question of vocabulary and the grammar, but also a question of assessing the nature of the situation; accessing and understanding what is implied, what can be referred, in what way, by whom and so on. This is the focus of Translating Cultures. Interestingly, Bassnett is also equally a Comparative Literatures scholar, and hence equally at home discussing cultural translation, which occurs in literature when novels are written by what Indian-born author Salman Rushdie called “translated men”. In this case the “translation” is to do with the intralingual usurping of the colonial language by a subject of colonialism for a post-colonial readership. Our focus here is on interlingual communicating of meanings across language and cultural divides. Hence translation is understood as Intercultural Communication, an often- used epithet, used for example in 2012 by the International Federation of Translators to promote International Translation Day. The simple question is, what is the “cultural” that affects communication in translation? The aim of this book then is to answer this question, and in so doing to put some rigour and coherence into this fashionable word. It explains what translators, interpreters and other mediators should know about the cultural factor and its importance in communication, translation and interpretation. As such, it aims to provide the context of culture marginalised or missing in books or courses focussing on either translation theory or translation practice, and to provide an understanding of translation theory and practice for those working in intercultural communication. Most importantly, in clarifying ‘culture’, it aims to raise awareness of its role in constructing, perceiving and translating reality. This book, then, should serve as a framework for interpreters and translators (both actual and potential) working between any language, and also for those working or living between cultures who wish to understand more about their intercultural successes and frustrations. The book is divided into three main parts: Part 1: Framing Culture: The Culture-Bound Mental Map of the World. Part 2: Shifting Frames: Translation and Mediation in Theory and Practice. Part 3: The Array of Frames: Communication Orientations. Framing Culture: The Culture Bound Mental Map of the World Part 1 outlines the complexity of translation, and how even simple technical language can easily create problems that Google Translate cannot cope with, given its limited analysis and understanding of context. Differences across languages, as will be seen, often have their roots in differences across a variety of contexts, ranging from those of the immediate situation to those involving culture. We begin by discussing how the concepts of context, community and culture have been approached. We then move to organising ‘culture’ and approaches to teaching it, into one unifying framework of Logical Levels, which will then form the backbone of the book itself. Throughout this book, culture is perceived as a system for making sense of experience. A basic presupposition is that this organization of experience is never an objective representation of ‘reality’. It is instead a simplified and distorted model that makes sense to one group of people but should not be expected to be universal. So, cultures act as frames within which external signs or ‘reality’ are interpreted. Logically then, we should not expect that the use of language to express these culture-bound models of reality may be directly translatable. How and in what ways those who interpret and translate should intervene on the text, and the subtly separated roles of the translator/interpreter and the cultural mediator are then discussed. Part 1 concludes with an in-depth analysis of how individuals perceive, catalogue and construct reality, and how this perception is communicated through language. The approach is interdisciplinary, taking ideas from anthropology, such as Gregory Bateson’s Logical Typing and metamessage theories; Bandler and Grinder’s Meta-Model theory; Sociolinguistics; Speech Act Theory; Sperber and Wilson’s Relevance Theory, and Hallidayan Functional Grammar. Shifting frames: Translation and Mediation in Theory and Practice Part 2 begins with a discussion of the strategies a translator, interpreter or cultural mediator needs to adopt to account for culture-bound frames. It includes a brief overview of how culture has been associated with translation. Translation itself, following Nida (1976:65), is here viewed as “essentially an aspect of a larger domain, namely, that of communication”. Steiner (1975:47) in his aptly titled book After Babel takes an even wider view of translation: “inside or between languages, human communication equals translation”. Hence, translation is discussed within the wider context of communication. This stance entails making the basic differences in translation theory clear. Either translation is principally an activity of transferring or converting text from one language to another, or as we propose, a service with the aim of ensuring communication for people who do not have the necessary language skills. We focus on a number of procedures (such as chunking and use of the metamodel) designed to account for and mediate the context of culture and (re)frame the language for the new listener or reader. In all cases, practical examples of translations with commentary are provided. The Array of Frames Part 3 provides an outline of the major influences cultural orientations can have on communication. It begins with an explanation and taxonomy of cultural orientations. The main thrust concerns the communication orientation, and Edward Hall’s theory of contexting. This theory discusses the changing importance of implicit and explicit communication between cultures in the transmission of a message. Communication itself is divided into transactional (the transmission of information) and interactional (relational). Cultural orientations are then discussed according to their relevance in either transactional or interactional communication. As a result, commonly understood pragmatic features of languages, such as lexical density, clarity, (in)directness and politeness are linked to culture. Examples are given, and mediation procedures are discussed. Generally, indicators are given as to likely linguacultural orientations, as well as the pan-cultural situational factors. Emphasis is placed on the variety of factors that may affect communication style or response and the motivations that logically may give rise to those behaviours. Paralinguistic and non-verbal features of languacultures are touched on, and again are linked to cultural orientations. Apart from our own input, regarding our own spheres of experience, the main sources in the literature come from interculturalists, such as Hofestede, Lewis and Trompenaars, who provide a mixture of qualitative and quantitative information regarding cultural motivations and communication. Practical examples are also taken both from the press and from translations.

Tourism, according to Cronin (Cronin 2000: 1), “is fast becoming the world’s most important item of trade”. As more of us travel further afield, so interlingual translation becomes crucial in furthering that trade through promoting destinations and guiding tourists once they have arrived. From the viewpoint of the tourism provider and of the tourist herself, accessibility is key. But this accessibility does not take the host destination into account, and hence ignores issues of neo-colonialism, acculturation and environmental sustainability. Translation can balance the colossal might of the forces driving tourism and the, often hidden, needs of the local destination. It can mediate between the global and the local, and can protect or further erode local differences, needs and indeed identity. To mediate requires a sensitivity, or ‘mindfulness’ (Langer 1989), and also an ‘insider’ (Katan 2016) understanding of both the local host and the international visitor worlds. Without mediation, translation creates a lingua-cultural ‘environmental bubble’ (Cohen 1972) seamlessly transporting the international tourist to her destination, and safely back again with no need for the tourist to leave his or her comfort zone. The foreign destination is made familiar through acculturation and transculturation, further isolating the tourist from actual contact with the local community, and hence furthers the subaltern position of the tourist destination, whereby the local becomes a service appendage to the global. Translation may not be in a position to change the reality of the growth in mass tourism, but it is in a strong position to mediate. Yet is the tourism sector that suffers most from mindless translation. Language incompetence and ignorance of the networks of socio-cultural connections that make the text meaningful to its original addressees are the main factors. It will also be argued here that the admirable global drive in tourism to ‘go local’, and to promote community participation to ameliorate some of the strongest criticisms against its unbridled growth has not factored in translation – which is also going more local. As community participation increases (e.g. rural, farmhouse and more remote destinations in the Third and Fourth world) so translation also becomes more local, artisan and improvised. Tourism translation, when carried out professionally may be seen to encompass the abilities required of commercial translation, public service but also literary translation, given the need to persuade. And all three aspects may be apparent within the same translation. In terms of text function, Greimas’ Model of Action will be adapted to discuss translation strategy and issues affecting the vouloir (the promotional and literary), the savoir (the dissemination of knowledge) and the pouvoir faire, the enabling of the tourist to act as if a local insider, and the enabling of the local community to act on the international tourist. A key issue in attracting international tourism, is how to translate local vouloir distinctions, ways and values to attract both for an international readership and for a particular targeted lingua-culture. This task highlights the question of who actually ‘translates’: a translator, a localiser or indeed a copywriter. The mindful/mindless distinction requires the translator to be aware of how the vouloir carries with it ethical and moral issues relating to, for example, tourist (un)restrained consumption and instant gratification as well as pandering to the cultural outsider’s stereotypical or Disneyfied views of the host culture and environment. Regarding the savoir function, the translation of specialised language and knowledge for the international tourist (such as art and architecture) require particular popularisation strategies. These strategies also need to be used when considering socio-cultural knowledge that is tacit for the local insiders, but is not available to the international, and hence outsider, tourist. Here, questions for the mindful translator revolve around engagement with the text and cognitive overload. Of particular interest is the pouvoir faire function, which, in translation, should enable the local community as much as the global With regard to the local, a translation should enable the destination to re-present itself in a way that is consonant with its own reality (practices, values and ideals). Texts are rarely written for translation, and insiders themselves do not necessarily know much if anything about the intended reader’s reality. Firstly, mindful translator will look for the hidden gaps between the local contexts and the international (or lingua—cultual specific) contexts to create translations that fully represent the local. Secondly, the outsider tourist, through translation should also be enabled so that s/he can act as if s/he were a local, an insider. However, ‘insidering’, familiarising the different, a fine art. The international tourist is in need of practical information concerning public services and tourist information. A faithful translation becomes inaccessible due to the foreinness and opaqueness of the foreign terms and related practices, while a domesticated translation will allow for savoir understanding but an inability to act locally. Difficulties in ‘insidering’ also result from the mindless translation of valued local practices by the insider community or through the literal translation of local and nationalistic stance promoted at cultural heritage sites, but which may well be counterproductive when translated mindlessly. Finally, tourism translation, far from broadening the mind necessarily simplifies the culture-bound complexities of the place and its communities to compensate for a lifetime spent in that language and culture, necessarily availing itself of the familiar and the stereotypical. This is partly due to the fact that the difference the tourist destination represents, and what attracts the foreign tourist to the “place”, is often imbued by its language variety. In translation, the original language is automatically effaced, distorted or at least problematized, resulting in an impoverishment of appreciation of the destination, and an ever more superficial tourist gaze (Urry and Larsen 2011). An extreme case would be the attempt to translate either the vouloir or the pouvoir faire functions of a text on immaterial cultural heritage, such as dialect. Cohen, Erik. 1972 “Towards a Sociology of International Tourism”. Social Research 39 (1): 164-182 Cronin, Michael. 2000. Across the Lines: Travel, Language, Translation. Cork: Cork University Press. Katan, David 2016 “Translating for Outsider Tourists: Cultural Informers Do It Better”, Cultus 9(2) 63-90. Langer, Ellen. 1989. Mindfulness. Cambridge (MA): Perseus. Urry John and Svein Larsen. 2011. The Tourist gaze 3.0, Los Angeles: Sage.

‘Review of Romero Fresco’s book "Accessible Filmmaking: Integrating translation and accessibility into the filmmaking process".

This paper focusses on an audience response study of 50 non-native, but proficient, speakers of English of the effectiveness of ‘the second screen’ when watching film. This particular experiment is the result of both new possibilities in technology and progress made in using pop up glosses to aid non-native understanding of culture-bound concepts (see Katan 2014, forthcoming). The idea of the “second screen” experience or phenomenon stems from the evolution in consumer viewing, often watching a film while texting and so on. More recently with the rise of the tablet it has been possible for TV programmes to sync both devices so that the second device can add information, supplement and generally enhance the viewing experience in time with (in general) the TV series. The use of pop ups, or ‘abusive’ subtitling, is rapidly becoming accepted both in academic research (see, for example the recent Access4All conference 2015), and in reality. A growing number of ground-breaking AV products, in particular Slumdog Millionnaire and the BBC TV Sherlock, have almost surreptitiously broken the rules regarding extra diegetic images and text on screen. Slumdog introduced the mainstream cinema goer to floating text, while Shelock has also introduced visual, non-verbal glosses. Experimentation with this (Katan 2014) has shown a great deal of potential for AV translation, particularly for culture-bound issues. However one criticism levelled is that of crowding the screen. Hence, this paper will investigate to what extent the use of a second screen can address this issue. The viewers compared their experience through both a qualitative and quantitative questionnaire of watching using ‘traditional’ pop up glosses on a single screen and watching the pop ups on a second screen. Viewers’ opinions and suggestions focused in particular on enjoyment and utility (for example for use in AV translation and language learning). Katan, D. (2014) “Intercultural Communication, Mindful Translation and Squeezing “Culture” onto the Screen”. In Garzelli, B. and M. Baldo (eds) Subtitling and Intercultural Communication European Languages and beyond, Edizioni ETS, Pisa. pp. 55-76

This paper discusses how culture impinges on the reading and the understanding of texts. It investigates the idea that culture is a manifestation of difference, and proposes 4 approaches for the translator, expanding on Schleiermacher’s classic idea of translation as leaving the writer in peace by moving the reader to the writer or vice versa. The characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of each approach are illustrated. The first suggestion is “translating from cultures”. This is an anthropological approach overtly framing the text within its context through thick translation. The second main approach “translating for cultures”, closely follows Schleiermacher. The approach is divided into 2 parts, depending on whether the translator wishes to highlight or reduce the difference. Highlighting difference is favoured by cultural studies scholars to protect vulnerable groups and difference itself; while reducing difference, favoured by linguists aims to reduce barriers to the text. The final approach, “translating between cultures” is an intercultural approach, which accepts that the reader’s “cultural filter”, will always distort and otherwise affect reading of the translation. In all cases, it is necessary to construct the model or ideal reader, as it is through imagining the reader that the most appropriate approach can be ascertained.

This paper looks at the mediation of difference in translation and how this can affect tolerance and relations with the intercultural other. It begins with a discussion of the ideas regarding ‘difference’ and intercultural tolerance, taking account of the ideal or model reader’s point of view. Translation has often been seen as the key to bridging cultures and to the spreading of ideas and understanding. Yet, at the same time it has also been perceived as fostering violence, as a barrier to integration and also as a means of increasing the hegemonic power of ruling powers (such as Western capitalism). It will be argued here that it is not the type of translation itself that automatically improves or reduces ethnocentricism, but whether it is carried out mindfully or mindlessly; and it will be suggested that mindful essentialism is the key to an effective translation.

Brian Mossop’s position paper is certainly provocative, and indeed even after repeated readings I am not sure that I have understood how much of what he suggests can be anything more than just that...

Any discussion of definitions requires a number of provisos. They are, by their very nature, essentialist and positivist in that they distil what is the ‘essentialis … the nature of a thing … and what sets it apart’ (Rener 1989, 266; see also Hebenstreit 2007, 11-12). They are also often a descriptione in that they enumerate ‘the various features proper to the thing …’ (Rener 1989, 266). Who or what is included (and excluded) from a definition easily becomes the object of heated contention, as this affects the size of the discipline, the growth or otherwise of academic departments, the professional status of those who are included in ‘the thing’ (e.g. Marco 2007, 65; Melby et al 2014; Pym, 2014, 49) and much more. Consequently, the task of defining culture and translation can move from difficult to extremely political. That said, the human race has long been categorising and defining things. Defining dictionaries with commentary and glosses have been around since the third century BCE (Considine 2015, 605). Today the world’s ‘best-selling regularly updated book’ with 400 million sales is Xinhua Zidian [The New Chinese Character Dictionary] (Press Centre 2016). In 2014, Merriam Webster (whose Collegiate Dictionary ranks as the next best-selling dictionary with sales of 55 million) announced ‘culture’ as their ‘Word of the Year’ because it had ‘the biggest spike in look-ups’ (Steinmetz 2014) on their website. ‘People were desperate to know what “culture” meant’ (Rothman 2014.), a strong indication of what Tymoczko (2007) calls the ‘definitional impulse’: the human need for closure, and the need to put things in boxes, or at least, as Wittgenstein (1958) would have it, to organise according to ‘family resemblance’ (Familienähnlichkeit) (32-33). In short, there is an innate human need to classify and organise ‘what is what’ (and to distinguish it from what is not what). Categorisation has traditionally been conceived in terms of horizontal co-hyponymic and vertical hypernymic levels. Here we will loosely follow Bateson (1972) and Goffman (1986) and their understanding of categorisation of experience, in terms of ‘framing’ (see also Katan 2004, 49-56). At the horizontal level, we frame ‘types of’ translation (such as literal, free or audio-visual) or ‘types of’ culture (ethnic, religious and national). Clearly there are problems in deciding where the horizontal frame boundaries are and, indeed, even if ‘the type’ itself is valid within the wider frame. A perfect case in point is Hatim and Munday’s (2004, 6) question: ‘Where do we draw the line between “translation” and “adaptation?”’ However, it is with the vertical, or wider, frames that the major issues come into view, as the widening of context or perspective brings to the fore previously unquestioned boundaries, which focus not only on ‘what’ is to be included, but also ‘in which historical period/geographical/linguistic domain’, ‘according to which discipline’, and finally even ‘according to which underlying motivations.’ In short, there is a hierarchy of ever-widening frames, each of which contextualises the frame it encloses. This in itself is problematic when it comes to definitions, which themselves presume—in enclosing the essentialisness—to be the ultimate frame. Post-positivism brings to the fore these hidden assumptions. Clearly, this includes questioning the validity of the definition frame itself. Post-positivists suggest that although phenomena may (possibly) be observed, it is the observer’s subjectivity that will bias what is perceived towards a particular construction of ‘reality’ and towards a particular way of defining ‘the thing’. As we can see, terms at the post-positivist chunk-level come with inverted commas, suggesting that the ‘objective’ terms themselves are to be reflected on and ‘problematised’. To be fair, positivists also accept that definitions and norms are socially constructed, and are not impervious to change over time (e.g. Chesterman 1997). We can organise these paradigms in terms of broadness of view, context or abstraction. A useful starting point is Hall’s (1990) framing of culture into a ‘major triad’ (see Katan 2004, 44-48). Hall adapts Freud’s metaphor of an iceberg, originally used to explain that the most important workings of the mind operate unconsciously, out-of-awareness. This unconscious level guides judgement, which then guides visible behaviour. Hall organised culture into three systems acting at different levels of visibility: the visible (technical), the partially submerged (formal) and finally the invisible (informal) out-of-awareness level. The metaphor highlights the fact that the most important aspects of culture are hidden. At the same time, it is these aspects that evaluate what is normal or right, and consequently guide the visible behaviour. The same iceberg metaphor can also be used to discuss ‘translation’. The visible responds to ‘what’ is tangible: the product (the source and the target texts). The partially submerged refers to the ‘how’: the processes of translation; while the most hidden aspects explore the motivations (the ‘why’), the beliefs, values and ideologies that govern both processes and product.

Translation at the cross-roads: time for the transcreational turn? Translation Studies is a young discipline, with its “name and nature” still the object of discussion in the 1970’s (Holmes, 1988). As to the “nature” of the discipline, ‘interpreting studies’ has generally been seen as a sub-discipline of the generic term ‘translation’, and this paper will follow suit. Clearly, though, literary translators, technical translators, court and community interpreters require very different skills and are rewarded different status. Yet, these translators and interpreters (T/Is) are all very much at the same crossroads for exactly the same reasons: to what extent can or should these professionals mediate? The idea that translation should be considered a form of ‘intercultural mediation’ (IM) (Katan, 2013) has been popularised in academic circles ever since the ‘cultural turn’ of the 1980s. As a result, academics have been calling T/Is "experts in intercultural communication” (Holz-Mäntäri, 1984); "mediators" (Hatim & Mason, 1990); "cross-cultural specialists" (Snell-Hornby, 1992); "cultural mediators" (Katan, 1999/2004) and “cultural interpreters” (Gonzalez & Tolron, 2006; Harris, 2000; Mesa, 2000). This ontological change of perception of T/Is as cultural mediators, however, remains very much more of an academic rather than professional understanding of the role and habitus (Katan, 2011; 2012). Moreover, the T/I’s traditional language mediation role is itself under threat. The focus of this paper is, hence, first to clarify the difference between language and IM, then to analyse who is actually doing IM in practice, and finally to suggest a way forward for the translator at the crossroads.

– This chapter starts from the premise that a Masters course dedicated to Mediation should be clear about what ‘cultural mediation’ means in theory and in practice. As regards the theory, the chapter begins with an exploration of the meaning of the terms ‘mediator’ and ‘mediation’ both in terms of language mediation and cultural mediation. The competences necessary for successful Intercultural Communication (ICC) are discussed and a hypothetical organisation of competences for Cultural Mediators working with refugees is proposed, taking ideas from current inventories focussing on ICC. Two main areas are proposed: competencies based on Knowledge, Skills and Attitude; and also competencies related to Cultural Adjustment curves, taking the Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity as an example. The article then discusses the situation in practice, focussing in particular on Italy, concluding with other scholars that the habitus of the cultural mediator is still that of a professional and personal ‘zone of uncertainty’.