Search

Critical interview between FIT Past president and the author (David Katan) regarding FIT, the translation profession and the future.

Crique of Mossop's work. on 'invarance

The aim of this paper is to explore the ‘literary’ in literary translation. It begins with a discussion of what makes a text literary, focussing on some very famous literary works which did not (and indeed do not) necessarily fit what is generally considered the literary canon. The features that translators should identify when first reading a text, on the look-out for potential literary value, are then outlined. These features are both textual (covering non-casual language, rhetorical features and equivalences) and contextual (connotations, implicatures, intratextual and culture-bound associations). The paper then discusses changing translation theory and practice, in particular illustrating points with comments made by translators and theorists in this book and elsewhere. Importance is also given to the profession itself, to literary translator beliefs about their role, the changing importance of the model reader and to changing beliefs about accepted style, making reference also to results of a global survey recently carried out on the subject.

1. Intercultural Communication Audiovisual translation (AVT), as many have noted (see Gambier in this issue) has moved from its focus on the text to a more multimodal, multi-semiotic perspective. Along with this has come the interest in the cultural factor in AVT. However, the research on how to account for cultural difference in AVT has mainly focused on the translation of culture-bound terms, which, as we will see, are just the tip of the iceberg in intercultural communication (ICC). According to Rogers et al. (2002), ICC was first coined by E. T. Hall (1990) in 1959. Hall was working with Native Navaho Indians on a US government land project, and noticed in the negotiations between the government officials and the Navaho, that even though English was the lingua franca, misunderstanding over meaning was creating serious practical problems. What was particularly notable about Hall’s work was his ability to identify the differences as patterns, which are as he stressed, shared “out of awareness” within cultural groups. ICC has grown enormously since then, though Hall himself was little involved in theorising about the discipline. Milton Bennett, an American ICC consultant, one of the founder developers of the discipline, posits that «the intercultural communication approach is that cultures are different in their languages, behaviour patterns, and values» (1998: 3). Much of the work on the cultural in translation is, however, based on monocultural communication. The assumption is often that culture is a superficial difference, that underneath there are universal similarities (Katan 2004: 333-4), that once ethnographic knowledge is made available and the «original context is reactivated alongside the target context» (House 2006: 356; 2009: 12) then communication will in theory be successful. Reddy (1979: 297) labelled this monocultural approach to translation the “conduit” metaphor: once the language is “translated”, then meaning is successfully communicated in the same way as conduits transfer without loss or distortion. However, it is now accepted that meaning is not innate, nor is it simply relayed by language. Instead, language is a cue to what it is that is going on below the tip of the iceberg.

Uncertainty in the Translation professions This issue focusses on two principal areas: uncertainties in the translation profession and transcreation; with transcreation being tentatively suggested (see Katan, forthcoming) as a possible solution to this uncertainty. The uncertainties themselves are legion, first and foremost because it still remains to be shown that translation is indeed a profession (Katan 2011). Many of the classic signs of a profession are not yet in place, and may well never will be, such as: an accepted school (or schools) of theory and practice; a national register of certified practitioners; national laws regulating the practice and safeguarding clients from malpractice, and so on. Also, clearly a sign of a profession is the increased payment given to those who are more qualified, along with public recognition of the worth of a professional translator’s creative abilities – which translators do not appear to have (e.g. Katan 2011: 149). We know for a fact that certification and legislation is unlikely to make a significant impact in the near future, partly because in the handful of areas where there is some form of regulation, there has been no discernable difference to translator status (Katan 2012), and also because (based on anecdotal evidence only) successful translators themselves are not keen on certification, as this would reduce their own individually gained status.

This article aims to give an overview of how translation strategy is affected by orientation to cultural difference. Given the numerous definitions of both “culture” and “translation, there are clearly numerous cultural approaches to translation. Here we will reduce the number to a manageable three, with the key to all three being the response to ‘difference’. Both culture and translation revolve around difference. We notice culture as difference, and we require translation when difference significantly affects communication. In the first case, “translating from cultures,” differences are explained. In the second, “translating for cultures,” differences are either be reduced (domestication) or highlighted (foreignization). The final approach, “translating between cultures,” gauges the likely tolerance for difference and attempts to mediate or reconcile differences, creating an interspace. In all cases, it is understood that texts are seen to relate to larger contexts, or frames of interpretation, and response to 'difference'. There is always a series of choices to be made regarding what exactly , and how exactly, language is to be translated. So here, it is argued, translation involves a form of intervention which will be in terms of decisions based on reaction to 'difference'.

This paper covers two main areas. The first area is an analysis of the various facets and meanings of ‘heritage’ and ‘culture’ when linked to tourism, both in theory and in practice, with examples taken from Guide Books, Heritage sites and Tourism organisations. The focus is on the tourist gaze, as a necessarily simplified, generalised and distorted ‘pseudo’, or ‘staged’, model of ‘the Other’. Here the Environmental Bubble and Cultural Adjustment models are also briefly introduced. To conclude this section, the culture-bound tourist model of perception, along with tourist promotion, is categorised in terms of 3 macro levels of culture: the visible heritage; the more submersed practices and traditions of a people; and the more hidden system of internal values and beliefs that both form the model of reality and guide it. Secondly, the paper focusses on translation and Outsider interpretation. After a brief review of language phrase guides, the discussion turns to the translation of culture-bound concepts at the 3 macro-levels of culture and the need for the translator to have intercultural competence at those 3 levels. A translator must also follow the skopos; and to do so Greimas’ theory of action is introduced. The article concludes with translated texts focussing on skopos, culture-bound contexting styles; and on the Outsider Gaze, the Outsiders' needs and cultural orientations, taken from an analysis of traveller blog pages. In conclusion the article highlights how little emphasis is given to translator cultural competence, and introduces instruments to help the translator mediate for the culture-bound tourist.

As a profession, translation may be one of the oldest, but it still has “no official status” (Gouadec 2007: 245) or “relative social or professional position”. What is more there are no agreed indicators of the translator’s status (Grbic 2010), and the concept itself is “a complex, subjective and context-dependent construct” (Dam and Zethsen 2008: 74). That said, status, here, will refer to translation as a valued specialist field requiring unique translating skills; and that competence and quality are considered key requisites for working professionally. Three contexts will be discussed: the academic, the market, and that of the translators themselves. A detailed overview of the translator’s status globally is that in the academic world it has high status due the “accademization” of the discipline, while the market in general is still convinced that translating is an automatic, ‘conduit’ copying task. The translators themselves, accrue status in niche areas and through the individual acquisition of the goodwill of their clients.

According to academics, the interpreting profession has moved on from its traditional impartial black-box role to that of intervention. The first part of this paper will describe what intervention means in practice, and the various levels of intervention open to interpreters. It will be shown through the use of the Logical Levels model how the interpreter’s habitus both allows and constrains some levels of intervention according to professional norms and beliefs about interpreter identity. The second part of the paper reports an online survey of some 300 interpreters to gauge their own beliefs about invisibility, intervention and responsibility. The respondents’ replies show a clear resistance to anything more than a strategic intervention, following that favoured by the Paris School, and little interest in more ideological or reflexive types of intervention. Finally, it will be suggested that openness to change may well come from those interpreters working in other capacities, rather than from those working within the interpreting habitus itself.

The object of this paper is to clarify what ‘intercultural competence’ actually entails for those learning to translate at university level, and will refer to a number of classroom activities that can successfully support the trainees during the learning. Learning competences have been studied for over 50 years, and have recently been amplified through the ‘Dublin Descriptors’ as a result of university reform. Also, intercultural competences have been studied widely in the world of work. Yet, though the same competences are now deemed essential for translators there is little information on the sub-competences involved. Here, it is suggested that during the university first cycle, the cognitive learning competences could include first an understanding of self and other (cultural locatedness), then translation of culturebound terms with a clear denotative reference, followed by connotative terms (linguaculture). At this level, students would also learn how to apply relatively fixed communication patterns, having learned about preferred cultural writing styles and orientations. It is argued here that “self reflexive” thinking, should only be expected during the second cycle. Students at this level can more easily understand that text meaning (and style) is negotiable according to context. Here, students also become more competent in the other metacognitive learning styles, and are more able to mindshift, change perceptual position and mediate. This will only be fully possible, however, when they are able to move away from the search for text-bound formal equivalence and learn to take risks (low uncertainty avoidance). It is asserted here that, to a large extent, this, and the other competences discussed, can be taught as part of translator training.

This paper is the result of a global survey carried out this year to around 1000 translators and interpreters, the majority of whom had university training in the area. The object of the survey was to investigate the habitus of the translator and to compare it with the academic belief in functionalism and the empowerment of the translator either as a mediator or as a social agent. The replies indicated strong responsibility towards the original text, and very little towards the reader or the wider community. Also, while the scholars appear to be convinced that their theories support the professional translator, in practice it would seem that university trained translators (and interpreters) rate theory very low on their list of ideal university training. Literature regarding the term “profession” is discussed as is what distinguishes an occupation from a profession. Classic trait theory suggests that a profession requires a number of minimum requisites, such as a well-grounded school of theory, infl uential professional bodies and professional exams. The ‘professional’ translators and interpreters were asked to explain in their own words what makes translating a profession. They also replied to questions on status. As a result of the replies it was possible to identify a large homogeneous yet scattered cottage industry. Their ‘professionality’ lies in their individually honed competencies in the fi eld. They are dedicated and mainly satisfi ed wordsmiths, who take pride in their job. They decry “the cowboys” (from secretaries to students) while realising the seriousness of the competition due mainly to the very low status accredited to translators worldwide. Interpreters, on the other hand, saw themselves – and were seen by translators – as having a relatively high professional autonomy. Interestingly, relatively few of the respondents had only one “main role”. Gender is seen here as an important factor in this grouping. Finally, as a result of the replies, it is asked whether we (academics/translation trainers) are providing the theory and the training that will encourage the development of the profession – if indeed it can be defined as one.

Culture as a headword is one of the most complex and fuzzy terms to define. This Encyclopedic entry for Translation researchers is designed to explain how ‘the culture factor’ impinges on translation theory and practice. The first part of the article contains a short overview of how the term has amplified its meaning over time. The main part of the article is a close examination of 3 levels of the ‘cultural iceberg’ (taken from Hall 1959/1990): technical, formal, informal, and of the 4th level, which acts on the ‘iceberg itself. The technical level is that of culturemes, the ‘classic’ culture-bound problem of finding an equivalent term in a second language. The next level, formal, is that of style, genre and the sets of practices which a particular culture privileges as ‘good’. Submerged is the informal level, out-of-awareness, which relates to what cultural orientations, culture-bound values and beliefs. The 4th level is socio-political, and refers to the powers in society that covertly encourage, or otherwise, translators, translation and in particular relate to the forces of capitalism and post-colonialism. Hall, E.T. (1959/1990) The Silent Language, New York, Random House.

‘Translating across cultures’ and ‘cultural proficiency’ have become buzz words in translating and interpreting. Mona Baker (1996:17) warns that many scholars have now adopted a “‘cultural’ perspective ... a dangerously fashionable word that almost substitutes for rigour and coherence”. As the 21st century gets into stride, so does the call for a discipline combining culture and translation. In 2001, the CIUTI Conférence Internationale d’instituts Universitaires de traducteurs et interprêtes opened its Colloquium with “Kooperationskonzepte für die multilinguale Gesellschafte” rather than on the word, the text and equivalence. The plenary sessions all focussed on transcultural communication and mediation. In 2004, the first international conference on “Translation and Intercultural Communication” was held, a landmark, at least in talk. The aim of this book is to put some rigour and coherence into this fashionable word, and in doing so unravel the ‘X’ factor involved in teaching culture to translators, interpreters and other mediators. It is an introduction to current understanding about culture and its importance in communication, translation and interpretation. As such, it aims to bridge the culture-gap inherent in books or courses focusing on either translation theory and practice, language or ‘institutions’. More importantly, in clarifying the ‘X’ factor, it aims to raise awareness of the role of culture in constructing, perceiving and translating reality. This book should serve as a framework for interpreters and translators (both actual and potential) working between English and any other language, and also for those working or living between these cultures who wish to understand more about their cross-cultural successes and frustrations. The book is divided into four 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. Part 4: Intercultural Competence: On becoming a Cultural Interpreter/Mediator

Atti del XX Convegno Nazionale dell'Associazione Italiana di Anglistica Catania-Ragusa ; Carmela Nocera, Gemma, Persico, Rosario Portale (a cura di), Rubbettino: Catanzaro.

a cura di Silvana Schiavi Fachin, Forum/ Editrice universitaria udinese

(British Chamber of Commerce for Italy)

(a cura di Giusepina Cortese e Dell Hymes)

(Numero speciale: Translation Studies Revisited, (a cura di) S. Bassnett, R. M Bolletteri Bodinelli, M. Ulrych)

(a cura di) C. Taylor Torsello, L. Haarman, L. Gavioli, CLEUB, Bologna

(a cura di) Y. Gambier, D. Gile e C. Taylor, John Benjamins, Amsterdam

Y. Gambier, D. Gile e C. Taylor; John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

(Università Statale di Mosca, Mosca )

This article clarifies three meanings and levels of culture following E.T. Hall's Iceberg Model and links them to three aspects of translation theory and practice: technical, formal and inforrmal, using Italian and English as exmaples

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.

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.