1. New Research in Translation and Interpreting Studies 20 October, 2006 Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona (Spain) Ljuba Tarvi (Tallinn University) Classification of Translation Models: A Map or a Matrix?

2. Problems to discuss Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies?

3. Problems to discuss Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies? What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field?

4. Problems to discuss Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies? What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field? What might be the ‘center of gravity’ when delineating the field?

5. Problems to discuss Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies? What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field? What might be the ‘center of gravity’ when delineating the field? In what way could theory help practice?

6. Karl Popper’s three worlds World 1 (W1) - the world of physical objects

7. Karl Popper’s three worlds World 1 (W1) - the world of physical objects World 2 (W2) - the world of mental objects/events

8. Karl Popper’s three worlds World 1 (W1) - the world of physical objects World 2 (W2) - the world of mental objects/events World 3 (W3) - the world of products of the human mind, including linguistic products

9. Popper’s worlds: interactions W2 - W1 __________________ W3 (W1)

10. Popper’s worlds W2 (mental objects and events) __________________________ W3 (products of human mind)

11. Popper’s worlds: interaction W2 (mental objects and events) __________________________ ??? _________________________ W3 (products of human mind)

12. James Holmes (1988:72) There would seem to be three major kinds of research in DTS, which may be distinguished by their focus as product oriented, function-oriented, and process-oriented.

13. Holmes’ three major kinds of research process-orientedtranslation psychology W2 function-orientedtranslation sociology function product-orientedcomparative translation description W3

14. Holmes’ kinds of research & Popper’s worlds HOLMES:POPPER: process-oriented translation psychologyW2 function-oriented translation sociologyfunction? product-oriented comparative descriptionW3

15. Function Literary function is a variable notion of how texts (W3) are connected to the language (W3), its users (W2), and culture (functional space of W2-W3 interaction).

16. Function Literary function is a variable notion of how texts (W3) are connected to the language (W3), its users (W2), and culture (functional space of W2-W3 interaction). Function is a dynamic concept considering human agents (and texts produced by them) within cultural (society, ideology, politics, economy, etc.) context.

17. Interface 1 W2 ( mental objects and events ) _______________________ JH: function/sociology _______________________ W3 (products of human mind)

18. Interface 2 W2 (mental objects and events) ______________________ JH: function/sociology GT: parts/whole: functional relationship ______________________ W3 (products of human mind)

19. Interface 3 W2 (mental objects and events) ______________________ JH: function/sociology GT: parts/whole: functional relationship SWH: linguistic determinism/relativity ______________________ W3 (products of human mind)

20. Interface 4 W2 (mental objects and events) ___________________________ JH: function/sociology GT: parts/whole: functional relationship SWH: linguistic determinism/relativity RF: functional value-driven interaction ___________________________ W3 (products of human mind)

21. A ‘function space’ “A variable quantity regarded in its relation to one or more other variables in terms of which it may be expressed, or on the value of which its own value depends” (TOED, p. 263)

22. Scheme 1 W2 (mental objects and events) ___________________________ Function space ___________________________ W3 (products of human mind)

23. Scheme 2 W2 (I individual) W2 (I functional) ___________________________ Function space ___________________________ W3 (products of human mind)

24. W3: properties (1) W3 is autonomous (2) W3 is timeless (3) W3 has a history (4) W3 is internally logical

25. ‘institution’ (e.g., TOT, p. 225) establishment, institute, academy, foundation, university, college, school custom, tradition, habit, practice, routine, rule, order (of the day), code (of practice), doctrine, dogma

26. ‘institution’ (e.g., TOT, p. 225) establishment, institute, academy, foundation, university, college, school INSTITUTION custom, tradition, habit, practice, routine, rule, order (of the day), code (of practice), doctrine, dogma NORM

27. Scheme 3 W2 (I individual) W2 (I functional) ___________________________ Function space ___________________________ W3 (norms) W3 (institutions) W3 (texts)

28. Scheme 4 W2 (I individual) W2 (I functional) __________________________ FUNCTION SPACE ___________________________ ↑ W3 (norms) ↑ ↑ W3 (institutions) ↑ W3 (texts)

29. Scheme 5 W2 (I individual) ↓ W2 (I functional) ↓ __________________________ FUNCTION SPACE ___________________________ ↑ W3 (norms) ↑ ↑ W3 (institutions) ↑ W3 (texts)

30. Scheme 6 W2 (I individual) __________________________ W2 (I functional) W3 (norms) W3 (institutions) ___________________________ W3 (texts)

31. Ideology - culture Ideology is the set of ideas, values and beliefs that govern a community by virtue of being regarded as a norm. (Calzada-Pérez 1997:35) Culture is an integrated system of learned behavior patterns that are characteristic of the members of any given society. (Khol 1984:17)

32. Norms – ideology - culture NORMS ideology culture

33. NORMS (1)official standards or levels that organizations are expected to reach (2)ways of behaving that are considered normal in a particular society Synonyms: criterion pattern averageyardstick benchmarkrule

34. Scheme 7 W2 (I individual) __________________________ W2 (I functional) W3 (norms) W3 (institutions) ___________________________ W3 (texts)

35. Matrix of Translation Studies: Spaces Source nation A W2 (individual) Intercultural Space I/T Target nation R W2 (individual) Source culture W2 (functional) Function Space International relations Target culture W2 (functional) W3 (source norms) SN Function Space International norms W3 (target norms) TN W3 (institutions)Function Space International institutions W3 (institutions) W3 (source language) ST Interlinguistic SpaceW3 (target language) TT

36. Matrix of Translation Studies: Actors A I/T R SN TN ST TT

37. A paradigm: major features it is used by a group of researchers (social facet), who share the same conceptual values (theoretical facet) and the same rules and standards for scientific practice (empirical facet), and is open-ended (temporal facet).

38. James Holmes Translated! Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1988

39. James Holmes 1988 A I/T PROCESS R PROCESS SN FUNCTION TN FUNCTION ST PRODUCT TT PRODUCT

40. Theo Hermans Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 1999.

41. Theo Hermans 1999 A I/T R READER-ORIENTED SN CULTURE-BOUND TN CULTURE-BOUND ST TEXT-ORIENTED TT TEXT-ORIENTED

42. Albrecht Neubert “Theory and practice of translation studies revisited. 25 years of translator training in Europe.” In A. Beeby, D. Ensinger & M. Preasas, (Eds.), Investigating Translation. Selected Papers from the 4th International Congress on Translation, Barcelona, 1998 (pp. 13-26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000.

43. Albrecht Neubert 2000 A I/T R SN interdisciplinary TN interdisciplinary STcontrastive-linguisticstext-linguistic TT

44. Andrew Chesterman “A causal model for translation studies.” In M. Olohan (Ed.), Intercultural Faultness. Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textual and Cognitive Aspects (pp. 15-27). Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2000.

45. Andrew Chesterman 2000 A I/T PROCESS R PROCESS SN CAUSAL TN CAUSAL ST PRODUCT TT PRODUCT

46. Juliane House “How do we know when a translation is good?” In (eds: Steiner & Yallop) Exploring Translation and Multilingual Language Production: Beyond Content (pp. 127- 160). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2001.

47. Juliana House 2001 A I/T R RESPONSE-BASED NEO-HERMENEUTIC SN LITERATURE-ORIENTED FUNCTIONALISTIC POST-MODERNIST TN ST LINGUISTIC-ORIENTED TT LINGUISTIC-ORIENTED

48. Tarvi 2006 A I/T introspective accountability R readability SN applied: education applied: criticism applied: tools research benchmark policy communication discourse TN functionalist polysystem cultural ST linguistics text-linguistic acceptability TT

49. Problems discussed Is it possible to structure the field of translation studies? What might be a ‘unit’ of structuring the field? What might be the ‘center of gravity’ when delineating the field? In what way could theory help practice?

50. Problems to be discussed In what other ways is it possible to structure the field of translation studies? What other units of structuring the field can be suggested? What other ‘centers of gravity’ can be employed to structure the field? Do we need theoretical constructs to help practice?

51. A Map or a Matrix? ljuba.tarvi@elisanet.fi