1

8esearch skllls ln 1ranslaLlon SLudles: WhaL we need Lralnlng ln

AnLhony ym
LxLra-ordlnary rofessor
ueparLmenL of Afrlkaans and uuLch
unlverslLy of SLellenbosch
SouLh Afrlca

urafL 3.1. november 2012


AbsLracL: Analysls of evaluaLlve commenLs on research deslgns by docLoral sLudenLs can be used
Lo devlse a llsL of Lhe skllls ln whlch Lhe sLudenLs need Lralnlng. ln a sLudy coverlng some Len
years of Lhe docLoral program ln 1ranslaLlon and lnLerculLural SLudles aL Lhe unlverslLaL 8ovlra l
vlrglll ln 1arragona, Spaln, Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of Lhe evaluaLlve commenLs are found Lo lnvolve
general shorLcomlngs LhaL do noL parLlcularly concern 1ranslaLlon SLudles. 1hls would suggesL
LhaL research Lralnees do noL really need a docLoral program ln 1ranslaLlon SLudles. CLher
weaknesses sLem from Lhe relaLlvely undeveloped lnLellecLual poslLlon of 1ranslaLlon SLudles as
a dlsclpllne, especlally wlLh regard Lo unsLable Lermlnology, Lhe aLLrlbuLlon of auLhorlLy Lo oLher
dlsclpllnes, and Lendencles Lo dlsappear noL [usL lnLo phllosophlcal aporlas, buL also lnLo
lndlscrlmlnaLe daLa-gaLherlng and Lhe uncrlLlcal exLenslon of vocaLlonal values or professlonal
besL pracLlces. Some shorLcomlngs, however, would seem more germane Lo Lhe naLure of
LranslaLlon as an ob[ecL of knowledge. 1hls parLlcularly concerns Lhe problems of descrlblng
LranslaLlon quallLy and aLLempLs Lo poslLlon Lhe researcher as belng exLernal Lo Lhe lnLerculLural
processes belng lnvesLlgaLed. 1ranslaLlon researchers, lL ls argued, are necessarlly lnLerpreLlng
language ln a way slmllar Lo LranslaLors, operaLlng on Lhe borders beLween sLablllzlng sysLems.
1haL speclal poslLlon, whlch ls speclflc ln Lerms of degree raLher Lhan klnd, makes hermeneuLlc
work and crlLlcal self-reflecLlon baslc parLs of LranslaLlon research, and Lralnees need Lo develop
Lhe correspondlng awareness. Cn Lhe oLher hand, Lo llmlL oneself Lo emplrlcal and ofLen
poslLlvlsLlc meLhodologles from oLher dlsclpllnes would rlsk de-lnLellecLuallzlng Lhe way
researchers engage soclally and pollLlcally wlLh LranslaLlon.




l have been runnlng a docLoral program ln 1ranslaLlon SLudles ln 1arragona, Spaln, for very
nearly Len years, l am now reflecLlng on LhaL experlence wlLh a vlew Lo lnformlng Lhe docLoral
program ln 1ranslaLlon SLudles ln SLellenbosch, SouLh Afrlca.
Cver Lhose Len years ln 1arragona we have seen exacLly 100 sLudenLs enLer Lhe program
(ln recenL years Lhey sLarL ln Lhe research MasLers LhaL now lnlLlaLes Lhe program). AbouL one ln
Len of Lhose sLarLers wlll probably defend Lhelr docLoral dlsserLaLlon wlLhln flve years. 1haL low
raLe ls noL whaL parLlcularly worrles me, slnce Lhere are many real-world clrcumsLances LhaL
accounL for lL. WhaL concerns me far more ls Lhe hlgh percenLage of sLudenLs who seem noL Lo
have Lhe research skllls requlred Lo reach Lhelr goals (many of whom have Lhe noblllLy Lo drop
2
ouL) and Lhe conslderable number LhaL are sLlll lacklng research skllls even whlle Lhey wrlLe up
Lhelr flnal dlsserLaLlons. l suspecL we have noL been dolng a very good [ob.
1o come Lo Lerms wlLh Lhls slLuaLlon, l have been golng over all Lhe assessmenLs we
make of whaL we call Lhe sLudenLs' mlnor dlsserLaLlon", a 30,000-word research deslgn and
plloL sLudy LhaL Lhey have Lo presenL wlLhln Lwo years of beglnnlng Lhe program. We" here
refers Lo several examlners of Lhose pro[ecLs, Lhe maln ones belng Andrew ChesLerman, my laLe
and much regreLLed colleague ChrlsLopher ScoLL-1ennenL, lranz chhacker, Sen Colden and
myself. Some evaluaLlons were noLed from vldeo recordlngs of Lhe defense sesslons. l have
slmply [oLLed down Lhe maln negaLlve commenLs and l have Lhen arranged Lhem lnLo llsLs of
shorLcomlngs, wlLh llLLle concern for quanLlLaLlve analysls. 1haL arrangemenL, wlLh a few
suggesLed causes, ls whaL ls reporLed on ln Lhls paper. My wlder hope ls evenLually Lo converL
LhaL negaLlve llsL lnLo a poslLlve seL of skllls Lo be developed, wlLh ldeas on how Lo do Lhe
developlng. 8uL we are noL yeL Lhere.
1he overall exerclse ls noL as banal as lL sounds - lf l can lsolaLe skllls LhaL are somehow
speclflc Lo research on LranslaLlon (here lncludlng lnLerpreLlng and locallzaLlon), l mlghL have an
ldea of whaL 1ranslaLlon SLudles ls. And LhaL ls whaL ls really aL sLake.

!" #$%&'(%)*+,- '$/' 0% +%' (%+(1&+ 2&/+-3/'*%+ #'40*1-

unforLunaLely for mosL readers of Lhls LexL, Lhe exerclse has conflrmed my growlng susplclon
LhaL Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of Lhe mlsslng skllls have remarkably llLLle Lo do wlLh 1ranslaLlon SLudles.
1hls concerns qulLe elemenLary Lhlngs llke:

- aLLempLlng Lo cover enough maLerlal for Lwo dlsserLaLlons
- aLLempLlng Lo cover enough maLerlal for Lhree dlsserLaLlons
- aLLempLlng Lo cover enough maLerlal for four dlsserLaLlons
- chooslng a Loplc for whlch noL enough daLa ls avallable
- chooslng a Loplc for whlch noL enough sub[ecLs are avallable
- chooslng a Loplc for whlch daLa wlll cosL Loo much money and/or efforL
- dependlng on research meLhods ln whlch Lhe sLudenL has no Lralnlng (Lhe sLaLlsLlclan
wlll sorL lL ouL")
- chooslng a Loplc because lL sulLs Lhe daLa-gaLherlng Lool you wanL Lo use (Lhls mosLly
happens wlLh corpus llngulsLlcs, and more recenLly wlLh eye-Lracklng)
- Lackllng Loo many varlables for Loo few sub[ecLs
- sampllng ln an unconLrolled way
- bellevlng LhaL emplrlcal" means quanLlLaLlve only
- uslng value Lerms ln hypoLheses
- uslng caLegorles LhaL glve Lhe resulL before Lhe research ls done
- Laklng self-reporL daLa (quesLlonnalres and lnLervlews) aL face-value
- Laklng your own experlence as prlmary daLa and as sufflclenL meLhodology
- mlmlcklng Lhe ldeas of your supervlsor
- never quesLlonlng your poslLlon as an observer
- clLlng a loL of Lheory Lo sLaLe Lhe obvlous
- collecLlng a loL of daLa Lo sLaLe Lhe obvlous
- assumlng Lhere ls only one cause for a soclal effecL
- looklng for one Lhlng (e.g. expllclLaLlon) wlLhouL looklng for lLs opposlLe (e.g.
lmpllclLaLlon)
- assumlng Lhe only perLlnenL conLexLs are Lhe borders of a naLlon or a language
3
- bellevlng LhaL research lnvolves no more Lhan Lalklng abouL" a Loplc
- colnlng Lerms lnsLead of deflnlng concepLs.

And a long eLceLera. l could geL lnLo serlous Lrouble Lrylng Lo elaboraLe any one of Lhese, so leL
me puL Lhe llsL on hold and make Lhe baslc polnL: all of Lhese shorLcomlngs can concern any klnd
of research ln Lhe humanlLles, as meLhodology problems, Lhey are noL llmlLed Lo 1ranslaLlon
SLudles.
A clear consequence of Lhls would seem Lo be LhaL we do noL really need docLoral
programs ln 1ranslaLlon SLudles. Any baslc research-Lralnlng program should be able Lo address
Lhe above problems, so we could send our [unlor researchers Lo any baslc Lralnlng program,
ldeally one LhaL covers research meLhods for Lhe soclal sclences.
Such a move would be ln Lune wlLh Lhe poslLlon of Lhe Amerlcan 1ranslaLlon and
lnLerpreLlng SLudles AssoclaLlon (A1lSA 2008) when lL declares LhaL research on LranslaLlon does
noL requlre lLs own dlsclpllnary locaLlon: lL can be carrled ouL wlLhln LlngulsLlcs, LlLerary SLudles,
Soclology, whaLever, and may lndeed be beLLer when done wlLhln Lhose dlsclpllnary locaLlons.
1

1haL argumenL mlghL be relnforced by Lhe low quallLy of research done ln some 1ranslaLlon
SLudles programs ln Lurope - havlng a named academlc nlche wlll noL auLomaLlcally brlng
quallLy. AL Lhe same Llme, Lhe convenlence of Lhe argumenL could also parLly be explalned by
Lhe facL LhaL, Lo Lhe besL of my knowledge, ln Lhe unlLed SLaLes only one dlsserLaLlon has been
defended ln a docLoral program called anyLhlng llke 1ranslaLlon SLudles (alLhough dlsserLaLlons
on LranslaLlon have been carrled ouL ln any number of oLher programs, ln Modern Languages,
ComparaLlve LlLeraLure, LlngulsLlcs, Soclology, or CompuLer Sclences
2
). 1haL ls, Lhe A1lSA
members would seem Lo be bulwarklng Lhe dlsclpllnary locaLlons ln whlch Lhey Lhemselves were
Lralned and where Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of Lhem now work. And for LhaL maLLer, bad docLoral
research can and does happen anywhere. 8uL Lhe Amerlcan crlLlcs merlL a more subsLanLlal
response.
So why mlghL we sLlll wanL Lo have research Lralnlng speclflc Lo 1ranslaLlon SLudles? Are
Lhere any klnds of problems LhaL do lndeed concern LranslaLlon more Lhan anyLhlng else? lf so,
whaL klnds of research skllls are requlred Lo meeL Lhose problems?
Pere l move on Lo sllghLly more lnLeresLlng parLs of Lhe llsL.

5" 6-*+, 4+-'/731 '1&)-

Cne of Lhe surprlslng Lhlngs Lo emerge from my exerclse was Lhe number of Llmes Lhe
evaluaLors asked for clarlflcaLlon of some falrly baslc Lerms. 1hls concerns even a well-
esLabllshed concepL llke norm", whlch slnce 1oury (1993) has been more lmporLanL for
1ranslaLlon SLudles Lhan for any of our nelghborlng dlsclpllnes. no maLLer how much we mlghL
refer back Lo 1oury, each researcher sLlll has Lo sorL ouL wheLher norms are quallLaLlve, as ln
rules LhaL can be broken, or quanLlLaLlve, as ln paLLerns LhaL emerge when you counL seLs of
Lhlngs. lallure Lo do so ofLen resulLs ln sLrange mlxes of meLhodologles and clalms. 1he
unnervlng Lhlng, Lhough, ls LhaL Lhe faulL ls noL so much wlLh Lhe sLudenL researcher as wlLh a

1
We agree LhaL Lhe esLabllshmenL of docLoral programs ln LranslaLlon and lnLerpreLlng sLudles ls a hlghly
deslrable way Lo prepare fuLure researchers ln 1lS. Powever, evldence shows LhaL Lhls can also be successfully
accompllshed Lhrough docLoral programs ln relaLed flelds, as demonsLraLed by excellenL work ln 1lS done by
researchers Lralned Lhrough oLher Lypes of programs." (A1lSA 2008)
2
lor example, Claudla Angelelll's dlsserLaLlon !"#$%&'()#'*%+ '-" .%/*&*01" .%'"(2("'"( (2001) was carrled ouL ln
Lhe School of LducaLlon aL SLanford, LaureLLa Clough's 3(4%&14'*%+ 5*"((" 6$)(7*") (1998) was defended ln Lhe lrench
program aL Lhe unlverslLy of Maryland.
4
dlsclpllne LhaL has noL Laken enough Llme Lo form consensus around some qulLe fundamenLal
noLlons. 1he concepL of norms ls ln no way speclflc Lo LranslaLlon, of course - lL has a loL Lo do
wlLh LranslaLlon scholars as a group of people who, for a whlle, somehow LhoughL LhaL Lhls one
ldea was all Lhe soclology Lhey needed, and Lhey Lhus lnvesLed a whole loL of dlfferenL Lhlngs ln
lL.
CLher Lerms llke Lhls lnclude:

- expllclLaLlon", whlch ls used ln many dlfferenL senses and ls noL lnfrequenLly Laken Lo
mean explanaLlon" and someLlmes speclflcaLlon",
- LranslaLlon sLraLegles", whlch as a concepL has grown Lo Lhe polnL where lL lncludes Lhe
Lhlngs LranslaLors produce, Lhe ways Lhey produce Lhem, Lhe ways Lhey Lhlnk abouL
produclng Lhem, and Lhe Lhlngs Lhey generally alm Lo achleve,
- culLure-speclflc lLems", where no one ls Laklng Lhe Llme Lo say how Lhey can LesL Lhe
speclflclLy and/or prove Lhe llmlLs of a culLure (Lhese Lwo operaLlons mosLly form a
LauLology: we have Lhe same culLure for as long as a seL of culLure-speclflc Lhlngs are
shared by us),
- lnLenLlons", buL here we geL lnLo hermeneuLlc problems, whlch we wlll meeL below.

Many more examples could be added. ln all cases, Lhe shorLcomlng ls very probably more wlLh
Lhe dlsclpllne (or lack of lL) Lhan wlLh Lhe sLudenL. And Lhe qulck soluLlon ls probably Lo lnslsL
LhaL sLudenL researchers Lhlnk serlously abouL Lhe way '-"8 wanL Lo use Lhe Lerms (l.e. whlch
speclflc concepLs Lhey need Lo moblllze), and Lhen provlde Lhelr own worklng deflnlLlons. 1haL
ls, we cannoL requlre anyone Lo seL abouL learnlng Lhe meanlngs of Lechnlcal words (whaL ls
lacklng ls noL knowledge as such), we musL make Lhem reallze LhaL Lhe Lerms Lhemselves are ln
flux, auLhorlLy ls noL esLabllshed, and each researcher musL be moderaLely pro-acLlve ln Lhls
respecL.
Cf course, a longer-Lerm soluLlon should be for 1ranslaLlon SLudles Lo sLarL cleanlng up
lLs acL. 1hls means noL [usL collecLlng Lhe ways dlfferenL Lerms have been used (as ln
ShuLLleworLh and Cowle 1997 or alumbo 2009), buL also recommendlng a few usages along Lhe
way (as l have sLarLed Lo do ln ym 2011). 1here ls no need Lo lmpose flxed meanlngs for flxed
words, as lf we were already aL Lhe end of our dlsclpllne, ln a concepLual paradlse free of doubL,
debaLe, and dynamlsm, buL Lhere ls a need Lo reduce frulLless confuslon.
Cone are Lhe days when we could clalm Lhese were Lhe LeeLhlng problems of a young
dlsclpllne. We have grown moderaLely old, and our words are sLlll noL sLaylng puL.
A mlnor correlaLlve of Lermlnologlcal flux ls Lhe propenslLy among young researchers -
and Lhe noL-so-young - Lo lnvenL noL [usL new Lerms, whlch ls ofLen qulLe [usLlfled, buL Lo lnvenL
whole new avenues of research, noL lnfrequenLly [usLlfled as Lurns", comprlslng a bare word or
dlrecLlon, devold of ldenLlfled problems or clear dlscovery procedures. 1he raLe of Lhese Lurns ls
becomlng qulLe dlzzylng, and many of Lhem should be consldered sympLoms of raLher more
Lhan a Lermlnologlcal mess.


8" 9&*+,*+, /' 7*,,1& 0*-(*:3*+1-

MosL of Lhe Lurns" lnvolve a deslre Lo draw on lnslghLs or concepLs from oLher academlc
dlsclpllnes. 1he culLural Lurn" ran parallel Lo Lhe rlse of CulLural SLudles, Lhe soclal/soclologlcal
Lurn" ls baslcally a deslre Lo apply Lhe work of soclologlsLs, a performaLlve Lurn" Lakes us lnLo
erformance SLudles, and a hypoLheLlcal llngulsLlc re-Lurn" (vandeweghe eL al. 2007) would
5
brlng us back Lo yeL anoLher masLer dlsclpllne. now, Lhere ls noLhlng wrong wlLh drawlng on
oLher dlsclpllnes, lnLerdlsclpllnarlLy ls a very healLhy Lhlng. ?eL lL seLs Lraps for beglnners, who
occaslonally dlsappear lnLo qulcksands. Pere ls a shorLllsL of whaL can happen:

- 8ellevlng LhaL all dlsclpllnes say Lhe same Lhlng: lor example, 8habha's Lhlrd space" ln
osLcolonlal SLudles could sound llke 1urner and lauconnler's blended space" ln
cognlLlve llngulsLlcs, and LranslaLlon can posslbly be seen as pervadlng boLh concepLs, so
lL's all one blended mess. 8uL Lhe Lwo or Lhree dlsclpllnes are worklng on qulLe dlfferenL
klnds of problems, and deallng wlLh dlfferenL klnds of daLa. lf you are golng Lo Lhrow
such Lhlngs LogeLher, you musL also remaln acuLely aware of Lhelr dlfferences. Make
Lhem speak Lo each oLher, by all means, buL you cannoL say Lhey are all Lhe same Lhlng.
- laylng ln a dlfferenL league: 1he opposlLe Lo Lhe above ls Lo see one dlsclpllne's baLLles
as lnformlng all oLhers. lor example, a dlsserLaLlon LhaL defends cognlLlve llngulsLlcs
agalnsL Chomsky mlghL work ln LlngulsLlcs, buL lL ls noL saylng much ln 1ranslaLlon
SLudles. no maLLer how much you llke your fooLball Leam, you musL be aware LhaL lL ls
noL playlng ln all Lhe leagues aL Lhe same Llme.
- 8ellevlng Lhere ls only one represenLaLlve of a dlsclpllne. A varlanL on Lhe above ls Lo
Lake one fooLball Leam as lf lL were Lhe whole league. 1hus we see 8ourdleu belng used
as Lhe whole of soclology, or uerrlda as Lhe whole of phllosophy. 1hus unconLesLed,
Lhey are heralded lnLo 1ranslaLlon SLudles as bearers of esLabllshed LruLh.

ln all Lhese cases, Lhe remedy ls Lo ensure LhaL sLudenLs know a loL more abouL Lhe
dlsclpllnes Lhey are worklng wlLh, and LhaL Lhey are much more crlLlcal of Lhe apparenL auLhorlLy
wlLh whlch represenLaLlves of Lhose dlsclpllne are presumed Lo speak.
ln many such cases, Lhe fundamenLal problem mlghL be Lhe ldea LhaL 1ranslaLlon SLudles
baslcally has noLhlng of lLs own Lo offer, so any oLher dlsclpllne mlghL be beLLer (raLher llke Lhe
A1lSA poslLlon ouLllned above). 1hls bellef, whlch mlghL be well-founded, could also accounL for
a few furLher Lendencles Lo be appended here:

- ulsappearlng lnLo aporlas: SLudenLs approachlng LranslaLlon from Lhe perspecLlve of
ldeallsL phllosophy, anLl-ldeallsL phllosophy, poeLry and all polnLs ln-beLween
occaslonally sllp lnLo Lhe greaL cosmologlcal deserL of LranslaLlon belng lmposslble, or
everyLhlng belng LranslaLlon, or LranslaLors faclng dllemmas LhaL no one can resolve.
And so Lhelr research consLanLly repeaLs Lhe aporlas, slnce Lhere ls nowhere else Lo go.
- ulsappearlng lnLo daLa: 1he opposlLe of Lhe above ls Lo collecL daLa for daLa's sake,
somehow ln Lhe bellef LhaL Lhlngs should be collecLed lf and when Lhey have noL been
collecLed before. lor lnsLance, lL ls posslble Lo compare Lhe successlve drafLs of a
LranslaLlon, Lo see how a LranslaLor has worked. 8uL wlll LhaL ldenLlfy or address any
problem? Wlll lL flnd an lnLeresLed reader? SomeLhlng furLher ls requlred lf we are Lo
move beyond Ledlous descrlpLlvlsm.
3

- LxLendlng besL pracLlces: ln Lhe same way as some academlc dlsclpllnes are assumed
superlor and worLh lmlLaLlng, so some counLrles and culLures are accorded axlomaLlc
presLlge. 1hus we flnd, ln some research proposals, Lhe bellef LhaL besL pracLlces" have
been esLabllshed ln Lhe advanced posL-lndusLrlal economles (for example, ln locallzaLlon

3
An assoclaLed problem here ls Lhe Lendency Lo counL llngulsLlc lLems as lf Lhey were all of Lhe same value,
lmposlng quanLlLaLlve meLhods on lnLrlnslcally quallLaLlve daLa. lor example, when quanLlLaLlve corpus analysls shows
LhaL one LranslaLlon ls more llLeral Lhan anoLher, and yeL crlLlcal revlews all say Lhe opposlLe, who ls rlghL?
6
workflows, eLhlcs ln healLhcare lnLerpreLlng, or LexL-revlslon pracLlces), and Lhose besL
pracLlces should be lmplanLed everywhere else. 1hls becomes hlghly problemaLlc lf Lhe
researcher never asks whaL besL" means, why currenL pracLlces are dlfferenL, and why
dlfferenL socleLles mlghL raLlonally choose Lo dlsLrlbuLe Lhelr resources ln dlfferenL ways.
Pere we sLarL approachlng Lhe graln.
- LxLendlng vocaLlonal values: Slmllar Lo Lhe above, unquesLloned auLhorlLy mlghL be
placed ln values LhaL are key Lo Lhe varlous professlons we sLudy: Lhlngs llke efflclency,
producLlvlLy, aLLrlbuLlon of auLhorshlp, or llngulsLlc accuracy Lhus enLer as absoluLes,
slnce Lhey operaLe LhaL way ln professlonal llfe. 8esearch becomes an exLenslon of Lhe
LranslaLlon professlon, Laklng up poslLlons LhaL annlhllaLe Lhe researcher's crlLlcal
capaclLy and bllnd many noL only Lo Lhe values of non-professlonal or volunLeer
LranslaLlon, buL also Lo Lhe many good soclal alLernaLlves Lo LranslaLlon (sLarLlng from
language learnlng and code-swlLchlng).

ln all Lhese cases, lf you belleve LhaL 1ranslaLlon SLudles has noLhlng Lo offer, Lhen lL
cerLalnly 9*11 have noLhlng Lo offer. We mlghL as well be somewhere else: ln soclology, llLerary
sLudles, cognlLlve sclence, numbered lndex cards, Lhe plnnacles of global caplLallsm, or subllme
experL performance. ln all Lhese cases, shorLcomlngs ensue because 1ranslaLlon SLudles ls
assumed Lo have no problem of lLs own Lo solve.


;" 2$1 74,71/& %< =4/3*'>

ln our small corpus of crlLlcal commenLs, Lhe one Lerm LhaL keeps reappearlng ls quallLy".
1hls ls mosLly because Lhe word ls used ln an unquallfled way Lo descrlbe whaL a LranslaLlon
should be llke, and Lhls use ofLen happens ln maln hypoLheses (e.g. LranslaLor Lralnlng ls
lnadequaLe" or, sllghLly beLLer, presence of varlable x correlaLes wlLh beLLer LranslaLlons"). 1he
general shorLcomlng mlghL be descrlbed as follows:

- 8ellevlng LhaL LranslaLlon quallLy" ls self-evldenL.

1he remedy ls, as wlLh almosL everyLhlng else, for Lhe sLudenL Lo Lhlnk more, ln Lhls case
abouL whaL quallLy acLually means ln Lhe conLexL concerned, and how lL can be LesLed. ln mosL
research deslgns Lhls wlll lead Lo meLhodologles where quallLy ls noL measured dlrecLly by Lhe
researcher buL ls formulaLed by Lhe sub[ecLs who are belng sLudled. 1haL ls, quallLy becomes
whaL some people '-*%: quallLy ls. lL may be based on S1-11 slmllarlLy, on usablllLy of 11, on Lhe
LranslaLor followlng a seL of lnsLrucLlons and respecLlng a glossary, or on slmply meeLlng a seL of
expecLaLlons (see ChesLerman 2008, whlch ls a remarkably pedagoglcal vldeo). ln all Lhese cases,
quallLy becomes rlgorously noL self-evldenL - problem solved.
1he lssue of quallLy neverLheless merlLs speclal conslderaLlon here. 1he pecullar Lhlng ls noL
so much LhaL lL ls frequenLly menLloned ln our evaluaLlons, buL LhaL lL does noL seem Lo be such
a problem ln mosL of our nelghborlng dlsclpllnes, or aL leasL lL ls noL a problem ln Lhe same way.
A llngulsL would qulLe happlly look aL dlsLrlbuLlon ln a corpus or a sLrlng of sub[ecLlve [udgmenLs
ln order Lo descrlbe well-formedness, a llLerary scholar ls rarely called on Lhese days Lo acLually
evaluaLe Lhe worLh of a LexL (LhaL klnd of Lhlng ls for crlLlcs"), a serlous soclologlsL or
eLhnographer ls noL abouL Lo produce a hlerarchy of hlgh quallLy" socleLles or soclal groups. ln
sum, Lhe problem of quallLy ls someLhlng LhaL 1ranslaLlon SLudles has sLruggled wlLh ln a raLher
speclal and prolonged way. 1he reasons for Lhls mlghL be found ln some of Lhe reasons llsLed
7
above, parLlcularly ln whaL l have descrlbed as research Lrylng Lo exLend vocaLlonal values: slnce
LranslaLors are concerned wlLh produclng and defendlng quallLy, lL ls felL LhaL LranslaLlon
scholars should do Lhe same Lhlng, or agaln, slnce many scholars are also Leachers of LranslaLlon,
Lhe urge Lo correcL and lmprove ls poorly suppressed. 1hose mlghL be soclal or psychologlcal
reasons behlnd a speclal engagemenL wlLh quallLy, all of Lhem ensulng from whaL l have
descrlbed as a general dlsclpllnary crlnge. 8uL l Lhlnk lL ls worLh dlgglng a llLLle deeper.

?" @*0*+, '$1 :%-*'*%+ %< '$1 &1-1/&($1&

1he eplsLemologlcal problem here baslcally concerns Lhe bellef LhaL a plece of language has only
one flxed meanlng - Lhe meanlng Lo whlch a LranslaLlon can Lhen be more or less adequaLe.
1haL bellef mlghL be regarded as essenLlallsm". As such, lL has recelved masslve phllosophlcal
crlLlque for several generaLlons, from camps as apparenLly wlde aparL as deconsLrucLlon and
analyLlcal phllosophy. lf a researcher musL accepL LhaL a plece of language does noL have [usL
one flxed meanlng, Lhen all Lhe supposlLlons abouL self-evldenL quallLy fall down llke a house of
cards.
And yeL dlfferenL pleces of language do have dlfferenL degrees of semanLlc sLablllLy. lL ls
Lhus posslble Lo make [udgmenLs abouL Lhose pleces wlLh dlfferenL degrees of exLernallLy
(undersLood here as Lhe opposlLe of sub[ecLlve lnvolvemenL). MosL of Lhe meLhodologlcal
machlnery we have ln Lhe soclal sclences ls deslgned Lo supporL and enhance LhaL exLernallLy.
1hus we have Lhe flxed concepLs of a shared academlc dlsclpllne, we use Lerms LhaL are beyond
common parlance (Lhus glvlng us a dlsclpllne" ln every sense of Lhe word), we have Lhe
meLhodologles of surveys and lnLervlews, Lhe counLlng of Lhlngs, Lhe lmposlLlon of decepLlvely
rlgorous caLegorles wlLh supposedly clear dlvldlng crlLerla, and Lhe clLlng of oplnlons raLher Lhan
Lhe expresslng of our own. 1hls need for exLernallLy should explaln why young LranslaLlon
scholars Lend Lo aLLrlbuLe auLhorlLy Lo oLher dlsclpllnes llke LlngulsLlcs and Soclology: Lhose
dlsclpllnes look auLhorlLaLlve ln Lhelr apparenLly absoluLe exLernallLy (aL leasL unLll you meeL a
few llngulsLs and soclologlsLs). 1hls mlghL also explaln why some beglnner researchers
mlsLakenly assume LhaL our own Lerms are flxed and sLable, and why, for example, Lhe problem
of quallLy ls apparenLly solved by Lhe clLlng (Lhrough Lhe meLhodologlcal machlnery) of whaL
oLhers Lake quallLy Lo be. ln a sense, becomlng a dlsclpllne means assumlng exLernallLy. And Lhe
underlylng problem of 1ranslaLlon SLudles, as a seL of research skllls, would seem Lo be Lhe
dlfflculLy of assumlng LhaL exLernallLy.
1he repressed, however, reLurns. !usL as Lhe LranslaLlon scholar has Lo lnLerpreL source LexLs
and LranslaLlons, slnce boLh ln prlnclple have mulLlple posslble meanlngs, so any scholar has Lo
lnLerpreL any plece of daLa, lncludlng Lhe pronouncemenLs of apparenLly auLhorlLaLlve
dlsclpllnes. As 8ourdleu admlLLed (1980: 22-23), we need Lhe meLhodologlcal paraphernalla llke
quesLlonnalres and sLaLlsLlcs, Lhe besL weapons" developed by our predecessors, ln order Lo
promoLe Lhe llluslon of our own ob[ecLlvlLy (cf. ym 1993). 1he speclflclLy of LranslaLlon, l
propose, ls noL Lhe presence or absence of exLernallLy, buL Lhe helghLened 7"+("" Lo whlch our
exLernallLy ls problemaLlc. reclsely because we are worklng on LranslaLlons, preclsely because
we are Lhus consLanLly sLraddllng Lhe borders beLween sysLems of relaLlve sLablllLy, we are
especlally prone Lo meLhodologlcal problems lnvolvlng our sub[ecLlve poslLlon. 8ecause of Lhls
speclal locaLlon, Lhe underlylng shorLcomlng should be seen as Lhe faclle assumpLlon of
exLernallLy.
LeL me lllusLraLe Lhls brlefly wlLh Lwo cases from publlshed research, noL from docLoral
sLudenLs, who have no need Lo be exposed ln Lhls way.
8
1he flrsL one ls a crlLlque l am shamelessly rehashlng from elsewhere (ym 2007). lL
concerns a passage ln whlch Lhe rlnceLon rofessor Lmlly ApLer analyzes a pseudoLranslaLlon
by Lhe Amerlcan poeL kenneLh 8exroLh, who was lmlLaLlng !apanese eroLlc verse wrlLLen by
women. 1he pseudoLranslaLor 8exroLh lnvenLed a !apanese woman poeL named Marlchlko.
now, ApLer uses Lhe machlnery of LexL analysls and llLerary crlLlclsm Lo compare Lhe
pseudoLranslaLlon wlLh a poem by Lhe real !apanese woman poeL ?osano Aklko. 1he researcher
flnds LhaL Lhe sexual reallsm of Lhe Marlchlko LexLs Lo be more graphlc, more prone Lo
CrlenLallsL klLsch. [.] Cn close scruLlny Lhe Marlchlko poems fall aparL as credlble slmulaLlons of
!apanese women's wrlLlng" (2006: 218-219). 1haL ls, Lhe real" poem ls beLLer Lhan Lhe
pseudoLranslaLlon. 1haL would be accepLable enough as a plece of llLerary crlLlclsm.
unforLunaLely, ApLer goes on Lo make general polnLs abouL LranslaLlon, lapslng lnLo
unconLrolled Lheorlzlng: 1he revelaLlon of a LranslaLlonal false coln leaves Lhe reader aware of
Lhe dlmenslon of eplsLemologlcal scam or faked-up alLerlLy lnherenL ln all LranslaLlon", and Lhen
comes Lhe grand crlLlque: 1he LranslaLlon buslness ls geared Lo keeplng Lhls scam from vlew,
for lL wanLs Lo convlnce readers LhaL when lL markeLs an auLhor ln LranslaLlon, Lhe LranslaLed
LexL wlll be a Lruly servlceable sLand-ln for Lhe orlglnal" (2006: 220). So whaL could posslbly be
wrong here?
ApLer has based all of her analysls and crlLlque on Lhe assumpLlon LhaL Lhe non-
pseudoLranslaLlon, Lhe poem by Aklko, was auLhenLlc as !apanese women's wrlLlng". 1haL ls
where she has plnned her essenLlallsm and sLaked ouL her exLernallLy - &-" knows someLhlng
LhaL Lhe LranslaLlon lndusLry" apparenLly does noL. Cf course, Lhe poem by Aklko was a
LranslaLlon (ApLer does noL Lackle any !apanese), and was of course LranslaLed by 8exroLh (Lhe
same man who penned Lhe apparenLly lnferlor pseudoLranslaLlon). So Lhe enLlre crlLlque of
LranslaLlon as belng a false scam ls based on a LranslaLlon LhaL ls accepLed as havlng auLhenLlc
value. And ApLer apparenLly never saw Lhe problem. She LhoughL her poslLlon as a reader was
somehow above Lhe worklngs of LranslaLlon lLself.
My second example concerns research on mlsLranslaLlons ln a Spanlsh courL. 1ayslr Alony,
an Al-!azeera reporLer born ln Syrla and naLurallzed Spanlsh, lnLervlewed Csama bln Laden afLer
Lhe 9/11 aLLacks. Pe was laLer accused ln Spaln of collaboraLlng wlLh a LerrorlsL organlzaLlon,
and Lhe accusaLlon was parLly based on LranslaLlons of Laped Lelephone conversaLlons. Anne
MarLln and MusLapha 1albl (2010) have analyzed several examples from Lhose LranslaLlons,
uslng Lhem Lo crlLlclze - very correcLly - Lhe generally poor sLaLus of LranslaLors and lnLerpreLers
ln Lhe Spanlsh [usLlce sysLem. lor example, Lhey flnd LhaL Lhe Lerm abu shabab", whlch we are
Lold means maLe" or frlend" ln Lhe Aleppo reglon of Syrla, was rendered ln Spaln as leader of
a group of young people" (slnce ln general Arablc abu" means faLher" and shabab" means
group of people"). So when Alony was called abu shabab" ln a Laped conversaLlon, Lhls was
mlsLakenly consLrued as evldence LhaL he was Lhe leader of a LerrorlsL cell. So far, so good - or
so bad. 1he researchers Lhen argue LhaL whaL clearly shows Lhe framlng of Lhls word &-4040 ln
Lerms of Lhe 'Cuerra conLra el 1errorlsmo' ls Lhe serles of quesLlons asked by Lhe [udge and
flscal: lmmedlaLely afLer quesLlons abouL Lhe young men, Lhere come Lhe quesLlons 'WhaL ls
!lhad for you?' and 'WhaL does Al Caeda mean?'" (2010: 220). 1haL ls, Lhe mlsLranslaLlon
lnformed Lhe [udge's quesLlons ln Lhe Lrlal, creaLlng a cllmaLe of gullL" LhaL was made Lo flL Lhe
uS ldeology of a War agalnsL 1error. ln more general Lerms, LranslaLlon funcLloned here as
slLuaLlon managemenL" or selecLlve approprlaLlon", serlously compromlslng [usLlce.
So whaL could posslbly be wrong wlLh Lhls research? noLhlng aL all ls wrong wlLh Lhe
researchers' good lnLenLlons. And noLhlng ls parLlcularly ouLrageous wlLh Lhelr essenLlallsL
readlng of Lhe Arablc fragmenLs, even Lhough LhaL undersLandlng ls parLlcularly parLlsan ln
9
conLexL: Lhe proposed meanlng of abu shabab" would lndeed appear Lo be sLable enough.
4
And
one could scarcely complaln abouL Lhe lnevlLable one-sldedness of Lhe research process: slnce
nelLher of Lhe researchers ls from Syrla, and nelLher had access Lo Lhe orlglnal Lapes of Lhe
conversaLlons (Lhe Lapes were mysLerlously losL by Lhe Spanlsh [usLlce sysLem), Lhelr mosL llkely
rouLe Lo Lhe sLable meanlng of Lhe LexLs was Lhrough Lhe defendanL, slnce Alony hlmself, who
had worked as a LranslaLor, had Lhe bad LranslaLlons publlcly quesLloned and evenLually had
Lhem Lhrown ouL of courL. 1he researchers are lnevlLably elaboraLlng Lhe LruLh of Lhe accused -
Lhey expllclLly acknowledge Lhe help recelved from Alony's aLLorney and wlfe. A cerLaln
parLlsanshlp was Lhus unavoldable (you seek help where help ls avallable). 1here ls noLhlng aL all
wrong wlLh LhaL.
1he problem, however, comes when Lhe researchers assume LhaL Lhe [udge's quesLlons,
whlch could concelvably be seen as much-needed checks on Lhe veraclLy of Lhe dlsasLrous
LranslaLlons, were ln facL qulLe Lhe opposlLe: here Lhose quesLlons are wlllfully lnLerpreLed as
evldence of Lhe way Lhe LranslaLlons, desplLe belng dlscounLed, shaped Lhe course of Lhe Lrlal.
1here was apparenLly [usL Lhe one cllmaLe of gullL", whlch was framed by [usL Lhe one War on
1error". 1haL ls where Lhe researchers have plnned Lhelr meLhodologlcal essenLlallsm, LhaL ls
where Lhey have sLaked ouL a slmpllsLlc exLerlorlLy, LhaL ls where Lhey have precarlously
assumed LhaL an lnLernally complex sysLem speaks and acLs wlLh [usL one volce, wlLh [usL one
lnLenLlon. lndeed, LhaL ls where blnary caLegorlzaLlon (lnnocenL accused here, gullLy sysLem
Lhere), as ln so much engaged narraLlve crlLlque, ln facL glves Lhe flndlng before Lhe research ls
done. An uLLerance on one slde (abu shabab") ls worLh lnvesLlgaLlng ln conLexLual deLall,
uLLerances on Lhe oLher slde (Lhe courLroom quesLlons) merlL no such conslderaLlon. And slnce
Lhe auLhors sLarL from LhaL ldeologlcal dlvlde, no credlL ls glven Lo Lhe [usLlce sysLem for havlng
evenLually recognlzed Lhe mlsLranslaLlons, no evldence ls glven for Lhe blunL assumpLlon LhaL
Lhe only perLlnenL conLexL was Lhe uS-led War on 1error
3
, a frame LhaL mlghL acLually have
more Lo do wlLh Lhe place where Lhe researchers flrsL publlshed Lhelr work, as parL of a group of
acLlvlsL researchers worklng on acLlvlsL LranslaLlon.
6

1he purely meLhodologlcal faulL ls noL Lo apply Lhe same hermeneuLlcs Lo sLaLemenLs on
boLh sldes. lL ls a faulL because lL compromlses any lllusory LrusLworLhlness of Lhe research, and
Lhus lLs capaclLy Lo acL upon Lhe sysLem lL Lalks abouL. now, [ournallsLs are Lralned Lo seek boLh
sldes of a sLory and Lo use Lhe same meLhods each Llme - LhaL would surely have been Lhe besL
[usLlflcaLlon for anyone Lo lnLervlew Csama bln Laden. 1hese LranslaLlon researchers seem noL
Lo have been lnLeresLed ln any such openlng Lo dlalogue.
ln Lhls case, Lhere ls no comforLable exLerlorlLy: Lhe researchers were lnevlLably lnvolved ln
Lhe ob[ecL of sLudy, as lndeed was Alony. noLe LhaL an experL from Lhe unlverslLy of Cranada
(Lhe same unlverslLy as one of Lhe researchers) was called ln Lo commenL on Lhe laughable

4
My own lnformanL from Lhe Aleppo reglon sLaLes LhaL abu shabab" ls used ln Lhe way LhaL a respecL-fllled
maLe" mlghL be used ln Cockney or AusLrallan Lngllsh.
3
1he Lerm War on 1error" Lelllngly has no flxed LranslaLlon lnLo Spanlsh: Lhe Cuerra conLra el 1errorlsmo"
referred Lo by Lhe researchers mlghL also be seen as Lhe long-sLandlng Spanlsh flghL agalnsL Lerrorlsm" from 8asque
lndependenL movemenL, as lndeed mlghL Lhe laws under whlch Alony was prosecuLed. A culLure whose [udlclal
sysLem and procedures daLe back Lo Lhe lnqulslLlon has no need Lo lmporL all lLs lgnomlnlous lgnorance of alLerlLy.
6
MarLln and 1albl flnlsh Lhelr arLlcle by clLlng Marla 1ymoczko, LranslaLlon ls a parLlsan acLlvlLy", and Lhey mlghL
happlly add LhaL LranslaLlon research ls also a parLlsan acLlvlLy. Powever, Lhey are clearly uncomforLable wlLh ouLrlghL
parLlsanshlp by LranslaLors ln Lhe [usLlce sysLem: Lhey do reproduce Lhe ldeal of a falLhful LranslaLlon" (as noL belng
Lhe same Lhlng as a llLeral LranslaLlon") and Lhey sLaLe LhaL neuLrallLy ls complex", wlLhouL ever acLually saylng LhaL
lL ls lmposslble (as l suspecL Lhey should). lf you radlcally belleve LhaL all aLLempLs aL neuLrallLy merely reproduce Lhe
domlnanL dlscourse of Lhe domlnanL soclal powers" (2010: 224), Lhen you should probably noL parLlclpaLe ln any
[usLlce sysLem and you should sLarL planLlng bombs. More LhoughL ls requlred.
10
LranslaLlons, and Lhe ensulng publlc crlLlclsm was probably Lhe reason why Lhe [usLlce sysLem
pald lmpeccable aLLenLlon Lo LranslaLors and lnLerpreLers aL Lhe Lrlals LhaL followed Lhe 2004
Madrld Lraln bomblngs (as Lhe researchers do lndeed recognlze). CrlLlclsm and research ls parL
of Lhe LranslaLlon lnsLlLuLlon, we are *% Lhe ob[ecL of sLudy. ln facL, crlLlcal reflecLlon could have
Laken Lhe researchers furLher ln Lhls sense. lf Lhey had consldered Lhe demographlc reasons why
many LranslaLors and lnLerpreLers worklng for Lhe [usLlce sysLem are mosLly unLralned, Lhey
mlghL have reallzed LhaL very few Lralnlng programs are easlly accesslble Lo Lhose
paraprofesslonals ln Lhe language comblnaLlons requlred, and LhaL parL of any fuLure
lmprovemenL musL lnvolve Lhe very Lralnlng lnsLlLuLlons ln whlch Lhe researchers work. lnsLead
of recognlzlng Lhls lmpllcaLlon, here we have one-slded condemnaLlon. no aLLempL ls made Lo
declde wheLher Lhls ls a case of LranslaLorlal lncompeLence or lnqulslLorlal manlpulaLlon - lL ls
boLh, apparenLly, and aL Lhe same Llme, slnce only Lhe researchers' slde knows and appreclaLes
Lhe moLlvaLlons behlnd courLroom quesLlons, and all else ls global lgnorance. ln Lhls case, Lhe
researchers Lhemselves are LransparenLly engaglng ln slLuaLlon managemenL and selecLlve
approprlaLlon - Lhelr essenLlallsL lnLerpreLaLlon of Lhe [udge's quesLlons ls no more neuLral Lhan
are Lhe errors made by Lhe LranslaLors and [udlclal offlclals whose work Lhey rlghLly lamenL.
(l Lake Lhls example from Spaln so as noL Lo presume Lo know abouL SouLh Afrlca. 8uL lL
should be very clear LhaL lf you are dolng research on LranslaLlon Lo or from Afrlkaans, or any
oLher offlclal language of SouLh Afrlca, you are lmmedlaLely parL of culLural pollLlcs: LranslaLors
and researchers are boLh ln Lhe same deparLmenL, wlLh Lhe same Lralnlng, and are ofLen Lhe
same person - Lhe lllusory comforL of exLernallLy ls slmply noL avallable.)
Pow should researchers avold Lhese meLhodologlcal plLfalls? 8eyond a very baslc eLhlcs of
respecL for Lhe oLher, Lhe skllls Lo be developed, l suggesL, lnvolve an acuLe and subLle capaclLy
for self-reflecLlon and self-crlLlque, whlch should be parL-and-parcel of openness Lo research as
a collecLlve creaLlon of knowledge. 1hose skllls should exLend well beyond Lhe expandlng arL of
wrlLlng research as propaganda.


9%+(34-*%+A B$/' C1 +110 '&/*+*+, *+

1he long llsL of shorLcomlngs, many of Lhem qulLe fundamenLal, probably suggesLs we need Lralnlng
ln everyLhlng. Cf course, noL all researchers need all Lhe skllls, and many of Lhe problems can be
solved by sendlng docLoral sLudenLs Lo general Lralnlng programs ln Lhe soclal sclences (lf and when
such programs are avallable).
AL Lhe same Llme, l have argued LhaL Lhe problems of LranslaLlon research are parLlcularly
marked by lssues of quallLy, by a helghLened degree of culLural relaLlvlsm, and by Lhe need Lo
reflecL on any apparenL exLernallLy. ln shorL, LranslaLlon research, by lLs very naLure, requlres a
sLrong hermeneuLlc componenL (lf we can recuperaLe Lhe full eLhlcal and pollLlcal dlmenslons of
whaL LhaL means).
1he A1lSA crlLlque of docLoral programs ln 1ranslaLlon SLudles clalmed LhaL

[.] many of Lhe more "LradlLlonal" programs ln 1lS [1ranslaLlon and lnLerpreLlng
SLudles], lncludlng many of Lhose exlsLlng ln Lurope, have unforLunaLely lsolaLed
Lhemselves from relevanL research and Lheory ln oLher dlsclpllnes. lor Lhls reason, many
sLudenLs graduaLlng from Lhese programs are unprepared Lo conducL Lhe rlgorous,
prlnclpled research essenLlal Lo lnformlng and growlng Lhe fleld of LranslaLlon and
lnLerpreLlng sLudles. [.] CraduaLlng 1S hus who are unable Lo produce work LhaL
meeLs Lhe general sLandards of oLher flelds can do more harm Lo 1S Lhan noL produclng
11
Lhem. (2008)

1hose are flghLlng words, Lhey merlL a vlgorous reply. When A1lSA refers Lo rlgorous,
prlnclpled research" and Lhe general sLandards of oLher flelds", Lhey somehow assume LhaL
research ls Lhe one Lhlng, across Lhe board, ln any dlsclpllne. 1o a degree, Lhey are qulLe rlghL:
Lhe vasL ma[orlLy of our shorLcomlngs do lndeed concern Lhe Lransgresslng of general sclenLlflc
prlnclples and a fallure Lo meeL wldely accepLed sLandards: everyLhlng ln Lhe flrsL Lhree secLlons
above would fall lnLo LhaL wlde baskeL. AL Lhe same Llme, however, lf Lhe parLlcular poslLlon of
LranslaLlon research wlLh respecL Lo quallLy, relaLlvlLy and exLernallLy ls noL recognlzed - LhaL ls,
lf all research ls slmply a quesLlon of meeLlng general sLandards" lnherlLed from poslLlvlsL
behavlorlsm - Lhen Lhe Amerlcan crlLlque rlsks radlcally de-lnLellecLuallzlng 1ranslaLlon SLudles,
reduclng a dynamlc and soclally engaged dlsclpllne Lo an affalr of sLandardlzed daLa-processlng.


D(E+%C310,1)1+'-

Many Lhanks Lo Andrew ChesLerman, Carlos 1elxelra and LaureLLa Clough for commenLs on
earller drafLs of Lhls LexL.



F1<1&1+(1-

A1lSA. 2008. SLaLemenL on hu Lralnlng ln 1ranslaLlon and lnLerpreLlng SLudles. november 14,
2008: hLLp://groups.yahoo.com/group/lLlL/message/2033. Accessed March 2012.
8ourdleu, lerre. 1980. une sclence qul derange". lnLervlew wlLh lerre 1hullller, ;4 <"#-"(#-"
112 (!une 1980). 8eprlnLed ln =)"&'*$%& 7" &$#*$1$+*". arls: MlnulL. 19-36.
ChesLerman, Andrew. 2008. luncLlonal quallLy". vldeo lecLure aL
hLLp://www.facebook.com/vldeo/vldeo.php?v=1082863408296. Accessed March 2012.
MarLln, Anne and MusLapha 1albl. 2010. 1raduccln e lnLerpreLacln pollclal en conLexLos
pollLlzados: Ll caso de 1ayslr Alouny". !ulle 8oerl and Carol Maler (eds) >$?2($?*&$ &$#*41
8 '(47)##*@%A*%'"(2("'4#*@% B3(4%&14'*$%A.%'"(2("'*%+ 4%7 C$#*41 D#'*/*&?. Cranada: LCCS.
214-223. Lngllsh verslon as CourL LranslaLlon and lnLerpreLlng ln Llmes of Lhe 'War on
1error': 1he case of 1ayslr Alony", 3(4%&14'*$% E .%'"(2("'*%+ 4/1 (2012): 77-98.
hLLp://www.Lrans-lnL.org/lndex.php/LranslnL/arLlcle/vlew/194. Accessed november 2012.
age references hereln are Lo Lhe Spanlsh verslon.
alumbo, Cluseppe. 2009. F"8 '"(?& *% 3(4%&14'*$% C')7*"&. London and new ?ork: ConLlnuum.
ym, AnLhony. 1993. Luropean 1ranslaLlon SLudles, )%" &#*"%#" G)* 7H(4%+", and Why
Lqulvalence needn'L 8e a ulrLy Word", 33< 8/1: 133-176.
ym, AnLhony. 2007. 8evlew of Lmlly ApLer 1he 1ranslaLlon Zone. A new ComparaLlve
LlLeraLure. 34(+"' 19/1:177-182.
ym, AnLhony. 2011. 1ranslaLlon research Lerms - a LenLaLlve glossary for momenLs of
perplexlLy and dlspuLe". ln AnLhony ym (ed.) 3(4%&14'*$% <"&"4(#- 5($I"#'& J. 1arragona:
lnLerculLural SLudles Croup. 73-99.
ShuLLleworLh, Mark, and Molra Cowle. 1997. !*#'*$%4(8 $K 3(4%&14'*$% C')7*"&. ManchesLer: SL
!erome.
1oury, Cldeon. 1993. !"&#(*2'*/" 3(4%&14'*$% C')7*"& 4%7 0"8$%7. AmsLerdam and hlladelphla:
8en[amlns.
12
vandeweghe, Wllly, Sonla vandeplLLe, Marc van de velde. 2007. lnLroducLlon: A LlngulsLlc '8e-
Lurn' ln 1ranslaLlon SLudles?". 6"1+*4% L$)(%41 $K ;*%+)*&'*#& 21/1: 1-10.