informations bibliographiques

et lexicographiques
bibliographical and
lexicographical information

Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies, Theories and Applica-

tions, Second edition. XV + 236 pp. ISBN 978–0-415-39694‑3. Routledge,
2008; 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abington, Oxon OX14 4RN. United
Kingdom.

Reviewed by Mohammad  Majed Mousli, Ph.D. Applied Linguistics,

E-mail: mmmousli@hotmail.com

This new edition, according to the author, follows the basic structure of the first
edition (Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, Munday, J.,
(2001)), updates references, includes a description of important new material and
provides a critical balanced survey of many of the most important trends in the
development of translation (2008: 1). The author also states that his book has been
designed to serve as a ‘course book’ for undergraduate, postgraduate translation,
translation studies and translation theory students and professional translators
(ibid: 2).
Each of the book’s eleven chapters is self-standing. The book’s material covers
issues, topics and trends in the development of ‘translation studies’ and ‘theories’,
and chapter twelve has been allocated for the ‘concluding remarks’ (descriptions
to follow). The book’s design, issues and topics were selected to reflect on a wide
range of translation subject matters, and its material has been introduced with the
objectives in mind to familiarize the reader, firstly with the key concepts in focus,
and secondly by referring to the key texts and references. Discussions were pro-
vided in the form of pro and adverse arguments and summaries, and the issues’
research major points have been formulated in questions, which were put to the
reader in argumentative statements. Those centre on encouraging the carrying out
of research and producing translations for practicing objectives. The book also
provides a good list of an up-to-date bibliography, and an index.
Chapter 1 (Main issues of translation studies, pp. 4–17) starts by accounting
for the introduction of key ‘translation concepts’, such as those relating to Jacob-
son’s (1959) three linguistic aspects of translation; namely: (1) the ‘intra-lin-
gual translation’, (2) ‘inter-lingual translation’, and (3) ‘inter-semiotic translation’
(1959/2004: 139; cited in Munday 2008: 4). This is followed by accounting for the
Babel 55: 3 (2009), 288–301.  © Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel
doi 10.1075/babel.55.3.06mou  issn 0521–9744  e-issn 1569–9668
 Bibliographical and lexicographical information 289

historical ­development of the ‘discipline of translation studies’ by tracing back the

translation practicing roots starting at ‘Cicero’s translation work in the first cen-
tury B. C.’, the ‘grammar translation method’ from the late eighteenth century to
the 1960s, the ‘contrastive translation application’ (Vinay and Darbelnet 1958),
Nida’s 1964 ‘kernel analysis’, ‘formal’ and ‘dynamic equivalence’ and his ‘linguistic
oriented approach’ (based on Chomsky’s ‘transformation grammar theory’), and
other published studies, which preceded ‘Holmes’s (1972; 1988/2004: 181) paper
(in relation to introducing ‘translation studies’ as a discipline).
Holmes’s (1972) paper, according to the author and other’s views, sets the
theoretical framework and objectives of ‘translation studies’ as a ‘discipline’ in its
own right. These objectives draw on considering two research areas for transla-
tion; namely the ‘pure’ areas of research and the ‘applied’ aspect of ‘translation
studies’, which includes: ‘translator’s training’, ‘translation aids’ and ‘translation
criticism’. The same chapter also surveys the development of ‘translation studies’
since the 1970s. This period has witnessed the evolvement of ‘translation stud-
ies’. According also to the author, this comprises the current status of multi-facets
‘translation studies’ research (in their wide spectrum), which has been marked by
a shrinking focus on ‘contrastive translation’ analysis. The linguistic-oriented ‘sci-
ence of translation’ has continued [mainly in Germany] through ‘discussing the
validity of the concept of ‘equivalence’’ (Munday 2008: 13). The same period also
has been marked by the rise of theories centred on the issues of ‘text-types’, ‘text-
purpose’ and the influence of ‘discourse analysis’ in relation to the ‘systemic func-
tional grammar’, the ‘manipulation of literature’ in relation to the study of ‘liter-
ary translation’, and the rise of approaching translation from ‘inter-disciplinarily’
­perspectives.
Chapter 2 (Translation theory before the twentieth century, pp. 18–35) surveys
the history of practicing translation, which covers a period of nearly 2000 years,
in which translation have evolved to its current entity as a ‘discipline’ in its own
right. This background is about practicing translation in its form of rendering a
TT by translating word-for-word (‘literal’), sense-for-sense (‘free’) and/or in trans-
lating faithfully from one language into another. The same also accounts for slic-
es of the translation history of China, the Arab World and the Western societies
(translating the Bible). Special attention has been granted, within the provided
case studies, to discuss the translation ‘metalanguage’ in its development; such as
those relating to the terms ‘loyalty’, ‘faithfulness’, ‘accuracy’, ‘meaning’, ‘style’ and
‘translation assessment criteria’.
The author states in chapter 3 (Equivalence and equivalent effect, pp. 36–54)
that for the message to be ‘equivalent’ in ST and TT ‘the code-units will be dif-
ferent since they belong to different sign systems (languages) which partition
reality differently…’ (2008: 37). In the same chapter, the author accounts for the
290 Informations bibliographiques et lexicographiques

development of the use of ‘equivalence’ as a term, assuming/based on relating to

an existing ‘equivalence’ as a concept. This starts with discussing Nida’s suggest-
ed concepts (in ‘Toward a Science of Translating’ (1964)) of the ‘linguistic mean-
ing’, ‘referential meaning’ and ‘emotive meaning’. This discussion has been con-
cluded in that Nida’s work ‘is aimed above all at training translators who do not
have expertise in linguistics’ (2008: 52). In the discussion, the author also draws
on Nida and Taber’s (1969) concepts of ‘formal equivalence’ and ‘dynamic equiv-
alence’, and the issues of ‘communicative translation’ [by referring to Newmark
1981], which presumes producing on the TT’s reader an effect ‘as close as possible
to that obtained on the reader of the ST’ (Newmark 1981: 39; cited in Munday
2008: 44). Furthermore on the issues of ‘equivalence’, the author quotes Koller’s
(1979) notions in regard to Korrespondenz und Äquivalenz (1979: 89, 99–104 and
186–91; cited in Munday 2008: 46–7).
In chapter 4, the author surveys the issues of studying translation prod-
uct and process (2008: 55–70). He discusses and refers to two major works, that
of ­Vinay and Darbelnet (1958 and 1995) (which is about the taxonomy in ‘sty-
listique’ by comparing French and English translations), and that of Catford’s
(1965) ‘linguistic approach’ (by referring to the term ‘translation shift’). In rela-
tion to ‘stylistique’, the author accounts for two ‘strategies’: (1) what ‘direct trans-
lation’ stands for, and (2) what ‘oblique translation’ is about (suggested by Vinay
and Darbelnet 1995: 30–42; cited in Munday 2008: 56). Strategy 1 covers the top-
ics of ‘borrowings’, ‘calque’ and ‘literal translation’, where 2 covers ‘transposi-
tion’ (‘obligatory’ or ‘optional’), modulation, equivalence and adaptation (Mun-
day 2008: 56–8). The author also quotes those two researchers in their outlining
five steps for the translator to follow, namely: ‘(1) identify the units of translation,
(2) examine the SL text and evaluating content of units, (3) reconstruct the meta-
linguistic context of the message, (4) evaluate the stylistic effects, and (5) produce
and revise the TT’ (Vinay and Darbelnet 1995: 30–1; cited in Munday 2008: 59).
The author’s account on the ‘linguistic approach’ (suggested by Catford (1965))
relates to the topics of the analyses of language as a ‘communication’ and ‘func-
tionally in context’ aspects, which to be applied at a range of different linguis-
tic levels (‘phonology’, ‘graphology’, ‘grammar’ and ‘lexis’, Catford 1965: 20). Dis-
cussed also were Catford’s (1965) concepts of ‘formal correspondent’ and ‘textual
equivalent’ (1965: 27), and the two kinds of shifts: (1) ‘shift of level’ and (2) ‘shift
of category’ (1965: 75–82). In relation to the issue of ‘cognitive process of trans-
lation’ the author quotes Bell’s (1991: 43) notion in terms of focussing ‘on the de-
scription of the ‘process’ and/or the ‘translator’ (Munday 2008: 63). The same
issue has been also discussed in relation to the ‘interpretive model’ as in: ‘under-
standing’, ‘de-verbalization’ and ‘re-expression’ (Seleskovitch and Lederer 2003:
23–42; cited in Munday 2008: 63). He also discusses the application of the ‘rele-
 Bibliographical and lexicographical information 291

vance theory’ to translation (suggested by Gutt 1991/2000) in relation to ‘infer-

ence’ and ‘interpretation’ of the ST (Munday 2008: 63–4).
In chapter 5 (Functional theories of translation, pp. 71–88) the author discuss-
es the issues of ‘equivalence’ in relation to ‘text level’ and ‘text-type characteris-
tics’ as in: (1) ‘informative’, (2) ‘expressive’, (3) ‘operative’ and (4) ‘audio-medial’
(Munday 2008: 72). He also deals with the issues of the ‘integrated approach’ to
study and analyse translation (ibid. 75), the ‘translational action’ (with a particu-
lar attention to the ‘translation purpose’) (ibid. 77), the ‘Skopos theory’ (where the
purpose determines the translation methods and its validity for non-literary texts
(ibid. 79 and 81), and the ‘functional’ concepts of ‘documentary translation’ and
‘instrumental translation’ (within the context of message transmitting).
Chapter 6 (Discourse and register analysis approaches, pp. 89–106) has been
allocated to the discussion of trends in ‘translation studies’ to approach transla-
tion from ‘discourse and register analysis’ perspectives (based on the Hallidayan
systemic functional linguistics, the communicative function of text and its rele-
vant socio-cultural context). Discussed also were the issues of ‘translation model
profile’ of the ST and its application to the TT. This has been related to the con-
cepts of ‘overt translation’ and ‘covert translation’ (Munday 2008: 93).
In Chapter 7 (Systems theories, pp. 109–23) the author surveys the issues re-
lating to ‘literature translation’ and the ‘manipulation school’. He quotes Genzler
(2001) saying that the ‘advantages’ of the ‘poly-system theory’ are: (1) literature it-
self is studied alongside the social and cultural forces, (2) studying the texts with-
in the ‘cultural and literary systems’ in which it functions, and (3) the definitions
of ‘equivalence’ and ‘adequacy’ allows for variation (Genzler 2001: 118–20, cited
in Munday 2008: 109). The author also discusses the issues of ‘translation norms’
(‘product norms’ and ‘professional norms’) and ‘translation laws’ (2008: 117–18).
Chapter 8 (Cultural and ideological turns, pp. 124–41) has been allocated to
discuss extreme notions in ‘translation studies’, such as that, which ‘dismisses the
kinds of linguistic theories of translation’ (Bassnett and Lefevere 1990: 4, cited in
Munday 2008: 124–5), and which considers ‘translation’ a ‘rewriting’ linguistic ac-
tivity (Bassnett and Lefevere 1990: 9; cited in Munday 2008: 125 -7). Other such
extreme views were suggested for example by Niranjana (1992), who questions the
‘Western orientation of translation studies’ (1992: 48–9), Simon’s (1996) ‘transla-
tion and gender’ (1996: ix), and Spivak’s (1993/2004) view in relation to the ‘post-
colonialism’ translations (1993/2004: 371–2; cited in Munday 2008: 131–2).
In chapter 9 (The role of the translator: visibility, ethics and sociology, pp. 142–
61) the author discusses within the context of the Anglo-American culture the
political and cultural agenda of translation. He quotes Venuti’s (1998) notion of
‘domestication’ (involving ‘an ethno-centric reduction of the foreign text … to tar-
get language cultural values’ (cited in Munday 2008: 144), and ‘foreignization’ [by]
292 Informations bibliographiques et lexicographiques

‘choosing a foreign text and developing a translation method along lines which are
excluded by dominant cultural values in the target language’ (Venuti 1998: 242;
cited in Munday 2008: 145). The same chapter also accounts for the studying of
‘translators’ as an issue rather than that of ‘texts’ (Munday 2008: 157).
In chapter 10 (Philosophical theories of translation, pp.162–78) the author dis-
cusses the philosophical tenets, which affects the transfer of meaning through
‘elicitation’, as that of the ‘hermeneutic approach’ to translation (Steiner’s influ-
ential work After Babel 1975/98: 249; cited in Munday 2008: 163). This approach
treats the act of translation as an act of elicitation, which is based on ‘a conception
of translation not as a science but as ‘an exact art…’ (Munday 2008: 163). Steiner’s
(1998) description consists of four parts, these are: (1) the ‘initiative trust’ (2) ‘ag-
gression’, (3) ‘incorporation’ (this refers to the ST meaning), and (4) ‘compensa-
tion’ (1998: 312–19; cited in Munday 2008: 163–5). Other quoted philosophical
tenets, which influenced the translation theory, are that of Pound’s (1929/2004)
view in relation to the focussing on the ‘expressive qualities of language’ and ‘ex-
perimentalism’ (Munday 2008: 167–8), Benjamin’s (1969/2004) paper about
‘translation exists separately but in conjunction with the original’ (Munday 2008:
169), and Derrida’s (2001/4) concept of ‘deconstruction’ (the critic against the pri-
macy and stability of meaning) (2001/4: 425; cited in Munday 2008: 171–3).
In chapter 11 (New directions from the media, pp.179–96) the author intro-
duces to the reader the various new trends in relation to the development of trans-
lation by relating to what the up-to-date media technology has and can still offer.
Discussed were the issues of ‘typicality’ and the concepts of ‘norms’, ‘laws’ and
‘universals’ in translation and ‘computer corpora’ (‘monolingual corpora’, ‘com-
parable bilingual corpora’ and ‘parallel corpora’ of ST-TT pairs) (Munday 2008:
180 –1). In the context of ‘localization’ and ‘globalisation’ in translation the author
discusses the issues of ‘redefining’ the role, relationship and status of translators,
and the ‘problem’ of minority languages in translation policies (ibid: 192).
In chapter 12 (Concluding remarks, pp. 197–9) the author ascribes the ‘frag-
mentation’ of translation studies to the tension between what one might deter-
mine ‘linguistic’ and ‘cultural theories’ (Munday 2008: 197). The author also views
the development of this field in the ‘interest movement from the equivalence of
the word, and then text, to the realization of power relations in and around the
translation environment’ (ibid: 197). He quotes Chesterman (2005) saying that
‘the future of the field [is] by suggesting a move towards ‘consilience’ a term … of
the unity of knowledge’ (Chesterman 2005: 19; cited in Munday 2008: 197), and
agrees with Discenza (2005) that ‘translation studies’ is to be approached from a
‘multidisciplinary’ perspective (Discenza 2005: chapters 9 and 11; cited in Mun-
day 2008: 198).
 Bibliographical and lexicographical information 293

Assessment and critique

This book is the result of a tedious work, and the effort made for collecting, ana-
lysing, researching and compiling its dispersed material has been paid off. It reads
easy, and readers will benefit from its knowledge. The book’s chapters are well
written, and its material is well discussed, explicated and substantiated. The chap-
ters’ provided issues: topics, arguments, examples and case studies are meant to
equip students at various academic levels, translators and interested readers with
the solid basics of ‘translation studies’. ‘Introducing Translation Studies’, however,
is to be judged on the basis of its two main claimed aspects that postulate repre-
senting the objectives behind writing it.
The first relates to the claim that the book has been written to serve as a ‘course
book’. Even though, the book’s design speaks for a proposed ‘course book’, never-
theless, I do not agree fully with the author’s claim in that respect, as it lacks not
only the incorporation of some major translation issues (to follow), but also sig-
nificant details relating to the discussed issues and topics. The book may serve as a
‘compendium’, but it cannot be claimed comprehensively a satisfactory source for
an academic and/or interested reader intending to research in depth some of the
discussed issues of the translation field and ‘translation studies’.
The second aspect relates to the way the selected material has been presented
to survey each of the chapter’s titles in a well balanced and objectively expressed
views and notions. In his introduction, the author acknowledges the fact that the
difficulty and problems in teaching translation studies lies in its dispersed material
across a wide range of books, bulletins, journals, reviews and various other publi-
cations. The material provided is meant, however, to assess comprehensively issues
relating to trends in the development of ‘translation studies’ as a ‘discipline’, ‘field’,
‘theoretical schools’ and ‘applied theories and practices’. Whether or not the author
has succeeded in meeting his claimed objectives, the following assessment will tell
more.
Major translation issues, which have been identified as shortcomings, mainly,
relate to the fields of ‘translation linguistics’ and ‘translation relationships to lin-
guistics’ (in all its affiliated sub-disciplines and research areas), where the issues,
which lack significant details, relate to many of the discussed topics. Under those
is for example the label of ‘equivalence’ in translation. In the same context, it can
be stated that the absence of some major issues from being dealt with and dis-
cussed or the lack of detailing some other issues in focus would not be justifiable,
merely, by saying that covering all relevant concepts and notions is a task, which
cannot be accomplished. The problems, which are associated with those short-
comings, in their majority, are controversial. This is an aspect, which requires se-
rious attention and consideration, in particular, in writing such a ‘course book’.
294 Informations bibliographiques et lexicographiques

The shortcoming issues were left to the student (or generally to the various cat-
egories of readers) to research and find a satisfactory and balanced answer.

The following points concern further consideration, discussion and research:

1. In chapter 1 the author accounts for the development of the translation field dur-
ing the last fifty years. He introduces ‘translation’ in its historical development and
evolvement to the status of a discipline. Holmes’s (1972) paper ‘The name and na-
ture of translation studies’ (1988/2004: 181; cited in Munday 2008: 9–10), generally
speaking, brought studying of ‘translation’ to the fore (a view, which is also held/
accepted by the author). This paper calls the translation field ‘translation studies’,
and lays down the foundation document for claiming the field of translation a dis-
cipline in its own right. In chapter 2 the author also surveys the historical develop-
ment and evolvement of the translation field, its linguistic activities and practices,
and ascribes this development to an era, which is to be distinguished through its
two major periods; namely: (1) the studies period that led to the formation of the
field of translation, and (2) the ‘post-Holmes’ translation development and evolve-
ment period of translation studies (when this has been claimed an established
‘discipline’ in its own right). In the same context, it has been recognised (in the
historical account) that translation theories and theoretical notions suggested for
example by Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), Jacobson (1959), Nida (1964), Nida and
Taber (1969) and Catford (1965) has laid down the preceding founding theoretical
work to its succeeding formation period of ‘translation studies’.
I would suggest in the same context that ‘translation’, as a field of multi-language
activity/activities, firstly has evolved to the formation of translation proper (with all
its accumulated knowledge that pertain ‘translation labels’ ‘issues’ and ‘topics’), and
secondly this, as a result of the studies’ expansion, grew (perhaps since some fifties
years ago of the last century) to a status, which is manifested in what I may call the
interdisciplinary translation field.
The translation’s recent development (up to its current stand on how to re-
search and analyse translation) has its objectives represented in explaining rele-
vant phenomena by adopting the application of other disciplines’ approaches and
methods. The cut-off point, however, between where aspects of translation prop-
er end and those of the interdisciplinary translation field start, has become, now-
adays, more and more invisible. For an insider (observer) the status of both has
become more intermingled in one conglomerate of diverse entities, a state, which
has made it difficult to see the two aspects distinguished from each other. In this
context, I may suggest that ‘translation studies’ is still in the making, ‘translation
studies’ is not yet an established discipline in its own right (strictly by taking into
consideration its current status). The author implicitly admits that calling ‘trans-
lation studies’ a ‘discipline’ is a problem, when quoting Riccardi (2002) in chap-
 Bibliographical and lexicographical information 295

ter 12 saying, that ‘[he] still see[s] translation studies as an emerging discipline’
(House 2002: 92; cited in Munday 2008: 199). Based on the author’s claim that
this book is a ‘course book’, perhaps it would have been a good idea, in the same
context, to refer to and/or to discuss ‘issues of doublets’ relating for example to
translation entity/ies, such as those of ‘the science of translation’ vs. ‘translation
studies’, ‘Übersetzungswissenschaft’ (Wilss 1977/1982; Kade 1968; and Koller 1979,
which approaches translation from different linguistic perspectives and departing
points — the German understanding of ‘translation science’ — vs. the ‘science of
translation’ (published in English translation literature), ‘translation studies’ and
‘translation theory/ies’ vs. ‘translation studies’, ‘descriptive translation studies’ vs.
‘prescriptive translation’, the various ‘translating patterns and repetitive transla-
tion practices’ (in their relationships to ‘text-types’, ‘literary translation’, ‘trans-
lation laws’ and ‘norms’, and/or those relating to the discussion of ‘translation
studies’) vs. ‘translatology’. The author, who addresses students (under-graduate,
post-graduate and/or others) and translators, probably, also researchers endeav-
ouring to expand their knowledge in the field of translation, definitely would ben-
efit from having explained as to why we come across such issues mentioned in
translation literature?
The ‘translation studies’ expansion occurred as the result of achieved huge
material and knowledge accumulated through the development of the translation
field and the application of other disciplines and fields: ‘linguistics’ in all its sub-
disciplines’, ‘communicative and cultural studies’, ‘sociology’ and perhaps other
fields of humanities’s approaches, analytical methods and philosophical tenets.
This expansion, however, has been hampered by abandoning to some extent as-
pects of the ‘translation proper field’ and its’ ‘translation labels’, and/or by sway-
ing towards claiming universality and applicability across all languages. The ar-
guments in favour of a permissibly calling and/or not calling ‘translation studies’
a ‘discipline’ in its own right could become substantiated in that this field still has
serious and controversial issues to be sorted out, debated and/or awaiting proper
and satisfactorily discussions. For example, as long issues surrounding perceived
concepts, such as those of ‘equivalence’ (see the following point 5); ‘universality of
translating approaches’, ‘translating methods’, ‘translating models’ in their applica-
tion to translation across one or more language pairs remain controversial, unre-
solved or at least un-addressed satisfactorily in the foreseeable future, the ‘trans-
lation studies’ identity is to remain questionable. The very ambitious claim for a
discipline status to be awarded to the field of translation is still a long way to go; as
this requires more research in the areas mentioned.
2. Surveying the topics of the historical development and evolvement of trans-
lation, translation studies and translation theories in chapter 1 (Cicero’s work, the
‘grammar translation method’, the ‘contrastive translation application’ (Vinay and
296 Informations bibliographiques et lexicographiques

Darbelnet (1958) and Nida’s (1964) work) and chapter 2 (tracing the ‘translation
studies’ roots and ‘translation theories’) have been intermingled. I wonder as to
why the author hasn’t followed the chronological sequence in delivering his ac-
count, where chapter 1 is to be assigned for the historical background and chap-
ter  2 for the evolvement of the ‘translation studies’ field. This would have been
advisable in particular when writing a historical introduction to a ‘course book’,
where the author chronologically introduces to the reader an account on the rele-
vant ­material.
3. The author managed to maintain all through the book’s chapters providing
good balanced introduction and discussions of translation issues and related cri-
tique. For example, in chapter 1 it says: Holmes’s (1972) paper has been criticised
in that ‘Holmes devoted two thirds of his attention to the ‘pure’ aspects of theory
and description surely indicates his research interests rather than a lack of possi-
bilities for the applied side.’ (Munday 2008: 12). This balanced account on transla-
tion issues, development and trends, however, has been destabilised on few occa-
sions, as for example when favouring Nida’s work saying, ‘[It] is helpful to adopt
his [Nida’s work] model not for the analysis of existing translation … but for the
analysis of a ST that is to be translated’ (2008: 52).
4. When the author questions the validity of the term/concept of ‘equivalence’
[in particular in Germany], he fell short of providing a detailed account on why
this ‘term’ (which refers to the ‘concept of equivalence’ [the backbone of transla-
tion]), has been discussed and/or rejected and by whom (Munday 2008: 13).
5. The term equivalence is meant (in the context of prevailing translation
theories and studies) to refer to the concept of finding and/or achieving ‘equiva-
lence’ at various linguistic and/or non-linguistic levels; such as that at the ‘word’
rank, ‘unit/s’ beyond the word, ‘sentence’, ‘text’ and/or ‘other units’ and ‘forms of
reference’ (between a ST and TT representing the language pair involved in trans-
lating process). The term has been widely used in translation literature to mean
various concepts of ‘linguistic meaning’, ‘referential meaning’, ‘emotive meaning’,
‘equivalent effect’, ‘formal equivalence’, ‘dynamic equivalence’, ‘Korrespondenz’ and
‘Äquivalenz’ in their forms of ‘correspondence phenomena’. Translation research-
ers and theorists use the term ‘equivalence’, presuming it (as a concept) does exist
across ‘most’ languages. At the same time, the same researchers, in their major-
ity, however, oppose its use for their reasons, as in that they implicitly or explicit-
ly (when using it one-way or another) refer in fact to the notion of the concept of
no-real/actual equivalence is an achievable objective. The challenge, however, lies
in that achieving an ‘equivalence’ in translation, in what ever context would be the
case, has never been possible to do, and this will so remain as long we talk about
an ‘equivalence’ across two different sign systems at one point in time. Why, so far,
the term has been used? Why it is more likely to be used in future translation stud-
 Bibliographical and lexicographical information 297

ies? Those questions may remain unanswered for an indefinite time. Finding an
alternative concept/s vs. term to be suggested or finding term/s vs. concept pre-
sumed existing might resolve this currently prevailing impasse. It would be also a
legitimate question in this context to ask: Will this impasse allow for a legitimised
calling the translation field: ‘translation studies’ a ‘discipline’!
6. From reading this book, it hasn’t come clear enough as to why the author
over passed mentioning The Art of Translation (by Savory, T. H. 1957/1968) a ma-
jor French translation contribution to ‘translation studies’. About this book, ac-
cording to Gutknecht (2003), it says:

‘Much valuable work has been carried out by translatologists on the m e t h o d i c a l

scrutiny of translation [the translation principles]…
*A translation must give the words of the original, …
(1968: 54; cited in Gutknecht 2003: 696).’

7. In chapter 4 the author discusses the concept of transference under the

headings of borrowing and calque (Vinay and Darbelnet 1995: 31–3; 2004: 129–
30; cited in Munday 2008: 56–7). Handling the issues of ‘transference’ (a signifi-
cant concept of ‘translation studies’) in detail, however, is one of the book’s short-
comings that have been identified. ‘Transference’ constitutes a major joint and one
of the basic translation concepts in Catford’s (1965) theory (A Linguistic Theory of
Translation). The concept’s significance matters translation students and transla-
tors alike, who seek to understand the terms of relating to ‘linguistic translation’,
the ‘transference’ of meaning and/or cultural features/values embodied in ‘terms’,
collocations’ and/or ‘stylistique, expressive and semiotic cues’. Discussing it is also
important for dealing with issues, where ‘transference’ can become applicable dur-
ing the translating process; and this counts as a crucial contribution to how we
understand translation phenomena in most of its aspects and various manifest-
ing facets. The author’s material, which has been provided in this respect, mainly
relates to the discussion of shifts in translation, which deals with the mentioned
issues from different perspectives. As a result of this shortcoming, the discussion
of this significant concept has been left open to speculations.
8. Translations, which have been produced in a language contact situation,
display the phenomenon of inserted ST items in them. Inserted items can be lexic-
al, grammatical, orthographic, phonemic and other insertion representations and
features. Insertion of ST items in TT happens either in the form of ‘borrowing’,
‘code-switching’ and/or ‘code-mixing’. This phenomenon (which relates to the so-
cio-linguistic aspect of translation) should have been at least referred to in such a
‘course book’, as this constitutes one of many other phenomena, which ‘translation
studies’ has to deal with in its analyses. According to the reviewer, it says:
298 Informations bibliographiques et lexicographiques

‘Recent research in translation studies has found that such translations [produced in a
language contact situation] … display one or more of the phenomena of code-switch-
ing, code-mixing and/or heavy borrowing.’ (Mousli 2002: v–vi).

9. In chapter 4 the issues of translatability and/or un-translatability are of

course legitimate discussing points to be focussed on when dealing specifically
incorporates topics of the ‘translating process’ and ‘product’. As such points fall
in the heart of ‘translation studies’ issues, the author, however, mentioned them
briefly three times (2008: 28, 38 and 61) without providing significant and de-
tailed account. Notions relating to ‘translatability’ vs. ‘un-translatability’ appear
in the relevant translation literature as issues of contentious debates and argu-
ments. The contentious notions are part of correlated translation concepts, topics
and issues, and they range between fully ‘negating’ the legitimacy of carrying out
translational activity in the first place, and/or claiming the possibility of doing
translation across any two languages. Relating translation concepts to those two
extreme notions pertains, for example, the ‘transfer’ and/or ‘translation’ of ‘cul-
tural words’, ‘collocations’ and/or ‘translating grammatical and linguistic struc-
tural units’ across any language pairs (related or unrelated languages).
10. Literary translation has been dealt with in expanded detail in chapters
4, 5 and 7. In chapter 4, the author discusses ‘literary translation’ in relation to
the concept of the ‘expressive function’ (the Prague School of ‘structural linguis-
tics’) (Munday 2008: 61- 2), the ‘re-productive’ and ‘creative’ labour concepts in
translating literary works (Munday 2008: 62). In chapter 5 he discusses Nord’s
(1988/05) literary translation notions (the reader’s access to the ST’s ideas) (ibid.
2008: 82), and in chapter 7 discussed is the approach to the ‘descriptive’, ‘target-
organized’, ‘functional’ and ‘systematic’ translation in the context of ‘norms’ and
‘constraints’ governing the production and reception of TT (Munday 2008: 118).
As ‘literary translation’ differs very much (in its approaches, applied translating
methods and the issues of fidelity to specific/dominant stylistic writing genre/
form) from any other types of translation (cultural, technical, informative and/or
media texts, etc.), the author hasn’t discussed (besides considering creativity and
maintaining/preserving literary culture and norms) in enough detail the signifi-
cance of the issues of ‘constraint factors’. Such factors hamper, influence and /or
govern the translator’s work; at least during the translating process, and detail-
ing them enlighten readers about some of the steps and the associated problems
the translator is faced with. Newmark (1988), for example, spoke of ‘the impor-
tance of word (as a translation unit, a constraint factor)’ [no sentence translation
in translating poetry], retrieving the line [besides the constraint factors relat-
ing to translating and/or transferring the values or properties of ‘prosodic me-
ter’, ‘prosodic unit’, ‘hemistich’ and ‘rhyme’] (1988: 163), and the constraints of
‘emphasising verbs’ at the cost of other translation units as in ‘drama’ transla-
 Bibliographical and lexicographical information 299

tion (ibid: 172). The very ambitious ‘poly-system’ theory to be applied to literary
translation, according to Gentzler (2001: 20 –3) fails application testing as in: (1)
because of seeking the discovery of ‘translation laws’, and (2) [because] its reli-
ance on ‘abstract model’ ­instead of ‘real life’ constraints placed on texts’.
11. Niranjana’s (1992) critique of the concepts represented in the ‘Western
translation studies theory and practice’ (Munday 2008: 133; point 2) is in some re-
spect an un-careful and inaccurate statement. This says ‘that the concepts underly-
ing much of Western translation theory are flawed (its notions of text, author, and
meaning are based on an unproblematic, natively representational theory of lan-
guage’) (1992: 48–9).
When discussing Niranjana’s view, the author fell short of explaining, (even
if this would have come in a brief statement) that the background or departing
points in researching ‘translation’ and its studies has eventuated as the result of
heavy reliance, mainly, on English and/or French linguistics’ theories. In the same
context the author also hasn’t draw the reader’s attention to the point that, check-
ing the list of researchers, theorists and translation writer’s names reveals that
‘translation studies’ and its research has evolved through the use of knowledge ac-
cumulation of the translation field, which resulted from contributions made over
a long period of time by ‘Europeans’ and ‘non-Europeans’.
12. Munday says in the context of discussing the application of discourse an-
alysis to translation, that ‘[this] mainly have been English-language oriented’, and
‘imposing such contrastive discourse analysis on non-European languages’ con-
stitutes a serious problem (Munday 2008: 100). It would have become a necessity,
perhaps, in such context to discuss the issue of relating to the adoption of ‘univer-
sality’ and ‘applicability’ to ‘all ’ languages in the translation theory and its studies.
Munday’s point, any way, speaks in favour of Niranjana’s (1992) critique (2008:
100). In relation to the ‘post-colonial powers’ affecting the production of transla-
tion (Niranjana’s critique) represents a legitimate stand, and by calling to do more
research and to investigate how and in what ways translation has been affected, is
to answer questions about how, generally, bias TT’s being ­produced.
13. The translation proper field expanded into its new entity of the inter-
disciplinary translation field by applying other disciplines (linguistics, cultural
etc.)’ approaches and analytical methods. Currently, this last field resides on huge
achieved accumulated knowledge of linguistic and non-linguistic results and pre-
dictions. Of course, translation, like any other fields and disciplines, is looking
forward, and its expansion happens through experimenting what other fields and
disciplines have done. Such expansion, however, should not drive it to become
trapped into endeavouring towards the discovery of a point and/or a loophole, and
subsequently to build up an issue that is either being used or abused for the pur-
pose of gaining publicity and/or to be held by polemic exploitation. Thus, suggest-
300 Informations bibliographiques et lexicographiques

ing a significant finding in translation research therefore should not be portrayed

as the discovery of an all time ultimate solution, and the objectives of identify-
ing new research points have to be for the sake of leading to scholarly promot-
ing new trend/s and to reach better understanding of the translation phenomena.
New trends and/or ideas (approaches, methods and analytical ways) enlighten, of
course, other researchers and readers in the field of translation. Nevertheless, pull-
ing the field out of its course, as for example in applying discourse analysis (mainly
of the English language) and/or by promoting only the focus on the TT produc-
tion in ‘literary translation’ and studying the ‘target culture’ in the context of the
TL, constitutes a serious problem for ‘translation studies’. Translation cannot be
less than having in focus, as equally as important, both the ST and TT, and only
this fact will allow to lead to achieve satisfactorily and balanced results (in particu-
lar when employing and studying the translating process and its product both are
in focus).
Any claim relating to the discovery of a new trend in the development and ex-
pansion of the translation field is always associated with the risk of assuming per-
fection, universality and applicability in employment, and such development will
not lead to guide anywhere, but to more controversy. No one can deny the impor-
tance of cultural and ideological elements in translation. In the same context, sug-
gesting new trends, such as that of the ‘hermeneutic’ and ‘elicitation’ approaches
(Steiner 1998), the ‘energy of language’ (Pound 1929/2004),‘translation exists sep-
arately’ (Benjamin 1969/2004), ‘deconstruction in translation’ and ‘relevance in
translation’ (Derrida 2001/2004) have made (within the context of the interdiscip-
linary translation field) legitimate points in studying ‘translation’, and those may
considerably count as significant contributions towards expanding translation.
We always have to bear in mind, that in the end it is the language (in all its
structures and aspects), whose media are used (in the context of translation prop-
er) to express what has been written in one language to be rendered into the tar-
get language. The author, who quotes Bassnett and Lefevere (in their ‘dismissing
of linguistic theories of translation’) (1990: 4; cited in Munday 2008: 124–5), and
Venuti’s (1995) discussion of ‘domestication’ (1995: 20; cited in Munday 2008: 144),
and ‘foreignization’ (1998: 242; cited in Munday 2008: 145), hasn’t gone far enough
in his critique, in particular, to account at least for the relevance to major ‘trans-
lation labels’ issues’ (such as ‘transference’, ‘equivalence’, ‘translatability’ vs. ‘un-
translatability’, ‘translation linguistics’ and ‘translation methods’).

References
Catford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay in Applied Linguistics, Oxford:
Oxford University Press. viii + 103 pp.
 Bibliographical and lexicographical information 301

Fawcett, P. 1997. Translation and Language, Manchester: St. Jerome. 161 pp.
Gutknecht, C. 2003. “Translation”. In The Handbook of Linguistics, ed. by M. Aronoff and J. Rees-
Miller. 692–703. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hatim, B. and I. Mason 1991. Discourse And The Translator. London and New York: Longman.
258 pp.
Koller, W. 1983. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft. Heidelberg: UT Quelle & Meyer.
219 pp.
Mousli, M. M. 2002. “Insertion of English acronyms and single words/terms in Arabic Transla-
tion”. Ph.D. Dissertation. Edith Cowan University. 550 pp.
Mousli, M. M. 2008. Review of “Linguistics and the Language of Translation” by Malmkjaer, K.
2005. Babel 54: 2, 192–9. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Newmark, P. 1988. A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall. xii + 292 pp.
Nida, E. A. 1964 Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. 331 pp.
Nida, E. and C. R. Taber.1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: Brill. 218 pp.
Nord, C. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester: St. Jerome. 154 pp.
Reiss, K. and H. J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen:
Niemeyer. 245 pp.
Snell-Hornby, M. 1988. Translation Studies, An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia:
John Benjamins. 163 pp.
Wilss, W. 1974. Übersetzungswissenschaft. Band I, Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer. 88 pp.
Zaixi, T. 1997. “Reflections on the Science of Translation”. Babel 43: 4, 331–52. Amsterdam/Phil-
adelphia: John Benjamins.