Daniel Pedersen, PhD fellow

Research Group for Translation and Interpreting
Department of Business Communication
School of Business and Social Sciences
Aarhus University

Main supervisor: Professor Helle Vrønning Dam

Co-supervisor: Associate Professor Martin Nielsen
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. RESEARCH TOPIC 3

3. PURPOSE STATEMENT AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 4

4. OVERALL METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 5

5. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 6

5.1 TRANSLATION THEORIES 8

5.1.1 THE INFLUENCE OF DESCRIPTIVE TRANSLATION STUIDES 10
5.1.2 TRANSLATING ADVERTISEMENT 12
5.2 WHAT IS SAID ABOUT TRANSCREATION? 13
5.2.1 WHERE TO PLACE TRANSCREATION? 15
5.2.1.1 LOCALISATION 15
5.3 S UMMARISING THE THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 17

6. METHODOLOGY 18

6.1 CONTEXT- ORIENTED RESEARCH IN TRANSLATION STUDIES 18

6.2 ETHNOGRAPHY IN TRANSLATION STUDIES 19
6.2.1 INSTITUTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY 19
6.3 RESEARCHER ROLES 20
6.3.1 OBSERVER-AS-PARTICIPANT 22
6.3.2 PARTICIPANT-AS-OBSERVER 22
6.3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF GATEKEEPERS 23
6.3.4 MY CHOICES REGARDING RESEARCHER ROLES 23
6.4 COLLECTING AND ANALYSING THE DATA 23
6.4.1 EXPLANATORY GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING THE SCHEDULE 25
6.4.2 DATA MATERIAL 26

7. CONTRIBUTION 27

8. PHD PLAN 28

9. REFERENCES 31

  2
1 . Introduction

This thesis proposal serves as a representation of the current state of my

research project. It contains a presentation of my research topic and

research questions, my theoretical and methodological framework, and

concludes with a snapshot of the progression in my research process and

other PhD-related obligations. In my view, the timing of this proposal is

essential to what I hope to get out of it. I present this paper only few days

before engaging in a one-month ethnographic field study, and therefore I see

this exercise as an excellent opportunity to bring forth both theoretical and

methodological topics of discussion that would be relevant to consider

before leaving this institution and going into the field.

2 . Research topic

There is one particular notion that places itself at the very core of my

research project, and that is the notion of transcreation. When looking

around in the industry constituted by different language service providers it

is not uncommon to see this notion, and it is also finding its way into

Translation Studies (e.g. Rike 2013). But how is transcreation actually

perceived, and what is its connection to translation? Different descriptions

and definitions already exist, although there is still room for further

elaboration. I have chosen to approach the notion as seen through the eyes

of the transcreation industry itself.

Transcreation seems to play a very central role within marketing and

advertising and is by many considered as firmly attached to these areas.

One transcreation provider says that “[t]ranscreation is the creative

adaptation of marketing, sales and advertising copy in the target language”,

and then goes on to recommending areas of application:

“Transcreation should be used for

1. brand names

2. tag lines

  3
 3. advertisement headlines & copy

4. audio & video scripts”1

Rike (2013) says about transcreation that it “is an approach used in

particular for websites, marketing and advertising texts” (2013: 73).

These statements can lead to some general ideas about how transcreation is

perceived. It seems to evolve around the concept of creativity and have a

strong connection to certain areas of application. I place my own project

within Translation Studies and aim at investigating how transcreation relates

to translation. The notion itself – a merger of translation and creation –

reveals a link to translation, but how exactly to interpret this link is a topic

which I believe deserves further investigation.

My point of departure is that transcreation can be investigated on the basis

of theories belonging to the field of Translation Studies. This will, of course,

have some implications for my entire project. As already mentioned it is

decisive for my theoretical framework, and, as it will later be revealed, the

element of translation is also a vital part of my research questions.

3. Purpose statement and research questions

Following the abovementioned considerations the overall purpose of this

research project is to give a thorough description of transcreation by

comparing it to traditional translation.

                                                                                                               
1  http://www.brandedtranslations.com/archives/tag/translation-vs-transcreation

  4
Research questions

On the basis of these considerations I have formulated the following

research questions, which represent the central guidelines for the entire

project:

1. What are the similarities and differences between transcreation and

traditional translation in terms of work processes and perceptions?

2. Why has the notion of transcreation emerged – what purpose does it

serve?

4. Overall methodological considerations

I will start this section by presenting some basic philosophical considerations,

which will have a significant impact on my entire research process. I will

approach transcreation as a socially constructed phenomenon, acknowledging

its existence as a result of the fact that there are people who talk about it

and define what they are doing as transcreation. My view upon transcreation

is strongly inspired by Gideon Toury (1995), whose approach towards

translation I will return to in section 5.1.1. My purpose is not to find out

what transcreation is or should be, but to investigate how practitioners and

other transcreation stakeholders perceive it, as well as how and if their

perceptions differ from the ones they have towards translation. This

philosophical assumption should be reflected in my methodology.

I have chosen an ethnographic approach and aim at collecting qualitative

data. The choice of ethnography as being my method means that I have to

go “into the field” and collect my data in a real life setting. In my case, the

setting will be a company, and the culture I seek to study is the one formed

by the different members (employees) of that company culture. This company

works with marketing implementation and has transcreation as one of its

core activities. The company is based in London, England, where I will spend

four weeks following the employees working with transcreation and translation

  5
activities. In an ethnographic context four weeks is a rather short period of

time. Financial issues are the main reason why I will spend so short time in

the field, and in my final report I will certainly discuss whether the time issue

disqualifies my findings.

5. Theoretical framework

In 1972 James S. Holmes drew a map of Translation Studies for the first

time. Since then translation scholars have placed themselves within this field

and contributed to Translation Studies. The birth of this term has been

helpful to translation scholars in the sense that it covers a scientific

discipline to which all translational action belongs. Although translation can

be traced back centuries or even millennia, regarding it as a separate

discipline is a relatively new phenomenon. Perhaps this is why several

discussions have taken place over the past decades about what to define as

translation and thereby what to deem adequate for a place within the

Translation Studies context.

This issue becomes particularly relevant as new fringe phenomena appear

and challenge our perception of what is and what is not translation. One of

these phenomena is transcreation – a merger of the two words translation

and creation. This term has been applied in different contexts, e.g. in films

and video games, but is now widely present in the world of marketing and

advertising. The goal of transcreation in this context is to recreate a

commercial entity, be that a poster, a TV spot or a web site advertisement,

in order for it to achieve the same appealing effect as did the original

version. When it comes to the process of transcreating, the enhanced focus

on creativity is applied to make sure that not only linguistic but also

emotional and cultural aspects are considered and somehow recreated for

the new target audience. This may involve changing or adapting pictures,

sound tracks or even brand logos to an extent where it becomes relevant to

ask if transcreation goes beyond the concept of translation. In order to

address this question properly it must first be discussed how translation is

  6
perceived, because the boundaries of translation do not seem to be clear-cut

like a box one can simply put disciplines into and, just as importantly, assess

as non-fitting. As Maria Tymoczko reminds us, the boundaries of translation

are still evolving:

“What most translation scholars would like to believe is that the stage of

defining translation is essentially over: it would be satisfying to think that the

big parameters regarding translation have been sketched out. (…) This task of

defining translation is not finished and it will continue to be a central

trajectory of translation research in the decades to come” (Tymoczko 2005:

1084).

But why is it even relevant to deal with this subject? Does it matter whether

we call something translation or transcreation? If the emerging field of

transcreation is a result of a translation industry that is changing, then there

are several issues that need treatment and questions that need answering.

Some of the most immediate issues that we must deal with are mentioned

by Rike (2013) who asks what the translator’s responsibility is in a situation

where multiple semiotic resources are interacting (2013: 68).

So one thing is defining what translation can be, another is defining what a

translator can be. What does or what should a translator do?

The idea that translating cannot be reduced to simply transferring linguistic

codes from one language to another is far from new. According to Snell-

Hornby (1988), translation is a cross-cultural event. She uses this statement

to argue for the fact that translation theory cannot rely solely on linguistics.

Toury (1995) states that “translatorship” amounts first and foremost to being

able to play a social role” (1995: 53)”. Perhaps this is one of the reasons

why he refers to Translation Studies as a semi-autonomous discipline (1995:

8), indicating that many other disciplines come into play in creating the

whole of translation. Katan (2004) insists on calling the translator a cultural

mediator, and Reiss and Vermeer (1984) operate within the same framework

when stating that translators must know both the source and the target

cultures and be bi-cultural (1984/2013: 25).

  7
But one thing is stating that translation is a type of cultural mediation.

Another is describing to what extent this mediation goes on. Can we reach a

stage where the creative adaptations and amount of different media make it

inadequate to talk about translation? And can we reach this stage within a

transcreation context? Before dealing more thoroughly with these issues a

general description of both translation and transcreation is needed.

5.1 Translation theories

Over the years there have been numerous attempts to categorise

translations, something that has led to the creation of various dichotomies

dividing translations into different groups. Many of them follow the string of

thought of the traditional division between “free” and “literal” translation. In

this line we find Nida’s formal vs. dynamic equivalence, Newmark’s semantic

vs. communicative equivalence and Nord’s documentary vs. instrumental

translation, just to mention a few. What these dichotomies seem to have in

common is the tendency to categorise translations according to the

strategies applied in the translation process, i.e. is the form of the translation

“close” to that of the source text or is it more “free” from it? In Jakobson’s

portrait of the translation landscape the approach is slightly different. When

Jakobson (1959) defines translation he distinguishes between three different

kinds:

Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by

means of other signs of the same language.

Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal

signs by means of some other language.

Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs

by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems.

(Jakobson 1959: 114)

  8
In this distinction there seems to be a sort of hierarchy, since interlingual

translation is referred to as translation proper. It must certainly be

acknowledged that it has been and still remains the main focus within

Translation Studies, and the other two kinds sometimes even struggle to gain

acceptance within the discipline (Zethsen 2007: 283-84).

A rather strict way of defining translation is given by Newmark (1999), who

says that translation is “to cause what was stated in one language to be

stated in another, with the purpose of achieving the semantic end expressive

equivalence of both statements” (1999: 152). When putting this definition into

Jakobson’s framework, we find that neither intralingual nor intersemiotic

translation can be considered as translation. Even transcreation would very

unlikely fit into Newmark’s perception of translation. Furthermore, Newmark

does not restrain himself to defining what translation is. He also gives his

idea of what it should be when stating: “provided that equivalent-effect is

secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is the

only valid method of translation” (1981: 39).

Equivalence is thus highly valued within Newmark’s framework. This is also

the case in Nida’s dichotomy (formal vs. dynamic equivalence). Nida talks

about a formal equivalence, which “focuses attention on the message itself,

in both form and content” (1964: 144), and although he acknowledges that

there can be no such thing as identical equivalents, aiming for the closest

possible equivalent is something he considers as primordial in the translation

task. When this equivalence cannot be reached in form it must be dynamic,

meaning “that the relationship between receptor and message should be

substantially the same as that which existed between the original receptors

and the message” (Nida 1964: 159). The notion of equivalence is also

present in Eco (2001). But here the value of equivalence is strongly

questioned: “Equivalence in meaning cannot be taken as a satisfactory

criterion for a correct translation” (Eco 2001: 9). And Eco is not the only

one who questions equivalence as the main driving force in translation. With

the appearance of the skopos theory as described by Reiss and Vermeer

  9
(1984) there is a strong tendency towards the “dethroning” of the source

text and the notion of equivalence and making the target text and the target

receiver the main priority. This tendency is supported by Toury (1995) who

says that “translations are facts of target cultures” (1995: 29). The rationale

behind the skopos theory is that any given action is governed by its

purpose. When applying this axiom in a translation context it means that no

single translation can ever be considered the correct translation, since the

purpose of a translational action is seldom given a priori and can even

change over time. This, of course, does not tell us anything about what a

translation actually is, only that the quality of the translation cannot be

assessed without knowing the context. In order to illustrate their skopos

theory Reiss and Vermeer set up the following pseudo formula: Trl. = f(sk)

(2013: 90). In other words, the translation is the function of a given skopos.

Another example of the somehow moderated status of the source text is

seen in Snell-Hornby (2006). She acknowledges that the function of the

source can sometimes be reduced to that of serving as “raw material” which

can then be used to attain a given purpose (2006: 53). Toury (1985) even

doubts the relationship to the source text when stating that “translations are

facts of one system only: the target system” (1985: 19).

A strong criticism of the notion of equivalence, which goes as far as

questioning its very existence, is given by Chesterman (1997), who says

about the notion of “same effect” – more or less related to Nida’s dynamic

equivalence – that “it represents a kind of linguistic idealism, but rests on no

tenable theoretical foundations beyond the trivial truth that all readers are

members of the human race” (1997: 35).

5.1.1 The influence of Descriptive Translation Studies

What seems to be the common denominator for many of these translation

approaches is the fact that they are carriers of a rather prescriptive tone, i.e.

how a translation should be. However, there is a considerable amount of

scholars who do not see academia as a generator of prescriptive translation

  10
studies, but rather of descriptive translation studies, focussing more on what

translation actually is, or is assumed to be, than how it should be like.

Back in 1953, John Macfarlane made the very laconic claim that “translation

is as translation does” (1953: 92-3). Although this claim may appear

rudimentary, and does not reveal many of the secrets of the translation

craft, it has proven to be a fundamental point of departure within descriptive

translation studies. According to the descriptive approach there is no

inherent quality in a text that automatically qualifies it as a translation, which

at the same time makes it difficult to exclude a given text from a Translation

Studies context solely by looking at how it has been produced. External

factors also have an important role to play, and according to Toury (1995) a

translation is “all utterances which are presented or regarded as such within

the target culture, on no matter what grounds” (1995: 32). In fact, for Toury,

this is the definition, or rather “working hypothesis”, of an “assumed

translation”. He then goes on by setting up three postulates that constitute

this assumed translation:

1. The Source-Text Postulate, which “entails the obvious assumption that

there is another text, in another culture/language, which has both

chronological and logical priority over it”

2. The Transfer Postulate, which “entails the assumption that the process

whereby the assumed translation came into being involved the

transference from the assumed source text of certain features that the

two now share”

3. The Relationship Postulate, which implies that a translation has

“accountable relationships which tie it to its assumed original”

(Toury 1995: 33-5)

Thus, the general idea of descriptive translation studies is not to promote

the equivalence meme (Chesterman 1997: 9), but to investigate how

translations prove to be in actual practice. However, Toury’s approach has

  11
met some critique. Pym (2006) wonders “exactly who is supposed to be

doing all the assuming” (2006: 4).

In connection with my research the main problem seems to be that

according to Toury, translation must be interlingual (1995: 56). Does this rule

out Jakobson’s intralingual and intersemiotic translation? In a transcreation

context this could constitute a potential breach between translation and

transcreation. In several ways, Toury’s conceptualization of translation makes

it possible to include transcreation (you could argue that all of Toury’s three

postulates are present in a transcreation context). However, since one of

Toury’s basic assumptions about translation is that “translation is a kind of

activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural

traditions” (1995: 56), the link to transcreation may be fragile. Existing

transcreational activity certainly involves working at an interlingual level, but

it is not necessarily limited to this, meaning that a transcreation can also be

intralingual, e.g. a U.S. American commercial transcreated into a British

commercial.

Another possible interpretation of the significance of the descriptive approach

is that it could turn out to be the instrument that makes transcreation differ

from translation. If a text qualifies as being a translation mainly because this

is what it is assumed to be, would the assumption that a another text is a

transcreation be what qualifies it as being a non-translation?

5.1.2 Translating advertisement

As mentioned earlier, transcreation is widely applied in the world of

advertisement, and I will now take a closer look at why this is the case.

Advertising translation has been rigorously treated by several French scholars.

It can be dated back at least to 1972 where Roger Boivineau talks about

l’adaptation publicitaire. Within the French tradition, the expression les belles

infidèles has for a long time been attached to translation, indicating an

almost traitorous nature of the discipline. However, within advertising

translation, some French scholars propose a new expression, les belles

  12
efficaces (Boivineau 1972: 15; Guidère 2000: 64), which focuses more on the

need for efficiency with respect to the target culture. Given that one of the

main functions of an advertisement is to promote a sale (Valdés 2013: 303),

the content of the source text is far from sacred. You could say that the

effect is the measure of success in advertising translation. This particular

precondition has led to several new assumptions about translation. Munday

(2004) suggests that “the unit of translation is not just the text, but the

culture” (2004: 209), and Ho (2004) talks about advertising translation as

being a sort of genetic engineering where the translator retains “the “strains”

of the source culture, then modify them and implant the modified “genetic

material” into the target culture to produce the transgenic text or message”

(2004: 228).

Generally speaking, we should be beyond the point where translation is

strictly considered as a transfer of one linguistic code into another. Munday

says that the focus of translation has been largely on the “conventional,

progressively outdated, written text” (2004: 216) and already in 1971 Reiss

talks about the translation of audio-medialer texte (1971: 49).

It is in this context that transcreation must be seen and where ideas of both

transcreation and translation are closely related. I will now move on by

providing a description that is more focused on the particular notion of

transcreation.

5.2 What is said about transcreation?

Although research dealing with transcreation is still at an early, almost

embryonic stage, some scholars have treated it, and tried to define it. Sissel

Rike (2013) talks about transcreation as “an approach used in particular for

websites, marketing and advertising texts” (2013: 73). When talking about the

possible repercussions of transcreation, Rike mentions that “the concept of

transcreation can contribute to broadening the scope of the translator’s part

in the communicative process” (2013: 82).

  13
The potential problem with Rike’s treatment of transcreation, at least from a

methodological point of view, is revealed when she describes her empirical

material as “web texts that may be regarded as the result of transcreation”

(2013: 73 – own italics). There is thus no way of determining if the

mentioned web texts have gone through a process, which the people involved

in their production would consider as transcreation.

Another insight into transcreation is found in Di Giovanni (2008) who

analyses the transformation of ancient Indian scripts into films for an Italian

audience. According to Di Giovanni the term of transcreation is deeply

connected to the translation of Indian sacred texts that would sometimes

need radical changes (Di Giovanni 2008: 33). This kind of description makes

it very difficult to define transcreation. For if transcreation appears when the

changes from source to target are radical, how can it be decided if the

changes are radical enough to say that we are dealing with transcreation?

An attempt by Di Giovanni to reach a definition of transcreation is seen

when she refers to the Indian translator P. Lal who “assumed transcreation

as being “readable, not strictly faithful translation” (Di Giovanni 2008: 34).

This might make sense if you accept the notions of faithfulness or

equivalence in translation, but as it has been shown in the previous section

in this paper, these notions are vague, certainly loosing ground, and even

rejected in some areas of Translation Studies.

Within the transcreation industry itself, the idea of transcreation being more

than just translation seems to be quite dominant. Many transcreation

providers tend to express themselves in a way that is similar to the following

couple of examples:

“Text featuring creative wordplay and techniques such as assonance or

alliteration requires more than a straightforward translation, they need to be

transcreated to ensure this impact is retained.”2

                                                                                                               
2  http://www.transperfect.com/services/multicultural_marketing_transcreation.html  

  14
“Alpha CRC features a dedicated marketing transcreation team which can

recreate your marketing and advertising texts in a new language, rather than

just translating the source version.”3

Although it is possible to find different definitions of transcreation, in general,

there is still a need for deepening the theoretical description of the concept.

5.2.1 Where to place transcreation?

There are many things that indicate that transcreation is somehow

characterised by its degree of “creativity”. From a theoretical point of view,

however, this would make it extremely difficult to distinguish it from

translation. When describing literary translation, Levý (1969) refers to this as

a form of art, and sees the translation process as artistic creativity. One of

Chesterman’s memes of translation is that “translating is creating”. He then

elaborates on this meme by saying that “a translator is an artist who shapes

language” (1997: 27).

Creativity as such is difficult to define and even more difficult to measure,

and since the notion is also very present within translation it does not

provide us with a full understanding of what transcreation can be. What

could be helpful is to take a look upon an approach that is closely related

to transcreation and has enjoyed a much more profound theoretical

description. This approach is called localisation.

5.2.1.1 Localisation

According to Chan Sin-wai (2013), localisation “can be defined linguistically

as translating a product to suit the target users, technically as adjusting

technical specifications to suit the local market, and culturally as following

the norms and conventions of the target community” (2013: 347).

When comparing it to transcreation, Rike (2013) mentions that “localisation is

mainly used for software, manuals, user instructions, etc. and is not
                                                                                                               
3  http://www.alphacrc.com/linguistic.php  

  15
associated with the idea of creativity in the way that transcreation is” (2013:

73). Although this comparison between transcreation and localisation gives an

idea of what makes them differ, it remains faithful to the notion of creativity,

which can hardly be considered as belonging solely to transcreation.

Pym (2003) argues that because localisation is the sum of a variety of

actions, translating being just one of them, it is wrong to actually call it

translation. Chan describes localisation as an “umbrella concept” that

includes, but does not consist exclusively of, translation (2013: 347).

However, the opposite statement has also been made, i.e. that translation is

the umbrella concept covering several disciplines, including localisation (Adab

& Valdés 2004: 171). Chan states that from a theoretical point of view,

localisation is an act of translation (2013: 360). Gouadec (2007) seems to

agree on this when he says that “localisation is technically a variety of

translation. Yet, for reasons of marketing (the hope of getting more money

for a high-tech translation) and self-appraisal, most translators do claim a

different status for localisation” (2007: 38). This statement also introduces

another question about localisation, and potentially transcreation as well: Are

there commercial interests in promoting these terms and giving them a

status as non-translation? Without giving this question any further attention

at the current stage, I move on to mention Pym (2004), who claims that a

main difference between a translation and a localisation is to be found in

the purpose: “If the purpose of a translation is to represent an other, the

purpose of localization is to enable the user to carry out the appropriate

action (usually to push the right buttons or to purchase the product

presented)” (2004: 17).

What we can take from localisation and use to achieve a better

understanding of (the emergence of) transcreation is that these concepts

seem to belong to specific areas of application and serve as “umbrella

concepts” (more than “just” translation). However, the theoretical

emancipation from translation remains to be seen.

  16
5.2.2 Summarising the theoretical framework

I will conclude this chapter by pointing out some of the relations between

the abovementioned theories of translation and the concept of transcreation.

I will start by mentioning some theoretical approaches that could embrace

the notion of transcreation:

-­‐ When looking at it from a Jakobsonian perspective

transcreations can definitely be considered as potentially being

of both an interlingual and an intralingual nature, and

intersemiotic transcreation may certainly also be a possibility.

-­‐ According to the skopos theory, the form and content of any

given translation is guided by the purpose/skopos of the text,

making it almost impossible to decide how extensive the

changes, adaptations, reformulations etc. are allowed to be. So

as long as the transcreated material fulfils its purpose, it has

the same basic features as a successful translation.

-­‐ Toury’s three postulates (see p.11) do, if not qualify, then at

least make it possible to describe transcreation as belonging to

a translation context.

However, it is also possible to use Toury’s definitions as an argument for

stating that transcreation is not translation, because if a key argument for

defining something as translation is that it is assumed to be so, a logical

consequence would be to disqualify transcreation as being translation,

because it is assumed to be something else.

In sum, there are arguments both in favour of and against defining

transcreation as translation. My starting point is that I will not decide what is

transcreation and what is not. My first argument for defining transcreation is

  17
largely inspired by Toury, who talks about assumed translation. Hence, my

field of investigation will be assumed transcreation compared to assumed

translation, meaning what ever is considered as either the one or the other

by the ones who are involved in their production.

6. Methodology

In this study I have opted for an ethnographic approach. In the following

sections I will mention some popular research traditions of Translation

Studies, describe my research design, account for ethnographic

characteristics, and elaborate on the implications of my choice of

methodology. Since this proposal is written prior to the actual fieldwork,

descriptions of data collection and data analysis are merely tentative,

acknowledging that ethnography calls for a flexible attitude where one set of

data can lead the ensuing studies in an unpredictable, new direction

(Robinson 2008: 250).

6.1 Context-oriented research in Translation Studies

The following description of Translation Studies research is mainly based on

Saldanha & O’Brien (2013) who try to delineate the most dominant research

orientations within the field.

Traditionally, research within Translation Studies has been closely related to

linguistics and literary criticism (Saldanha & O’Brien 2013: 2) and with a

main focus on the product, i.e. the translations themselves. Focussing

exclusively on the product does, however, have its limitations, given that it

can seldom answer other questions than “what does a translation consist

of?”. Questions like “how do translators reach a specific conclusion?” and

“what actually goes on inside the head of a translator while working?” call

for a different approach. In the process-oriented research the focus is more

on the translator’s cognitive processes and it tries to reach a better

understanding of the translator’s actual competence and expertise (Saldanha

& O’Brien 2013: 109). But even this perspective does not seem to be broad

  18
enough to understand translation as a whole. Basic assumptions like the one

that “translations do not take place in a vacuum” (Koskinen 2008: 72),

constitute the driving force towards an enlarged context orientation. And

taking the context into consideration is not an unusual thing within

Translation Studies. In fact, attention towards the context seems to be a

common denominator for the majority of contemporary research within the

field (Saldanha & O’Brien 2013: 205).

6.2 Ethnography in Translation Studies

However, until this moment relatively few efforts have been made, when it

comes to applying an ethnographic approach in a translation context. Some

known examples are Risku (2004), who studies project coordinators in a

translation company, and Koskinen (2008), who investigates the Finnish

translation unit of the European Commission (Luxembourg department).

Despite this seemingly low representation of ethnographic studies of

translation environments, Koskinen argues that “ethnography is not to be

seen as a radical new departure but rather as a new set of tools to analyse

the contexts of translation” (Koskinen 2008: 39). In her own ethnography she

deals with the unique features of EU translation units (large national groups

placed together in a foreign environment), which make it quite evident that

the context has a significant impact on the translators. The role of the

institution thus becomes more relevant, and the cultural description aimed at

through ethnographic research gets a central role in the investigation of the

culture within the institution.

6.2.1 Institutional ethnography

Ethnography has its roots in the anthropological tradition and has often been

connected to exploring indigenous societies where the culture and the ways

of living are very different from our own. Creswell (2014) calls ethnography

“a detailed portrait of a culture-sharing group” (2014: 204), and Spradley

(1980) goes in the same direction when calling it a written cultural

  19
description (1980: 38). It is holistic in the sense that it attends to both

everyday details as well as the wider social context (Koskinen 2008: 37).

However, the perception of professional organisations as constituting a

cultural entity becomes more and more common within many different

research traditions. And ethnography has found its way into several different

institutional environments as exemplified by the abovementioned studies by

Risku (2004) and Koskinen (2008). Hence, the idea of regarding an

organisation or institution as representing a culture is far from new. However,

it must be clarified what counts as cultural features in such an environment.

Martin (2002) proposes that examples of such features could be “the stories

people tell to newcomers to explain “how things are done around here”, the

ways in which offices are arranged and personal items are or are not

displayed, jokes people tell, the working atmosphere (hushed and luxurious or

dirty and noisy), the relations among people (affectionate in some areas of

an office and obviously angry and perhaps competitive in another place), and

so on” (Martin (2002: 1).

Following these lines of thought and considering that my ethnographic

fieldwork will take place in a marketing implementation company, my study

becomes a sort of “institutional ethnography” that, among other things, aims

at studying particular parts of the daily working routines (Ten Have 2004:

116).

6.3 Researcher roles

Since ethnography requires the researcher to be deeply involved with the

research environment, the role of the researcher is highly relevant. The

outcome of an ethnographic study is largely determined by the researcher’s

own personal experiences and interpretations, making the subjective element

evident and potentially problematic if the researcher does not engage in

constant reflexivity (Creswell 2014: 187). Using ethnography will to some

extent mean having “an intimate relationship with the object of study”

  20
(Koskinen 2008: 36), and therefore I should reflect on this relationship in my

own particular case.

Before entering the field, there are several considerations to be made. One

thing that the researcher must bear in mind is that by applying a certain set

of techniques, he or she engages in a certain role. It must always be kept in

mind that the ethnographer acts in the research setting and therefore

obtains some kind of relationship with the research subjects. This relationship

will inevitably affect both the researcher and the research subjects, and it is

consequently important for the researcher to make decisions about which

role seems most adequate for the study. It is also important to remember

that when doing ethnographic research, the researcher becomes the real

instrument of data collection and data analysis (Russell 2006: 344). Gold

(1958) identifies four different kinds of researcher roles that go from the

complete observer to the complete participant. These researcher roles are

placed on a continuum going from the researcher that only observes and

does not interact with the research subjects to the researcher who is

completely involved in a setting and acts like a member of the group of

people, he or she is studying. Between these two extremes Gold places the

observer-as-participant and the participant-as-observer, which are the most

commonly applied researcher roles. Each role has its advantages and

disadvantages, and therefore it is not uncommon to see ethnographic

research that mixes several roles during the time of study, in order to obtain

the best of what each role can provide. When doing ethnographic research

there are many risks and many things that can “go wrong”, but there are

generally two things that can be more or less directly connected to the type

of research role one chooses to take. The researcher who has no contact

with the research subjects runs a great risk of misunderstanding situations,

while a researcher with close contact to the subjects can easily start a

process of “going native”, which basically means that the researcher adopts

the same world view as the research subjects, and thereby gets the

  21
characteristics of an “insider”. When this happens, it is no longer possible for

the researcher to detach himself efficiently from the situation and observe

the field objectively. Among the four researcher roles described by Gold there

are two that I consider relevant for my own study, and those are the

observer-as-participant and the participant-as-observer. In the following, I shall

provide some additional considerations concerning these particular researcher

roles.

6.3.1 Observer-as-participant

Although there are a number of similarities between the observer-as-

participant and a complete observer (who is detached from the research

subjects), there is at least one very important difference, and that is the fact

that in the case of the observer-as-participant the research subjects are

aware of his or her presence in the field, and the researcher will hence have

some kind of relationship with the research subjects.

The observer-as-participant is far less in contact with the research subjects

than both the complete participant and the participant-as-observer. The

encounters with the subjects are usually brief and few in number, and the

researcher enjoys a rather detached role, where contact with research

subjects can be made whenever it is deemed necessary or relevant. On one

hand that decreases the risk of “going native” (Gold 1958: 221), but on the

other hand it increases the risk of misunderstanding situations (Gold ibid).

6.3.2 Participant-as-observer

The participant-as-observer has some kind of privileged status (Daymon &

Holloway 2011: 264) and is accepted as a researcher with academic tasks

that are different from those of the research subjects. In this role the

researcher is thus still able to withdraw from the field now and then.

However, the participant-as-observer does undertake certain duties and

responsibilities and thereby takes part in some of the daily routines of the

group that is under study (Daymon & Holloway ibid).

  22
There is hardly any delimitation to the degree of immersion of the

participant-as-observer, and you can even find examples where researchers

have participated in the exact same activities as the research subjects.

6.3.3 Identification of gatekeepers

However, the role of the researcher cannot be decided on beforehand

exclusively by the researcher himself. The determination of the researcher’s

role must be negotiated with the inhabitants of the environment, usually

through some sort of gatekeeper (Hammersley 2007: 4). In my particular

case, the interaction with gatekeepers has already started, and so far, I have

identified two people that I would characterise as being my gatekeepers: The

Transcreation Manager of the company, who has been my main contact so

far, and an HR Business Partner. These people were pointed out by the

company.

6.3.4 My choices regarding researcher roles

During my four weeks in the field, my role as a researcher, as defined by

Gold (1958), will not be stable, but change over time. It is my intention to

move from being a more or less remote observer-as-participant towards

participating actively in some of the work that the company does. In other

words, I will start by observing people and asking them only a few questions.

Then later on, my plan is to work together with some of the employees on a

few transcreation and translation projects. Through this kind of role shift I

will go from being an outsider to gaining some of the characteristics of an

inside member of the company, without, however, becoming a full member at

any point of time.

6.4 Collecting and analysing the data

In this section I will start by explaining the methodological implications of my

perception of transcreation, i.e. that transcreation is whatever people involved

in transcreation processes define as being transcreation. From an

  23
ethnographic point of view this would also be a logic point of departure,

given that the intended goal of the ethnographer is to describe a culture as

seen through the eyes of the members of that culture (Spradley 1980: 3). As

a consequence of this my data collection will be guided by their ideas and

terminology.

What comes next is a description of the process of collecting data. During

the data collection process I will act as a participant observer 4 . Spradley

illustrates the general steps of participant observation in the following way:

Descriptive Focused Selective

observation observation observation

Since my stay in the field is limited to four weeks, I will have to move

considerably fast from one step to another. However, the linear depiction of

the different steps of observation does not necessarily correspond to the

actual sequence of events. Moving in circles and going back to previous

steps is a strategy I propose for my study, which I would like to sketch in

the schedule on the following page:

                                                                                                               
4  As defined by Spradley (1980). The term covers both the observer-as-participant

and the participant-as-observer (see pp.22-23)  

  24
 Weeks 1 and 2 -­‐ Descriptive observations of the environment
(10th–21st of in one particular transcreation unit
February) -­‐ Focused observations within this unit
-­‐ Selected observations of 2-3 employees
combined with interviews (with representatives
from both the operational and the
management level)
-­‐ Participation in work related activities
Week 3 (24th–28th of -­‐ Descriptive observations of the environment
February) in one particular translation unit
-­‐ Focused observations within this unit
-­‐ Selected observations of 2-3 employees
combined with interviews (with representatives
from both the operational and the
management level)
-­‐ Participation in work related activities
Week 4 (3rd–7th of I would like to let the schedule for the last week be
March) determined by my observations from the previous
three weeks

6.4.1 Explanatory guide to understanding the schedule

Descriptive observations are the ones I will make as an observer-as-

participant, where I will deliberately stay as detached from the research

subjects as possible. In weeks 1 and 2 I will stay at a transcreation unit and

select 2 or 3 (in ethnographic terms) group members. This pattern will be

repeated in week 3 in a translation unit. I will select more than one group

member per unit in order to have some degree of comparison, and less than

four per unit in order to enhance my chances of getting an in-depth

understanding. My focus will be both on the actual transcreators/translators

and the management level in order to collect data on transcreation and

translation perceptions from both the operational and the strategic levels.

Finally, I expect to engage in more direct participation, working together with

some employees on transcreation projects. Week 4 has deliberately been

kept open for any kind of activity.

  25
6.4.2 Data material

The ethnographic approach allows me to collect a large variety of data.

Without striving for an exhaustive list of data types, I will now mention what I

expect to gather from the field:

-­‐ Field notes, recordings and photos based on:

o general descriptive observations of the environment

o focussed observations of specific units within the company

o selected observations with a focus on individuals

-­‐ Recordings of interviews

o with transcreators

o with translators

o with managers

-­‐ Texts

o transcreations

o translations

The process of analysing these data will be divided in different stages and

start as soon as I have collected the first set of data. Robinson (2008: 250)

states that when doing ethnography the researcher “needs to be flexible and

reflexive from the planning phase and throughout the fieldwork”. I find this

statement very essential because it tells me that I must reflect on what my

data show me and which (new) directions they could lead me into. This

means that my data analysis will not only be a reflection on what I have

already observed, but also a guide that tells me where to go next.

  26
7. Contribution

Due to the fact that the research project will be based on an ethnographic

field study, I expect it to provide a holistic comparison between transcreation

and translation environments, which could lead to a better understanding of

the two notions and how they interrelate. Furthermore, I expect my project to

shed light on an under-researched phenomenon, considered by many as part

of Translation Studies, and its relation to already existing translation theory.

  27
8. PhD plan

Year 1
Spring 2013

PhD Thesis Courses Teaching etc. Conferences Other

Worked with Introduktion til
the theoretical universitetspædagogik
framework of for ph.d.-studerende
the thesis (1,5 ECTS)

Reading An Introduction to
relevant Qualitative Methods
literature on (3 ECTS)
theoretical
and Introducing the
methodological Philosophy of
issues Science: A
Multiperspective
Worked on Approach (5 ECTS)
narrowing
down theories,
methods,
structure and
final research
design

Autumn 2013

PhD Thesis Courses Teaching etc. Conferences Other

Elaborated Advanced Qualitative Grammatik og

and clarified Research Fagtekster I (BA 7th EST
the theoretical Methodologies: course) Conference
framework Ethnography, Case in
Studies, Grounded Sproglige strukturer Germersheim,
Writing texts Theory and Action og Germany
about Research (5 ECTS) Fagsprogsoversættelse
methodological (BA course)
considerations Investigating
Knowledge
Meeting with Communication:
case company Concepts, Methods
and Means (5 ECTS)
Planning the
structure of Fieldwork,
an ethnography and
ethnographic workplace studies in
field study Translation Studies
(2 ECTS)
Writing a
thesis
proposal
  28
 Year 2
Spring 2014

PhD Thesis Courses Teaching etc. Conferences Other

Ethnographic field
study at a marketing
implementation
company based in
London

Analysis and
transcription of data
collected during my
field study

Continued reading of
relevant literature

Write chapter on my
theoretical framework

Autumn 2014

PhD Thesis Courses Teaching etc. Conferences Other

Continued analysis of CETRA Grammatik og

data collected during Research Fagtekster I (BA
my field study Summer course)
School (5
ECTS) Sproglige strukturer
og
Fortolkende Fagsprogsoversættelse
og (BA course)
tekstanalytiske
strategier til
kvalitativ
analyse (5
ECTS)

  29
Year 3
Spring 2015

PhD Thesis Courses Teaching etc. Conferences Other

Finish data 5th IATIS Visiting PhD at
analysis Conference in another
Belo Horizonte, research
Write chapter Minas Gerais, institution
on methodology Brazil, 7th-10th of
July 2015
(Innovation
Paths in
Translation and
Intercultural
Studies)

Autumn 2015

PhD Thesis Courses Teaching etc. Conferences Other

Write
concluding
chapters and
hand in the
PhD thesis,
which will be
written as a
monography

  30
9. References

Adab, Beverly J.; Valdés, Cristina (2004): Key debates in the translation of
advertising material: special issue. St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester

Boivineau, Roger (1972): L'ABC de l'adaptation publicitaire. Meta : Journal des

traducteurs Meta:/Translators' Journal 17(1): 5-28.

Chesterman, Andrew (1997): Memes of Translation. John Benjamins Publishing

Company, Amsterdam & Philadelphia

Creswell, John W. (2014): Research Design – Qualitative, Quantitative, & Mixed

Methods Approaches, Fourth Edition. Sage, Los Angeles; London; New Delhi;
Singapore; Washington DC

Daymon, Christine; Holloway, Immy (2011): Qualitative Research Methods in

Public Relations and Marketing Communications. Routledge, London and New
York

Di Giovanni, Elena (2008): Translations, Transcreations and

Transrepresentations of India in the Italian Media. Meta : Journal des
traducteurs ; vol. 53 no. 1: 26-43

Eco, Umberto (2001): Experiences in translation. University of Toronto Press,

Toronto; Buffalo; London

Gold, Raymond L. (1958): Roles in sociological field observations. Social

forces 36(3): 217-223.

Gouadec, Daniel (2007): Translation as a Profession. John Benjamins

Publishing Company, Amsterdam & Philadelphia

Guidère, M. (2000): Publicité et traduction, L'Harmattan

Hammersley, M.; Atkinson, P. (2007): Ethnography: principles in practice.

Routledge, London

Hermans, Theo (2013): What is (not) translation? In The Routledge Handbook

of Translation Studies, London and New York

Ho, George (2004): Translating advertisements across heterogeneous cultures.

The Translator: studies in intercultural communication 10(2): 221-243

Holmes, James S. (1972): The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. 3rd
International Congress of Applied Linguistics: Abstracts. Copenhagen

  31
Jakobson, Roman (1959): On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In: Venuti,
Lawrence: The Translation Studies Reader. Routledge, London and New York,
pp. 113-118

Katan, David (2004): Translating Cultures. An Introduction for Translators,

Interpreters and Mediators. St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester

Koskinen, Kaisa (2008): Translating Institutions – An Ethnographic Study of EU

Translation. St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester

Levý, Jiří (1969): Die literarische Übersetzung. Theorie einer Kunstgattung,

transl. W. Schamschula, Athenäum, Frankfurt

Martin, Joanne (2002): Organizational Culture. Mapping the Terrain. Thousand

Oaks: Sage.

McFarlane, John (1953): Modes of Translation. Durham University Journal

45(3): 77-93

Munday, J. (2004): Advertising: some challenges to translation theory. The

Translator: studies in intercultural communication 10(2): 199-219.

Newmark, Peter (1981): Approaches to Translation. Pergamon Press, London

Newmark, Peter (1999): Taking a Stand on Mary Snell-Hornby. Current Issues

in Language & Society, 6, 2: 152-154

Nida, Eugene (1964): Toward a Science of Translating, with Special Reference

to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill

Pym, Anthony (2003): What Localization Models Can Learn From Translation
Theory. The Lisa Newsletter, 12(2.4)

Pym, A. (2004). Propositions on cross-cultural communication and translation.

Target 16(1): 1-28.

Pym, Anthony (2006): On History in Formal Conceptualizations of Translation,

version 1.2 www.tinet.org/apym/on-line/translation_ny.pdf

Reiss, Katharina (1971): Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik.

Kategorien und Kriterien für eine sachgerechte Beurteilung von
Übersetzungen. Max Hueber Verlag, München

Reiss, Katharina; Vermeer, Hans (1984): Grundlegung einer allgemeinen

Translationstheorie. Niemeyer, Tübingen

  32
Reiss, Katharina; Vermeer, Hans (2013): Towards a General Theory of
Translational Action – Skopos Theory Explained. Translated from German by
Christiane Nord. St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester

Rike, Sissel Marie (2013): Bilingual corporate websites – from translation to

transcreation? The Journal of Specialised Translation (20): 68-85

Risku, Hanna (2004): Translationsmanagement – Interkulturelle

Fachkommunikation im Informationszeitalter. Gunter Narr Verlag, Tübingen

Robinson, Sarah (2008): Trusting the Method: An Ethnographic Search for

Policy in Practice in an Australian Primary School. Ethnography and Education
3(3): 243-252.

Russell, Bernard H. (2006): Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and

Quantitative Approaches. AltaMira Press, Lanham

Saldanha, Gabriela; O’Brien, Sharon (2013): Research Methodologies in

Translation Studies. St. Jerome Publishing, Manchester

Sin-wai, Chan (2013): Approaching localization. In The Routledge Handbook of

Translation Studies, London and New York

Snell-Hornby, Mary (1988): Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. John

Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam & Philadelphia

Snell-Hornby, Mary (2006): The Turns of Translation Studies: New paradigms

or shifting viewpoints? John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam & Philadelphia

Spradley James, P. (1980): Participant observation. Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, New York

Ten Have, P. (2004). Understanding qualitative research and

ethnomethodology. Sage.

Toury, Gideon (1985): A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies In Theo

Hermans (ed.). The Manipulation of Letarature. Studies in Literary Translation.
London and Sydney, Croom Helm: 16-41

Toury, Gideon (1995): Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. John

Benjamins, Amsterdam

Tymoczko, Maria (2005): Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies.

Meta, 50, 4: 1082-1097

  33
Valdés, Cristina (2013): Advertising translation. In The Routledge Handbook of
Translation Studies, London and New York

Zethsen, Karen Korning (2007): Beyond Translation Proper – Extending the

Field of Translation Studies. TTR 20 (1): 281-308

Websites

Branded Translations™:
http://www.brandedtranslations.com/archives/tag/translation-vs-transcreation
(consulted 15.01.14)

TransPerfect:
http://www.transperfect.com/services/multicultural_marketing_transcreation.html
(consulted 15.01.14)

Alpha CRC: http://www.alphacrc.com/linguistic.php (consulted 15.01.14)

  34