Rundle RETS3rdEd Historiography Pre-Print PDF

Rundle, Christopher (in press) “Historiography”.
In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation

Studies (3rd Edition), edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha. London: Routledge.
©This pre-print copy may not be copied or distributed in any shape or form without written
permission from the author.
Historiography
Christopher Rundle
Historiography concerns the way in which the history of an area, in this case
translating and interpreting, is written about from a theoretical and methodological
point of view; in other words, the meta-discourse of translation history, what D’hulst
has called “metahistoriography” (D’hulst 2010:398).
Until the early 2000s, translation history was rarely treated as a distinct subject
within translation studies. Historical perspectives formed a significant part of studies
on translation theory, on literary translation and reception, and in the epistemological
debate on the discipline itself and its possible evolution. But translation history was
rarely considered a research object in its own right, and it was even more rare to find
examples of studies that went beyond considerations of translation practice to
consider translation as a social and historical event that also existed outside its textual
and linguistic relationship with the source text. D’hulst (2001:21) thus argued that
“the history of translation has not received the attention it merits in terms of research
and cannot be compared to any other type of research in translation studies”. A few
significant exceptions to this tendency to neglect translation history include: St-
Pierre’s special issue of TTR (1993) and his essay ‘Translation as a Discourse of
History’, one of the first attempts to define a theoretical and methodological
framework for research on translation “considered as a discursive practice, situated
within a specific social and historical context” (1993b:82); Delisle and Woodsworth’s
Translators Through History (1995), with its clear focus on translators as people and
the historical impact of their work; Venuti’s influential The Translator’s Invisibility
(1995), which is subtitled ‘A History of Translation’ and proposes an ethics of
translation as a contemporary practice, informed by historical precedent; and finally,
Pym’s (1998) Method in Translation History, the first monograph from within
translation studies to treat translation history as a research object. In addition,
relevant influential publications by scholars from outside translation studies include
Rafael’s (1988) Contracting Colonialism and Niranjana’s (1992) Siting Translation.
Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, there has been a marked
growth in interest in historical research on translation and interpreting and the
theoretical and methodological issues it raises. This has manifested itself in
monographs and edited collections with a historical perspective on translation,
conferences and seminars specifically on translation history, and in a series of special
issues of journals such as Meta, Translation Studies, MonTI and The Translator (see
Rundle, Christopher (in press) “Historiography”. In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (3rd
Edition), edited by Mona Baker and Gabriela Saldanha. London: Routledge.
Bastin 2004; Clas and Bastin 2005; O’Sullivan 2012; Cernuda and Pulido 2013; Rundle
2014).
The meta reflection on translation history has not evolved at the same pace, however
(see O’Sullivan 2012:131–2). This is in part because it is natural for a meta reflection
to really gain purchase when it can engage with a significant body of historical
research; and in part because of the very heterogenous disciplinary backgrounds of
the various scholars working on translating and interpreting history. It is much harder
to engage in a theoretical or methodological discussion when, in extreme cases, the
only thing scholars really share is an a priori interest in translation.
Because of the limits of space and in order to privilege new reflection, what follows
will focus on the discourse that has emerged in the twenty-first century. For a
discussion of earlier literature on translation history see St André (2009) in the
second edition of this encyclopedia.
The task of the translation historian

A key theme that has emerged in the meta discourse on translating and interpreting
history is what the task of the translation historian should be. D’hulst (2001) has
drawn up a much cited list of the things that the historian should look at, based on the
rules of thumb used in classical rhetoric, summarised here in an abbreviated form:
Quis? Quid? Ubi? Quibus auxiliis? Cur? Quomodo? Quando? Cui bono? [who? what?
where? with what? why? how? when? to whose benefit?]. More recently, D’hulst has
addressed the methodological specificity of historical inquiry, using the concept of
“bricolage intellectuel” (D’hulst, 2015:285), and has argued that the translation
historian’s conceptual framework needs to be continually adapted to the object at
hand, and that it is vain to seek a fixed/constant specificity in historical research: “the
challenge is to constantly adapt available resources to a particular configuration,
while any search for an unchanging specificity of historical inquiry seems destined to
fail” (286); an approach that loosely recalls Werner & Zimmermann’s idea of a history
that is “à géométrie variable” (Werner and Zimmermann 2006: 43) (see discussion of
histoire croisée below).
Pym (2009) has argued that the priority should be to “humanize” translation history,
to move the focus away from texts and towards the translators themselves, including
their lives and their professional relations (or networks); to reconstruct the
“intercultures” they inhabited. Pym (2000) also suggests that the ultimate purpose of
studying the past is to improve the present – a position which is widely shared in
2
translation studies – and draws a direct connection between translators from quite
different historical eras and their practice (see Adamo 2006: 91).
Finally, some translation historians see it as part of their task to engage with the wider
historiography that is relevant to their topic: to move beyond the “comfort zone” of
their initial discipline (Footitt 2012:221) and either cross into the disciplinary area of
history by adopting a similar discourse (Rundle 2011; 2012) or occupy the
“disciplinary border area” that lies between translation studies and history (Kujamäki
2017:313–14) (see section on Interdisciplinarity below).
The sources of translation history

A key aspect of any historical research is the sources it is based on. There is a direct
correlation between the choice (or availability) of sources and the method the
historian will adopt. D’hulst (2010:399) has argued that: “[s]ince the set of material
objects of translation historiography is virtually identical to the set of objects that may
be studied by all branches of translation research (translation communication
processes, translation theories, translation institutions), we need to concentrate on
the formal objects or the proper historical viewpoints of historiography”. According to
this view it is not the sources that define the historical project but the (presumably
diachronic) perspective applied to them. And, correspondingly, it is not enough to just
“tell the story”; this story needs to be organized according to a set of formal categories
(D’hulst 2012). This approach suggests a fairly uncomplicated relationship with these
sources. Translation historians who work on the texts and para-texts, and who make
less use of archival material, will tend see their sources as fairly unambiguous from a
historical point of view. Reconstructing ‘what happened’ is not particularly difficult.
But when we are dealing with historical archival sources, there are usually a series of
difficulties that mean that even a straight forward reconstruction of events can be
quite complex.
Wakabayashi (2012) has also discussed the use of sources in her presentation of
Japanese translation historians, and describes how their approach is to collect as
many primary sources as they can and then comment on them, without feeling the
need to extend their analysis on a theoretical level. This means that they also tend not
to consider the impact on their historical account of their subjective selection and
arrangement of these sources. Wakabayashi (2012:181) notes that the process of
relativization of historical knowledge which has taken place in the West since the
1970s has not taken place in Japan where a positivist approach continues to dominate
and where, for example, no translation of Hayden White’s Metahistory (1973) has yet
been published.
3
Lung (2011:102) encourages translation historians to broaden their approach and

include archival sources that are not directly related to translating and interpreting.
But once we move beyond actual translations and their meta-texts the difficulty can
be identifying and locating sources. A possible solution is essentially to “grow your
own”, as Richard Aldrich has recommended to scholars of intelligence, another area in
which ready-made sources can be very hard to come by (Aldrich 2002:135; Footitt
and Kelly 2012:2). Kujamäki & Footitt (2016:61) provide an interesting example of
how this is done with reference to conflict interpreting, where institutional archives
tend not to have their material organized so that sources relevant to translating and
interpreting can be identified directly. Instead they have to be sought out by a process
of guesswork and exploration. They conclude, in reference to Pym (1998:139), that “in
military translation history, contextualization and individual archived documents
replace lists as ‘the basic tools for translation archaeology’” (62).
Synchronic and diachronic perspectives

One of the difficulties that emerges in historical approaches to translation studies is
finding a way to reconcile the diachronic perspective, which is natural in any
historical inquiry, and the synchronic perspective which is apparent in the strongly-
felt need in translation studies to find definitions and categories that are applicable
across different historical contexts, usually with the aim of allowing these to be
compared to each other.
D’hulst (2010:403) and Rundle & Rafael (2016:30) have argued against applying
contemporary categories to past historical contexts, either because of the potential
“distortion” that this can produce, an anachronistic reading of the past in terms of the
present (also known as “presentism”, see Rundle, forthcoming), or because of a
potential loss of historical specificity.
One possible answer to this difficulty lies in integrating a sociological approach in
one’s historical inquiry. Two interesting and comparable examples of this kind of
integration are Wolf’s (2015) and Tryuk’s (2015) historical research on interpreting.
Both these scholars use Bordieu as a way of drawing more synchronic conclusions
from their historical research in order to reflect on the profession of the interpreter
and its evolution.
In Sapiro’s work on translation and book history, on the other hand, her sociological
framework serves to support a transnational, global perspective in which diachronic
specificity is less of a priority, and where the quantative analysis of “translation flows”
is combined with a qualitative analysis based on “interviews, observations, documents
4
and in some cases archives”. This approach, Sapiro suggests, “also makes a
contribution to the history and sociology of publishing, a research area which has long
remained confined within national boundaries” (Sapiro 2014:7).
Another interesting approach that projects a synchronic perspective across a
diachronic one in order to enable comparison across different historical contexts is
histoire croisée. This is a complex theory that was developed in socio-historical studies
by Werner and Zimmermann (2004; 2006) to address some of the issues raised by
various (often overlapping) comparative approaches to history such as entangled
history, transfer history and transnational history. Its essential purpose is to address
“the problem of articulation between an essentially synchronic analytical logic and
historically constituted objects” (Werner and Zimmermann 2006:35). It has been used
by Batchelor and Harding (2017) as a way of framing the translation and reception
across a range of geographical and historical contexts of the writer Frantz Fanon.
Reiter (2013) also uses histoire croisée in her study of court interpreters in Vienna
during the Hapsburg monarchy, an approach which “allows her to consider the
interpreters and their functions and tasks, their participation in social networks, the
impact of power on their activities, and their labor as mediators between the various
‘clients’ involved” (Wolf 2016:231).
The specific and the general

A distinction that is in some ways related to that between the diachronic and the
synchronic, the historical and the sociological, is that between the specific and the
general. Rundle (2011; 2012) has argued that while most historical research seeks to
identify what is specific and distinctive about a particular context, there is a tendency
in translation studies to want to make comparisons and generalize about different
historical contexts. This tendency is, at least in part, a result of the widespread
interest in translating and interpreting practice and its professional evolution, one
where history is used to inform and (implicitly) improve the present. Batchelor
(2017), quoting Jordanova (2006:124) makes a similar point: “the crux of these
debates hinges on the question of the extent to which the specific, or singular, can or
should be related to the general, or in other words the extent to which we ‘can get at
large patterns by looking meticulously at one or a small number of instances’” (7).
Batchelor suggests that a microhistorical approach can provide a way of constructing
narratives that preserve historical specificity but also offer insights into the wider
historical context. Microstoria is an approach to historical research that was first
formulated in the 1970s by a group of Italian historians led by Carlo Ginzburg (1980).
It was intended as a reaction to the generalizing and sociological bias of much Marxist
5
history as well as to the grand narratives of traditional historical accounts of eminent

men and their political lives. It is not surprising that its bottom-up approach, focusing
on the documentary traces of ‘ordinary’ people, has found favour with a number of
translation scholars (Adamo 2006; Munday 2014).
Finally, as an alternative to the many binary oppositions and dichotomies that seem to
dominate the discussion in the West, Martha Cheung proposes a “pushing hands”
approach which is inspired by a Chinese martial art: the pushing hands metaphor is
intended to represent the dynamic relationship between past and present, one where
“positions and perspectives that are often regarded as existing in a state of tension can
also be brought together in a harmonious coexistence of opposites: theory and
practice, primary and secondary, East and West, macrohistory and microhistory,
universalism and localism” (Cheung 2012:161–2).
Interdisciplinarity
Interdisciplinarity is an important feature of translation history and it is a subject on
which there has been a lively discussion in recent years, with a small group of scholars
arguing that translation history should engage more with historical studies in general.
One example is Malena (2011) who argues that first it is necessary for translation
scholars doing historical research “to be familiar with methods used by historians and
the debates about them”, and second that they need to “define their own philosophical
position regarding history as part of their work” (87). According to St-Pierre, the
relationship between history and translation can be approached with two different
objectives “that come together but do not coincide”: on the one hand, one’s purpose
can be to reach a better understanding of the origins of translation; on the other, it can
be to demonstrate the impact of the historical context on translation practice (St-
Pierre 1993a:9).
Rundle has argued that there is a third possibility, that of looking at what the study of
translation tells us about the historical context we are interested in, where translation
is not so much the object of our research but “the lens through which we research our
historical object” (Rundle 2011:33). This perspective focuses not on the practice of
translation but on the way in which translation was perceived in a certain historical
context and what it came to represent; and it does so by looking at translation as a
political, social, economic – in short, historical – event. A history that goes “beyond the
text to uncover the role translation has played in so many different times and settings”
(Bastin and Bandia 2006:3).
6
To look at translation in history in this way, it is necessary, as Bandia has argued, for
translation historians to “start viewing themselves […] as historians – rather than as
translation scholars or practitioners ‘masquerading’ as historians” (Bandia 2006:46).
Malena makes a similar point when she argues that “translation scholars who labour
to document a history of translation in any given context have to think like historians”
(2011:88).
Rundle has argued that if we wish to engage with history and contribute to it, then we
must adopt an appropriate discourse, which will not be the same as that which is
prevalent in translation studies (Rundle 2011; 2012). It is difficult to address both
research communities at the same time because their dominant paradigms and
perspectives are very different. First there is the issue of shared expertise: the scholar
who has researched translation or interpreting in a particular historical context will
probably share more expertise with other historians of that context than with other
translation scholars (Rundle 2014a: 4). Secondly their approaches and research
objectives can be very different. There is a tendency in translation studies to look for
constants, to draw parallels and highlight similarities in translation practice in
different historical contexts; while, as Rafael among others has stated, most historians
will tend to look for ways in which each historical context is different to others
(Rundle and Rafael 2016:38).
Footitt has made a similar point in reference to research being carried out both within
translation studies and within war studies on the role of language and interpreters in
situations of violent conflict. In research by translation scholars, conclusions about the
role of language in wars such as Afghanistan and Iraq are generally drawn “with an
implicit assumption that the position of the interpreter in such conflicts is likely to be
somewhat similar to that in other wars”. But, “adopting an historical framework
assumes a priori that there is no such thing as a typical war, that each conflict will
have its own peculiar context”. (Footitt 2012:219)
Speaking as a historian and in reference to the role of language in theatres of war,
Footitt also thinks that translation history can make a useful contribution to wider
historical studies (Kujamäki and Footitt 2016:64). However, in reference to his own
experience as a historian with an interest in language, Rafael has stressed how little
research that is carried out in translation studies actually filters down into a wider
historiography: “what you get instead is an asymmetrical relationship, whereby TS
will invariably be interested in historical studies, but historians only occasionally
interested in TS” (Rundle and Rafael 2016:30).
7
Finally, Kujamäki (2017), in another example of historical research on interpreting

that has also had to engage with the relevant historiography, has conceptualized a
“disciplinary border area”, one where the dialogue between the two disciplines (in
this case interpreting and military history) is difficult in both directions due to the
lack of a shared discourse. Describing a dilemma that is similar to that discussed by
Rundle (2011; 2012) in reference to researching translation in Fascist Italy, Kujamäki
explains how his project required significant engagement with military historiography
and archives and that this resulted in “an encapsulation in an uneasy disciplinary
border area, where it is difficult to find comfortable common ground either with
translation studies or history”. On the one hand, “the price of determined
contextualization may be that we risk becoming incomprehensible to our colleagues
in translation studies”, while on the other, “our research interests […] may
occasionally make it difficult to connect ourselves with scholars in the historical field
involved” (314).
Conclusion
The meta-discourse on translation history has clearly evolved since its beginings in
the 1990s. There is a greater awareness of the methodological implications of
conducting historical research, enhanced by the interdisciplinary experience of some
translation historians and their engagement with historical studies. There is also a
more extended notion of what constitutes historical research on translation and the
way in which this can extend beyond the translated text and the figure of the
translator/interpreter to include translation as a historical and sociological event. The
one significant absence is any thorough dicussion in relation to translation studies of
the philosophical implications of history as a mode of research and a form of
knowledge.
Further Reading
Batchelor, K. (2017) ‘Introduction: Histoire croisée, microhistory and translation
history’, in Batchelor, K. and Harding, S.-A. (eds) Translating Frantz Fanon across
Continents and Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 1–16.
Provides an excellent analysis of much of the theoretical discussion so far, including
interdiscipinarity, microhistory and histoire croisée.
D’hulst, L. (2015) ‘Quels défis pour l’histoire de la traduction et de la traductologie?’,

Meta, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 281–298.
8
The most recent of D’hulst’s many contributions to the theoretical discussion on

translation history in which he proposes a “bricolage intellectuel” as the only way to
fit the appropriate theoretical approach to our specific historical object.
Kujamäki, P. and Footitt, H. (2016) ‘Military history and translation studies’, in

Gambier, Y. and Doorslaer, L. van (eds) Border Crossings. Translation Studies and other
disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–71.
An interesting discussion between two military historians, one from within
translation studies and one from war studies; both with a focus on interpreting
history and the role of languages in war. They discuss questions of interdisciplinarity
and the identifying of historical sources.
Rundle, C. (2012) ‘Translation as an approach to history’, Translation Studies, vol. 5,

no. 2, pp. 232–248; and responses by St Pierre, Hermans and Delabastita.
This position paper and the responses that follow discuss in detail the
interdisciplinary relationship between translation and historical studies. In it Rundle
suggests the alternative approach whereby translation is used as a means to gain
greater insight into a historical object, rather than as an object in itself.
References
Adamo, S. (2006) ‘Microhistory of translation’, in Bastin, G. and Bandia, P. (eds)
Charting the Future of Translation History. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press,
pp. 81–100.
Aldrich, R. (2002) ‘“Grow your own”: Cold war intelligence and history supermarkets’,
Intelligence and National Security, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 135–152.
Bandia, P. F. (2006) ‘The impact of postmodern discourse on the history of
translation’, in Bastin, G. L. and Bandia, P. F. (eds) Charting the Future of
Translation History. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, pp. 45–58.
Bastin, G. L. (ed.) (2004) Meta, vol. 49, no. 3. Special Issue on “History of Translation
and Translation of History”.
Bastin, G. L. and Bandia, P. F. (2006) ‘Introduction’, in Bastin, G. L. and Bandia, P. F.
(eds) Charting the Future of Translation History. Ottawa: University of Ottawa
Press, pp. 1–9.
Batchelor, K. (2017) ‘Introduction: Histoire croisée, microhistory and translation
history’, in Batchelor, K. and Harding, S.-A. (eds) Translating Frantz Fanon across
Continents and Languages. London: Routledge, pp. 1–16.
9
Batchelor, K. and Harding, S. (2017) Translating Frantz Fanon across Continents and
Languages. London: Routledge.
Cernuda, M. and M. Pulido (eds) (2013) MonTI, vol. 5. Special Issue on “The History of
Translation within Translation Studies: Problems in Research and Didactics”.
Cheung, M. P. (2012) ‘The mediated nature of knowledge and the pushing-hands
approach to research on translation history’, Translation Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp.
156–171.
Clas, A. and G. Bastin (eds) (2005) Meta, vol. 50, no. 3. Special Issue on “The History
Lens”.
D’hulst, L. (2001) ‘Why and how to write translation histories’, CROP, vol. 6, pp. 21–32.
D’hulst, L. (2010) ‘Translation history’, in Gambier, Y. and van Doorslaer, L. (eds)
Handbook of Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 397–405.
D’hulst, L. (2012) ‘(Re)locating translation history: From assumed translation to
assumed transfer’, Translation Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 139–155.
D’hulst, L. (2015) ‘Quels défis pour l’histoire de la traduction et de la traductologie?’,
Meta, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 281–298.
Delisle, J. and Woodsworth, J. (eds) (1995) Translators through history. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins (Benjamins translation library).
Footitt, H. (2012) ‘Incorporating languages into histories of war: A research journey’,
Translation Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 217–231.
Footitt, H. and Kelly, M. (eds) (2012) Languages and the Military. Alliances, Occupation
and Peace Building. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ginzburg, C. (1980) The Cheese and the Worms. Translated by J. Tedeschi and A. C.
Tedeschi. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jordanova, L. (2006) History in Practice. London: Hodder Arnold.
Kujamäki, P. (2017) ‘Finnish women, German pigs and a translator: Translation
consolidating the performance of “brotherhood-in-arms” (1941-44)’, Translation
Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 312–328.
Kujamäki, P. and Footitt, H. (2016) ‘Military history and translation studies’, in
Gambier, Y. and Doorslaer, L. van (eds) Border Crossings. Translation Studies and
other disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 49–71.
10
Lung, R. (2011) Interpreters in Early Imperial China. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.
Malena, A. (2011) ‘Where is the “history” in translation histories?’, TTR : Traduction,
Terminologie, Ré daction, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 87–115.
Munday, J. (2014) ‘Using primary sources to produce a microhistory of translation and
translators: Theoretical and methodological concerns’, The Translator, vol. 20,
no. 1, pp. 64–80.
Niranjana, T. (1992) Siting translation: History, Post-structuralism, and the Colonial
context. Berkley: University of California Press.
O’Sullivan, C. (2012) ‘Introduction’, Translation Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 131–138.
O’Sullivan, C. (ed.) (2012) Translation Studies, vol. 5, no. 2. Special Issue on
“Rethinking Methods in Translation History”.
Pym, A. (1998) Method in Translation History. Manchester: St Jerome.
Pym, A. (2000) Negotiating the Frontier. Translators and Intercultures in Hispanic
History. Manchester: St Jerome.
Pym, A. (2009) ‘Humanizing translation history’, Hermes, vol. 42, pp. 23–48.
Rafael, V. (1988) Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in
Tagalog Society under early Spanish Rule. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Reiter, C. (2013) ‘“Vermittler zwischen West und Ost: Hofdolmetscher am Habsburger
Hof (1650–1800)” [Mediators between Occident and Orient: Court interpreters
at the Habsburg Court (1650–1800)]’, in Barth-Scalmani, G., Rudolph, H., and
Steppan, C. (eds) Politische Kommunikation zwischen Imperien [Political
communication between empires]. Innsbruck: StudienVerlag, pp. 257–73.
Rundle, C. (2011) ‘History through a translation perspective’, in Chalvin, A., Lange, A.
and Monticelli, D. (eds) Between Cultures and Texts. Itineraries in Translation
History/Entre les cultures et les textes. Itinéraires en histoire de la traduction.
Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, pp. 33–43.
Rundle, C. (2012) ‘Translation as an approach to history’, Translation Studies, vol. 5,
no. 2, pp. 232–240.
Rundle, C. (2014a) ‘Theories and methodologies of translation history: the value of an
interdisciplinary approach’, The Translator, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 2–8.
Rundle, C. (ed.) (2014) The Translator, vol. 20, no. 1. Special Issue on “Theories and
Methodologies of Translation History”.
11
Rundle, C. (forthcoming) ‘Temporality’, in D'hulst, L. and Gambier, Y. (eds) A History of

Modern Translation Knowledge: Sources, Concepts, Effects. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Rundle, C. and Rafael, V. (2016) ‘History and translation. the event of language’, in
Gambier, Y. and van Doorslaer, L. (eds) Border Crossings. Translation Studies and
other disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 23–48.
Sapiro, G. (ed.) (2014) Bibliodiversity, journal of Publishing in Globalization, February.
Special issue on “Translation and globalization”.
St André, J. (2009) ‘History’, in Baker, M. and Saldanha, G. (eds) Routledge
Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 2nd Edition. London: Routledge, pp. 133–136.
St-Pierre, P. (1993a) ‘Présentation. l’Histoire en traduction’, TTR: traduction,
terminologie, rédaction, vol. 6, no.1, pp. 9–14.
St-Pierre, P. (1993b) ‘Translation as a discourse of history’, TTR: traduction,
terminologie, rédaction, vol. 6, no.1, pp. 61–82.
St-Pierre, P. (ed.) (1993) TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, vol. 6, no. 1. Special
issue on “Histoire en traduction”.
Tryuk, M. (2015) On Ethics and Interpreters. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Venuti, L. (1995) The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London:
Routledge.
Wakabayashi, J. (2012) ‘Japanese translation historiography: Origins, strengths,
weaknesses and lessons’, Translation Studies, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 172–188.
Werner, M. and Zimmermann, B. (2006) ‘Beyond comparison: Histoire croisée and the
challenge of reflexivity’, History and Theory, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 30–50.
Werner, M. and Zimmermann, B. (eds) (2004) De la comparaison à l’histoire croisée.
Paris: Seuil.
White, H. V. (1973) Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century
Europe. Baltimore & London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wolf, M. (2015) The Habsburg Monarchy's Many-Languaged Soul. Translating and
interpreting, 1848–1918. Translated by K. Sturge. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wolf, M. (2016) ‘Histoire croisée’, in Angelelli, C. V. and Baer, B. J. (eds) Researching
Translation and Interpreting. London: Routledge, pp. 229–235.
12

Rundle RETS3rdEd Historiography Pre-Print PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rundle RETS3rdEd Historiography Pre-Print PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rundle, Christopher (in press) “Historiography”.

In The Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation

The task of the translation historian

The sources of translation history

Lung (2011:102) encourages translation historians to broaden their approach and

Synchronic and diachronic perspectives

The specific and the general

history as well as to the grand narratives of traditional historical accounts of eminent

Finally, Kujamäki (2017), in another example of historical research on interpreting

D’hulst, L. (2015) ‘Quels défis pour l’histoire de la traduction et de la traductologie?’,

The most recent of D’hulst’s many contributions to the theoretical discussion on

Kujamäki, P. and Footitt, H. (2016) ‘Military history and translation studies’, in

Rundle, C. (2012) ‘Translation as an approach to history’, Translation Studies, vol. 5,

Lung, R. (2011) Interpreters in Early Imperial China. Amsterdam: John Benjamins

Rundle, C. (forthcoming) ‘Temporality’, in D'hulst, L. and Gambier, Y. (eds) A History of

You might also like