Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Cornelia Zwischenberger
To cite this article: Cornelia Zwischenberger (2022): On turns and fashions in translation studies
and beyond, Translation Studies, DOI: 10.1080/14781700.2022.2052950
ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
There is a great deal of uncertainty in translation studies Turns; paradigms; memes;
surrounding the core concepts used to structure its own history. fashion; organisation studies
Both paradigm and turn are used to refer to the shifts that have
occurred. This article starts by showing why it would be
appropriate to give preference to the concept of turn in this
context. It presents memes as the partners that, together with
travelling concepts such as culture or role, underlie the various
turns of translation studies. This, however, still does not tell us
why scholars adhere to particular ideas and concepts and
ultimately to certain academic directions or turns. The main
argument is in favour of introducing the concept of fashion,
which has an impressive history of academic analysis, as the
driver behind turns. It is demonstrated that fashion is uniquely
appropriate to serve as a basis for explaining the unfolding of a
turn.
Introduction
The concept of a turn – as in the cultural turn, the sociological turn or the cognitive turn
– features prominently in translation studies’ accounts of its historical evolution. A
survey of the best-known and most authoritative introductions to the discipline (e.g.
Snell-Hornby 2006; Prunč 2012; Munday 2016) suffices to demonstrate this. The
concept of a paradigm is used at least as frequently as an alternative or synonym in
order to structure and categorise translation studies’ history, its major developments
and shifts, and their ensuing results. Less frequent is the use of the concept of a meme
(Chesterman 2016; Pöchhacker 2016) in this context. However, all three concepts fulfil
a vital organising and structuring function for the discipline.
Following on from my earlier work (Zwischenberger 2019), in this article I will first
briefly show that there is a considerable difference between a turn and a paradigm, the
two most commonly used concepts. Memes may be viewed as a third partner that
seems to underlie both turns and paradigms. A conceptual analysis will show that the
turn concept is ultimately more appropriate for labelling the various shifts and their
lasting results in translation studies. The turn concept also allows us to narrate trans-
lation studies’ history not as a loose succession of shifts but as a history based on
interrelated shifts. Translation studies’ turns such as the “cultural turn” (Bassnett and
Lefevere 1990), the “sociological turn” (Wolf and Fukari 2007), or the more recent “tech-
nological turn” (Cronin 2010) are interrelated and even complementary. The cultural
turn in particular, cannot only be seen as a mega-turn encompassing all other turns in
cultural studies as purported by the cultural theorist Doris Bachmann-Medick (2016)
but this claim can also be extended to translation studies.
There are certain prerequisites to the proclamation of a turn (Bachmann-Medick
2009, 2016). By presenting and analysing the prerequisites for a turn to be proclaimed
in a discipline or field of research, this article also seeks to counteract the often premature
and inflationary proclamations of turns.
The fulfilment of certain prerequisites certainly reveals when the time is ripe for a turn
or an academic shift to be proclaimed but it does not explain what is at the root of a turn
or what propels it. Why do scholars follow a particular new direction to the point of criti-
cal mass necessary for a turn to unfold? In addressing these questions, I propose to intro-
duce the concept of fashion into the discourse on the history of academia and turns in
particular.
Fashion, especially in everyday language, is often presented as something superficial
and not to be taken seriously. However, fashion has a long history of academic analysis,
especially by sociologists or social theorists, dating back to the early eighteenth century.
Connections with and explicit allusions to academia and academic developments have
been present since the very beginning of research into the concept of fashion (cf.
Aspers and Godart 2013).
One discipline in particular has frequently conducted conceptual investigations into
fashion: within the social sciences discipline of organisation studies, the concept of
fashion is researched as the driving force behind change in various organisations and
institutions (cf. Czarniawska and Sevón 1996; Abrahamson 1996, 2011). Interestingly,
organisation studies is also the discipline where the concepts of fashion and translation
are directly combined to provide a powerful explanation of organisational change (cf.
Czarniawska and Joerges 1996; Czarniawska 2008). Thus it may be assumed that the
unfolding of a “translational turn” (Bachmann-Medick 2009) is underway in organis-
ation studies (and certainly across the socials), where the concept of translation has
been widely used since the early 1990s – without, however, a single reference being
made to either textual translation or translation studies.
The main objective of this article is to introduce the concept of fashion as a change-
maker for academia, drawing on the work done in organisation studies. More specifically,
I seek to demonstrate how the concept of fashion is a suitable basis for explaining the
driving force of turns. The characteristics of the fashion concept which make it uniquely
appropriate as a foundation for explaining the unfolding of a turn will also be discussed.
Turns, paradigms, memes and their uses and usability for translation
studies
Translation studies is frequently mapped and charted in terms of turns and paradigms.
My recent analysis (Zwischenberger 2019) of the most authoritative introductions to and
overviews of the discipline (Snell-Hornby 2006; Prunč 2012; Munday 2016; Pöchhacker
2016) revealed rather unreflective use of both turn and paradigm, and virtually no
TRANSLATION STUDIES 3
conceptual engagement with them. Turn and paradigm tend to be used either as close
synonyms or are simply alternated in these works.
For Mary Snell-Hornby (2006, ix), turns seem to lie on a spectrum between the two
extreme poles of “shifting viewpoints” and “paradigms”. Only the latter seem to make a
sustainable and substantial contribution to the discipline (such as the cultural turn of
the 1980s, which she grants a paradigmatic status). No further conceptual engagement
is undertaken. Erich Prunč (2012) in his hefty overview of the historical development of
translation studies also employs both concepts. When discussing the shifts of trans-
lation studies in general terms, he uses “paradigm (change)” but as soon as he considers
the specific shifts in the discipline such as the “cultural turn” (285ff) or the “power
turn” (284; 304), he switches to “turns”. No further explanations are forthcoming on
this change in terminology. Jeremy Munday (2008) also uses both concepts without
making any significant distinction between them. He employs “turn” when describing
shifts that are rooted in the so-called “soft sciences”, such as the “cultural and ideologi-
cal turns” (124ff) that subsume translation as rewriting, gender-related and postcolonial
theoretical approaches, along with the ensuing approaches centred on the concepts of
power and ideology. The use of “paradigm” is reserved for the shifts in translation
studies such as “the software localization paradigm” (190) or the “contrastive analysis
paradigm” (193) that seem to be more aligned with the so-called “hard sciences”
based on quantitative approaches and rooted in the natural and technical sciences.
Franz Pöchhacker (2016) traces the historical developments of interpreting studies
using exclusively the concept of paradigm. He makes, however, one very important
observation, namely that “the various paradigms coexist and are even partly inter-
related, largely complementing rather than competing with one another” (2016, 72).
It is, however, exactly this observation that would speak against the use of this
concept since Thomas Kuhn ([1962] 2012, 77ff.) describes a paradigm change as the
complete substitution of one worldview by another and/or a scientific revolution. It
occurs when a paradigm that is a “universally recognized scientific achievement that
for a time period provides model problems and solutions to a community of prac-
titioners” (Kuhn [1962] 2012, xlii) ceases to provide satisfactory answers. This leads
to its revolutionary replacement. A successful revolution always implies total destruc-
tion and a break with the past: “A revolution changes the domain, changes even
(according to Kuhn) the very language in which we speak about some aspect of
nature” (Hacking 2012, xxxiv). Kuhn ([1962] 2012) points to the shift from the Ptole-
maic to the Copernican worldview as a case in point for a paradigm (change). The
Copernican Model saw the sun at the centre of the universe against Ptolemy’s geo-
centric model. All his other examples of candidates for paradigms or paradigm
changes also come from natural sciences.
Turning to turns
Such academic revolutions, according to Bachmann-Medick (2016), do not take place in
cultural studies and the humanities to which translation studies certainly belongs.
Neither there nor in the social sciences does one worldview radically and violently
replace another. In fact, there is not even one worldview in the humanities and cultural
studies:
4 C. ZWISCHENBERGER
[T]he turns in the study of culture cannot be considered “Copernican”. It is in a much more
cautious, experimental and gradual manner that they have led to the breakthrough of new
perspectives and approaches. It is therefore impossible to speak of a specific “worldview” of
the study of culture, which is fragmented into various turns (see Nünning 2005: 177–178).
… Such developments have led to a methodological pluralism, a transcendence of bound-
aries and an eclectic appropriation of methodologies – but not to the formation of a new
paradigm that completely replaces a previous one. (Bachmann-Medick 2016, 10f.)
Thus, Bachmann-Medick (2016) argues that a turn is a more appropriate concept to des-
ignate shifts in the humanities and cultural studies, and she presents a total of seven turns
that have influenced the development of cultural studies.
Precisely the same applies to translation studies, where the unfolding and break-
through of one great master narrative or worldview certainly does not replace any
other(s). Turns in translation studies sometimes happen at roughly the same time,
such as the cultural turn and the cognitive turn, both traceable to the 1980s (Prunč
2012, 193ff, 285ff). They existed alongside each other and did not disappear simply
because a new turn, such as the sociological turn of the 1990s (320ff), started to
unfold. Turns in translation studies may be said to be interrelated and complementary.
The sociological turn may even be said to have been born out of the cultural turn since
“the ‘cultural turn’ was a pivotal precursor for the sociological analysis of the processes of
translation and the role of translators as social beings” (Zwischenberger 2019, 260).
The cultural turn in the study of culture thus exists at a meta-level as an all-encompassing
turn. This may also be extended to translation studies, where the cultural turn of the
1980s certainly laid an important foundation for its subsequent turns.
Fashion may be the answer as it certainly has a socially cohesive value, following as it
does the principle of imitation. The unifying and grouping of people around a new aca-
demic path is key when it comes to the unfolding of a turn.
Thus, there is already a hint at a possible connection between fashion and academia, with
intellectual innovation being in constant demand and a costuming of the ego certainly
playing a role.
The sociologist Herbert Blumer (1968, 1969) takes Simmel’s work ([1904] 1957) as a
starting point for his engagement with the concept of fashion. He points out, however,
that when following and/or imitating a fashion, it is much more important for people
to be in fashion and be part of a group than to follow famous and influential people
per se. Furthermore, fashion represents an order-establishing mechanism providing a
range of available possibilities to choose from. Blumer (1969, 275) also presents “an invi-
tation to sociologists to take seriously the topic of fashion”.
The concept of fashion was largely developed in sociology and social sciences in
general. There were certainly also other disciplines and projects that engaged with the
concept of fashion such as, for example, British Cultural Studies, most notably the
work of Dick Hebdige (1979) on punk subculture and punks’ way of articulating and
expressing themselves via their fashion. Philosophy, in general, has a rather ambivalent
or even negative relationship with fashion, which can be traced back to Immanuel Kant
(1798) who believed that a closer engagement with fashion was not worthwhile as there
was no utility to be gained from it for society. Hans-Georg Gadamer (1993), however,
acknowledged that there is an element of fashion in academic practice and work but pro-
vided no further discussion of the concept (Aspers and Godart 2013, 176).
TRANSLATION STUDIES 9
At present, fashion is of key interest in organisation studies, where the concept has
been used in order to explain organisational change since the 1990s (Czarniawska
2005, 129). Furthermore, some organisation and management studies scholars have
linked fashion directly to academia (e.g. Starbuck 2008; Czarniawska 2011; Bort and
Kieser 2011). The following account draws heavily on this literature.
The reason for the rocky relationship may certainly be found in fashion’s primary and
obvious areas of application such as in design, architecture and above all clothing, as
is also confirmed by the following observation:
[T]he scope restriction in the study of fashion confined it to a narrow set of aesthetic arti-
facts – interior décor, art, or literature. Fashion studies had scope conditions that restricted
them to the study of largely inconsequential phenomena, because of their lasting association
with [stereotyped conceptions] of femininity in an ever patriarchal society. (Abrahamson
2011, 624)
Academia and the university have also long been dominated and controlled by patriar-
chal structures that are only now gradually beginning to be dismantled.
In relation to the turn concept there are some explicit and anecdotal references that
already suggest a possible, albeit sometimes negatively or at least sceptically perceived,
union of turns and fashion. Tom Mitchell, the labeller of the “pictorial turn”, clearly
points out the union of his turn and fashion: “as an investigator of mass culture and
technical media with a certain respect, I have observed the ‘fashion’ of the ‘pictorial
turn’ as an object of historical analysis and not just as short-lived marketing jargon
(in academia)” (2007, 40; my translation). This hints at a perception of fashion that
has a lasting effect, and which is therefore invested with seriousness in contrast to
pure jargon.
In a critique of Bachmann-Medick (2016), the cultural theorist Hartmut Böhme
(2008) uses the term “fashion” in order to dismiss the turns in cultural studies:
If this were otherwise, the author [Bachmann-Medick] would not in her two-page outlook
present a further 15 (fifteen!) potential turns, which would mean stacking the turns to diz-
zying heights. The author’s reflections show that no “systematic differentiation” has been
undertaken. 20 or even just 15 turns within 30 years: that would not be academia but at
best marketing and fashion, if not nonsense. (Böhme 2008, 2; my translation)
10 C. ZWISCHENBERGER
In presenting her various turns for cultural studies, Bachmann-Medick (2016) herself
questions whether turns follow the mechanisms of fashion:
In other words, is it not the case that the dictates of fashion and the laws of “distinction” also
apply to the various turns in the study of culture, particularly in the sense of Bourdieu’s
remark that “when the miniskirt reaches the mining village of northern France, it’s time
to start all over again” (Bourdieu 1993, 135)? This question touches upon the turns’ ten-
dency to build consensus and create mainstream movements. (Bachmann-Medick 2016, 9)
Its ability to create consensus and a mainstream following is exactly what is needed, and
what gives fashion such a sound basis to explain the unfolding of a turn. It needs to be
pointed out, however, that Bachmann-Medick in her entire work does not pursue this
idea any further.
not yet have a focus on conservation: “If the area is securely established, as in the domain
of the sacred, there will be no fashion. Fashion presupposes that the area is in passage
responding to changes” (286). This also explains the series of turns within the still
rather young discipline of translation studies. A further prerequisite for a fashion to
emerge according to Blumer (1969, 286) is a potential number of models to choose
from. Ultimately the fashion/model which best represents the zeitgeist and that
appears to be most forward-looking will be chosen. A new turn, thus, needs to be per-
ceived as the best suited to respond to the challenges of the present and the future.
As far as this choice and the subsequent establishment of a fashion is concerned, so-
called “fashion setters” (Benders and van Veen 2001, 35ff.) play an important role. These
are generally influential and prestigious figures, and in our case scholars that act as cham-
pions of an academic shift. These influential figures do not need to be or belong to the
initiators of a new fashion, but need to give it a favourable judgement so that it can estab-
lish itself: “The prestige of such persons must be such that they are acknowledged to pass
judgement on the value or suitability of the rival models” (Blumer 1969, 287). Thus, it is
extremely hard, if not impossible, for a new turn to establish itself without having secured
the acknowledgement of influential names. This holds even truer for turns initiated by
lesser-known scholars. It is the big names of a discipline who have the necessary
means of reproduction (the power to make or break careers) (Bourdieu 1998, 31).
This was also empirically confirmed by a large study from organisation studies by Bort
and Kieser (2011) which showed that established scholars and/or figures of prestige
can have a statistically significant positive influence on the attraction of a new academic
fashion if they act as its initiators or promoters. The same, however, does not hold true
for prestigious publication channels when it comes to the successful introduction and
establishment of a new fashion in academia. Interestingly, there was no statistically sig-
nificant correlation between the successful implementation of a new scientific fashion
and its diffusion in prestigious and highly ranked academic journals (Bort and Kieser
2011, 667).
Successful fashions become institutionalised, only thereby truly unfolding as a turn
manifested in specific individuals who associate themselves with a turn and represent
it. Furthermore, there must be publications and scientific events dedicated to a turn
and there could even be specific university/departmental research foci and/or areas sup-
porting a turn, etc.
In a discipline or academic field there is certainly not just one but multiple fashions
that exist alongside one another. Fashion is geared towards the future but there is also
always a connection to the present and the past which makes it particularly suitable as
a foundation for explaining turns. “Scientific novelties that connect themselves more
easily to the major present discourses have a higher chance of getting accepted than
innovations that are not connected in this way” (Bort and Kieser 2011, 659f.). The
organisation studies scholar Barbara Czarniawska (2004, 123) writes in this context
about “the power of associations” and the rootedness of new ideas or fashions in
old ones. New fashions are usually born out of old fashions, taking over their
elements, or else old fashions recur after a certain period of time, as in the case of
retro fashions: “Fashion … does not stand merely for what is new or for the future.
Fashion runs in cycles, although the regularity of those cycles may be in the eye of
the beholder – especially a beholder who is keen on periodization” (Czarniawska
12 C. ZWISCHENBERGER
2011, 9). This again demonstrates that fashion provides a solid foundation for explain-
ing turns.
Conclusions
As demonstrated, the unfolding of a turn would require thorough conceptual work,
which is, however, rarely undertaken with the necessary care. Therefore, the proclama-
tion of certain turns may often be premature or insufficiently justified. This applies to
the use of concepts driving the various turns in translation studies but also the transla-
tional turns taking place elsewhere that employ the concept of translation without much
conceptual analysis. The same conceptual care would need to be extended to the use of
the concepts that define the various shifts in translation studies. Examining the various
introductions into translation studies shows that the terms “turns” and “paradigms” have
so far been employed without much conceptual consideration. A discipline or field of
research and its scholars, however, need to be fully aware of the concepts they use,
especially if these are the core concepts underlying a discipline’s academic shifts and/
or denominating the shifts themselves and thus representing (the history of) a discipline.
When a discipline or field of research traces and analyses its own evolution it must not
get bogged down in conceptual work alone – as vital and elementary as this process may
be – but an effort must also be made to understand where academic shifts or turns come
from and what fuels them.
This, however, still leaves the question of what drives a turn unanswered. Despite
the fact that fashion has a long and rich history as an academic concept, having earlier
attracted the attention of sociologists, and currently being a focus of organisation
studies, where it is combined with the concept of translation to explain organisational
change, it is still treated with scepticism. This may be traced back to the ties between
fashion and clothing and thus stereotyped conceptions of femininity. Organisation
studies scholars have explicitly connected fashion with academia. Some of the propa-
gators and critics of the turn concept have explicitly hinted at a union between
fashion and turns but have done this in a negative way or not followed it any
further (e. g. Bachmann-Medick 2016; Böhme 2008). This article integrates for the
first time the concept of fashion as a changemaker into translation studies’ scholarly
history and presents it as the driving force behind turns in academia in general. Its
characteristics uniquely qualify fashion to act as a foundation from which to
explain turns. Fashion gives its followers a sense of uniqueness but also membership
of of a(n) (academic) group or strand. Fashion is a selection mechanism which gives
direction and helps to select from the available range of options what best represents
the zeitgeist and which options also represent the best potential solutions to present
and future challenges. Fashions are highly relational phenomena as they are always
tied to the past and present. Thus, the transition from one fashion to the next is
not abrupt; instead, fashions, just like turns, can be born out of one another or
certain elements of an old fashion can be maintained in the new one. Fashions,
unlike fads, have a certain stability. It is, however, only the fashions that become insti-
tutionalised, manifesting themselves in related institutional academic foci, personnel,
publications etc., that really turn into academic turns.
As a now mature and established discipline, we need to stop taking things for granted
and instead attempt to really dig into the core of what makes us a discipline. Digging into
where we come from is key to a better understanding of where we are heading. This
14 C. ZWISCHENBERGER
article extends Blumer’s (1969) invitation to sociology to start taking the concept of
fashion seriously in translation studies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributor
Cornelia Zwischenberger works as a Professor in Transcultural Communication at the Centre for
Translation Studies at the University of Vienna in Austria. Her current research focuses on trans-
lation as a travelling concept in other disciplines as well as on new online collaborative forms of
translation such as in crowdsourcing, online fan translation etc. She has published numerous
books and articles and is co-editor of the scholarly series “Transkulturalität – Translation – Trans-
fer” (Frank & Timme).
References
Abrahamson, Eric. 1996. “Management Fashion.” Academy of Management Review 21 (1): 254–
285.
Abrahamson, Eric. 2011. “The Iron Cage: Ugly, Uncool, and Unfashionable.” Organization Studies
32 (5): 615–629.
Aspers, Patrik, and Frédéric Godart. 2013. “Sociology of Fashion: Order and Change.” Annual
Review of Sociology 39: 171–192.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris. 2009. “Introduction: The Translational Turn.” Translation Studies 2
(1): 2–16.
Bachmann-Medick, Doris. 2016. “Cultural Turns: New Orientations in the Study of Culture.”
Translated and edited by Adam Blauhut. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Bal, Mieke. 2002. Travelling Concepts in the Humanities: A Rough Guide. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Bassnett, Susan. 1998. “The Translation Turn in Cultural Studies.” In Constructing Cultures. Essays
on Literary Translation, edited by Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere, 123–140. Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters.
Bassnett, Susan, and André Lefevere, eds. 1990. Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter.
Benders, Jos, and Kees van Veen. 2001. “What’s in a Fashion? Interpretative Viability and
Management Fashion.” Organization 8 (1): 33–53.
Blumer, Herbert. 1968. “Fashion.” In International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences V, edited by
David L. Sills, 341–345. New York: Macmillan.
Blumer, Herbert. 1969. “Fashion: From Class Differentiation to Collective Selection.” The
Sociological Quarterly 10 (3): 275–291. https://www-jstor-org.uaccess.univie.ac.at/stable/
4104916.
Bort, Suleika, and Alfred Kieser. 2011. “Fashion in Organization Theory. An Empirical Analysis of
the Diffusion of Theoretical Concepts.” Organization Studies 32 (5): 655–681.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. “Haute Couture and Haute Culture.” In Sociology in Question, edited by
Pierre Bourdieu, 132–138. London: Sage.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. Practical Reason. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Böhme, Hartmut. 2008. “Vom ‘turn’ zum ‘vertigo‘: Wohin drehen sich die Kulturwissenschaften?.”
Review of Cultural Turns. Neuorientierungen in den Kulturwissenschaften, by Doris
Bachmann-Medick. Journal of Literary Theory Online, May 2008. http://www.jltonline.de/
index.php/reviews/article/view/26/178.
Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS). 1978. On Ideology. Birmingham: University of
Birmingham.
TRANSLATION STUDIES 15
Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS). 1980. Culture, Media, Language: Working
Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972–1979. London: Routledge.
Chesterman, Andrew. 2016. Memes of Translation. The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Rev.
ed. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Cronin, Michael. 2010. “The Translation Crowd.” Revista Tradumàtica. Traducció i Tecnologies de
la Informació i la Comunicació 8: 1–7.
Czarniawska, Barbara. 2004. “Gabriel Tarde and Big City Management.” Distinktion: Scandinavian
Journal of Social Theory 5 (2): 119–133.
Czarniawska, Barbara. 2005. “Fashion in Organizing.” In Global Ideas: How Ideas, Objects, and
Practices Travel in a Global Economy, edited by Barbara Czarniawska, and Guje Sevón, 129–
146. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Czarniawska, Barbara. 2008. A Theory of Organizing. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Czarniawska, Barbara. 2011. “Introduction to the Special Themed Section: Fashion in Research
and in Management.” Organization Studies 32 (5): 599–602.
Czarniawska, Barbara, and Bernward Joerges. 1996. “Travels of Ideas.” In Translating
Organizational Change, edited by Barbara Czarniawska, and Guje Sevón, 13–48. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Czarniawska, Barbara, and Guje Sevón, eds. 1996. Translating Organizational Change. Berlin: de
Gruyter.
Czarniawska, Barbara, and Guje Sevón. 2005. Global Ideas: How Ideas, Objects, and Practices
Travel in a Global Economy. Copenhagen: Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
Dawkins, Richard. 1989. The Selfish Gene. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Esposito, Elena. 2011. “Originality Through Imitation: The Rationality of Fashion.” Organization
Studies 32 (5): 603–613.
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1993. Gesammelte Werke. Band 2. Hermeneutik II – Wahrheit und
Methode. Ergänzungen, Register. Tübingen: Mohr.
Hacking, Ian. 2012. “Introductory Essay.” In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, edited by
Thomas Kuhn, vii–xxxiix. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Hall, Stuart. 1980. “Cultural Studies and the Centre: Some Problematics and Problems.” In
Culture, Media, Language. Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972–1979, edited by Centre
for Contemporary Cultural Studies, 15–47. London: Routledge.
Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Routledge.
Hoggart, Richard. 1957. The Uses of Literacy: Aspects of Working-Class Life. With Special References
to Publications and Entertainments. London: Chatto and Windus.
Kant, Immanuel. 1798. Anthropologie in Pragmatischer Hinsicht. Leipzig: Immanuel Müller.
Kuhn, Thomas S. [1962] 2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 4th ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Latour, Bruno. 1986. “The Powers of Association.” In Power, Action and Belief. A New Sociology of
Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph 32, edited by John Law, 264–280. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Lefevere, André. 1992. Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London:
Routledge.
Mandeville, Bernard. [1714] 1924. “The Fable of the Bees: Or Private Vices, Publick Benefits.”
Reprint, New York: Penguin Classics.
Mitchell, Tom. 2007. “Pictorial Turn. Eine Antwort.” In Bilderfragen. Die Bildwissenschaften im
Aufbruch, edited by Hans Belting, 37–46. Munich: Wilhem Fink Verlag.
Munday, Jeremy. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. London:
Routledge.
Munday, Jeremy. 2016. Introducing Translation Studies. Theories and Applications. 4th ed.
London: Routledge.
Nünning, Ansgar, ed. 2005. Grundbegriffe der Kulturtheorie und Kulturwissenschaften. Stuttgart:
J.B. Metzler.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2016. Introducing Interpreting Studies. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.
16 C. ZWISCHENBERGER
Prunč, Erich. 2012. Entwicklungslinien der Translationswissenschaft. Von den Asymmetrien der
Sprachen zu den Asymmetrien der Macht. 3rd ed. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Reiss, Katharina, and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung Einer Allgemeinen Translationstheorie.
Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Diffusions of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
Sapir, Edward. 1931. “Fashion.” In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences VI, edited by Edwin
Seligman and Alvin Johnson, 139–144. New York: Macmillan.
Serres, Michel. 1992. “Hermes III. Übersetzung.” Translated by Michael Bischoff. Berlin: Merve.
Simmel, Georg. [1904] 1957. “Fashion.” The American Journal of Sociology 62: 541–558.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies. New Paradigms or Shifting
Viewpoints? Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Starbuck, William H. 2008. “The Constant Causes of Never-Ending Faddishness in the Behavioral
and Social Sciences.” Scandinavian Journal of Management 25 (1): 108–116.
Tarde, Gabriel. [1890] 1903. “The Laws of Imitation.” Translated by Elsie Clews Parsons.
New York: Henry Holt.
Thompson, Edward. 1963. The Making of the English Working Class. London: Victor Gollancz.
Vermeer, Hans J. 1997. “Translation and the ‘Meme’.” Target 9 (1): 155–166.
Williams, Raymond. 1958. Culture and Society, 1780–1950. London: Chatto and Windus.
Williams, Raymond. 1981. The Sociology of Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wolf, Michaela. 2007. “Introduction: The Emergence of a Sociology of Translation.” In
Constructing a Sociology of Translation, edited by Michaela Wolf, and Alexandra Fukari, 1–
36. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wolf, Michaela. 2010. “Translation ‘Going Social’? Challenges to the (Ivory) Tower of Babel.”
MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 2: 29–46.
Wolf, Michaela, and Alexandra Fukari. 2007. Constructing a Sociology of Translation. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2015. “Bridging Quality and Role in Conference Interpreting. Norms as
Mediating Constructs.” In Interpreting Quality. A Look Around and Ahead, edited by Cornelia
Zwischenberger, and Martina Behr, 231–267. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2016. “Translationsethiken und Ihre Auswirkungen auf die Zukunft der
Translatorischen Berufe.” In (Neu-)Kompositionen: Aspekte Transkultureller
Translationswissenschaft, edited by Julia Richter, Cornelia Zwischenberger, Stefanie Kremmel,
and Karlheinz Spitzl, 37–57. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2019. “From Inward to Outward: The Need for Translation Studies to
Become Outward-Going.” The Translator 25 (3): 256–268.
Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2020. “Introduction: Translaboration: Exploring Collaboration in
Translation and Translation in Collaboration.” Target, doi:10.1075/target.20106.zwi. Advance
online publication.