C ha pt e r 15 sromlgeaSJIHG

J a m e s S. Hol m e s UTSRONMLIHFEDA

T HE Ñ A ME AND NAT URE OF

T R A N S L A T I ON S T UDI E S ^

1.1

" ^ C I E N C E , " MICHAEL M U E K A YzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

points out, "tends to proceed by
k 3 means of discovery of n e w áreas of ignorance."^ T h e process by w h i c h this
takes place has been fairly w e l l defined by the sociologists of science and research.^
A s a n e w probiem or set of problems comes into v i e w i n the w o r l d of learning,
there is an influx of researchers from adjacent á r e a s , bringing w i t h them the para-
digms and models that have proved fruitful i n their o w n fields. These paradigms
and models are then brought to bear on the n e w probiem, w i t h one of t w o results.
In some situations the probiem proves amenable to explicitation, analysis, explica-
tion, and at least partial solution w i t h i n the bounds of one of the paradigms or
models, and i n that case it is annexed as a legitimate branch of an established field
of study. I n other situations the paradigms or models fail to produce sufficient
results, and researchers become aware that n e w methods are needed to approach
the probiem.
In this second type of situation, the result is a t e n s i ó n between researchers inves-
tigating the n e w probiem and coUeagues i n their former fields, and this t e n s i ó n
can gradually lead to the establishment of n e w channels of communication and the
development of what has been called a n e w disciplinary utopia, that is, a n e w sense
of a shared interest i n a c o m m o n set of problems, approaches, and objectives on
the part of a n e w grouping of researchers. As W . O . Hagstrom has indicated, these
t w o steps, the establishment of communication channels and the development of a
disciplinary utopia, "make it possible for scientists to identify w i t h the emerging trieUTSRONMLJIHFEDA

1972
 T H E Ñ A M E A N D N A T U R E OF T R A N S L A T I O N wutsrqponmlkjihgfec
S T U D I E S 181 zyxwvutsr

discipline and to claim legitimacy for their point of v i e w w h e n appealing to univer-

sity bodies or groups i n the larger society."*

1.2

Though there are no doubt a few scholars w h o w o u l d object, particularly among

the linguists, it w o u l d seem to m e clear that i n regard to the c o m p l e x of prob-
lems clustered round the phenomenon of translating and translations,^ the second
situation n o w applies. After centuries of incidental and desultory attention from
a scattering of authors, philologians, and literary scholars, plus here and there a
theologian or an idiosyncratic linguist, the subject of translation has enjoyed
a marked and constant increase i n interest on the part of scholars in recent years,
w i t h the Second W o r l d W a r as a kind of turning point. As this interest has solidi-
hed and expanded, m o r e and m o r e scholars have moved into the field, particularly
from the adjacent fields of linguistics, linguistic philosophy, and literary studies, but
also from such seemingly m o r e remote disciplines as information theory, logic, and
mathematics, each of them carrying w i t h h i m paradigms, quasi-paradigms, models,
and methodologies that he felt could be brought to bear on this n e w probiem.
A t first glance, the resulting situation today w o u l d appear to be one of great
"• ^nfusion, w i t h no consensus regarding the types of models to be tested, the kinds
lethods to be applied, the varieties of terminology to be used. M o r e than that,
e is not even likemindedness about the contours of the field, the probiem set,
discipline as .such. Indeed, scholars are not so much as agreed on the very ñ a m e
the n e w field.
Xevertheless, beneath the superficial l e v e l , there are a number of indications
íor the field of research focusing on the problems of translating and translations
c t r o m ' s disciplinary utopia is taking shape. I f this is a salutary development (and
-ieve that it i s ) , it follows that it is w o r t h our while to further the development
imsciously turning our attention to matters that are serving to impede it.

.3

e of these impediments is the lack of appropriate channels of communication.

• scholars and researchers i n the field, the channels that do exist still tend to r u n
the older disciplines ( w i t h their attendant norms i n regard to models, methods,
r minology), so that papers on the subject of translation are dispersed over
cals i n a w i d e variety of scholarly fields and journals for practising translators.
var that there is a need for other communication channels, cutting across
-tional disciplines to reach all scholars w o r k i n g in the field, from w^hatea er
1.

o u i d like to focus our attention on t w o other impediments to the develop-

a disciplinary utopia. T h e first of these, the lesser of the t w o i n importance.
182trieUTSRONMLJIHFEDA
J A M E S S. H O L M E S zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

is the seemingly trivial matter of the ñ a m e for this field of research. It woulci
be wise to c o n t i n u é referring to the discipline by its subject matter as has been c
at this conference, for the map, as the General Semanticists constantly remind „
is not the territory, and failure to distinguish the t w o can only further confusión.
T h r o u g h the years, di verse terms have been used i n writings dealing w i t h tran-
lating and translations, and one can find references i n English to "the art" v i .
"the craft" of translation, but also to the "principies" of translation, the "funda-
m e n t á i s " or the "philosophy". Similar terms recur i n E r e n c h and G e r m á n . In son-
cases the cholee of t e r m reflects the attitude, point of approach, or backgrour.
of the w r i t e r ; i n others it has been determined by the fashion of the moment :
scholarly terminology.
T h e r e have been a few attempts to c r é a t e m o r e "learned" terms, most of then-
w i t h the highly active disciplinary suffix -ology. Roger Goffin, for instance, ha
suggested the designation "translatology" i n English, and either its cognate orzyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaWUTSRPOMLJIFEDC
traduc-
tologie in Erench.^ B u t since the -ology suffix derives from G r c e k , purists reject a
contamination of this k i n d , all the m o r e so w h e n the other element is not even from
Classical Latín, but from Late Latin i n the case of translatio or Renaissance Erench
in that of traducción. Y e t G r e e k alone offers no w a y out, for "metaphorologv",
"metaphraseology", or "metaphrastics" w o u l d hardly be of aid to us i n making our
subject clear even to university bodies, let alone to other "groups i n the larger
society."^ Such other terms as "translatistics" or "translistics", both of w h i c h have
been suggested, w o u l d be more readily understood, but hardly more acceptable.

2.2.1

T w o further, less classically constructed terms have come to the fore i n recent years.
O n e of these began its life in a longer f o r m , "the theory of translating" or "the theory
of translation" (and its corresponding forms: "Theorie des Ü b e r s e t z e n s " , " t h é o r i e de
la traduction"). I n English (and in G e r m á n ) it has since gone the way of many such
terms, and is n o w usually compressed into "translation theory" (Ühersetzungstbeorie).
It has been a productive designation, and can be even more so i n future, but only
if it is restricted to its proper meaning. E o r , as I hope to make clear i n the course
of this paper, there is m u c h valuable study and research being done i n the disci-
pline, and a need for m u c h more to be done, that does not, strictly speaking, fall
w i t h i n the scope of theory formation.

2.2.2

T h e second t e r m is one that has, to all intents and purposes, w o n the field i n G e r m á n
as a designation for the entire discipline.** T h i s is the t e r m Übersetzungswissenschaft,
constructed to form a parallel to Sprachwissenschaft, Literaturwissenschaft, and many
other Wissenschaften. I n E r e n c h , the comparable designation, "science de la traduc-
tion", has also gained ground, as have parallel terms i n various other languages.
O n e of the first to use a parallel-sounding t e r m in English was Eugene Nida,
w h o i n 1964 chose to entitle his t h e o r e t í c a l handbook Towards a Science of
 T H E Ñ A M E A N D N A T U R E OF T R A N S L A T I O N wutsrqponmlkjihgfecba
S T U D I E S 183 zyxwvutsrpon

TranslatingzyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA
It should be noted, though, that Nida did not intcnd the phrase as a
ñ a m e for the entire field of study, but only for one aspect of the process of trans-
lating as such."* O t h e r s , most of them not nativc speakers of English, have been
more bold, advocating the t e r m "science of translation" ( o r "translation science") as
the appropriate designation for this emerging discipline as a w h o l e . T w o years ago
this recurrent suggestion was followed by something like canonization of the t e r m
when Bausch, Klegraf, and W i l s s took the decisión to make it the main title to their
analytical bibliography of the entire field."
It was a decisión that I , for one, regret. It is not that I object to the t e r m Über-
setzungswissenschaft, for there are few i f any valid arguments against that designation
for the subject in G e r m á n . T h e probiem is not that the discipline is not a Wissenschaft,
but that not all Wissenschaften can properly be called sciences. Just as no one today
w o u l d take issue w i t h the terms Sprachwissenschaft and Literaturwissenschaft, w h i l e
more than a few w o u l d question whether linguistics has yet reached a stage of preci-
sión, formalization, and paradigm formation such that it can properly be described
as a science, and w h i l e practically e very one w o u l d agree that literary studies are
not, and in the foreseeable future w i l l not be, a science in any true sense of the
English w o r d , in the same w a y I question whether w e can w i t h any justification use
a designation for the study of translating and translations that places it in the
company of mathematics, physics, and chemistry, or even biology, rather than that
of sociology, history, and philosophy — or for that matter of literary studies.

2.3

There i s , h o w e v c r , another t e r m that is active i n EnglLsh i n the naming of n e w disci-

phnes. T h i s is the w o r d "studies". Indeed, for disciplines that w i t h i n the o í d
distinction of the universities tend to fall under the humanities or arts rather than
the sciences as fields of learning, the w o r d w o u l d seem to be almost as active in
English as the w o r d Wissenschaft in G e r m á n . O n e need only think of Russian studies,
-American studies, C o m m o n w e a l t h studies, population studies, communication
studies. T r u e , the w o r d raises a few n e w complications, among them the fact that
it is difficult to derive an adjectival f o r m . Nevertheless, the designation "translation
studies" w o u l d seem to be the most appropriate of all those available i n English,
and its adoption as the standard t e r m for the discipline as a whole w o u l d remove a
fair amount of confusión and misunderstanding. I shall set the example by making
use of it i n the rest of this paper. A greater impediment than the lack o f a gener-
ally accepted ñ a m e i n the w a y of the development of translation studies is the lack
of any general consensus as to the scope and structure of the discipline. W h a t consti-
tutes the field of translation studies? A few w o u l d say it coincides w i t h comparativo
(or contrastive) terminological and lexicographical studies; several look upon it as
qractically identical w i t h comparativo or contrastive linguistics; many w o u l d
fider it largcly synonymous w i t h translation theory. B u t surely it is different, i f
-ilways distinct, from the first t w o of these, and more than the third. As is usually
e found in the case of emerging disciplines, there has as yet been little meta-
ction on the nature of translation studies as such — at least that has made its
wav into print and to m y attention. O n e of the few cases that I have found is that
184 trieUTSRONMLJIHFEDA
J A M E S S. H O L M E S zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

of W e r n e r K o l l e r , w h o has given the following delineation of the subject: " Ü b e r -

setzungswissenschaft ist zu verstehen ais Zusammenfassung und Ü b e r b e g r i f f für alie
F o r s c h u n g s b e m ü h u n g e n , die v o n den P h á n o m e n e n ' Ü b e r s e t z e n ' und ' Ü b e r s e t z u n g '
ausgehen oder auf diese P h á n o m e n e zielen." (Translation studies is to be understood
as a collective and inclusive designation for all research activities taking the
phenomena of translating and translation as their basis or f o c u s . " )

3.1

F r o m this delineation it follows that translation studies is, as no one I suppose w o u l d

deny, an empirical discipline. Such disciplines, it has often been pointed out, have
t w o major objectives, w h i c h C a r i G . H e m p e l has phrased as "to describe particular
phenomena in the w o r l d of our experience and to establish general principies by
means of w h i c h they can be explained and p r e d i c t e d . " " As a field of p u r é research
— that is to say, research pursued for its o w n sake, quite apart from any direct prac-
tical application outside its o w n terrain - translation studies thus has t w o main
objectives: ( 1 ) to describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they
manifest themselves in the w o r l d of our experience, and ( 2 ) to establish general
principies by means of w h i c h these phenomena can be explained and predicted. T h e
t w o branches of p u r é translation studies concerning themselves w i t h these objec-
tives can be designatedzyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaWUTSRPOMLJIFEDCBA
Jescriptive translation studies ( D T S ) or translation description
(TU) and theoretical translation studies ( T h T S ) or translation theory ( T T h ) .

3.1.1

O f these t w o , it is perhaps appropriate to give first consideration to descriptivo trans-

lation studies, as the branch of the discipline w h i c h constantly maintains the closest
contact w i t h the empirical phenomena under study. T h e r e w o u l d seem to be three
major kinds of research i n D T S , w h i c h may be distinguished by their focus as
uct-oriented, function-oriented, and process-oriented.

3.1.1.1

Product-oriented DTS, that área of research w h i c h describes existing translations, has

traditionally been an important á r e a of academic research in translation studies.
T h e starting point for this type of study is the description of individual translations,
or text-focused translation description. A second phase is that of comparativo trans-
lation description, in w h i c h comparativo analyses are made of various translations
of the same t e x t , either i n a single language or in various languages. Such individual
and comparativo descriptions p r ó v i d o the materials for surveys of larger corpuses
of translations, for instance those made w i t h i n a specific period, language, a n d / o r
t e x t or discourse type. In practice the corpus has usually been restricted i n all three
ways: seventeenth-century literary translations into F r e n c h , or medieval English
Bible translations. But such descriptive surveys can also be larger in scope.
 T H E M A M E A N D N A T U R E OF T R A N S L A T I O N wutsrqponmlkjihgfecba
S T U D I E S 185 zyxwvutsrqp

diachronic as w e l l as (approximately) synchronic, and one of the eventual goals of

product-oriented D T S might possibly be a general history of translation — h o w e v e r
ambitious such a goal may sound at this time.

3 . 1 . 1 . 2 zyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaWUTSRPOMLJIFEDCBA

Function-oriented DTS is not interested in the description of translations i n them-

selves, but in the description of their function in the recipient socio-cultural
situation: it is a study of contexts rather than texts. Pursuing such questions as w h i c h
texts w e r e (and, often as important, w e r e not) translated at a certain time i n a
certain place, and what influences w e r e exerted in consequence, this á r e a of research
is one that has attracted less concentrated attention than the área just mentioned,
though i t is often introduced as a k i n d of a sub-theme or counter-theme i n histo-
ries of translations and in literary histories. Greater emphasis on it could lead to the
development of a field of translation sociology for (or — less felicitous but m o r e
accurate, since it is a legitimate área of translation studies as w e l l as of sociology —
socio-translation studies).

3.1.1.3

:-s-oriented DTS concerns itself w i t h the process or act of translation itself. T h e

d e m of what exactly takes place i n the "little black box" of the translator's "mind"
j creates a n e w , m o r e or less matching t e x t i n another language has been the
cct of m u c h speculation on the part of translation's theorists, but there has
. very little attempt at systematic investigation of this process under laboratory
;itions. A d m i t t e d l y , the process is an unusually complex one, one w h i c h , i f
.. Richards is correct, "may very probably be the most complex type of event
«et produced i n the evolution of the cosmos.'"* B u t psychologists have developed
are developing highly sophisticated methods for analysing and describing other
olex mental processes, and it is to be hoped that in future this probiem, too,
oe given closer attention, leading to an á r e a of study that might be called trans-
n psychology or psycho-translation studies.

3.1.2

Tbe other main branch of p u r é translation studies, theoretical translation studies or tronmlkihca
mmalation theory, is, as its ñ a m e implies, not interested in describing existing trans-
Ifctions, observed translation functions, or experimentally determined translating
íses, but in using the results of descriptive translation studies, in combination
the information available from related fields and disciplines, to evolve p r i n -
-. theories, and models w h i c h w i l l serve to explain and predict w h a t translating
-anslations are and w i l l be.
186 trieUTSRONMLJIHFEDA
J A M E S S. H O L M E S T HE ÑAME

3.1.2.1 .2.2.2
1
T h e u l t í m a t e goal of the translation theorist in the broad sense must undoubtedh md, there are theori
be to develop a full, inclusive theory accommodating so many elements that it car :wo closely related k a
serve to explain and predict all phenomena falling w i t h i n the terrain of translatinc -allv not quite the same
and translation, to the e x c l u s i ó n of a l l phenomena falling outside it. It hardly nced> Doth cases, language i
to be pointed out that azyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaWUTSRPOMLJIFEDCBA
general translation theory i n such a true sense of the t e r m , i : tation can varv. T h e a
indeed it is achievable, w i l l necessarily be highly formalized and, h o w e v e r the _ - r m a n (language-pair rt
scholar may strive after economy, also highly c o m p l e x . bnguages (language-gron
Most of the theories that have been produced to date are in reality little more G e r m a n i c languages ( l a i ^
than prolegomena to such a general translation theory. A good share of them, in fact. might at least htpothetical
are not actually theories at a l l , i n any scholarly sense of the t e r m , but an array ot ctilture restricted), or for
axioms, postulates, and hypotheses that are so formulated as to be both too inclusive pair restricted), as oppoa
(covering also non-translatory acts and non-translations) and too exclusive (shuttinc -;-tricted) or bettveen li
out some translatory acts and some w o r k s generally recognized as translations). i -.guages of contempof
Linguage-restricted theor
—ative linguistics and sti

I
3.1.2.2 ;_age-pair translation grai
developed for the purposi

O t h e r s , though they too may bear the designation o f "general" translation theories theories there has been l i t

(frequently preceded by the scholar's protectively cautious "towards"), are i n fact confused w i t h language

not general theories, but partial or specific i n their scope, dealing w i t h only one or restricted theories, w h e n

a few of the various aspects of translation theory as a w h o l e . It is i n this área ot culture and language b o u i

partial theories that the most significant advances have been made in recent years, is moreover no doubt tnie
in reality pertain onlv to i
and i n fact it w i l l probably be necessary for a great deal of further research to be
conducted i n them before w e can even begin to think about arriving at a true general
theory i n the sense I have just outlined. Partial translation theories are specified in a
number of ways. I w o u l d suggest, though, that they can be grouped together into
4 i
3.1.2.2.3
six main kinds.
T h i r d , there aretronmlk
rank-ra
discourses or texts as w l i
3.1.2.2.1 or levéis. Traditionallv, a

i
entirely w i t h the rank o f i
First of a l l , there are translation theories that I have called, w i t h a somewhat ranks at w h i c h m u c h t e n
unorthodox e x t e n s i ó n of the t e r m , medium-restricted translation theories, according to nological translation takes
the m é d i u m that is used. Medium-restricted theories can be further subdivided into hand, has until verv rece
theories of translation as performed by humans (human translation), as performed ignoring the m a c r o - s t r u d
by computers (machine translation), and as performed by the t w o i n conjunction clearly discernible trend a
( m i x e d or machine-aided translation). H u m a n translation breaks d o w n into (and linguistics w i l l , it is to b e l
restricted theories or "theories" have been developed for) oral translation or inter- beyond sentence-restricte
preting ( w i t h the further distinction between consecutive and s i m u l t a n e ó o s ) and oping text-rank (or "rank
w r i t t e n translation. N u m e r ó o s examples of valuable research into machine and
machine-aided translation are no doubt familiar to us a l l , and perhaps also several
into oral human translation. T h a t examples of medium-restricted theories of w r i t t e n 3.1.2.2.4
translation do not come to m i n d so easily is largely o w i n g to the fact that their
authors have the tendency to present them i n the guise of unmarked or general F o u r t h , there are text-tyf
theories. probiem of translating sp
 T H E Ñ A M E A N D N A T U R E OF T R A N S L A T I O N S T U D I E Swutsrqponmlkjihgfecb
187

3 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 2 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

Second, there are theories that are area-restricted.zyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaWUTSRPOMLJIF

Area-restricted theories can be
of t w o closely related kinds; restricted as to the languages involved or, w h i c h is
usually not quite the same, and occasionally hardly at all, as to the cultures i n v o l v e d .
In both cases, language restriction and culture restriction, the degree of actual
hmitation can vary. Theories are feasible for translation between, say, F r e n c h and
G e r m á n (language-pair restricted theories) as opposed to translation w i t h i n Slavic
languages (language-group restricted theories) or from Romance languages to
Germanic languages (language-group pair restricted theories). Similarly, theories
might at least hypothetically be developed for translation w i t h i n Swiss culture (one-
culture restricted), or for translation between Swiss and Belgian cultures (cultural-
pair restricted), as opposed to translation w i t h i n western Europe (cultural-group
restricted) or between languages reflecting a pre-technological culture and the
languages of contemporary Western culture (cultural-group pair restricted).
Language-restricted theories have cióse affinities w i t h the w o r k being done in c o m -
parative linguistics and stylistics (though it must always be remembered that a lan-
guage-pair translation grammar must be a different thing from a contrastive grammar
developed for the purpose of language acquisition). In the field of culture-restricted
theories there has been little detailed research, though culture restrictions, by being
confused w i t h language restrictions, sometimos get introduced into language-
restricted theories, w h e r e they are out of place in all but those rare cases w h e r e
culture and language boundaries coincide i n both the source and target situations. It
is moreover no doubt true that some aspects of theories that are presented as general
in reality pertain only to the W e s t e r n cultural arca.

3.1.2.2.3

T h i r d , there are rank-restricted theories, that is to say, theories that deal w i t h

discourses or texts as w h o l c s , but concern themselves w i t h l o w e r linguistic ranks
or levéis. Traditionally, a great deal of w r i t i n g on translation was concerned almost
entirely w i t h the rank of the w o r d , and the w o r d and the w o r d group are still the
ranks at w h i c h m u c h terminologically oriented thinking about scientific and tech-
igical translation takes place. Most linguistically oriented research, on the other
1 , has until v e r y recently taken the sentence as its upper rank l i m i t , largely
ring the macro-structural aspects of entire texts as translation problems. T h e
rly discernible trend away from sentential linguistics in the direction of textual
_uistics w i l l , it is to be hoped, encourage linguistically oriented theorists to move
m d sentence-restricted translation theories to the m o r e complex task of devel-
g text-rank (or "rank-free") theories.

3.1.2.2.4

r:h, there are text-type (or discourse-type) restricted theories, dealing w i t h the
.em of translating specific types or genres of lingual messages. Authors and
188 trieUTSRONMLJIHFEDA
J A M E S S. H O L M E S T H E ÑAME

literary scholars have long concerned themselves w i t h the problems intrinsic to -tricted i n everv w a v
translating literary texts or specific genres of literary texts; theologians, similarly, contemporarv Germi
have devoted m u c h attention to questions of h o w to t r a n s í a t e the Bible and other i . e implications for tii
sacred w o r k s . I n recent years some effort has been made to develop a specific theory w o r k . It w o u l d be wise
for the translation of scientific texts. A l l these studies break d o w n , h o w e v e r , because and w i s e r still not to su
w e still lack anything like a formal theory of message, text, or discourse types. Both for instance, a c o m p l e xpi
B ü h l e r ' s theory of types of communication, as further developed by the F r a g ü e - can be an adequate sa
structuralists, and the definitions of language varieties arrived at by linguists particu-
larly of the British school provide material for criteria i n defining t e x t types that
w o u l d lend themselves to operationalization m o r e aptly than the inconsistent and 3.2 ¡
mutually contradictory definitions or traditional genre theories. O n the other hand,
the traditional theories cannot be ignored, for they c o n t i n u é to play a large part i n .After this rapid overviei
creating the expectation criteria of translation readers. Also requiring study is the studies, I should hke t o
important question of text-type skewing or shifting in translation. w o r d s , "of use" rather ti

3.1.2.2.5 3.2.1

Fifth, there arezyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaWUTSRPOMLJIFEDCBA

time-restricted theories, w h i c h fall into t w o types: theories regarding In this discipline, as in »
the translation of contemporary texts, and theories having to do w i t h the transla- considers the appficatioi
tion of texts from an older period. Again there w o u l d seem to be a tendency to that of teaching. ActuaD
present one of the theories, that having to do w i t h contemporary texts, i n the guise be carefully distinguishe
of a general theory; the other, the theory of w h a t can perhaps best be called cross- as a technique i n foreigi
temporal translation, is a matter that has led to m u c h disagreement, particularly tion. I shall r e t u m to ti
among literarily oriented theorists, but to few generally valid conclusions. phenomenon, translatinj
lators. T h i s second sitn
question that fairlytronm
cr\ fe
3.1.2.2.6 methods, testing technk
for well-founded, reliah
Finally, there are probkm-restricted theories, theories w h i c h confine themselves to one for the time being, at lea
or more specific problems w i t h i n the entire á r e a of general translation theory, prob-
lems that can range from such broad and basic questions as the limits of variance
and invariance i n translation or the nature of translation equivalence ( o r , as 1 should 3.2.2
prefer to cali i t , translation matching) to such m o r e specific matters as the transla-
tion of metaphors or of proper ñ a m e s . .A second, closely relate
for use i n translator trai
lator. T h e needs are i
3.1.2.3 lexicographical and term
have traditionally been p
It should be noted that theories can frequently be restricted i n more than one w a y . hardly be argued that \v(
Contrastive linguists interested i n translation, for instance, w i l l probably produce translation studies. But 1
theories that are not only language-restricted but rank- and time-restricted, having and contrastive grammai
to do w i t h translations between specific pairs of contemporary temporal dialects at an adequate substitute 1
sentence rank. T h e theories of literary scholars, similarly, usually are restricted as w o u l d seem to be a ne<
to m é d i u m and t e x t type, and generally also as to culture group; they n o r m a l l y have define the specific requi
to do w i t h w r i t t e n texts w i t h i n the (extended) W e s t e r n literary tradition. T h i s does meet the needs of practi
not necessarily reduce the w o r t h of such partial theories, for even a theoretical study lexicologists and contra
 T H E Ñ A M E A N D N A T U R E OF T R A N S L A T I O N wutsrqponmlkjihgfecb
S T U D I E S 189 zyxwvutsrq

restricted i n every w a y ~ say a theory of the manner i n w h i c h subordinate clauses

in contemporary G e r m á n n o v é i s should be translated into w r i t t e n English — can
have implications for the more general theory towards w h i c h scholars must surely
w o r k . It w o u l d be w i s e , though, not to lose sight of such a t r u ly general theory,
and w i s e r still not to succumb to the delusion that a body of restricted theories —
for instance, a c o m p l e x of language-restricted theories of h o w to t r a n s í a t e sentences
— can be an adequate substitute for it.

3.2

.After this rapid o v e r v i e w of the t w o m a i n branches of p u r é research i n translation

studies, I should like to t u r n to that branch of the discipline w h i c h is, i n Bacon's
words, "of use" rather than "of light": applied translation s t u d i e s . "

3.2.1

In this discipline, as in so many others, the first thing that comes to m i n d w h e n one
considers the applications that extend beyond the limits of the discipline itself is
that of teaching. Actually, the teaching of translating is of t w o types w h i c h need to
be carefully distinguished. I n the one case, translating has been used for centuries
as a technique i n foreign-language teaching and a test of foreign-language acquisi-
- I shall r e t u r n to this type i n a moment. I n the second case, a m o r e recent
m m e n o n , translating is taught i n schools and courses to train professional trans-
as. This second situation, that ofzyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaWUTSRPOMLJIFEDCBA
translator training, has raised a number of
-tion that fairly c r y for answers: questions that have to do p r i m a r i l y w i t h teaching
Mods, testing techniques, and c u r r i c u l u m planning. It is obvious that the search
'• ell-founded, reliable answers to these questions constitutes a major área (and
- t e time being, at least, the major área) o f research i n applied translation studies.

12.2

• Aecond, closely related área has to do w i t h the needs for translation aids, both
--e in translator training and to meet the requirements of the practising trans-
- T h e needs are many and various, but fall largely into t w o classes: ( I )
graphical and terminological aids and ( 2 ) grammars. Both these classes of aids
traditionally been provided by scholars i n other, related disciplines, and it could
- argued that w o r k on them should be taken over in toto as áreas of applied
n studies. B u t lexicographical aids often fall far short of translation needs,
tastive grammars developed for language-acquisition purposes are not really
.;ate substitute for variety-marked translation-matching grammars. T h e r e
em to be a need for scholars i n applied translation studies to clarify and
e specific requirements that aids of these kinds should fulfil i f they are to
needs of practising and prospective translators, and to w o r k together w i t h
e<ts and contrastive linguists i n developing them.
190trieUTSRONMLJIHFEDA
J A M E S S. H O L M E S

3 . 2 . 3 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

A third arca of applied translation studies is that ofzyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaWUTSRPOMLJIFEDCBA

translation policj. T h e task of the
translation scholar in this á r e a is to render informed advice to others in defining the
place and role of translators, translating, and translations in society at large: such
questions, for instance, as detcrmining what w o r k s need to be translated in a given
socio-cultural situation, what the social and economic position of the translator is
and should be, or (and here I return to the point raised above) what part translating
should play i n the teaching and learning of foreign languages. In regard to that last
policy question, since it should hardly be the task of translation studies to abet the
use of translating in places where it is dysfunctional, it w o u l d seem to m e that
priority should be given to extensive and rigorous research to assess the efficacy o f
translating as a technique and testing method i n language learning. T h e chance that
it is not cfficacious w o u l d appear to be so great that i n this case it w o u l d seem
imperad ve for program research to be preceded by policy research.

3.2.4

A fourth, quite different á r e a of applied translation studies is that of translation crit-

icism. T h e level of such criticism is today still frequently very l o w , and i n many
countries still quite uninfluenced by developments w i t h i n the field of translation
studies. Doubtless the activities of translation interpretation and evaluation w i l l
always elude the grasp of objective analysis to some extent, and so c o n t i n u é to
reflect the intuitive, impressionist attitudes and stances of the critic. B u t closer
contact between translation scholars and translation critics could do a great deal to
reduce the intuitive element to a more acceptable level.

3.3.1

After this brief survev of the main branches of translation studies, there are t w o
further points that 1 should like to make. T h e first is this: in what has preceded,
descriptive, theoretical, and applied translation studies have been presented as three
fairly distinct branches of the entire discipline, and the order of presentation might
be taken to suggest that their import for one another is unidirectional, translation
description supplying the basic data upon which translation theory is to be built,
and the t w o of them providing the scholarly findings w h i c h are to be put to use in
applied translation studies. In reality, of course, the relation is a dialectical one,
w i t h each of the three branches supplying materials for the other t w o , and making
use of the findings w i t h w h i c h they in turn provide it. Translation theory, for
instance, cannot do without the solid, specific data yielded by research in descrip-
tive and applied translation studies, w h i l e on the other hand one cannot even begin
to w o r k in one o f the other t w o fields without having at least an intuitive theoret-
ical hypothesis as one's starting point. In v i e w of this dialectical relationship, it
follows that, though the needs of a given moment may vary, attention to all three
branches is required i f the discipline is to g r o w and flourfsh.
 T H E Ñ A M E A N D N A T U R E OF T R A N S L A T I O N wutsrqponmlkjihgfecba
S T U D I E S 191

3 . 3 . 2 zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

T h e second point is that, in each of the three branches of translation studies, there
are t w o further dimensions that I have not mentioned, dimensions having to do
w i t h the study, not of translating and translations, but of translation studies itself.
One of these dimensions is historical: there is a field of the historv of translation
theory, in w h i c h some valuable w o r k has been done, but also one of the history of
translation description and of applied translation studies (largely a history of trans-
lation teaching and translator training) both of w h i c h are fairly w e l l virgin territory.
L i k e w i s e there is a d i m e n s i ó n that might be called the methodological or meta-
theoretical, concerning itself w i t h problems of what methods and models can best
be used in research i n the various branches of the discipline ( h o w translation theories,
for instance, can be formed for greatest validity, or what analytic methods can best
be used to achieve the most objective and meaningful descriptive results), but also
devoting its attention to such basic issues as what the discipline itself comprises.
T h i s paper has made a few excursions into the first of these t w o dimensions,
but all in all it is meant to be a contribution to the second. It does not ask above
all for agreement. Translation studies has reached a stage w h e r e it is time to examine
the subject itself. L e t the meta-discussion begin.

Notes

1 W r i t t e n in August 1972, this paper is presented in its second pre-publication

form w i t h only a few stylistic revisions. Despite the intervening years, most
of m y remarks can, I bclieve, stand as they w e r e formulated, though in one
or t w o places I w o u l d phrase matters somewhat diffcrently i f I w e r e w r i t i n g
today. In section 3 . 1 . 2 . 2 . 4 , for instance, subsequent developments i n textual
linguistics, particularly in G e r m a n y , are noteworthy. M o r e directly relevant,
the dearth of meta-reflection on the nature of translation studies, referred to
at the beginning of section 3, is somewhat less striking today than in 1972,
again thanks largely to G e r m á n scholars. Particularly relevant is W o l f r a m
W i l s s ' s as yet unpublished paper "Methodische P r o b l e m c der allgemeinen und
angewandten Ü b e r s e t z u n g s w i s s e n s c h a f t " , read at a coUoquium on translation
studies held i n G e r m e r s h e i m , W e s t G e m a n y , 31 May 1975.
2 Michacl M u l k a y , " C u l t u r a l G r o w t h in Science", in Barry Barness ( e d . ) , zyxwvutsrponml
Sociology of Science: Selected Readings ( H a r m o n d s w o r t h , Middlesex: Penguin;
Modern Sociology Readings), pp. 1 2 6 - 1 4 1 (abridged reprint of "Some
-Aspects of C u l t u r a l G r o w t h i n the Natural Sciences", Social Research, 36
[ 1 9 6 9 ] , N o . 1 ) , quotation p. 136.
3 See e.g. W . O . Hagstrom, " T h e Differentiation of Disciplines", in Barnes,
pp. 1 2 1 - 1 2 5 (reprinted from Hagstrom, The Scientific Community [ N e w Y o r k :
Basic Books, 1965], pp. 2 2 2 - 2 2 6 ) .
4 Hagstrom, p . 123.
5 Here and throughout, these terms are used only i n the strict sense of inter-
lingual translating and translation. O n the three types of translation in the
broader sense of the w o r d , intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic, see
192 trieUTSRONMLJIHFEDA
J A M E S S. H O L M E S zyxwvutsrqponmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

R o m á n Jakobson, " O n Linguistic Aspects of Translation", i n Reuben A . - : 5 r 1 6 sromlg

B r o w e r ( e d . ) ,zyxwvutsrponmlkjihgfedcbaWUTSRPOMLJIFEDCBA
On Translation (Cambridge, Mass.: H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press.
1959), pp. 2 3 2 - 2 3 9 .
Roger Goffin, "Pour une formation universitaire 'sui generis' du traducteur:
Réflexions sur certain aspects m é t h o d o l o g i q u e s et sur la recherche scientifique
dans le domaine de la traduction". Meta, 16 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 57—68, see esp. p. 59.
See the Hagstrom quotation i n section 1 . 1 . above. Ge or ge 51
Though, given the lack of a general paradigm, scholars frequently tend to
restrict the meaning of the t e r m to only a part of the discipline. Often, in
fact, it w o u l d seem to be more or less synonymous w i t h "translation theory".
Eugene Nida, Towards a Science oJ Translating, with Special Reference to Principies THE HERI
and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating ( E e i d e n : B r i l l , 1964).
10 Cf. Nida's later enlightening r e m a r k on his use of the t e r m : "the science of
translation (or, perhaps more accurately stated, the scientific description of the
processes involved i n translating)", Eugene A . N i d a , "Science of Translation",
Language, 45 [ 1 9 6 9 ] , 4 8 3 - 4 9 8 , quotation p. 4 8 3 n. 1; my italics).
11 K.-Richard Bausch, Josef Klegraf, and Wolfram Wilss, The Science of
Translation: An Analytical Bibliography ( T ü b i n g e n : T ü b i n g e r B e i t r á g e zur 1
Linguistik). V o l . 1 ( 1 9 7 0 ; T B L , N o . 21) covers the years 1 9 6 2 - 1 9 6 9 ; V o l , I I 4
( 1 9 7 2 ; T B L , N o . 33) the years 1 9 7 0 - 1 9 7 1 plus a supplement over the years i
covered by the first volume.
12 W e r n e r K o l l e r , " Ü b e r s e t z e n , Ü b e r s e t z u n g und Ü b e r s e t z e r . Z u schwedischen
Symposien ü b e r Probleme der Ü b e r s e t z u n g " , Babel, 17 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 3 1 1 , quota-
tion p. 4 . See further
"Übersetzungspraxis,
in this article (also p. 4 ) the summary of a paper
Ü b e r s e t z u n g s t h e o r i e und Ü b e r s e t z u n g s w i s s e n s c h a f t "
T HE HERMENE
tive transfer of m e
behef, i m d e r w r i t t e n h\
presented by K o l l e r at the Second Swedish-German Translators' Symposium, psvchologically hazardo
held i n Stockholm, 2 3 - 2 4 October 1969. or, strictly speaking, ad
13 C a r i G . H e m p e l , Fundamentáis of Concept Formation in Empirical Science (Chicago: is "something there" to i
University of Chicago Press, 1967; International Encyclopedia of Social standing, and the d e m í
Science, Foundations of the U n i t y of Sciences, I I , Fase. 7 ) , p. 1. starts w i t h an act of t m
14 I . A . Richards, " T o w a r d a T h e o r y of Translating", i n A r t h u r F . W r i g h t ( e d . ) , examined, but it has a
Studies in Chinese Thought (Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1953; also from a sequence of pl
published as Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, 55 [ 1 9 5 3 ] , w o r l d , about the prese
M e m o i r 7 5 ) , pp. 2 4 7 - 2 6 2 . ical semantic svstems,
15 Bacon's distinction was actually not between t w o types of research in the generosity of the traM
broader sense, but of experiments: "Experimcnts of Use" as against there"), his trust i n thí
"Experiments of Light". See S. Pit C o r d e r , "Problems and Solutions i n Applied concentrates to a phik
Linguistics", paper presented i n a plenary session of the 1972 Copenhagen the w o r l d as symbolic, i
Congrcss of Applied Linguistics. and must in fact be abl
But the trust can n
covery that "there is nt
concrete, glossolalia are
or deliberately insignií
m o r e or less severelv, j
and translation (the t w

1975