I .,ì.

çt

Journal of Social Theory 2(4):429444

Putliørions: London, Thousmd Oelc, CA od New Delhi

t!^t

Towards a Sociology of Thanslation

Book Tianslations as a Culrural
World-System

Johan Heilbron
CENTRE LILLoTS D'ÉTUDES ET DE RECHËRCHES SOCIoLoGIQUES ET
É,coNoMIquEs (cLERsE), FRANcE

Abstract
This article argues that the translation of books may be fruitfully understood
as constituting a cultural world-system. The working of this system, based on
a core-periphery structure, accounts for the uneven flows of translations
between language groups as well as for the varying role of translations
within language groups. The final part outlines how this general sociological
model may be further developed.

Key words
r globalization r translation studies ¡ transnational cultural exchange
r world-systems theory

ùey a¡e marked L'y pectrliarities

Langr:ages have their own ru-les and reg,-rlatio¡,",
of different kinds a¡d vary gready in their number of speakers. But whether
linguistic communities are large or small, whether rheir languages have peculiar
or more common features, they are all connected to each other by multilingual
speakers,rhusconstitutinganemergingworldlanguagesystem(deSwaan, 1993).
Poþots assure the communication between the speakers of va¡ious languages,
eidrer by communicating direcdy in a foreign language or by translating from
onelang,uage into the-other.'\Øhenever people are deprived of direct'aecess"to a ,

language, translations offer che possibiliry of indirect access.i

Although a growing number of people lea¡n a foreign laaguage and English
has become the lingaa franca of international exchange, much of *re commun!
ca¡ion berween'language groups still depends on translation a¡d translators.
Processes of translation, here meant in the literal sense of tåe word, represent an
intriguing object ofstudy for the social sciences, although úrere is srikingly little
social scientific literature available. In sociolinguistics translaúons are commonly

1368-43 1 0[19991 1)?"4;4294441os9.854

 430 European Journal of Social Theory 2(4)

ignored (Coulmas, 1997), n economics there is lirtle more tllan an occasional

paper (Mélib, 1998), a¡d otler releyant fields, like the new book history do nor
have much more to offer.2
Translations h¿ve tradidonall¡ ar least since Cicero, been commented upon
by uanslators themselves. In the late eighteenth cenñ¡{F Gerrna¡ schola¡s b¡oad-
ened the scope of reflection, and they have been joined, more recendy, by
linguists. The pracritioners themselves, while reflecdng on their craft, have argued
mainly about the stages of the translation process a¡d about the respecrive merits
of literal versus free uanslation.3 German philosophers and literaryscholars at the
end of rhe eighteenth century sra¡ted ro discuss questions of translatabiliry more
broadly as a matter of cuirural difference, often related to national idendry.
Schleiermachert essa¡ 'Über die verschiedenen Medroden des Überseuens'
(published in 1913) became the seminal te:ft for the hermeneutic view of mans-
lation (Berman,l9B4). Linguistic theories of translation, which have developed
especially since dre Second'World'War, have also been concerned with ranslata-
biliry but their approach has been relared to the issue of the linguistic equival-
ence oflanguages.
One of the leading schola¡s in rhe recendy established teld of transladon
studies, Gideon Torry has argued that the raditional discou¡ses on uanslation
were all oriented towa¡ds the sou¡ce-text or the source-language (Tou¡y, 1980).4
By concenuating on the relationship wiúr an original, the underþing concern
was a invariably normative onq whar is the þroper' transladon of a given te:rt?
If uanslators tend to beray the original, tra¿uttorc, trdditore as råe ftalian saying
has it, which deviatioru from the original may be considered legitimate andwhich
are not? Tianslation theory was thus more concerned with þotential' than with
acrual uansladons. This problematic, which served as the basis for ranslators'
training, was not a sound staning point for an ernpirically based undersmnding
of the acrual process of translation
Against the predominandy'normative' approach, schola¡s lile Itamar Even-
Zoha¡ and Tou¡y have called for a 'descrþive' perspective, based on the analysis
of actual uanslations. Following rhe lead of the Russian formalisrs, these pol-y-
system theorisrs have argued rJlar translations need to be understood in relation
to the system in which tlrey funcdon, in relation to a particular set of uarularion
norms, for example, or, when literary rexe are concerned, in relation to t.he lite¡-
ary Сstem of the target-cultu¡e (Even-Zoha¡, 1990; Toury 199Ð. 'Tianslations',
in the words ofToury 'are facs of target-culrur€s; on occasion facrs of a special
status, sometimes even constituting identi6able (sub)systems of their own, bur of
- ,- ,-- - the t+rget=culture in any .u"r¡¡'- (TourJr, 1995t 29) . For úre sociological"aPpfoach . --

of ranslations which I will explore here, tfie conceptual shift from source-text to
terget-context offers a f¡uitfr¡l but insufficient point of departure.

Transnational Cultural Exchange

Considered from a sociological perspective, ranslations a¡e a funcdon-of the

social relations berween language groups and their uansformations ovei time'
 Johan Heilbron A Sociology of Tlanslation 431

They are therefore by no means self-evident, a fact which the termi¡ology itself
recalls. In classical Greek, for example, the¡e is no proper word for translation,
only hermeneuein,but that also means to interpret, to explain. TheLeun tøn¡-
htio is cioser to the cur¡ent meaning, but is a more general term as well, reFer-
ring to the va¡ious forms of ransfer, including the tra¡lsfer of power, as in
trqnsktio imperü. The more specitc and modern serue of the word'ranslatiorÍ
emerged only in the Renaissa¡ce, rilhen halian humanists started to distinguish
ben¡¡een tanshtio and *øductio. The later term, and the coresponding verbs in
Italian and French, tøducere and tradaire, referred speciÊcally to the translation
of texrs Êom one'language into another, and especially into the ve¡nacular.
Tianslations into the vernacula¡ had existed well befo¡e the Renaissance, but
'the printing press gave tÌ¡e vernaculars, and uanslations in the verna.ulr¡, att
entireþ new social significance. rFith dre formation oFnational states, staldard
languages were codi6ed and much of the tra¡sladon acriviry in early modern
Europe was bound m tle evolving relations of cooperacion and confl.ict be¡ween
nadon states.
The actual practice of ua¡slation obviously exists in a greet variety of forms
and contexts: interpreting in political and diplomatic semings; subtiding and
dubbing in the media; high-culture litera¡y translation; as well as a range of rnore
standa¡dized, technical and professional translations in law, technology and
cornmerce. If meaning is determined by use, as dre pragmatist adage says, trens-
lation practice musi be analysed specifically witåin the teld o¡ the subñeld in
which it ecÈually funcdons.
ln this anide I em concerned with one major form of ua¡slation: r}re trans-
lation of boofts. Book ua¡slations represent an identiâable and broad cffegory:
they are published and disributed in a simila¡ manner; they are registered,
counted and classified as a particula¡ category of cultu¡al goods; and they are
destined for a wide variety of audiences. Sociologically such ransladons can be
srudied from various angles. By analysing transl¿dons, questions can be raised
about the way in q'hich cultural goods circulate ouside tireir context of produc-
ii^-
rÀv¡¡
l'R^;ttJí.rì
\.yve¡sÙ¿,^¿
I QAfì\
¿ vrt ^nê -ãn rñ' r^ rrñrrr'êl tl'. rolati^-.lri^ h.ntr..n Åiffer.n¡
countries and cultu¡es (Schoneveld, i983), srudy the role of intermediary centres
(Dirlcx, t995), decþher the complocities of cross-cultu¡al (mis)understanding
(Oz-Salzberget 1995), consider translators as a professional group (Heinich,
I9B4), or analyse the evolution of the system of rransnational communication
itself, for enample by studying túe social organization of the market for trans-
larion rights, the role of literary agents or the functioning of international .book
fairs (Sorá,,1'998). .
This anicle focuses on what is perhaps the most general issue in the sociolog¡r
of uanslation: the uanslation of books considered as an inte¡national system. The
objecdve is to present a suuctu¡al analysis of the international flows of translated
books, and to demonsuare why such an analysig is indispensable for under-
standing the actud ranslation process. Two more speciÊc questions ete cenûel
in this respect. How can one account for the uneven flows of book uanslations
bet'¡seen va¡ious language groups? ,A¡d how can one explain the varying role of- -.
ranslations within different language groups? In proposing ari answer to bor}r--
432 European Journal of Social Theory 2(4)

quescions, the various acrivities involved a¡e considered ro be interdependenr and

a¡e therefore besr undersrood as consrituting an internarional or even a world-
system. The aaalysis of this world-system, and the posicion which va¡ious
language groups occupy within ir, is a precondirion for understanding rhe role
of rra¡slations in specific local or narional conrexrs. The significance of transla-
tions wir}rin language groups, for example, is shown ro depend primarily on råe
position of råe language within the inrernadonal system.
This emerging world-qysrem of tfa¡slation, howweç does not quire corre-
spond to the predominanr view in world-qnterns theory. Tiansnational cultural
exchange is not simply tle reflection of the strucn¡ral conrradiffions in the wo¡ld
economy, as leading proponenrs of world-sysrems theory have maintained (for
example, W'alle¡stein, 1991). Culru¡al exchanges have a dynamic of rheir own
which is based on a cerra.in auronomy vis-a-yis the consuaina of the world
market. Instead of conceiving råe cultural redm as merely derivarive of global
economic strusrures, ir is more fruid¡l to view transnational cultu¡al orchange
as a relativeþ eutonomous sphere, as an internadonal arena with economii,
political a¡d q,mbolic dimensions. This speci6.c constelladon, imelf pan of
broader structures, is best conceiyed as a transna¡ional culrural'field, in Pierre
Bourdieu's sense, o¡ as an emerging cultural world-system in Abram de Swaant
term (de Swaan, L995). Such a view avoids borh 'the àconomism of ce¡tain
va¡ieties of world-systems rheory and the culturalis¡n which rends to prevail in
cultural studies.5
'Within
this general orienrarion, I argue thar rhe dynamics of the international
translation system is based on a core-.-periphery stn¡cture and oudine some of the
main consequences of such a model for rhe undersanding of translation prac-
tices. In the final part of rhe a¡dcle the limits of the general model proposed will
be discussed, together with suggestions on how it may be developed and furrher
refined.

I ne rnlernauonar 5ystem oT transtauon

As the basic units of ú¡e world-sysrem of uansiation are language groups, the
object of analysis is the süucrure of the tra¡sladon flows berween these language
groups. Language groups do not always coincide with nation srares: some of the
more central languages - English, German, French, Spanish - have a suprana-
tional cha¡acter. The flow of boolc uanslations berween tlese language groups can
be analysed by using book statisÈics, which regularly intlude 6gures for tra¡sla-
tions. In reþing on these figures, however, a g{e3r deal ¿rf caurion is required.
Contrary to tle normal primary use of official statistics, the statistical material
itsehchas to be cridcally oramined before it can be used.
International uanslation staristics have been produced since the 1930s. The
Irutitute for Intellectual Collaboration, which formed a part of the League of
Nations, sta¡ted during the interwar years widr annual publications about
t¡anslated books, rJrre Indcx trdnslationam (193240). The activiry was part.of the
 Johan Heilbron A Sociology of Tia¡rslation 433

initiatives after the First \Øorld \Øa¡ ro promote inte¡narional collabo¡acion and
the ¡nuual understanding berween narion.s. After rhe Second'!Øorld SØa¡, Unesco
resurned publication of the uanslarion stadsrics; they have been published in *¡e
Ijnesco series of StøtisticdlYearboohs ever since. A closer look at these statiscics
reveals that they a¡e not very reliable. The mosr obvious problem is one of defi-
nition. \Øhat is considered to be a 'book' or a 'dde' va¡ies from country to
country. Certain publicacions qualify as a 'tide' or a 'book' in one country
¡¡¡hereas they are considered ro belong to rhe'grey' lirerature in other countries
and a¡e therefore eliminared from of;Êcial book statistics. Such is the case for
docto¡al dissertations, school boola, governmental, parliamentary a¡d adminis-
trative documenß, and annual reporrs from enterprises. W'tren it is reponed that
21 percent of rhe published books in Spain in 1982 were translations, th.is
percentage does not have dre same meaning in orler countries. Rigorous
comparisons berween translarion ratios e¡e the¡efore impossible on the basis of
the Unesco figures.
\Øhen analysing the Unesco staristics for one country alone, precisely in order
to avoid such deânirion problems, it turns our, frrftherrnore, that they exhibit
great fluduetions over the years. According to the Unesco figures, 14 peicent of
the published books in the Netherlands were tra¡rslations in L979, a percentage
.i...:1j ..j
which has risen ro 34 percenr five years later. Such a fluctuation is highly improb-
:. ..:: I j . ; .-. .:1:f.1 :.
abfe and it does not correspond with dre data provided by the Dutch agenry, the
Stichting Speanaerk, which produces rhe national book statistics for råe Netåer-
lands. Their figures indicate råat the percentage of transladons in national book
production is more regular, varying berween 22 percent and 25 percent between
1979 and 1984 (Heilbron,l995a). The Unesco data are therefore not very reii-
ablq it remains unclea¡ to what extent they are actually comparable, and even for
single countries they exhibit very improbable flucruations. IJnfortunatel¡ these
figures a¡e the only international data which a¡e readily available. I will therefore
use some of them, but merely in an indicative manner to highlight srructural
patterns. I will ref¡ain from giving any rables and-b¡eakdowns in categories and
lub-categories of bools, bec'¿use in the form in which they are rrsrio-üy ¡;ublishccl
drey suggest a degree of accuracy which is misleading if not unfounded.
If one cauriously combines r}re inrernational uanslation statistics with some
of the more reliable national data a¡d wiúr what is lcnown from several case
studies, a coherent model ca¡ be constructed of the srucrural dynamics of the
inrcrnational translation system. I will outline somewhat schemarically its main
properties and illusrate their significance for understanding uanslation practices.

A Hiera rchical Structu re

The internadonal uanslatíon systern is, firsr and foremost, a hiera¡chical struc-
ture, wit-h centre-l, semi-peripheral and peripheral languages. Using a simple deÊ-
nition of cenualiry one can say that a language is more central in the
wodd-system of uanslation when it has a larger share in the total number of
translated books worldwide. The international fig*o available unambiguously
434 Europearr Journal of Social Theory 2(4)

indicate rlat English is byfar the most cenual language in rhe international trans-
lation system. Mot than 40 perceff of ali the ranslated boolcs worldwide were
a¡ound 1980 uanslated from English (Cu¡wen, 1986: 2l; Venuti, 1995: 14).
Over the years, from 1960 rc abóur 1987, this percentage seems to have gone
up, despite the fact that the percentage of English bools in the total number of
bóoks worldwide has decreased (Mélitz, 19982 3Ç7)' On the European conri-
nent the position of English.is even more predominantwith about 50-70 percent
of the published uanslations being made from Engiish.G
Fo[ãwing rhe ranking downwards, drree languages alsg have a cenüal ro.le,
although rhèir sha¡e is significandy smaller tha¡ that of English: French, German
and Russia¡r. Each of these languages had a þroponion somewhere between 10
percent and 12 pefcent of the international ma¡ket for transladons a¡ound 1980.
it follows ftom r]tese 6gures that *uee-guarters of the total number of ua¡slated
books worldwide were uanslated from four languages only. The international
uansladon Сstem is thus ma¡ked by a very uneyen disuibution and is firrnly
dominated by English.
Afrer dtese cenual languages, with English in a kind a hyper-central role,
approximately six languages have a semi-peripheral role, to use Imma¡uel'W'ailer-
si"io's terminology, eãch *ith a proportion of 1-3 percent of the total number
of translated books. In ¡978,for example, these languages were Spanish, Italian,
Danish, swedish, Polish and czech.T these semi-peripheral languago, however,
cannot be separated very clearly from dre perþheral ones. Contrary to tj¡e
distinctions bèm".n hyper-central, cenËral and semi-perþheral, which are rela-
tively clear cut, the diffeiences beween semi-peripheral and perþheral languages
f- *or. gradual. One might say provisionally and for analytical purposes that
"r.
all hrrguages with a sha¡e of less tban one Percent of rlre world market occuPy a
perþh-.rJposidon in the inrernadonal ranslation rysït. Among these_perþh-
rhen, are Chinese, Japanese, fuabic and Portuguese, each repre-
"rrli*gn"g"s,
serrtingã vãry hrg. number of speakers, yer occupying a_ peripheral position in
the t¡alsladon sys-rem. The size oll*gu"ggtoups is dearly not decisive for tüeir
degree of cenualiry ir: -ulre tia¡sla'úon sy'stem.

A Dyna mic Co nstel I ation

But the stfucnue of the international transladon system is obviously not a static
but a dynamic constellation, The position of language grouPs changes. over time,
cenral languages may lose somedtirrg of their share, more-perþheral- languages
.* improi" tñeir poiitions in the iniernational ranking. The traruladon qfstem
is a hisiorical ryrrot, marked by a specific genesis and rninor and major uans-
formadons over time. The major-changes ar.e long-term processes. \Øhen
considering the relations benveen English, French and German, for example, one
observes diat both the hegemony ofEngliqh and the relative decline of French
have a long history. prerich wæ tlre mosr central rnodern languasj in early
modern Er-irop., more importanr than English or German. The first major
change in the constellation occurred at the end of the eighteendr. century. -For
 Johan Heilbron A Sociology of Thanslation 435

geo-polirical and geo-culrural reasons, French lost some of its cenuality, as is indi-
cated in the uanslation starisrics for the Netherlands. The proportion of books
uanslated from French declined fai¡ly rapidly during the last decades of rhe eight-
eenrh a¡d the beginning of the nineteenr:h centlrry (Korpel, 1992). German
especially profited &om tüe French decline; English also gained but the growing
sha¡e of tra¡sladons from English was a relatiyely slow process for quite sorne
rime. The breakthrough of English probably occurred only after dre Second
TØodd'War, when tlre hegemony of rhe US gave English a. decisive advantage over
its main rivals.s
Changes in the internadonal position of languages do not generally occur
abrupdy. They require a cultu¡ai reorientation which talçes at least a change of
generation, and ofren more than that. Chaages in the position of languages and
language groups occur suddenly oniy ifthe position ofa language depends closeþ
on the politiel power of a regime. The central position of Russia¡, for example,
which is clea¡ from the Unesco statistics for the 1980s, will undoubtedly have
declined rapidly since 1989. Its predomina¡rt rolg in the qystem of international
uanslations was based on dre domination of the Soviet Union over Eastern
Europe, impþing obligatory and quasi-obhgttory tra¡slations in nearly all telds,
not merely those which were bound to r]¡e Ma¡xist-Leninist orthodory. Since the
fall of the Soviet ernpire, tåe use of Russian has declined sharply in Eastern
Europe, just as, undoubtedl¡ translations from Russian have.

The Consequences of Centrality

Distinguishing languages by their degree of centrality nor only implies that uans-
lations flow more from the core to the periphery than the other way a¡ound, but
also that the communication between perþheral groups ofren passes through a
centre.'W'hat is translated from one perþheral language into the other depends
on what is uanslated &om these perþheral languages into the central languages.
In other words, the more central a language is in the tra¡slation Сstem, the more
ii ha"' tåe capaciiy to funcúon ¿s a¡r interme<iiary ,;r vehici¡lar Íar-rg-riage, -uhai is
as a means of communication ben¡¡een language grouPs which a¡e themselves
perþeral or semi-peripheral.
The role of French in early modern Europe is a case in point. Given the cenual
position ofFrench in European culture, not only French books but also transla-
tions into French atuacted special aftendon from authors, translators and
publishers. F¡ench tra¡slations were often retranslated into other languages.
Although known as the belles i?tf¿¿bt, unfaithfi:l adapradons to indigenous-*--'---'---
norms of elegance and clarity, French translations were nevertheless commonly
reuanslated into other languages. The mosr wìdely uanslated Spanish authors,
Cervantes and Gracián, were tra¡slated into German f¡om rleir French uansla-
dons. English philosophers were translated into lulia¡r on the basis of their
French rather dran their English editions, and English literature appeared in
Gerrnan most often while being ranslated from the French (Blassneck, 1934;
Von Stackelb ery, 1984; Graeber, 1 99 1) . The reuanslation of French translations, - .-.
436 European Journal of Social Theory 2(4)

which was common practice during dre sevenreenrh and eighteenrh centuries,
fell into disrepute at råe end of the old regime, when narionalism became a polid-
cal and cultural force. German and English literarure gained wider recognidon
and ra¡slations into French losr rheir exemplary role.
The ¡et¡anslation of ranslations, indirect or second-hand ranslation, has
become much less common. To a cenain ercenr, however, rhe phenomenon
persists. Even when dre uansladons rhemselves are far more often made direcdy
from tlre original language, the decision to publish a translarion from a periph-
eral language still depends on the existence of their translation in a cenral
language. Literaty ranslations from Spanish into Dutch afte¡ the Second'\J7brld
'I7ar,
for example, were neariy always preceded by their ranslation into one of
the cenrral languages. This was panicularly rhe c¿se for the most prominent
authors (Borges, Cortázar, Ga¡cla Márquez, Vargas Llosa), who were all uans-
latêd into French or English before being published in Dutch (Steenmeije¡
1989). Afthough these books were translated from Spanish, many signs indic4ted
that the English or French translation had acuaily served as the example. The
choice of the ride, che text on the cover, the quoted praise from reviews, all
revealed the exemplary role of the English or French translation.
There were only a few cases in which Dutch publishers published a translation
before their English or French counterpâ¡ts. But they paradoxically confirm the
dominant roie of central languages. Not only were drese uanslated autho¡s
'minor' writers, who were discovered by Dutch specialist, but their translations
into Dutch were not well received, either by t}re critics or by the public. They
illustrate, A contario, that peripheral and semi-peripheral language groups tend to
follow the example of the internadonal centres, including boolcs, etc., that are
imponed into the cenües.
Much of the international comrnunication about boolcs worla in this manner
and is dependent on rhe role of the leading centres of the international system.
Once a boolc is uanslated into a central language by an authoriadve publisher,
it immediately catches the attention of publishers in other parts of the globe. The
simple fact that an ,A.merican or English publisher will publish an author from a
semi-peripherai language is used extensively by the original publisher, because it
is the best recommendation for publishers elsewhere to acquire the uanslation
rights. The international recognition of Dutch literature is a good example of the
Ieading role ofliterary centres in dre transladon business.
Tlansladons from Dutch and Flemish have been made for centuries..{lthough
a few literary figures in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries seem to have had
.
a certain inteiíaûoäal ¡erìown! none of tl¡em entered the canon of world litera-
ture (Schenkeveld, 199i). In the eighteenúr and nineteenth centuries very few
books were uanslated from Dutch, and it was only from the end of the nine-
teenth century onwards, following the European recognidon of Russian and
Scandinavian literature, that *re number of books tra¡slated f¡om Dutch started
to rise. It increased more or less regularþ with a total number of approúmately
500 or 600 tides per year since dre l960s.e
Despite the relatively steady growh in the number of translations durigg-the
 Johøn Heilbron A Sociology of Tianslation 437

¡¡¡entieth century Dutch literarure has remained largely unknown. Undl recently
nor a single Dutch wrirer was inrernadonaily acknowledged as a major literary
figure. Fiãancial supporr and susrained rranslacion efforts proved insufficient, and
th"e lack of lirerary recognition outside rhe Nedrerla¡ds seerned an inescapable
fate (van Noesel andJan-ssen, 1985; Vanderauwera, 1985; Paul, i990)' Thelack
of success was artributed ro rhe doubú.il qualiry of the translarions, to dre fact
thar they were pubiished by small a¡d often marginal publishing houses, and to
the virtual absence of good translators, who would not only produce.ProPer üans-
Iations, bur who ,}o inform publishers, wrire reviews a¡d train future
"o,r-id
translators.
The change sta¡ted during rhe 1980s when a few Dutch authors were
published by weil-established literary publishers; some of t}re uansiators won
iir.r"ry prirå.10 The emerging inrereir r¡/as nor restrioed ro a single country; the
breakiuough occumed iri 6[t**¡ and from there spread to orher literary
centres ,, iell as to mote peripheial language grouPs' Compared with other
cent¡es in the internationi uanslarion tytt.*, German publishers were best
prepared for Dutch authors, since Germany was the only country ïú " cenrral
potitiott which had a tradidon of uanslating Dutch lirerarure and incorporating
it into a national cultu¡al sffate*. Since t¡e end of rhe Napoleonicwars,_Germa¡-
ists had come to consider the iow Countries as a cultural province of Germanic
culrure, a¡¡d as a minor but not irreleYant ally against F¡ench civilization (Kloos,
1992). Dutch and Flemish were perceived as a kind of P|a.tt-Deøtsch and popular
novels especially were translatedlnto German ro meet the rising demand.
Ap.tt from iop"l"r writers, some of the more esrablished literary figures were
aho åa¡slated,ioì th.it role remained a very minor one. It was only in r}re 1980s
that lead,ing German publishers starred to publish tra¡slations of major Dutch
writers: su"hrkamp p"btirh.a cees Nooteboom, Klem-cona Hugo claus and
Hanser H"rry M"liich. Their bools were favourably received-by_literary crirics
and some sold quite well. More transladons followed and German critics
acclaimed Cees hîooteboom, in parricular, as an outsta¡ding European writer.
rwt!-:-
wllcll
:- '!ocì2 !L-
ll¡ L))J
\l-.!"--!^-le ]..ror the f^c,,c of úe inte¡nationa-l book fair at
ÚLt lrLu¡Llr4¡s

Frankfurt, the conditions were favourable for the German recognition to snow-
ball. Since then the number of ranslated Dutch authors has substantially
increased, as has rhe number of languages in which thei¡ work is t¡anslated.
The Durch case illustrates the esiential role of prominent cuitu¡al centres in
the international diffirsion of literarures from rhe semi-periphery. International
culrural cenffes are nor only interested in rhe diffi.rsion of rheir own goods, they
also have a vested inte¡esr ín m.¡rrit uade and the benefits this offers. Symbolic
and econom ic tansit prof.ts are an essenrial component of the worlcing of rhe
internadonal cultu¡al system.
The example of Dutch literature also shows that dependelry on the inter-
national centies works rhe other way around. Once a peripheral literature has had
some degree of internationrl ,""ognition, the recognition abroad will contribute
to a¡rd rãay indeed interfere withlndigenous reputations, In the Netherlands it
'Willem
,r", to speak of rhe 'big rtriee' of poi*rr Dutch literature:
"o*-or
438 European Journal of Social Theory 2(4)

Frede¡ik Hermaas, Gera¡d Reve and Harry Mulisch. Some would add a founh,
Hugo Claus. Fo¡ decades their reputation was nor seriously threatened by anyone,
not even by Hella Hrrsse and Nooteboom. Bur since Haasse and Nooteboom
enjoy a growing international fame, rvhereas Herrnans and fuve do not, rhe
indigenous canon is undermined. Especially in small counüies, the process of
canonization is increasingly affeced by the international market place.

Centrality and Variety

T}¡e more cenral a language is in the inrernarional ranslation sysrem, rhe more
rypes of books a¡e t¡a¡¡slared from this language. Book statistics in the Ned:er-
lands distinguish 33 categories of books, ranging from 'religiorf a¡d 'law to
þrose' and 'hisrory'. Only the uanslarioru f¡om dre mosr centml language,
English, a¡e represented i¡ all 33 êategories. Ti:a¡slations from German are found
in 28 categories, translations from French in 22 carcgories, from Italian in-10
categories, etc. Centrality, in orlerwo¡ds, implies variety. Since the small number
of bools translated from periphera-l languages is generally concenuated in very
few categories, the opposite also holds true book tra¡slations from peripheral
languages lack the variety that increases with the degree of cenraliry.

The Limits of Monopolization

Since the international uanslation system is so fumly dominated by one hyper-
cenual language, one might presume thar translations from other languages will
decrease, leading to a yim¡al monopoly for ranslations from English. Jacques
Méliu has explicitþ suggested such a possibility in his economic model of the
world book ma¡kee 'If the ma¡ket in one particular larguage is sufficiendy larger
than any other, the total laclç of rechnical ba¡riers to diffusion ca¡ lead to the
exclusive translation of imaginative works from that particular language into the
resC (Mélitz, 1998).
The avaiiabie stadstics íor the i'[etheriands <io not conôrm Ìvíéiiz's hypothe-
' sis. In fact they suggest a different pattern, which needs to be checked for other
counüies. As fa¡ as the Netherlands is concerned, the enormou.s growth of trans-
lations from English has not diminished the ua¡rslations from other languages;
it has essentially diminished dre role of ildigenous books. ln order to perceive
this effect the usual mode of calculating proponions has to be revised. The
proporrion of translations &om a certein language is commonly calculated only
-"as a percentage of the t-oml number of ua¡isletions. It is in many ways more accu-
raEe, however, to calculate the percentage of uanslations from a certai¡ language
as a proportion of the total number of books published. In that way book produc-
tion in *re indigenous language becomes part of the competition. And it is poss-
ible, indeed, that uanslations from English have.not replaced transladons from
other foreign languages but mainly indigenous books. That, at leest, hæ been the
case for the Ne*rerlands, where rranslations from English increased from 2
percent to 17 percent of totd boolc production during the years 194G90, Inthe
 Johan Heilbron A Sociology of Tianslation 439

same period Uanslations from German increased from 1.4 percentrc 4.3 Pe¡centr
,r*rl-*iorr, from French from 0.6 Percent to 2.2 percent, and translations from
'other languages'from 1.2 percent ro 2] percent (Heilbron, 1995a)' Thus
aldrough È"giirtt has proñred fa¡ more frorn rhe growth of ransladon¡ than any
orher ioreign languagO these other languages have also increased rlei¡ share in
national book production.

The Levels of Cultural lmportation

The structure oF the world-system of uanslation also determines the level of
importation. The more central a language is in úle in¡ernational ua¡slation
,yri.*, rhe smaller t{re proporrion of uanslarions into dris language. The mosr
languages r.nd tå have the lowest proponion of uanslations in ¡heir own
"enrai
book prodlctiãn. In the UK and rhe US less than 5 percent of all published boola
a¡e u-anslátions, a figure drat has hardly changed since 1945. In F-rance and
German¡ the ptopãnion of uanslarions is consistendy higher, fluctuating
benveen 10 percent end L2 percent of national book production duringthe
posrwar periãd. in ltaiy and Spain the relative weight of translation is'more
irrrpo*rrrr, at approxirn'ately tl-zo percent' In countries witi more peripheral
lrog,r^g., lik s*ed.n and tbe Netherlànds, 25 percent of all published books
coo-rir.t-of r*slarions, and in Greece tle proportion â.mounts to more úran 40

Percent.
These figures, although incomplete and at best indicative, clearly suggest en
inverse rela:tionship b.r*eett the ienualiry of a language in the inte¡national
uanslation qrsrem and the proponion of translations in national book produc-
tion. The more cenÊral úe édtural producdon of a country is, fhe more it serves
as an e.xafnple m other countries, and the less it is iself concerned with the
cultural prod,rccion from other countries. Instead of assuming that transladons
,normally' occupy a marginal posidon (Even-Zohar, 1990: 50), it is fa¡ more
accurete to ,"y th.t theiriole varies sigrritcand¡-and that rhe va¡iation depends
on the degree of centraliqv in the international transladon system' The core of an
inrcrnatioîal cultural system has the highest stetus; it is carefi:Ily observed,
followed and emulated, and at the same time it is mt¡ch less oriented towa¡ds
products and producers from outside the centres.
The ,*. årr be observed in internarional exchange emong the sciences. ,As
indicated by citation patterns, scientific research in the US is the most cenüal
and most prestigious þ"tt of the sciendtc world-system. But sciendûc produc-
tion in the US isäro the lowest percentage of foreign refetences,
"h"t""terwedbyabroad. The percentages offoreþ references
foreign co-authors and publications
in scîentific a¡ticles ,rrå for"ign publications in US citarions are bot}r about 25
percenr. In Japan and the E"ropãrrr counrries the figurelies.somewhere between
Z0 p"r""rr.-rrrd 71 percent; for råe developing_counrries it varjes between 70
p.r..rrt 92 percent (Schort, l99I).Insread of an equilibriurn between import
"nd
td oporr, th.ie"lity of ransnational exchange is a process of uneven exchange,
Fo, .uåry book tbar is tr nslared from Dutcll, for ocample, t-here are six boola -.
440 European Journal of Social Theory 2(4)

t¡anslated into Durch. Imbala¡ces of rhis kind cha¡acterize the very srucru¡e of
transnational o<change.
In order to understand rhe srucrure of rhe inrernarional flows rhere is no need
to invoke the peculiarities of national cul¡ural uaditions. Comparing dre propor-
rion of 10-12 percent rranslarions in France, for exa.mple, with rhe significandy
higher percentage fo¡ Sweden, one might deplore the relative closu¡e of French
cultu¡e. Some even consider this ro be a speciÊc fearu¡e of French cultu¡e. \Øasnt
Chauvin a Frenchma¡? Comparing rhe French widr dre lIKt much iower
percentage of uanslations, one might be equally tempted ro invoke rhe opposite
argument, narnely thar ir resriÍ.es to rhe very richness of the French cultural
tradirion. The tradidonally high esreem for culcure dren appears as being reflecred
in a high level of uanslations.
Neither one of rhese arguments is necessary for ercplaining the level of cultural
importation. The proponion of translarions in France corresponds to tåe inrer-
national posirion of French in the world-sfstem of sansladon, and is perfecdy
comparable with the role of German and the proporrion of uanslations in
Germany. As argued above, it is not so much the national tradition, but rather
the international position of national cuhures, which determines the level of
cultu¡al imponation.

Towards a Sociology of Translation

The sociology of translarion maywell become a new branch of the sociology of

culture and a promising domain for the srudy of the culturai world-system. As a
resea¡ch field it can d¡aw on social science resea¡ch on culture, international
exchange and globalization, as well as on a variery of publications in the field of
uanslation studies. Some of the most interesting work in translation studies has
been inspired by polyrystem rheory. Polysystem theorists have righdy shifted t}re
analytical focus f¡om an exclusive concer.R wirtr t-he source-text to the more
broadly conceived target-cu.lture. But to understand the role of t¡anslations in a
target-culrure, it is by no means su-fficient to analyse them as being part of rhe
literary system of the target-culture. Ir is essenrial, as I have uied to show; to
conside¡ target-cultures as a part ofan internadonal system, ofa global constel-
lation of language groups and of national or supranational cu-ltures.
To develop and refi.ne the approach oudined, two directions seem appropri-
ate. On the one hand, numerous questions may be raised about the international
cultural system, its genesis and its actual funcdoning. The analysis sf.the inter-
national translation system can beneÊt from comparisons with other üans-
national systems and f¡om the continuìng debare about globalization. On the
other hand, there a¡e questions to be raised about rtre significance of such an
international system for the undersanding of specific uanslation practices. There
is obviously no simple a¡rd immediare transition from analysing a world-system
to anaiysing a national publishing industry or particular translation strategies.
The world-system is concerned with r-he most general set of condidons, and for
 Johan Heilbron A Sociology of Tfanslation 441

a more complete suryey, it is necessary ro link drese condirions ro the social

dynamics of rhe publishing business and i¡s different segrnerits.
In cerain categories of booirs, for example, uanslarions are virrually absent,
in orlrers they have a mzjor role. In what is regularþ rhe largesr caregory of books,
schoolboola, translations have pracrically no role wharsoever. The ma¡ker for
schoolbools is in a r'ay prorecred, not so much by economic barriers, but by
nadonal regulations.rrá agencies. Other ma¡ker segments are more open:
in the categories of prose"ãrr.rol
and child¡en's books transladons have a major and
sometimes predominant role a¡d there a¡e rypically no of6cial insrances a¡d fa¡
fewer regulatory institurions. The social orga¡izaúon of the ma¡ker is råus a
crucial dimension for assessing úle role of translarions, and rhe sociology of
ma¡kers is very relevanr (Swedberg, 1994). A more complete sociological analy-
sis may therefore seek to connect råe dynamics of the international rranslation
system with the acrual working of the book ma¡ket and its various segments.

Notes

I For comments on an earlier d¡aft of this article I am indebted to Abram de Swaan,

Jacques Mélitz and Nico Wilterdink
2 In dre remarkable project di¡ected by Roger Cha¡der and Henri-Jean Martin
(1982-86) on the French book uade, which contains more rhan 3000 pages, there is
not a single chapter on ¡ranslations o¡ translators. Literary history aiso tends to ignore
transladons since it is commonly conceived as narional hisrory. The only literary
domains in which uanslarions are a regular pan of research agenda are reception
studies and comparadve literarure. In borl fields, however, the scope of rhe work is
generally restriced to canonical lirerary worfts.
3 For historical texts on tr¿¡slation, see rIe anthologies of Lefevere (1992) and
Robinson (1997). Historical overviews are presented in Ballard (1992), Delisle and
'Woodswo¡dr (1995),
Kelly (1979), Rener (1989), Sreiner (1975) and Van Hoof
(t991).
4 Translation studies is a recent, interdisciplinary field which emerged in the i970s and
'i
. r
^oÀ ln r'r
l7öus a lew small coun¡Hes (Þel$um, ßrael, tbe l\et¡eflancrsr, It w?s Dased on
ettempts to unite different elements from previous approaches into a single
framework. The pioneering sraÌemenr was given by James S. Holmes, an American
uanslator living in Amsterdam, ar t-he International Congress of Applied Linguistics
in 1972. The ftll to<t of his paper, 'The Name and Nature of Tianslation Sudies
(1972), existed only as a mimeographed pre-publication for 15 years.'!Øhen itwas
eventually induded in the posthumous collecdon of Holmes'papers (Holmes, 1988:
67-80), translation.studies were in the process of g-aining some insrirucional recog-
nition. For overvicws of tfie field and irs historysee Geneler (1993) and Baker (1998).
5 In the literature on cultu¡al globalizaúon rhe work of Ulf Hannerz is pardcuJarly
illuminating (Hannerz, 1992:1996). For an interesting comparison see rhe analysis
of the internationa.l sysrem of modern sports (Van Bottenburg, 1994).
6 Besides úre figures reproduced in Curwen (1980, Ba¡ret-Ducrocq (1992), Venud
(1995) and Mélitz (1998), I have consirhed the Unesco Stati¡ticøl Ycarbooþs for
1965-85.
7 This list, based on dre Unesco Âgures for 1978, is somewhar differenr from rhe
442 Eurcipean Journal of Social Theory 2(4)

grouping ofVenud (L995), who has raken the Scandinavian languages, as well as
Greek and latin, together.
8 Book translations from English have an ever growing sharq in rhe number of boola
published in che Netherlands. ln 1946, 39 percent of all tra¡slated books were rrans-
lations Êom English; in 1990 the propordon was up to 65 percent (Heilbron, 1995a).
9 These approximate Êgures are based on the bibliography of ranslations ûorn Dutch
which is produced by rJre Royal Libra¡ies of The Hague and Brussels. T'he absolute
numbers a¡e less significanr tlen the trend they indicate (see Heilb¡on, 1995a).
i0 Important ua¡slation prizes were awarded ro Philippe Noble for his French trans-
lation of E. Du Perron's Zc pays d'orígine (1980) and to,A.drienne Dixon for her rrans-
lation of Rina& (1983) by Cees Nooteboom.

References

Baker, Mona, ed. (1998) Routhdge Encydopcdia ofTîanshtíon Sadies. Londo¡r/NewYorh

Roudedge.
Ballard, Mi&el (1992) De Cìcéran à Benjamin: traducteurs, traduction, réfletions. Lillez
Presses Universitaircs de Lillc.
Ba¡ret-Duc¡ocç François, ed. (1992) Tiaduire l'Europe. Parii: Payot.
Berrnan, A¡rtoine (1984). Lépreute de I'étranger: Cu[nre et traduction dans I'Allemagne
rotnøntiqae. Pa¡is: Gallimard
Blassneck, Marce (1934) Frønhreích øh Verrninler English-Deutschn Eí¡zfluesse im I 7. und
18. Jahrhundert. I-eipzjg: Verlag von Bcrnha¡d Täuchnirz.
Bourdieu, Pierre (1990) 'Lcs conditions sociales de la ci¡culation internadonale des idées',
fir Literanrgeschichtc No. I I 2z l-10.
Ro¡nanìsche Zeìtschñfi
(1991) ¿ønguage and Symbolic Pouer. Carnbridge Poliry Press.
Char¡ier, Roger and Martin, Henri-Jean, eds (1932-S6) Histoira de fédítion fançaise.
- Paris: Promodis.
Coulmas, Florian, ed. (1997) The Høndbooþ of Sociolíngaìstia- Oxford: Blach¡"ell.
Curwen, ?cter (1986) The W'or[d Booh Industry. London: Euromonitor Publications.
Delisle, Jean and Woodswonh, Judith, eds (199il T|øtt¡l¿tors Throagh History.
,Á.¡nsterdam/Philadelphia, PA:,rshr Benjarnins.
de Swaaa, Abram, cd. (1993) 'The Emergent-1il?'orld Language System', Intem¿tional
Polìtical Sciencc Reuieu L4(3).
(L995)'The Sociological Sudy of the Tiansnationd Sociery'. Amsterdam School
for Social Science Reseaich, Papers in Progress No. 46..
-Dirla<, Paut (1995) 'Paris and Amsterdam as Tnnslationd Go-Berweens: The Evolution
of Litera¡y Tiansladon in Beþum after Vorld Ilar II', in Peter Jansen arrd Clem
Robyns (eðs) Selccted Papers of the CERA Research Seminars in Tiansktion Sadics.
Leuven: CETRA
Even-Zoha¡, Iamar (1990) 'Polysptem Sudies', Poetia Todal Il(L)'
Gentzleç Edwin (1993) Contem4ordry Tiansktion Theories. London: Roudedge.
Graeber, \ülìlhelm (1991) 'Germa¡ Thanslators of English Fiction and Their French
Mediarors', in Ha¡ald Kinel and A¡min Paul Fra¡rk (eds) Intncalnrølit1t and the
Histoicøl Sndy of Literøry Ti¿nshton, pp. 5-16. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Hannerz, Ulf (i992) Cularøl Complexìty: Sudies in the Social Organiø.tion of Meaning.
New Yorlc Columbia University Press.
(1996) Tiançn¿tionøl Connections.I¡ndon: Roudedge. - :-
-
 Joltan Heilbron A Sociology of Tianslation 443

Heilbron, Johan (1995a) 'Nederla¡rdse verralingen wereldwijd' in Johan Heilbron,

'Woute¡ de
Nooy a¡rd '!filma Tichelaa¡, (eds) Waarin een þlein knd, pp. 206-52.
Amsterdam: P¡ometheus.
. (1995b) 'Mondialisering en transnationaal cuhureel verkeer', in Johan Heilbron and
Nico 'l7ilterdink (eds) Mondiølirering: dz uording t;an de wereldsammleairg, pp.
- I 62-80. Groningen:'Wolters Noordhoff
Heinich, Nathalie (1984) 'Les traduceu¡s linéraires: I'a¡c er la profession', Rcauefançøise
dc sociologíe 25: 26Ç80.
Holmes, James S. (1983) Tianskted! Papers on Literary Trøu[¿tion andTiansl¿tion Sndies.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kell¡ Louis (1979) The True Intnpreter: A History ofTianslztion Theory ønd Praaíce in
the'W'est. Oxford: Basil Blaclcr¡'ell.
Kloos, Ul¡ike (1992) Niederl¿ndbiUunddeuxche Germanistih I80A-l933.Amstcrdam:
Rodopi.
Kory.l, L.G. (1992) Oaer het nat m dz utijze àer Ncderl¿ndse atrta¿lref¿ctíe
in een'Wcstèztop ees þøder (I 75 0- I 92 0). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Lefevere, And¡é, ed. (7992) Tizn¡ktioa Histor!, Cølture: A Sourcebooþ. I-ondon:
Roudedge.
Méliø, Jacques (1998) 'English-Language Dominance, Literaru¡e and lVelfare'. Paris:
CREST, Document de Tlavail No. 9832. Aiso published as Discussion Paper 2055,
London: Cenue for Economic Policy ResearcL, 1999.
Oz-Salzberges Fania (1995) 7ïønshting the Enlightenment Scotti¡h Ciaic Discoarsc in
Eightenth-Cennry Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press/Clarendon P¡ess.
Paul, Androny (1990) 'Dutch Literature and the Tlanslation Barrier', in B. 'Westerweel
and T. D'Haen (eðs) Somethíng Understood: Sndíes in Anglo-Dunh Transl¿tion.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Rener, Frederick M. (1989) Interpretatio: Løngadge dndTidnsl¿tìon From Cicero to þler.
,tmsterdam./Adanta Rodopi.
Robinson, Douglas, ed. (1997) Wettern Tiønshtion Theory: From Herofutus to Nietzsche.
Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing.
Schenkeveld, Ma¡ia,A' (L991) Dutch Literanre in the Agc ofRtmbrandt. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Schoneveld, \ll
(1983) Intertraffc of the Mind: Sndies ìn Seaenteenth-Cennry Anglo-
r1-.--L'TL---I-¿--
uhþLrt trØ¡Þ&ttùrl. fLçtuçtt. DT D-:ll
^2)^-- È.), DLt[,
Schott, Thomas (1991) 'TheïTorld Sciendfic Communigr Globalityand Globalisation',
Minerua29:44042.
Sorá, Gustavo (1998) 'Francforc la foire d'empoignel, Liber 34t 2-3.
Steenmeijer, Maarten (1989) De Spaaue m Spaans-Amerihøzrue literatuur in Nederknd
Muiderbergr Coutinho.
I 946-1 985.
Steine6 George (1975) $frer Bøbel: of Ldngaage and Tiawlatíoz. London/New
'4spects
Yorlc Oxford Universiry Press.
Swedberg, Richa¡d (1994) 'Ma¡lcets as Social Structures', in Neil Smelser and Richa¡d
Swedberg (eds) The Handbooh ofãconomic Sociologt, pp.255-82. Princeton, Nl/llew
York Princeton University PressiRussell Sage Foundation.
Toury, Gideon (1980) In Search of a Tiawhtion Theory. Tel lwiv: Porter Institute for
Poe¡ics a¡d Semiotics.
(1995) Descriptiue Tiansktìon Sndíe¡ and Beyond.. Amste¡da¡n/Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamiru.
-IJnesco (1965-85) Statistical Yearbooþ. Pa¡is: Unesco.
444 Eurôpean Journal of Social Theory 2(4)

Vanderauwe¡a, Ria (1985) Dutch Noue[s Ti,an¡kted ínto English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
varr Bonenburg, Maarren (L994) Verborgen coTnpetitie: ouer de uiteenlopende popuhríteit
aan tl)orten. Amsrerdam: Ben Bakker.
van Hoof, Henri (1991) Histoire de h trdductíon en Occident. Paris: Duculot.
van Noesel, Ma¡ion and Janssen, Ans (1985) De Nederknùc literataur in Franse ærtøling.
Utrechc Frans en Occitaans Instiruut,
Venud, Lawrence (1995) The Tianskmr! Inuisíbility: A History of 7iørulation.
LondonlNew York Roudedge.
Von Staclcelberg, Jürgen (1984) Uebersetzangen aus zueiter Hand: Rezeptionsuorgaege in
der earopaeischen Literatur aom 14. bís ,/8. Jahrhundert. Berli,l;,lNew York; lfl'alter de
Gruyter,
tüØallerscein,
Immanuel (1991) Gn?olitics and Geocultare: Essdys on the Changing V'orll
System. Cambridge/Paris: Camb¡idge Universiry Press/Édidons de la Maison des
Sciences de I'Homme.

I Johan Heilbron published The Rise of Socíal Theory U995) and Iåe Rise of the
SocÍal Sciences and the Formation of Modernity (1998, co-ed¡ted with Lars
Magnusson and Björn Wittrock). His research is in the sociology of art and culture,
intellectual history and economic sociology. Address: Centre Lillois d'Études et de
Recherches Sociologiques et Économiques (CLERSE), Faculté des sciences
économiques et sociales, Université de Lille 1, 59655 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex,
France. [email: johan.heilbron@univ-lillel .frl