16.1283, Review: Translation: Schäffner (2004)

[LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1283. Thu Apr 21 2005. ISSN: 1068 - 4875.

Subject: 16.1283, Review: Translation: Schäffner (2004)

Moderators: Anthony Aristar, Wayne State U <aristar at linguistlist.org>
            Helen Aristar-Dry, Eastern Michigan U <hdry at linguistlist.org>
 
Reviews (reviews at linguistlist.org) 
        Sheila Dooley, U of Arizona  
        Terry Langendoen, U of Arizona  

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org/

The LINGUIST List is funded by Eastern Michigan University, Wayne
State University, and donations from subscribers and publishers.

Editor for this issue: Naomi Ogasawara <naomi at linguistlist.org>
================================================================  

What follows is a review or discussion note contributed to our 
Book Discussion Forum. We expect discussions to be informal and 
interactive; and the author of the book discussed is cordially 
invited to join in. If you are interested in leading a book 
discussion, look for books announced on LINGUIST as "available 
for review." Then contact Sheila Dooley at collberg at linguistlist.org. 

===========================Directory==============================  

1)
Date: 20-Apr-2005
From: Vittoria Prencipe < vittoria.prencipe at unicatt.itc >
Subject: Translation Research and Interpreting Research 

	
-------------------------Message 1 ---------------------------------- 
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:39:59
From: Vittoria Prencipe < vittoria.prencipe at unicatt.itc >
Subject: Translation Research and Interpreting Research 
 

EDITOR: Schäffner, Christina 
TITLE: Translation Research and Interpreting Research
SUBTITLE: Tradition, Gaps and Synergies
PUBLISHER: Multilingual Matters
YEAR: 2004
Announced at http://linguistlist.org/issues/15/15-3337.html


Vittoria Prencipe, Department of Linguistics, Università Cattolica "Sacro 
Cuore" di Milano.

SYNOPSIS

The volume, resulting form a one-day seminar held at Aston University in 
February 2002, is a collection of papers about the differences and the 
synergies between Translation Studies (TS) and Interpreting Studies (IS). 
The discussion investigates and compares the disciplines or subdisciplines 
(cf. Gile, p. 23) from different points of view: historical, (how they 
were born and developed), situational, ideological, cultural and 
sociological. Daniel Gile takes all these questions in the first and the 
main contribution of the book: he gives an overview of the history of 
research in translation and interpreting, he reviews the differences 
between translating and several forms of interpreting, he explores the 
causes of differences, also highlighting also their deep common basis.

The Debate (chapter 2) immediately after Gile's contribution gives an idea 
of the main issues of that seminar. The other contributors, indeed, use 
Gile's chapter as a starting point for their considerations, in order to 
introduce new perspectives or to deepen some of his arguments.

In the second contribution (chapter 3) Public Service Interpreting: 
Practice and Scope for Research, Jan Cambridge examines the Public Service 
Interpreting characteristics, describing it as an independent branch of IS 
and he concludes hoping for an improvement in interdisciplinary 
understanding and collaboration.

Chapter 4, Paradigm Problems?, by Andrew Chesterman, focuses on the 
different approaches and aims, from a research point of view, between TS 
and IS. He discusses different opinion of relation between theory and data 
in empirical and hermeneutic research and he supports the Popperian 
approach to research, based on the testing of hypotheses, that might also 
help the researchers in understanding claims of translation research.

Janet Fraser, in her essay titled, Translation Research and Interpreting 
Research: Pure, Applied, Action or Pedagogic (chapter 5), first highlights 
different approaches between traditional translation research (TR) based 
on literary translation, and interpreting research (IR) whose paradigm "is 
practice in the booth rather than a more abstract theoretical model" 
(p. 57). Then, particularly in the paragraph "From Practice to Theory" 
(p. 59), she shows TR and IR have much in common and much to learn from one 
another. So she wishes for future generations "a more effective 
partnership between TR and IR, coupled with a change of focus and 
paradigm" (p.61).

In Chapter 6, Translation Studies: A Succession of Paradoxes, Yves 
Gambier, analyses the development of Translation Studies (TS) focusing on 
the diversity of context in which translation is practised (pp. 62-64); on 
the variety of disciplines addressed with it (pp. 64-65); on the diversity 
of research relevance (pp. 65-68) and research discourses (pp. 68-69) of 
the studies conducted. His aim is shedding light on several paradoxes of 
TS and show how "the consensus and the possible unity in the diversity of 
approaches and of these paradoxes cannot be stable and definitive" (p. 69).

In the next contribution, Aligning Macro- and Micro-Dimension in 
Interpreting Research (Chapter 7), Moira Inghilleri, put forward her point 
of view, as a sociolinguist engaged in research on norms in interpreting, 
also about the role of interdisciplinarity in translation/interpreting 
research; and on the relation between approaches to TR and IR; and the 
relevance on norm theory to IS. Particularly, she points out the necessity of a
conceptual framework for interpreting norms "intended to provide a means to
conceptualise the relationship between the interpreter and the social world and
to consider how sociological and ideological determinants function within
interpreting contexts" (p. 75).

In A Way of Methodology: The Institutional Role in Translation Studies 
Research Training and Development (Chapter 8), Zuzana Jettmarova' focuses 
her attention on the role of the academic institutions in the development 
of TS "in terms of research and methodology, as well as for the production 
of 'informed' researchers" (p. 77). In detail, she concentrates on the 
institutionalisation of TS in the Czech Republic, and on national course 
programmes and methodology.

In Chapter 9, Conduits, Mediators, Spokespersons: Investigating 
Translator/Interpreter Behaviour, Ian Mason pursues the Gile's idea 
that "besides the autonomous investigation of [the] respective features 
[of TR and IR], each step in the investigation of one can contribute 
valuable input towards investigation of the other". In so doing, Mason 
shows how "the interactional pragmatic variables of footing, politeness 
and relevance are central to the concerns of translator and interpreter 
alike" (p. 89). This approach might lade to fragmentary results, but 
descriptive studies should take into account of "socio-pragmatic studies 
of the interpreter/translator in situ and pragma-linguistic studies of 
whole texts and discourses" (p. 95).

Mariana Orozco, in The clue to Common Research in Translation and 
Interpreting: Methodology (Chapter 10), focuses on a common research 
methodology by scholars in both translation and interpreting fields. She 
puts forward a scientific model that can be applied to any field of TR and 
IR (cf. figure 1, p. 99); then she highlights the advantage of using this 
model (pp 100-101), and she discusses the issues of applying the model 
proposed (p. 102); finally she concludes wishing for an open-mindedness 
that allows the researchers to "take as [their] point of departure the 
work of others" (p. 102) and permits to "undertake research together with 
colleagues from other specialities / languages / disciplines in an 
interdisciplinary holistic approach to interrelated topics" (ibid.)

Chapter 11, I in TS: On Partnership in Translation Studies, by Franz 
Pöchhacker, attempts to give an analysis that highlights "the general 
theoretical core that unites translation and interpreting studies" (p. 
104). The author's points of departure are "Kade classic definition and 
the 'map' of the discipline by Holmes" (p. 104); his aim is to show how TR 
and IR can appear as parallel structures like a "tree, with a strong 
common trunk rooted in various types of soil... and with a number of 
boughs which support larger and smaller branches and many little twigs" 
(p., 114).

In the last contribution (Chapter 12), Doorstep Inter-subdisciplinarity 
and Beyond, Miriam Shlesinger, examines the relation between IS and its 
parent disciplines focusing principally on three types of collaboration: 
in terms of alternative approaches, between theoreticians and 
practitioners, between IS / TS and neighbouring disciplines, between IS 
and TS in narrower sense. Her analysis leads to new questions rather than 
solutions and with the encouragement to keep focusing on "the effort to 
highlight kinship, differences and prospects for partnership" (p. 121).

The volume ends with Daniel Gile Response to the Invited Papers (Chapter 
13).

EVALUATION

The collection is rich with suggestion for translation and interpreting 
researchers due to its focusing primarily on the sociological dimension of 
TS and also because it keeps suggesting a necessary collaboration between 
translation (in its generic sense) researchers and all the disciplines 
related to translation studies.

The lack of interdisciplinary communication, in fact, denounced already by 
Holmes in 1980, - like the lack of communication between (literary) 
translators and theoreticians - is the main cause of 'stagnation' in TS. 
These contributions may be a good starting point for the application of a 
renewed and broader research method. 

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Vittoria Prencipe, Ph.D. works as a postdoctoral researcher in the field 
of Translation Studies at the Università Cattolica "Sacro Cuore", Milan 
(Italy). Her current research deals with the application of a Sense-Text 
model to the field of linguistic translation.





-----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-16-1283