EXAM QUESTIONS:

1. Descriptive Translation Studies

1. Origins:

 Associated mainly with Gideon Toury (1942–2016), especially his book Descriptive
Translation Studies and Beyond (1995).

 Grew out of the Polysystem Theory (Itamar Even-Zohar), which views literature as a
dynamic system made of interacting subsystems.

 Developed as a reaction against prescriptive approaches (which said how

translations should be done).

2. What It Is:

 DTS is the study of translation as it actually happens, not as it ideally should.

 Focus: describing real translations, in context, to identify patterns, norms, and

functions.

3. Key Concepts:

a) Descriptive, Not Prescriptive

 Earlier translation theories often judged translations as “faithful” or “unfaithful.”

 DTS asks instead: What do translators actually do?

b) Norms

 Translations are guided by norms — shared expectations within a culture about what a
translation should look like.

 Norms shape decisions such as style, degree of domestication/foreignization, or genre

conventions.

c) Target-Oriented

 DTS is target-oriented: it studies how translations function within the target culture,
not just how they compare to the source.

 Example: A translation of Shakespeare into Polish might serve as “high literature” in

one era but as “popular reading” in another.

d) Polysystem

 Literature is seen as a polysystem: multiple systems (original literature, translated

literature, children’s literature, etc.) interact.

 Translated literature may sometimes occupy a central position (shaping the literary
system) or a peripheral one (secondary, marginal).

4. Methodology:

Toury suggested a three-step method:

1. Situate the translation within its cultural/literary context.

2. Compare it with its source text and other translations.

3. Identify norms and general patterns.

5. Why It Matters:

 Moves away from “good/bad” judgments toward empirical research.

 Highlights how sociocultural forces shape translation.

 Provides a foundation for later work in translation sociology, ideology, and ethics.

Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) is a research program (Toury) that studies

translation as a cultural fact, focusing on how translations actually function in target
cultures. It emphasizes norms, systems, and empirical description, rather than
prescriptive rules of “fidelity.

1. Background & Origins:

 Founder: Gideon Toury, an Israeli translation scholar.

 Major Work: Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (1995).

 Intellectual Context: Grew out of the Tel Aviv School of Translation Studies,
connected to Itamar Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory.

 Reaction Against: Traditional translation theory, which was largely prescriptive —

telling translators how they should translate (e.g., “be faithful,” “don’t add,” “don’t
omit”).

DTS shifted the focus to a scientific, empirical approach: “What do translations actually
look like in practice?”

2. Core Principles:

a) Descriptive, Not Prescriptive

 Goal: To describe and analyze translations as they exist, without labeling them as
“good” or “bad.”

 Example: Instead of saying “this Shakespeare translation is unfaithful,” DTS would ask:
“What norms shaped this Shakespeare translation in 20th-century Poland?”

b) Target-Orientedness

 Focus is on the target culture:

o How does the translation function in the receiving culture?

o What role does it play in the literary system (central vs. peripheral)?

 This opposes older “source-oriented” approaches that saw the original text as the only
standard of judgment.

c) Norms

 One of Toury’s most important contributions.

 Norms = sociocultural expectations that govern translators’ behavior.

 They are not absolute rules, but shared guidelines learned through practice.

 Types of norms (Toury):

 1. Initial norm: Does the translator lean toward the source text (adequacy) or
toward the target culture (acceptability)?

2. Preliminary norms: What policies decide whether a text gets translated at all,
and from which languages/cultures?

3. Operational norms: The actual choices during translation (text segmentation,

stylistic conventions, omissions, additions).

d) Polysystem Theory Connection

 Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory describes literature as a network of interacting

systems.

 Translated literature is one subsystem, and its position (central or peripheral) changes
depending on historical and cultural conditions.

 DTS applies this to translation:

o If translated literature is central, translators may innovate and bring in new

forms.

o If it is peripheral, translators will conform to dominant norms and styles.

3. Methodology:

Toury proposed a systematic research program:

1. Situate the translation within its socio-cultural and literary context (what role does it
play?).

2. Compare the translation with its source and with other translations (to find patterns).

3. Identify norms that guided the translator.

4. Generalize: use multiple case studies to build a broader descriptive theory.

4. Impact & Significance:

 Scientific turn: DTS made translation studies more empirical and data-driven.

 Neutral perspective: Freed translation studies from “value judgments” of fidelity.

 Influence: Provided a foundation for later approaches:

o Sociological Translation Studies (e.g., Bourdieu-inspired studies).

o Cultural Turn (Bassnett & Lefevere, 1990s).

o Corpus-based Translation Studies (analyzing large bodies of translated

texts).

5. Criticism:

 Some say DTS is too descriptive and avoids addressing ethical and ideological
issues (e.g., power imbalances, censorship, cultural dominance).

 Venuti, for instance, critiques DTS for ignoring the politics of translation
(domestication/foreignization).

 Others argue that by focusing on patterns, DTS sometimes downplays the creative
agency of translators.
Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) is a target-oriented, empirical research
program (Toury) that studies translation as it actually happens, focusing on norms and
cultural functions. It rejects prescriptive judgments and instead seeks to uncover patterns that
explain how translations operate within literary and cultural systems.

2. André Lefevere’s notion of translation as rewriting

 André Lefevere (1945–1996):

o Worked in comparative literature in Leuven (Belgium) and later at the University

of Texas, Austin.

o Connected with polysystem theory and the Manipulation School.

o His work bridges systems theory and the “cultural turn” in translation studies.

o Key work: Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame (1992).

 Core Ideas:

o Translation = a form of rewriting; most influential because it projects

texts/authors beyond their original culture.

o Literary reception governed by power, ideology, institution, and

manipulation.

o Rewriting motivated by ideology (conforming/rebelling against dominant

ideology) or poetics (dominant/preferred literary norms).

 Example – Edward Fitzgerald’s Rubáiyát (19th c.):

o Fitzgerald viewed Persians as inferior, altered the text to suit Western poetics.

o The translation was a major commercial success.

 Control of the Literary System:

o Two main forces:

1. Professionals inside the system – critics, reviewers, academics,

teachers, translators.

2. Patronage outside the system – individuals, groups, institutions

(publishers, media, state, education, etc.).

 Patronage (3 components):

1. Ideological: dictates subject matter and presentation.

2. Economic: payment (then pensions, now fees/royalties).

3. Status: recognition, prestige, group membership.

o Undifferentiated patronage: all 3 from same source (e.g., a ruler).

o Differentiated patronage: components come from separate sources (e.g.,

best-selling but low-status author).

o Patronage mainly shapes ideology; professionals shape poetics.

 Dominant Poetics:

o Determined by:
 1. Literary devices (genres, motifs, symbols, etc.).

2. Role of literature in society, reinforced by institutions (e.g., canon

formation).

o Classics are maintained/reinterpreted to align with changing poetics but often

retain status due to systemic conservatism.

o Example: Greek classics’ ongoing influence; Arabic poetics spreading with Islam.

 Key Claim:

o When linguistic vs. ideological/poetological considerations conflict,

ideology/poetics dominate.

o Translation strategies are dictated by ideology (translator’s or patronage’s) and

poetics of the target culture.

 Examples:

o Lysistrata: euphemistic renderings of “penis” reflect dominant ideologies of

different times.

o Anne Frank’s Diary:

 Dutch 1947 edition (edited by Otto Frank) censored sexuality, negative

depictions of people, and references to collaborators.

 German 1950 translation (by Anneliese Schütz, with Otto Frank) softened
or omitted negative remarks about Germans to avoid offense and ensure
sales.

 Shows rewriting under ideological pressures.

3. Skopos Theory: functional theories of translation

 J. Vermeer (1930–2010):

o Developed Skopos theory (Skopostheorie) → translation guided by its

purpose/aim

o Major work: Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie (Reiss &

Vermeer, 1984; English trans. 2013).

o Translation = a type of translational action; result is the Translatum.

o A TT must be fit for purpose (functionally adequate).

 Core Principles (rules of Skopos theory):

1. A translation is determined by its skopos (primary rule).

2. Translation = an offer of information in the target culture about an offer in the

source culture.

3. A TT is irreversible; its function in the target culture need not match the ST’s
function.

4. TT must have internal coherence (make sense for target readers).

5. TT must show coherence with ST (fidelity).

 6. Hierarchy: Skopos > TT internal coherence > ST–TT fidelity.

 Key Concepts:

o Coherence rule: TT must be understandable and relevant for TT receivers.

o Fidelity rule: TT must be coherent with the ST → but less important than skopos
and internal coherence.

o Dethroning of ST: Skopos outweighs strict fidelity; controversial in translation

studies.

 Nord’s Response (Functionality + Loyalty):

o Functionality is central but must be balanced with loyalty (social responsibility

toward both ST author and TT readers/clients).

o Loyalty ≠ fidelity; it’s about ethical responsibility in translational interaction.

o Ensures TT purpose is compatible with ST author’s intentions (as far as possible).

o Introduces need for negotiation between translator and client.

 Practical Applications:

o A single ST can yield different TTs depending on skopos.

o Example: French will →

 For a lawyer: literal translation + footnote.

 For a novel: recreate an ambiguity in TL without notes.

 Commission (translation brief):

o States the goal (skopos) + conditions (deadline, fee, etc.).

o Translator, as expert, advises on feasibility.

o TT judged by adequacy (does it fulfil skopos?) rather than equivalence.

o Equivalence reduced to functional constancy (rare in practice).

4. Antoine Berman’s twelve deforming tendencies in translation

 Antoine Berman (1942–1991):

o Influential French theorist of translation.

o Major work: L’épreuve de l’étranger (1984; Eng. The Experience of the Foreign,
1992).

o Influenced Lawrence Venuti’s ideas of domestication vs. foreignization.

o Key article: La traduction comme épreuve de l’étranger (1985; Eng. Translation

and the trials of the foreign).

 Concept of Translation as Épreuve (“trial/experience”):

1. For the target culture: it experiences the strangeness of the foreign.

 2. For the foreign text: uprooted from its original context.

 Ethical Aim of Translation:

o Should “receive the Foreign as Foreign.”

o Opposes naturalization/domestication (assimilation of foreign text).

o Identifies a “system of textual deformation” that prevents the foreign from

being conveyed.

 Negative Analytic (12 Deforming Tendencies):

1. Rationalization – simplifies syntax, punctuation, sentence order.

2. Clarification – over-explicating unclear elements.

3. Expansion – TT longer than ST; overtranslation flattens rhythm and voice.

4. Ennoblement – “improving” style (too elegant or too colloquial).

5. Qualitative impoverishment – loss of richness, sound, or iconic features of

words.

6. Quantitative impoverishment – loss of lexical variation (e.g., synonyms

merged).

7. Destruction of rhythms – loss of rhythm through altered word

order/punctuation.

8. Destruction of signification networks – ignoring recurring lexical networks.

9. Destruction of linguistic patternings – loss of systematic structures, replaced

by standardization.

10. Destruction/exoticization of vernacular – erasing or awkwardly exoticizing

local speech.

11. Destruction of idioms/expressions – replacing with TL “equivalents” that

distort meaning/cultural reference.

12. Effacement of superimposed languages – erasing multilingualism,

sociolects, idiolects, stylistic layering (Berman’s central problem in novel
translation).

 Positive Analytic (Alternative):

o Advocates literal translation (in a specific, Saussurean sense).

o Focus on the “letter” → restores the work’s unique signifying process and
transforms the TL.

o Requires translator’s creativity and innovation to convey truth.

 Significance:

o Links philosophical reflection with translation strategy.

o Ethics of translation foregrounded → deformation seen as ethical issue.

o Provides counterpoint to earlier literary translation theories.

o Complements Lefevere’s focus on sociocultural context and power relations.

5. Friedrich Schleiermacher’s and Lawrence Venuti’s idea of
ethical translation
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834)

Key Work: On the Different Methods of Translating (1813 lecture).

Core Idea: Translation involves a choice between two fundamentally different methods:

1. Bring the reader to the author – The translator leaves the reader in their cultural-linguistic
world but moves them toward the foreign text (foreignizing approach).

2. Bring the author to the reader – The translator adapts the foreign text to the reader’s
cultural-linguistic norms (domesticating approach).

Ethical Position: Schleiermacher strongly favoured the first option (foreignization). He believed
translations should preserve the "strangeness" of the foreign text so that readers can engage
with its difference. This was both a cultural and ethical stance: respecting the foreign work’s
integrity rather than erasing it.

Lawrence Venuti (1953– )

Key Works: The Translator’s Invisibility (1995), The Scandals of Translation (1998).

Core Idea: Venuti critiques the Anglo-American tradition of domestication, which makes
translations smooth, "fluent," and thus invisible as translations.

Ethical Position: He advocates for foreignization as an ethical strategy:

 Makes visible the translator’s work.

 Resists the ethnocentric violence of assimilation.
 Preserves linguistic and cultural difference rather than erasing it.

Political/Ethical Dimension: For Venuti, domestication reflects cultural hegemony (especially

Anglo-American dominance). Foreignization is thus an ethical act of resistance, promoting
diversity and cultural exchange on more equal terms.

Connection Between Them:

 Venuti explicitly draws on Schleiermacher’s foreignizing stance.

 Both argue that translation is not just a linguistic operation but an ethical and cultural
act.
 Schleiermacher is more concerned with philosophical-cultural integrity, while Venuti
pushes this into a modern political-ethical critique of globalization and cultural
dominance.

Schleiermacher: Ethical translation preserves the foreignness of the text (reader moves to the
author).

Venuti: Ethical translation resists the invisibility of the translator and the domestication of the
foreign, advocating for visible, foreignizing strategies to challenge cultural dominance.

Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–

Aspect Lawrence Venuti (1953– )
1834)

On the Different Methods of The Translator’s Invisibility (1995), The

Main Texts
Translating (1813) Scandals of Translation (1998)
 Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–
Aspect Lawrence Venuti (1953– )
1834)

Two paths: 1. Reader → Author Two strategies: 1. Domestication (fluent,

Core
(foreignization) 2. Author → Reader natural, assimilated) 2. Foreignization
Distinction
(domestication) (visible, resistant, different)

Favored foreignization: keep the Advocates foreignization: make the

Ethical
foreign "strangeness" to respect the translator’s presence visible, resist
Position
source text. cultural dominance.

View of Ethnocentric, risks distorting or A form of cultural imperialism, especially

Domestication erasing the foreign culture. in Anglo-American publishing.

Translator’s A guide who carries the reader A cultural agent who exposes difference
Role toward the foreign text. and resists invisibility.

Underlying Cultural integrity, respecting the Ethical responsibility, political resistance

Concern otherness of texts. against homogenization.

Set the philosophical foundation for Revitalized Schleiermacher’s ideas, tying

Legacy/
debates on fidelity and cultural them to postmodern ethics, cultural
Impact
otherness in translation. studies, and globalization.

Key Difference:

 Schleiermacher frames the ethics of translation as a philosophical-cultural choice.

 Venuti develops this into a political-ethical stance against cultural assimilation and
translator invisibility.

6. Elżbieta Tabakowska’s take on translation (cognitive

linguistics)
Elżbieta Tabakowska (b. 1934)

 Background: Polish linguist and translator, closely associated with cognitive

linguistics (especially the work of Ronald Langacker).

 Key Work: Translation as Translation: A Cognitive View (1993).

Core Ideas on Translation:

1. Meaning as Conceptualization

o From a cognitive linguistics perspective, meaning is not fixed; it arises from how
language construes reality.

o Translation is therefore not just a matter of transferring words, but of transferring

conceptualizations.

2. Construal & Perspective

 o Languages offer different ways of "construing" the same scene (focus,
perspective, figure/ground relations).

o A translator must account for these shifts in construal when moving between
languages.

3. Equivalence is Cognitive, Not Absolute

o Instead of "faithful vs. free," Tabakowska emphasizes cognitive equivalence —

finding a way to reconstruct in the target language a similar conceptualization
that the source text creates for its readers.

4. Stylistic and Cultural Dimensions

o Style is not ornamental but part of meaning (because it reflects a way of

construing reality).

o Thus, style must be taken seriously in translation.

5. Ethical/Practical Implication

o Translators should be aware of the cognitive effects of their choices.

o Translation becomes an act of mediating between two worldviews, not just two
languages.

Comparison with Schleiermacher & Venuti

 Schleiermacher: Focused on foreignness vs. domestication as cultural-ethical choices.

 Venuti: Political critique of domestication, advocating visible resistance.

 Tabakowska: Cognitive explanation — meaning is perspectival, so translation is about

reconstruing perspectives in another language.

Tabakowska’s cognitive-linguistic approach sees translation as a process of transferring

construals of reality, not just words. It emphasizes perspective, style, and conceptualization
as integral to meaning — so a translator’s task is to recreate these conceptual effects in the
target language.

Cognitive Linguistics as the Basis

 Tabakowska builds her theory of translation on Ronald Langacker’s Cognitive

Grammar.

 Key assumption: language does not reflect reality directly; instead, it offers ways
of construing reality.

 Words and grammar don’t just label things — they package experience through
perspective, focus, and salience.

Implication: Translating is not about transferring “content” from one code to another, but
about reconstructing the cognitive framing of a situation.

Construal and Perspective

 Construal = the way a speaker chooses to conceptualize and present a situation.

 For example:

o The boy broke the window vs. The window broke vs. The window was broken by
the boy.
 o All describe the same event but from different perspectives.

 Translators must deal with the fact that different languages prefer or allow different
construals.

A good translation is not about word-for-word reproduction, but about capturing a parallel
construal in the target language.

Equivalence Revisited

 Traditional translation theory often focused on semantic equivalence (faithful vs. free).

 Tabakowska argues: there is no absolute equivalence because each language

encodes different construals.

 Instead, she proposes cognitive equivalence: the translation should recreate in the
target text a comparable mental representation to what the source text builds for its
readers.

Style as Meaning

 Tabakowska insists that style is not decorative — it directly reflects

conceptualization.

 Example: choosing between simple and complex syntax, or between metaphors,

changes the construal of reality.

 Therefore, translators must take stylistic choices very seriously, not treat them as
secondary.

The Role of the Translator

 The translator is a mediator of perspectives between two linguistic and cultural

systems.

 Ethical responsibility: respect the source text’s construal, while adapting it to the
cognitive habits of the target readership.

 Translation is always interpretative because the translator decides which construals to

privilege.

Broader Implications

 Translation = not just language transfer, but cognitive-cultural transfer.

 Highlights the limits of translatability: some construals are simply untranslatable

because the target language lacks the same conceptual tools.

 But also highlights the creative power of translation: translators can find alternative
ways to evoke similar construals (through syntax, metaphor, word choice, or imagery).

Tabakowska’s take is that translation is fundamentally about transferring perspectives

(construals), not just words or meanings. Because languages differ in how they shape
reality, equivalence is never exact, but translators can aim for cognitive equivalence by
recreating the same kind of mental effect on the reader. Style, metaphor, and grammar are
part of this cognitive work, not optional extras.
7. Cultural and ideological turns in Translation Studies
Cultural Studies and Translation: Gender, Power, and Postcolonialism

 Shift in Translation Studies

o Cultural studies pushed translation beyond purely linguistic analysis, leading to a

hybrid discipline.

o Sherry Simon (1996) criticizes simplistic uses of “culture” in translation studies,

emphasizing the need for nuanced perspectives.

Feminist Translation Studies

 Critique of Traditional Translation Discourse

o Translation historically framed with sexist metaphors: fidelity, betrayal,

dominance.

o Feminist theorists compare the marginalization of translation (derivative,

secondary) with women’s repression in society and literature.

 Simon’s Approach

o Fidelity should not be to author/reader, but to the writing project involving both
writer and translator.

o Example: 1980s Canadian feminist translators actively inserted their ideological

stance into translations.

 Key Figures and Strategies

o Barbara Godard: advocated visible manipulation of texts.

o Susanne de Lotbinière-Harwood: made political choices in translation,

emphasizing feminine visibility.

o Strategies included gender-marked spellings, neologisms, capitalization, and

gendered pronouns.

 Historical Contributions

o Women like Constance Garnett (Russian classics), Helen Lowe-Porter (German

works), and Willa Muir significantly shaped literary translation.

 Contemporary Example

o Suzanne Jill Levine worked closely with Infante but also infused feminist critique,
highlighting tension between authorial betrayal and feminist rewriting.

Translation and Gender Identity

 Queer Translation Studies (Keith Harvey)

o Studied “camp talk” in literature and translation (English/French).

o Camp characterized by playful registers, foreign borrowings, exaggerated styles.

o Translation often erased or distorted gay identity, reflecting cultural reluctance

(e.g., French suppression of “gay” label).
 o Conversely, some US translations amplified camp for cultural/market reasons.

 Conclusion: Translation reflects broader ideological environments

(acceptance/suppression of minority identities).

Postcolonial Translation Studies

 Intersection with Cultural Studies

o Postcolonialism became a major focus, examining power imbalances between

colonizer/colonized.

o Translation seen as complicit in colonization, creating distorted images of

colonized peoples.

o Bassnett & Trivedi (1999): translation has a “shameful history” in colonialism.

 Key Thinkers

o Gayatri Spivak:

 Criticized homogenizing “translatese” of Third World texts into English.

 Advocated translators learn original languages to preserve identity and

resist assimilation.

 Stressed dangers of western feminism imposing its framework on non-

Western women.

o Tejaswini Niranjana:

 Showed translation as a tool of colonial discourse, shaping the “East” for

the West.

 Critiqued Western-oriented translation studies for ignoring power

imbalances.

 Advocated an interventionist, speculative approach that resists colonial

containment (example: vacana poetry).

o Homi Bhabha:

 Concepts of hybridity, third space, and cultural difference.

 Translation occurs in cultural “in-betweenness,” enabling subversion of

colonial authority.

 Critics like Sathya Rao propose “non-colonial” theory: some texts resist
translation entirely.

Indian Perspectives

 Translation integral to Indian literary traditions.

 Debates around translators like A. K. Ramanujan:

o Criticized by Niranjana for colonial assimilation.

o Defended as aiming for cross-cultural accessibility.

 Reveals tensions between ideological commitments and practical translation strategies.

Ideology and Power in Translation

 Expansion of Research

o Focus on ideological manipulation in translation environments (publishers,

governments, media).

o Venuti, Flotow, Tymoczko, Gentzler, Pérez, and others foreground ideology in

translation studies.

 Analytical Models

o Discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, Hatim & Mason).

o Narrative theory (Baker).

 Censorship and Selection

o Example: Nazi Germany encouraged translations aligned with racial ideology,

suppressed “alien” texts.

 Language Power Imbalances

o Growth of English as global lingua franca influences translation strategies.

o Karen Bennett: English academic style suppresses other intellectual traditions

(“epistemicide”).

Translation in Multilingual Societies

 Cities in Translation (Simon 2012)

o Examines cities with dual/multiple language identities (e.g., Montreal, Trieste,

Barcelona, Calcutta).

o Translation here tied to territorial and cultural claims.

 Superdiverse Societies

o Singapore as example: four official languages, but English dominates.

o Research (Lee 2013) shows translation’s role in identity politics.

 Translanguaging

o Concept (Garcia & Li Wei 2014): fluid, dynamic multilingual practices reflecting
diversity and identity negotiation.

Overall Significance

 The cultural turn in translation studies broadened perspectives by integrating gender

studies, postcolonial theory, and ideology analysis.

 Translation is no longer just linguistic transfer but a site of political struggle, cultural
identity formation, and power negotiation.

 Conflicts between perspectives (feminist, postcolonial, queer, ideological) are inevitable

but productive, expanding the scope of translation studies.

Study Guide: Cultural Studies and Translation

1. The Cultural Turn

  Translation studies expanded beyond linguistics into cultural studies.

 Emphasis on identity, ideology, and power relations.

 Translation = site of cultural negotiation, not just language transfer.

2. Feminist Translation Studies

Key Ideas

 Translation discourse historically sexist (fidelity, betrayal, dominance).

 Translation marginalized like women in literature/society.

 Fidelity → redefined: loyalty to the writing project (author + translator).

Strategies & Examples

 Barbara Godard – visible manipulation of texts.

 Susanne de Lotbinière-Harwood – political translations, making feminine visible

(e.g., “auther,” “HuMan Rights”).

 Emphasis on gendered forms, neologisms, and linguistic creativity.

Historical Role of Women Translators

 Constance Garnett – translated major Russian classics.

 Helen Lowe-Porter, Willa Muir – German literature.

 Suzanne Jill Levine – collaborated with Infante, added feminist critique.

3. Queer Translation Studies

Keith Harvey – “Translating Camp Talk”

 Camp talk = playful, exaggerated language mixing registers and cultural codes.

 Findings:

o French translations often erased/suppressed gay identity.

o US translations sometimes amplified camp due to cultural/market pressures.

 Translation reflects broader cultural attitudes toward LGBTQ+ identity.

4. Postcolonial Translation Studies

Core Concerns

 Examines power imbalances between colonizer and colonized.

 Translation historically complicit in colonization (“shameful history”).

 Key link: translation as ideological tool of empire.

Major Theorists

 Gayatri Spivak – “Politics of Translation”

o Critique: “translatese” erases cultural identity.

o Western feminists impose English as language of power.

 o Solution: translators must learn original languages and preserve cultural
specificity.

 Tejaswini Niranjana – Siting Translation

o Translation = colonial discourse shaping “truth” about the East.

o Critiques Western theories for ignoring power.

o Advocates interventionist translations resisting assimilation.

 Homi Bhabha

o Concepts: hybridity, third space, in-betweenness.

o Translation = cultural overlap, enabling resistance.

o Translator’s role: not mediator but participant in cultural hybridity.

 Critiques

o Sathya Rao: proposes non-colonial theory → some texts untranslatable, calling

for radical “non-translation.”

5. Indian Perspectives

 Translation central to Indian literary traditions.

 Debates: A. K. Ramanujan criticized (Niranjana) but defended (Dharwadker) for

accessibility.

 Reveals tension between ideology and pragmatics in translation.

6. Ideology and Power in Translation

Key Issues

 Ideological manipulation via commissioners, publishers, states.

 Censorship as extreme case (e.g., Nazi Germany’s selective promotion).

 English as global lingua franca → “epistemicide” (Karen Bennett): English academic

style suppresses other traditions.

Research Approaches

 Discourse analysis (Hatim & Mason).

 Critical discourse analysis (Fairclough, Munday).

 Narrative theory (Baker).

7. Translation in Multilingual & Urban Contexts

 Sherry Simon – Cities in Translation

o “Dual cities” (Montreal, Trieste, Barcelona, Calcutta).

o Translation linked to territorial identity.

 Singapore

o Four official languages, but English dominates.

o Translation reveals cultural and political hierarchies (Lee 2013).

  Translanguaging (García & Li Wei)

o Fluid multilingual practices → celebrate linguistic diversity.

8. Overall Significance

 The cultural turn broadened translation studies:

o Gender → visibility, identity, resistance.

o Queer theory → camp, sexuality, cultural play.

o Postcolonialism → power, hybridity, colonial discourse.

o Ideology → manipulation, censorship, global English.

 Conflicts between perspectives = productive for theory development.

 Translation = cultural, political, and ideological act, not neutral.

Tip for revision: Remember the triad of cultural perspectives – Gender, Postcolonialism,
Ideology – and link them to their key theorists (Simon, Spivak, Niranjana, Bhabha, Harvey).

8. Audiovisual translation: types and strategies

Early Development

 Initially overlooked by translation theory.

 Reiss (1971/2000) mentioned “audio-medial” texts, but linked more to advertising.

 Holmes’s “map” (1972) had “medium-restricted” theories, no AVT mention.

 Snell-Hornby (1988/1995) connected film to literary translation.

Early Studies

 Titford (1982), Mayoral et al. (1988): “constrained translation” – focus on non-verbal

elements.

 Delabastita (1989): called AVT a “virgin area of research.”

o Film = multi-channel, multi-code communication (verbal, literary/theatrical,

proxemic/kinetic, cinematic).

o Avoids simple verbal/non-verbal split → some visual signs are verbal (credits),
some audio are non-verbal (music).

o Uses classical rhetoric categories (repetition, addition, reduction,

transmutation, substitution) to map procedures.

o Difference from theatre: film fixed once recorded; theatre varies per
performance.

o Subtitling constraints: must not contradict image/sound.

Naming the Field

 Debate: translation or adaptation?

 Terms:

o Luyken et al. (1991): “audiovisual language transfer.”

 o Gottlieb (1994): “diagonal translation” (speech → written text).

o Gambier (2003/2004): “screen/multimedia translation,” later

“transadaptation.”

o Díaz Cintas & Remael (2007): “audiovisual translation (AVT)” became

standard.

Types of AVT

 Interlingual subtitling (cinema, video, DVD – open vs. closed).

 Bilingual subtitling (e.g., Belgium).

 Intralingual subtitling (for the hard of hearing).

 Dubbing (lip-sync voice replacement).

 Voice-over (documentary/interview).

 Surtitling (opera/theatre).

 Audio description (for visually impaired).

Constraints of Subtitling

 Space/time: max 2 lines, ~38 Roman chars or 13–15 Chinese/Japanese chars, ~6

seconds.

 Must respect cinematography: image is fixed, soundtrack remains.

 Subtitles matched to rhythm of dialogue/camera cuts.

 Style experiments: e.g. Slumdog Millionaire (2008) varied subtitle placement; Man on
Fire (2004), Day Watch (2007) played with typography.

Díaz Cintas & Remael (2007)

 Subtitling guidelines:

o Simplification of grammar/lexis.

o Interactional features partly preserved (word order, questions, interjections).

o Focus on informationally relevant items.

 Issues: marked speech (dialect, taboo), culture-specific references, songs, humour.

 Culture-bound references (Chiaro 2009): institutions, education, places, units, money,

food, festivals, cultural icons.

 Subtitling of dialect/taboo often controversial (e.g. La haine).

 Technical issues: punctuation, reduction, line breaks.

Research Approaches

 Karamitroglou (2000) – norms, polysystem theory.

o Emphasizes human agents, products, recipients, mode, institutions, market.

o Highlights broad professional network (spotters, time-coders, adapters, dubbing

directors, actors, technicians, distributors, translators).

 Pedersen (2011) – norms in subtitling, corpus study (English → Danish/Swedish).

 o Focus on extralinguistic cultural references (ECRs) → strategies: retention,
specification, direct translation, generalization, substitution, omission, official
equivalent.

 Taylor (2003) – multimodal transcription.

o Uses Thibault’s (2000) frame/shot/phase breakdown with multi-column

descriptions.

Table 11.1 Multimodal transcription model (following Taylor 2003: 192–3):

Frames Shots Phases

Duration of Presentatio Componen ‘Kinesic Dialogue Metafunctio
frame and n of the ts of the action’ of and nal
order of visual visual the description interpretatio
presentatio frames image characters of the n of how the
n soundtrac film creates
k meaning
Frames Still Camera Gestures, Words Ideational,
numbered images position, movement uttered, interpersona
individually from the perspectiv s, etc. tone, l, textual,
and source e, focus, music, etc. and visual
duration distance, grammar.
indicated salient
in seconds. items,
Frames are clothing,
selected colours,
according etc.
to the level
required in
the
analysis

1. Multimodal Analysis of Subtitling

 Taylor (2003):

o Uses Halliday’s metafunctions + Kress & van Leeuwen’s visual grammar

for transcription.

o Applied to La vita è bella (1999).

o Helps subtitlers decide subtitle placement & omission.

o Best for descriptive/theoretical studies (too unwieldy for long texts).

o Key finding: interpersonal meaning is carried mainly by prosody & kinesics.

o Raises the question of whether visual presentation of analysis (DVDs, clips)

will become the norm (e.g., Díaz Cintas & Remael include a DVD in their 2007
book).

2. Chaume’s Integrated Model (2004)

 Combines translation studies + film studies.

 Identifies 10 signifying codes in film language:

Acoustic channel:

1. Linguistic code – language is scripted but meant to sound natural; same

problems as other translation (wordplay, multilingualism, culture).

2. Paralinguistic code – laughter, pauses, tone (indicated with symbols/graphical

signs).

3. Music & sound effects code – lyrics, sound adaptation.

4. Sound arrangement code – on/off screen speech affects subtitling and

dubbing.

Visual channel:

5. Iconographic code – cultural symbols/images that may need explanation.

6. Photographic codes – lighting, colours with different cultural meanings.
7. Planning code – close-ups, posters, on-screen text.
8. Mobility code – synchronizing character movement and speech.
9. Graphic codes – handling of intertitles, on-screen written text.
10. Syntactic codes – editing principles, sequence boundaries.

 Significance:

o Only one code is linguistic → highlights AVT’s strong non-verbal dimension.

o Mainly pedagogical model (training translators).

o Progress in AVT research may come from exploring these non-linguistic codes,
and linking with power, culture, ideology (Díaz Cintas 2003).

3. Subtitling as Translation

 Gottlieb (1994, 1997):

o Subtitling = a form of House’s overt translation (visible, synchronous,

additive).

o Medium retains non-verbal + verbal elements.

o Paradox: subtitles are highly visible, but translators often remain invisible (no
credit).

o Subtitling is a “vulnerable translation” → audiences can compare subtitles

with ST soundtrack, creating extra pressure on subtitlers.

4. New Practices in AVT

 Fansubs (Díaz Cintas & Muñoz Sánchez 2006):

o Amateur subtitling & distribution (esp. anime, manga).

o Uses free subtitling software.

o Features: glosses, metalinguistic notes.

o Raises copyright issues (e.g., Harry Potter fan translations).

 Video Game Translation (Mangiron & O’Hagan 2006):

o Seen as game localization (blend of AVT + software localization).

o Requires creativity & originality to preserve entertainment value.

 o Strategies: neologisms, dialect shifts, renaming, humour.

o Example: Final Fantasy → Japanese weapon name “fūrinkazan” translated as

“Conqueror” for concision; Cockney accent added for comic effect.

 Transcreation:

o Term revived by P. Lal (1964), later Haroldo de Campos & Else Vieira.

o Stresses creative, transformative dimension of translation.

o In games: aims to preserve “look and feel” of the original while passing as
authentic.

5. Digital-Age Industry (GILT)

 Translation part of GILT:

o Globalization (g11n): organizing business processes for international markets.

o Internationalization (i18n): designing products to work globally.

o Localization (L10n): adapting product to specific locale (culture, symbols,

legislation, interface, marketing).

o Translation: part of localization.

 Localization vs. Translation:

o Blurred boundaries.

o Industry sees localization as superordinate → includes linguistic + cultural

adaptation.

o Defined by LISA (1990–2011): making a product “linguistically and culturally

appropriate” for its target locale.

9. Stanisław Barańczak’s dominanta semantyczna

Stanisław Barańczak (1946–2014)

 Polish poet, translator, and literary critic.

 Translated extensively into Polish (e.g. Shakespeare, Donne, Dickinson, Auden)

and out of Polish.

 Reflected deeply on the practice of translation, especially of poetry.

Dominanta semantyczna (Semantic Dominant)

1. Definition

 The dominanta semantyczna is the central, organizing element of a text’s

meaning or aesthetic function, the “key” that gives coherence to the whole.

 In poetry, this could be:

o a recurring image,

o a rhythmic pattern,

o a central metaphor,
 o a stylistic device,

o or even a particular tone or mood.

It is what makes the text what it is — the “most important” feature the translator must
preserve.

2. Function in Translation

 When translating, absolute equivalence is impossible (echoing Jakobson’s idea).

 Therefore, the translator should identify the dominanta semantyczna of the

source text and strive to recreate it in the target text, even if other elements
must be sacrificed.

 This requires interpretation: the translator must decide what counts as

“dominant” in a given text.

3. Example (Simplified)

Imagine translating Emily Dickinson.

 Original line: “Because I could not stop for Death – He kindly stopped for me –”

 Possible dominanta semantyczna: the paradoxical personification of Death as

courteous.

 In Polish translation, preserving that paradoxical politeness may take priority

over reproducing exact meter or rhyme.

4. Ethical Dimension

 Barańczak emphasizes translator responsibility: the choice of dominant is not

neutral but interpretative.

 Translation is therefore an act of both fidelity and creativity: faithful to the text’s
essence, creative in adapting it to another language.

5. Relation to Other Theories

 Compared to Schleiermacher/Venuti: Barańczak is less focused on domestication

vs. foreignization, more on aesthetic-functionality.

 Compared to Tabakowska: There’s overlap — both reject absolute equivalence

and see translation as cognitive-interpretive, but Barańczak is more concerned
with the poetic function.

 Influence of Jakobson: His concept of dominant in literary theory clearly

underpins Barańczak’s dominanta semantyczna.

Barańczak’s dominanta semantyczna is the core feature or organizing principle of a

literary text that must guide the translator’s decisions. Since full equivalence is
impossible, translation becomes the art of identifying and recreating this dominant
element, even at the cost of other aspects.
 Elżbieta Tabakowska (Cognitive Stanisław Barańczak (Dominanta
Aspect
Linguistics) semantyczna)

Translation as transfer of Translation as recreation of the

Main Focus construals (ways of semantic dominant (the central
conceptualizing reality). aesthetic/semantic feature of a text).

Theoretical Cognitive linguistics (Langacker’s Literary theory, influenced by Roman

Basis Cognitive Grammar). Jakobson’s concept of the dominant.

Meaning is perspectival; Meaning is multi-layered, but one

View of
language shapes how reality is aspect (the dominant) organizes the
Meaning
framed. whole.

No absolute equivalence → aim No total equivalence → preserve the

Equivalenc
for cognitive equivalence (similar dominant, even if other features are
e
mental effect). lost.

Style may or may not be central —

Style is integral to meaning
Style depends on whether it is part of the
(reflects construal).
dominant.

Mediator of perspectives; Interpreter-creator; identifies the

Role of
reconstructs conceptualizations dominant and ensures it survives in
Translator
in the target language. translation.

Responsibility to respect the Responsibility to preserve the text’s

Ethical
cognitive perspective of the essence (dominant), even if it requires
Dimension
original. sacrifice elsewhere.

Primarily focused on poetry and

Broad — applies to all kinds of
Application literary texts, where form and
texts (literary and non-literary).
meaning intertwine.

Summary:

 Tabakowska = translation as transferring perspectives → cognitive equivalence.

 Barańczak = translation as preserving the essence → semantic dominant.

Both highlight that translators cannot preserve everything, so they must choose what
matters most — but they define that “most important” differently: construals
(Tabakowska) vs. dominant (Barańczak).

Munday, J. 2016. Introducing Translation Studies. Fourth Edition. London:

Routlege;
Venuti, L. 2000. The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routlege

Bukowski, P. &; Heydel, M. 2009. Współczesne teorie przekładu. Antologia.

Kraków: Znak