Discussions on Holmes’s Map of Translation Studies

The name and nature of translation has been a topic on which

translation scholars debated. The map drawn by James Holmes in order
to describe the nature of the discipline has been one of the sources of the
discussion. Scholars like Pym and Toury have criticized certain aspects
of the map.
Holmes (1988), in his paper on “The Name and Nature of
Translation Studies”, points to several “impediments” (68) before
discussing the branches of translation studies. One of those impediments
is “the lack of appropriate channels of communication” (73). Holmes
states that articles written on translation can be found in various
journals whose audience involves scholars from other disciplines. For
this reason, it is hard to reach the majority of translation scholars by
publishing in such journals. The point Holmes is making here is clear
and logical. There is certainly a need for journals that are specifically
published to reach translation scholars. However, even after translation
scholars’ articles have been published in translation journals, there will
be articles on translation in other journals, as well. For example, while
explaining process oriented descriptive translation studies, Holmes
mentions “an area of study that might be called translation psychology
or psycho-translation studies” (73), which studies what takes place in
the mind of a person while doing translation. In addition to this, I think
that papers written on topics like “ways to increase the motivation of
students studying translation” or “the relationship between teachers’
and students’ motivation in the field of translation” can be published not
only translation but also psychology, especially educational psychology
journals. Thus, when such papers are published in translation journals,
educational psychologists will probably miss the chance of reading those
and this shows that the same problem holds true for all the other
interdisciplinary fields.
The fact that the Holmes map is vertical is one of the two main
reasons why Pym (1998) criticizes the map. He claims that maps “tend
to make you look in certain directions; they make you overlook other
directions” (3) and compares the forms of the charts drawn by Holmes
and Lawrence Humphrey. Pym favors Humphrey’s map because of its
horizontality. In order to draw a top-to-bottom map which is “like
company organization charts” (4), translation studies need to be so
developed that translation scholars working in the upper branches
should not be doing the same job as the ones in the other branches are
doing. Second, Pym stresses that translators have a central place in the
process of translation and they cannot be omitted from the map. While
the Holmes map focuses on the translated text, Humphrey gives equal
importance to the translator and the translation. I also believe that if we
are not talking about machine translation only, translators cannot be
given a minor place in the map.
Although Holmes states that the relationship between the
theoretical, descriptive, and applied translation studies is dialectical,
Toury (in Baker, 1998) has opposing views on the subject. Toury argues
that the relationship is unidirectional because he conceives the branches
of applied translation studies, which are translation training, translation
aids, and translation criticism, as secondary compared to the pure
translation studies. I do not agree that pure translation studies precede
the applied translation studies and I believe that all the branches provide
information for each other and there is a dialectical relationship.
However, Pym (1998) is right about criticizing the map again for its lack
of a branch specifically for translation history. Claiming a dialectical
relationship may not be sufficient in order to clarify the important place
translation history has in the field of translation studies.
In brief, Holmes made a crucial attempt by publishing his map.
Even though scholars like Pym and Toury do not agree with him on some
certain aspects of the map, it is absolute that even opening these
discussions is beneficial for the improvement of the field of translation
studies.

REFERENCES
• Baker, Mona., ed. 1998. Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London and
New York: Routledge.
• Holmes, James S. 1988. Translated: Papers on Literary Translation and
Translation Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Pym, Anthony. 1998. Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome.