Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 144 views

    Olohan 2004 - Introducing Corpora in Language Studies

    Uploaded by

    Meggie Rosar Fornazari

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Olohan 2004 - Introducing Corpora in Language Studies

    Uploaded by

    Meggie Rosar Fornazari
    144 views118 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    144 views118 pages

    Olohan 2004 - Introducing Corpora in Language Studies

    Uploaded by

    Meggie Rosar Fornazari

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 118
    Lede dak Ge Mod ‘and Cultures atthe Universi of Manchester, UK ees MAEVE OLOHAN | ‘Translation Studies / Applied Linguistics / Language Studios DUEL LF Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies Finally! A consolidated and welherafied resource explaining the basics (and beyond) of corpus-based translation studies. The comprchensive and critical analysis of work carried ut in this ara is combined with fascinating case stcics and presented in an easy-to-follow manner. The overall package is must-read for ‘nyone who wants to lam more abour the use of corpora in translation, (Lynne Bowker, University of Orawa, Cam We have been waiting for a book of this kind; a very readable text and a state the-art account of what many would see a the fature of empirical stdies of translating, Ie wil be of interest nor just to these nerding to work with corpora bu to those who are curious about what such studies ean show us aboot transl tor behaviour (an Mason, Heriot Watt University, UK) ‘Tae use of corpora in translation studies, both as tool for translators and asa way of analjsing the process of translation, i growing. This book provides a much-needed movement of how the analysis of corpus data can make a contebution t0 che study ‘of translation ‘The book begins by tracing the introaction andl development of corps methods in anslation sties and defining different types of corpora for translation research, Corpus design issues are then addressed and he use of corpora in researching aspects of the translation process i discussed, Tools for data extraction and analysis are Tntroxuced and some uses of corpora by translators and in translator training ate ako considered Featuring research questions, cas ste, discussion pois, methodological isucs and assessment of research potential and limitations, the book provides a practical gride to using corpora in tanlaion studies. ‘Offering a comprehensive account ofthe ws of corpora by today's translators and researchers, Inraacing Corpora in Transluvion Seudes isthe definitive guide 10 a fast developing are of study. Maeve Olohan is Scsior Lecturer in the School of Languages, Linguistics and Galtures at the University of Manchester, UK, where she is Programme Director for the MA in Translation Studies. Shei editor of fareleural Bullies: Research Models in Translation Stuer I (2000) and of four volumes of Tnsatom Studies Abirats (1999-2002). Introducing Corpora in Translation Studies Maeve Olohan fe eee Fs pablished 2008 ty Routledge ark Square, Milton Pack, Abingdon, Osfnkeice OX14-4RN Simultaneously pubis in de USA and Canada by Route 25 West 35th Sect, New York, NY 10001 Routledge i an imei ofthe Talore Francis Group (© 2004 Maeve Okan Typeset in Gala by Pres Projects La eth, Scola ‘red and bound i Gree Beat by MPG Books Lid, Badan Allright served. No part of his book may be reprinted or rad ‘etic in any form or by any lcron mechanical rather means tow Known or herefte iened, including photocopying. and ‘Reoeding or i ay inormation torage oe meal seem, tot permission in writing fom de publishes Bris Lary Catling in Pact Dats ‘Nestle record fort bck aval frm the Brits Libary iar of Core in Pubation Dt ‘Aca recon forthe halen requested ISBN 0-415-26884-2 (hk) ISBN 0-415-26885-0 (pbk) Contents List of tables List of figures List of abbreviations and acronyms Acknowledgements Introduction 1 Ineoducing tensation studies research 2 Corpus linguistics and translation B® Bentetcoos 4 Comparable corpora 5 Corpus design 6 Corpus tools and data analysis 7 Features of translation 8 ‘Translators, style and ideology 9 Compora in tansttor taining, 2 Corpora in translation practice Conclusion Nore: Glossary Bibliography Index 45 168 176 190 193 198 202 212 Tables 5a 61 21 73 74 28 26 27 78 79 710 7 712 713 74 715 The tagset used to tag the British National Corpus ‘Observed frequency of present-tense verbs + that in TEC from search using tags ‘adoprion an its translation into German ina day's European parliament debates Sentence segments containing adaprion in English and its translation in German irs thirty items in the TEC, ranked by frequency Last ewenty items in the TEC, ranked by frequency and then alphabetically First rwenty items in the TEC starting with B, ranked alphabetically Statisties for fiction subcorpus of the TEC ‘Top ten collocates for cause from the TEC ‘Nouns as collocates of cause in TEC KeyWords ourput for Peter Bush's translations compared with a BNC subcorpus KeyWords ousput for Giovanni Pontiero's translations compared with a BNC subeorpus Raw frequencies for sav and teu + shatfzero in the TEC and BNC Details of TEC and BNC subcocpora used in case study belp (=*) (+*) + 20 in BNC and TEC subcorpora swhile ing in BNC and TEC subcorpora after Ying *ed in BNC and TEC subcorpora in oder mforthat in BNC and TEC subcoxpora Details of TECEIC and BNCFIC corpora usd in case study Overall frequency counts for sith forms in TECFIC and BNCFI (Creative ih forms from nominal bases in TECFIC and BNCEIC (Creative ib forms in BNCEIC, prescated by author and frequency Details of TECEIC and BNCFIC corpora used in ease study Frequency counts for ish colour terms in TECFIG and BNCFIC. Frequency counts for basic colour terms in TECFIC and BNCFIC Frequency counts for synonyms of brown in TECEIC and BNCFIC Frequency counts for synonyms of bue in TECFIC and BNCFIC 53 7 76 7% 80 83 85 88 95 105 107 107 107 108 109 no ml na ns 19 120 11 12 716 217 78 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 747 738 729 al 82 83 84 85 86 87 388 8.10 101 “Tables vii Frequency counts for synonyms of rein TECEIC and BNCFIC Deuails of TECFIC and BNCFIC corpora use in case study Frequency counts for moderators in TECEIC and BNCFIC Common collocates of pretty in TECFIC Common collocates of pretty ir BNCFIC Common collocates of fairly in TECEIC Common collocates offrly in BNCFIC Contexts of occurrence for rather in TECEIC and BNCFIC. Common collocats of rather in TECEIC Common collocates of rather ia BNCFIC Common collocates of guite in TECEIC Common collocaes of gue in BNCFIC Frequency counts for relatively and moderately in TECFIC and BNCFIC Range and variation of pretty, fury, rather and quite in TECEIC and BNCFIC ‘Leech and Shorts checklist of style markers ‘Decals ofthe corpus comprising translations by Dorothy Bhi Details of the corpus comprising translations by Peter Bush Raw frequencies for common verb and not-contractions and coresponding long forms in Bush and Blair subeorpora ‘Common verb and mat-contractions in Bush and Blair subeorpora asa percentage of combined total for contracted and long forms Breakdown of common contractions and corresponding long forms inthe Bush subcompus Breakdown of common contractions and corresponding long forms the Bhar subcorpus Details of the corpus comprising translations by Lawrence Venti “Top twenty items from KeyWords ourpuc comparing Venti corpus ‘with 2 BNC subcompus ‘Nouns from top 200 items in KeyWords output comparing Vert corpus with BNC subcorpus Uses of do without sorted into senses 1 and 2 123 126 126 17 128 129 129 132 134 134 138 140 “i M1 47 154 154 155 156 158 159 161 162 163 186 Figures 6.1 Basic concordance display from TEC for unforesen 6.2. Concordanecs with ational information about position of cccurtences in the exs| 6.3 Concordaness sorted by file mame 64 Concordanes lines sorted onc word tothe right 6.5 Concowdanee line sonted one word tthe let 6.6 Excerpt from 1,368 concordance lines showing ver in pres tense Followed by hae 67 Sample concordance for unexpected from TEC 7A Occurrences of sav and TEL + thayeero in TEC and BNC displayed asa percentage of total combined oecurrences 7.2. Occurrences of mowist. + thier in TEC and BNC displayed as, a percentage of rota combined accurrences 7.3. Contractions oft in BNC and TEC suborpora, presented as a percentage of combined total for contracted and long foes 7.4 Contractions of wave in BNC and TEC subcoepora, represented as 2 percentage of combined rou for contracted and long forms 7.5. Contractions of iu in BNC and TEC subcorpora, represented 3s a percentage of combined totl for contracted snd long forms 8.1. Common ver’ and sor-contractions in Bush and Bl subcorpora a a percenage of combined total for contracted and long forms 82 Concordance for wherein fom the Venti comps 10.1 Bxample of dete record sheet forthe term gene flaw 10.2. Concordance lines fora sy in an excerpt fom Ishiguo’s The Remains ofthe Dy 10.3 Distibaton ofa Jay i an exceepe from Ishiguro’ Toe Remains of the Day 65 67 68 n 7 ” 102 102 103 187 165 179 181 182 Abbreviations and acronyms BNC BNCEIC cre prs ENPC ESPC. GEPCOLT HTML ICM KWIc LL 12 isp. PDE Pos RTF SGML. sk. TEC TECFIC ‘TEL URL British National Corpus a subcorpus of the imaginative writing section ofthe British National Corpus Coxpus of Translated Finnish descriptive translation studies English-Norwegian Parallel Corpus English-Swedish Parallel Corpus ‘German-English Parallel Corpus of Literary Texts Hypertext Markup Language idealized cognitive model keyword in context first language second language language for special purposes portable document format part of speech ich text Format Standard Generalized Markup Language source language ‘Translational English Corpus 2 fiction subcorpus of the Teansational English Corpus ‘Text Encoding Initiative carger language tanger text uniform /universal resource lator Acknowledgements am deeply indebted ro family fiends and colleagues for the support they have given me in this project. special word of thanks goes to my parents, Joan and Jimmy Oohan, for their unfiling encouragement and to Mona Baker for her inaluable advice and support throughoo. am graefal 9 Lyane Bowker, lan Mason and an anonymous reviewer for their carefil reading ofthe manuserpe I was very encouraged by thee positive feedback and insight comments. Thanks also tothe editorial team at Routledge for thee patience and assistance, Maeve Otohan ‘April 2004 Introduction Aim of this book A corpus isa collection of text, selected and compiled according to specific cit ria, The texts are held in electronic format, ic. a& computer fies, so that various kinds of corpus tools, i. software, can be used to carry out analysis on them. The study of language using corpora isthe domain of corps linguistics. Translation studies isthe academic discipline that concerns itself with the stady of translation; taken broadly i also incorporates interpreting, dubbing and subviling (Baker 1998: 277) and ‘covers the whole spectrum of research and pedagogical activi ‘ies, from developing theoretical frameworks to engaging in practical macters such as taining translators and developing criteria for translation assessment (ibid). ‘This book focuses on the use of corpora in translation studies and offers an introduction primarily aimed at those who are familiar with translation studies but not compora. Its focus is necessarily narrower than would be suggested by the simple amalgamation of both definitions just given. More specifically the role of | corpora in three areas of translation studies is consideted here ~ translation studies ‘esearch, translator traning and translation practice — with the focus firmly on the fist of these. The corpus is seen primarily s a research tool, enabling us to study translations in a number of ways and through a variety of methods ‘The use of corpora for this purpose ia translation studies has a shore his- ‘ory, spanning no more than ren years, but electronic corpora have been used in linguistics for over three decades (Kennedy 1998: 1). While translation studics accepts and adopts the tried and tested corpus methods from its older sister, it also undergoes early teenage angst, seeking to develop its own corpus-related image while coming to terms with other self-centred, existential preoccupations. “This book documents those catly years of corpora in translation studies and gives an insighe into some of the difficulties and achievements. Asin corpus compila tion, representativeness has been an important criterion in compiling this book, bur itis also acknowledged thatthe author’s own interests and access to specific resources have influenced the choice and nanute of the research questions and ‘material discussed, 2. Tnovoucton Outline CChapeers 1 and 2 provide some theoretical background 0 the use of corpora in translation research The academic discipline of translation studies is introduced in Chaprer 1 and an insight given nc diverging perspectives on the study ofthe activity and nacure of teanslation The use of corpora is introxtuced asa research ‘methodology that may be applied oa range of rescarch questions within transla ‘ion tues. Chapter 2 discusses the intereation between corps linguistics and twarsation and examines some of the theoretical assumptions about language and taslation that under esearch wing coxpors. Chapters 3 and 4 intrxioce differen ypes of corpora used in translation research, namely the parallel corpus and the comparable compas. Hoch chapters present details of how these kinds of corBora are being wed in translation research. Chapters 5 and 6 focus on compus design issues and corpus anayss tools respectively. Chapter 5 includes practical information for corps compiler as well a summary of design criteria for specific corpora. Chapter 6 provides descriptions of common types of tools that can be used to extract data fom corpora. Capers 7 and 8 give overviews of previous and curcent translation research using corpus methodology. In each of these chaprers, the overviews ate followed by casestudies from the author's work in progress. As part ofthe casestudies, 2 wealth of data is presented that readers may find usefUl for further analyses. Finally, Chapters 9 and 10 provide ancy ofsonesggstns concerns of opr in wanstor aig and translation practice. ‘All chapters conclude with recommendations for further reading, where possible for publications that ae available online or otherwise readily accesible Mose chapters alo offer two or thee questions fr discussion or further research, Chapter 7 and 8 are exceptions to thi, since is envisaged that the detailed case studies themselves can prove material for eiial analysis of methodology and further discussion f what ae often preliminary findings. 1 Introducing translation studies research 1.0 Introduction ‘This chapter begins with the notion of dhe translator asa linguistic and cultural ‘mealiator who is often not visible to the reader of translations, This point serves to introduce translation studies a a thriving academic discipline that sts the ac tivity of translation and the role ofthe translator, bur that can do so from a range of perspectives and using a variety of methods. Translation studies has often been ‘described in terms of competing paradigms or approaches — linguistics vs, cultural studies, prescriptive vs. descriptive, empirical vs. theoretical, and so on — and a shore summary is given here of one recent attempt to reconcile ewo diverging perspectives, ane subsequent reactions to it, Ie is argued that an understanding of the nature and starus of these kinds of oppositions is necessary in order to situate research using corpora in the wider context of translation studies. However, it is also stressed that itis more fruitful to view the use of corpora as a research methodology, with its own strengths and limitations, than to see it asa paradigm. ‘occupying one or other pole. Against chat backdrop, the comparative model of| translation research is introduced as the one that underlies corpus analysis in translation studies. 1.1 Where is the translator? [A recent essay by Ian McEwan, prizewinning English novels, discusses the role ‘of the relationship berween literature and science in the quest to understand the human condition. His esay, published in a British newspaper's weekend supple ment, starts as follows: Greatness in literature is more ineligible and amenable to most of us than greatness in science. All of us have an idea, our own, oF one that has been imposed upon us, of what is meant by a great novelist. Whether ic is in a spirit of awe and delight, duty or scepticism, we grasp at frst hand, when we read Anna Karenina, or Madame Bovary, what people mean when they speak of greatness. We have the privilege of unmediated contact. From the first sentence, we come into a presence, and we can see for ourselves the ‘quality of particular mind ina matter Of minutes we may read the fruits of 4 Introducing tranilation suudies research 4 long-forgotten afternoon, an afienoon’s work done ia isolation, 150 years ‘ago. And what was once an unfolding personal secret is now ours, Imaginary people appear before us, thie historical and domestic circumstances are very Particular, eheir characters equally so. We witness and judge the skill with ‘hich they are conjured. (McEwan 2001: 1) ‘McEwan contrasts this greatness in literature with greatness in science, which is harder wo grasp’ scientific work is “objectifying, therefore distancing? and ‘scientific ideas happily float free of their creators (ibid.). What is interesting from the point of view of translation studies is that only the tiniest minority of -McEwan’s English-speaking readership have had ‘unmediated contact with the ‘writers used here as examples; admittedly a small number ofthe acwspaper read crs may have read Flaubert in French, but significantly fewer will have experienced ‘Tolstoy in Russian. In the conrext of access through translation, has the greatness ofthis literature really been grasped ‘at first hand’? McEwan says that ‘rom the first sentence, we come into a presence and we can sce for ourselves the quality of a particular mind’. But whose presence is this ~ author or translator? Whose mind are we seeing Yor ourselves ~ author or translator? McEwan asserts that "We ‘may read the fruits of a long-forgotten afternoon . .. 150 years ago’, but taking the writing of Madame Bovary in 1857 a8 an example, when we read it in English translation, are we noc also reading the fruits ofa period of mental exertion by one ‘of numerous translators who have translated it into English since dhe frst British translation, produced by Eleanor Marx-Aveling, appeared in 18862! Are we expe- riencing the skill with which the circumstances and characters imaginary people are conjured by the source author, or by the translator? ‘McEwan is ultimately interested in the universality of literatare,‘Uhuminating, human nature at precisely the poiat at which it is most parochial and specific (ibid.). There is ‘an unspoken agreement, a ind of contrac, between writer and reader’, by which i is assumed thar however strange these people are, we will ‘understand them readily enough tobe able to appreciate their srangeness (ibid) However, while we will recognize, understand or appreciate those traits of human ‘nature in the characters we encounter in literature, and while we have the ability 1 place ourselves in their position ~ ia the terminology of cognitive science, to construct alternative cognitive models of the world ~ we gain access to the strangeness through the familiarity of language produced for us by the translator 2 linguistic and cultural mediator, unacknowledged by McEwan inthis piece. ‘This lack of consideration or relative ivisibility of the translator of literary and other works is not unusual, and has been highlighted by Lawrence Venuti in particular (eg. Venuti 1995), who attributes it to a combination of attempts by translators ro produce fluent, transparent texts and the nature of acceptability judgements by readers of translation, who wish translations to appear as though they were originals (ibid: 1), Both of these factors can be seen in Peter Faweete's (2000) study of literature reviews published in British broadsheet newspapers since 1992. Only a small number of published reviews are of translations and Insroducing transdation studies research 5 ‘even fewer (a tol of ckven for the period under investigation) make any men- tion ofthis fact, or consider the role of the translator. A similae trend is observed by Isabelle Vanderschciden (2000), in che same special issue of The Thanlazn in her study of reviews of foreign literature in French translation. She remarks that, while foreign literature and non-fiction appear to be published, promoted and read in France, the literary reviews of translations do not promote the visibility of translation, since most reviews comment on the translation as though it were a French original (ibd.: 282). A further example is offered by Jeremy Munday (2001: 157-9), who takes a collection of shore stories by Garcia Marquez. (Dace ‘wentos peregrinas) that has been translated into English by Edith Grossman (Sorange Pilgrims) and examines reviews of that English-language translation in the UK and the USA. Hle notes that most reviewers do not acknowledge the fact that they are eviewing a translation, bur instead comment on it a8 though the author had written in English. One review, for example, comments on a‘ char acteristic Mirquez sentence’ (ibid.: 158). Munday points out thatthe sentence referred to in this way is actually only part of the original source-text sentence and that circumstantial adjuncts have been reordered; the target-text sentence thus bears litle syntactic resemblance to the source language one ‘OF the eleven reviews examined by Faweett that do, in fact, talk about the translation, most are seen to make disparaging comments, largely without con- vincing justification, about the narure and/or quality ofthe translation or transla- tor and thus ‘constitute an exercise in instituionalized ieresponsibilty’ (Fawcett 2000: 305). Specific features of the reviews, 2s identified by Faweet, inchade a preference for transparent translation and a dislike of source-oriented! modes of translation, both cocroborating Venti’ (1995) views on fluency mentioned above. Vanderschelden seems to confirm some of Fawcet?s findings, noting that, where translations are reviewed a translations, the evaluation criteria ‘amount {0 no more than a set of presuppastions and subjective assumptions which vary from one reviewer to the next’ (Vanderschelden 2000: 288). Thus, when the presence of the translator is recognized, ics often as a result of perceived shore- ‘comings in their work ‘Translation stcis, asa discipline chat stadis the phenomenon of translation fiom diverse angles and perspectives, is, ofcourse, interested inthe mediating role ‘of the translator, andthe translation process the translation product, causes and ‘fects of the translation activity and so on. However, as we will see in the next section, the questions of what translation studies focuses on and how it can go about studying its objec of investigation ae hoely debated issues. 1.2 Theoretical approaches, methodological issues and conflicting viewpoints In the course ofits development, translation stuties has distanced itself from earlier, prescriptive approaches, and much research on translation now has a lstincly descriptive focus, concemed with describing what translations and translators actually do, what translations are like, ete. Within this framework, 6 Introducing translation ssudies research the issue of research models and methodology is important and has attracted increasing attention within translation studies in recent years. This may be seen 2s part ofa general trend in the humanities (Simeoni 2000: 337; Baker 2001: 8) bavi so very much a direct resulr of how translation studies has developed as an academic discipline. The increase in quantity and, arguably, quality of research be- ing caried out is certainly inked tothe surge in academic establishments offering translation stadies qualifications, including research degrees. This is coupled with the emergence of more and more means of dissemination of research findings, including specialist publishers, journals, specialist publication series, conferences, ‘workshops and seminars, all increasingly international in nature? ‘Within much of this work there is @ perceptible tend towards more wide spreadcference toa ‘scientific’ approach to the study of translation. Depending, ‘on who uses the teem, chs can simply mean ‘systematic’ or rigorous’. Ir might mean ‘more objective’, of ‘less subjective’ For some people, perhaps particularly ‘those who eschew linguistically oriented approaches to translation, it can mean “linguisti’ others associat it exclusively with classical approaches to experimental research, hypothesis testing, quantitative methods, etc. Each of these interpreta- tions may be presented as positive or negative.’ When used ina postive sens, the term offen reficcts a belief that we need to test our unverified assumptions about hat transation is and what it does, and why.* Used in a negative sense, on the ‘other hand, it often represents a view that ses this kind of research a posiivistic, ‘essentialist, deterministic or contrived § In this context, essertalsm refers 0 2 belief thae ‘meanings are objective and stable, thatthe translator's job isto find and transfer these and hence to remain as invisible as possible’ (Chesterman and Arrojo 2000: 151) and this is opposed to non-essentalism, which claims that ‘meanings... ae inherently non stable, chat they have to be interpreted in each individual instance, and hence that the translator is inevitably visible” (bi). "The debate initiated by Andrew Chesterman and Rosemary Arrojo (2000), fn a recent issue of the journal Target, is illustrative of both divergence and convergence of perspectives on research in translation studies. Chesterman and ‘Arrojo looked for points of concarrence between the postmodem cultural studies and textual theories approach to translation on the one hand, and the empirical, descriptive approach on the other, with Chesterman espousing the latter and Arrojo the former. They produced thirty theses to represent their shared ground, It is nor possible to provide more than a summary here. The ist fourteen theses are to do with defining what translation is; they include general statements on, ‘whae translation research aims to do, ie, ‘to understand the phenomenon of ‘translation, however ths is defined and practised’ (ibid.: 152). Other theses in this category alk about the importance of metaphors of translation and different ‘ways of understanding translation, acknowledging the differences across cultures and languages ofthe conception of ‘translation’ and recognizing as a valid research aim an examination of the extent t0 which these couceptions overlap (ibid. 152-3). A second set of theses, seven in total, refers to causes for translations boeing the way they are, emphasizing the nce for research to provide explanation, recognizing the uniqueness ofeach translation but aso the existence of similarities Introducing translation studies research 7 and patterns of translation behaviour. The remaining nine theses deal with the ‘consequences of translations, advocating that translation scholars study the effects ‘of translations, for particular periods and cultures, including the way in which translations can influence readers’ behaviour and ways of thinkin, This ‘shared ground? position paper prompted a number of responses, Both Kirsten Malmkjer (2000) and Sandra Halverson (2000) question the philo- sophical underpinnings of the essentialist vs. non essentialist dualism proposed by (Chesterman and Arrojoas.a possible label fr the debate as witnessed in translation sradies. Malmkjer focuses on the nature of meaning and argues for non-essential: {sm and linguistic relativity, i, that it i possible “ooh to believe that meaning is allways context bound and to understand how it can come to appear that some ‘meanings are more stable than others (Malmkjer 2000: 342-3, author's empha sis). The meaning of an utterance arises through language use and is a function of interaction between people in a communication situation. Halverson (2000) is equally dismissive of the essentialist vs. non-ssentaist dichotomy, pointing ‘out the fillaciousness of equating essentalsm with empiricism. She observes chat ‘both Chestcrman and Arrojo encourage empirical research, but that they disagree ‘on the status ofthis research and its results. Like Malmkja, Halverson returns the notion of meaning as relative, taking a cognitive semantic view of meaning as being:‘grounded in our shared cognitive capacities and inthe many common ways in which humane experience and interact with the world (ibid: 360-1), ‘The emphasis on ‘Shared ground’ and ‘econciliation’ in Chesterman and _Asrojo is not accepted 2s such by Anthony Pym (20002), who sees this debate instead a one of linguistic empiricism vs, deconstruction (very provocatively de- scribed by Pym using statistical methods such as z-curves and P-values). He pits CChesterman’s ‘reasoned empiricism’ against Arroo's ‘screaming’; she is likened to ‘Several hundred deconstructionist school marms’, and displays ‘timid par ism? (Ibid: 335-6). According to Pym, statements about what translation is are ‘unimportant for the discipline but of relevance when they exclude other modes of «cross-cultural communication, as do Chesterman and Arrojo. Focusing on cause and effect is‘a tad pedestrian’ co formulate problems to be solved would be more interesting and challenging (ibid.: 336). Pym’s views expressed elsewhere (Pym 1999, 20001) about the inadequacy of various dichotomies (cultural studies vs linguistics, descripive vs. prescriptive) to represent the recent past of translation studies or to give direction tothe future ofthe discipline are echoed here when he reminds ws again about the (lack of) relevance of theoretical deliberations such as these forthe issues of intercultural communication that arse inthe real world and for expanding ou very limited understanding of training and educational aspects of translation, Edwin Genter (2001: 160), also responding to Chesterman and Arrojo’s paper, ses its shortcoming in the fact that it exludes a ‘multitude of theories, methodologies, and discourses being used 10 discuss translational phenomena around the world today", He makes an important point about the very nature of the debate: namely, that in striving for consensus, we ‘tend to exclude voices at the periphery ... The desire by prominent scholars in the feld to focus the 8 Introducing tramilaton studies research debate on the center, © prescribe a methodology for discussion, and to dictate the discourse of the discussion, has limited the felts growth for too long ibid 161) Genter argues for a'multiple-model approach, not one that presents only the consensus of scholats, but one that includes the differences’ ibid.: 163). He believes that our theories of translation should be open to insights from other disciplines and to developments in the role of translators and thei activities, ‘This brief outline of the debate highlights the problems of labels, dichotomies,

    You might also like