Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page143

translationmentionedaboveisoneexample.InthirteenthcenturySpain,

translationswereundertakenbycollectiveteamworkunderthedirectionof

KingAlfonsotheLearned.Membersoftranslationteamsassumedsuchrolesas

enmendador(Reviser),glosador(WriterofGlossess)andcapitulador

(OrganizerintoChapters),inadditiontotheusualtranslatorrole(Pym2000a).

Otherinstancesofteamworkininstitutionaltranslationaredocumentedinthe

historyoftranslationintoArabic:intheseventhandeighthcenturies,largescale

governmenttranslationprojectswerecarriedoutinBaghdad(seeARABIC

TRADITION).

AccordingtoHungandWakabayashi(2005a:6),governmenttranslationinthe

Chinesecontextconstitutesthe‘onlycontinuoustranslationtraditioninhistory’.

ThemostprevalentmodeofgovernmenttranslationinChinawasindirect

translationorchongyi(RELAYtranslation),apracticewhichreflectsthestrong

senseofsuperioritythatprevailedamongtheChineseingeneralandthe

educatedeliteinparticular.TheChinesebeliefintheexistenceofacutecultural

differencesbetween‘alien’peopleandthemselvesandtheresultingChinese

disapprovalofdirectcommunicativeinteractionwithforeignerssuchastribute

bearersmaypartlyexplaintheprevalenceofthismodeoftranslation,which

sometimesinvolvedasmanyaseightorninetranslatorsinthecommunication

process.RelaytranslationcontinuedfromthetenthcenturyBCEuntiltheendof

theChingDynastyintheearlytwentiethcentury.Thepervasivenessoftherelay

modeofgovernmenttranslationinChinesetranslationhistoryisindicativeofthe

wayaninstitution’sprestigeandideologycanoftenoutweighconcernsfor

efficiencyandeffectivenessininterlingualcommunication.Thisisalsoevidentin

thecaseofEuropeanUniontranslation,consideredinmoredetailbelow.

Workmodesandthetranslatingagent

Contemporarymodesofinstitutionaltranslationvaryconsiderablyacross

institutionalandculturalboundaries.Whileworkingininhousetranslation

departmentswasthegeneralmodeofemploymentforinstitutionaltranslatorsin

thepast,perhapsduetothecentralizedorganizationofculturesinwhichmany

translatorstraditionallyworked,increasedattentiontoissuesofcostand

flexibilitymeanthatpartialorcompleteoutsourcingstructuresnowcomplement

orentirelyreplaceinhousetranslation(seePym2001bandDollerup2000afor

discussionsoftranslationintheEUandtheUN,respectively).Manyinstitutions

continuetodrawoninternalresourcestomeettheirtranslationdemands:Leeet

al.(2001),forexample,foundthattranslationin72.6percentofthe223South

Koreanpublicinstitutionssurveyed(includingcentralandlocalgovernment,

governmentalagencies,publiccorporationsandassociations)isundertakenby

in housepersonnel,mostlyworkinginteams.Nevertheless,institutionsare

increasinglymakinguseoffreelancetranslatorsandsubcontractingstructures,

andexertingdifferentdegreesofcontrolovertherecruitmentoftranslators,the

qualityoftranslationsandtextproductionprocedures.Thisshifttowards

outsourcingwasmadepossiblebytheWorldWideWebandtheresulting‘de

materializationofspace’(Cronin2003:43;seeGLOBALIZATION).The

spatialdecentringoftranslatorshasalsobeensupportedbyincreasedreliance

onCOMPUTERAIDEDTRANSLATION,includingvariouselectronic

resources,translationmemories,terminologymanagementsystems,

LOCALIZATION,webpagetranslationtools,andMACHINE

TRANSLATION,allofwhichhavesignificantlyshortenedthetimespenton

translationandstreamlinedworkprocedures.Althoughthedependenceon

technologicaltoolsatpresentmaybemoreprominentincertainpartsofthe

world,suchasEurope,orindustries(e.g.thelocalizationindustry),thistrendis

likelytoexpandgloballyinthefuture.

Translationinaninstitutionalsettingisthusdevelopingintoanintricateprocess

thatinvolvesmultiplemediators,ormorespecificallyanetworkofhumansand

technologicaltools.Theinstitutionalproductionoftranslationofteninvolves

complex,collaborativeworkamongtranslators,revisers,editors,expertsand

sometimesevensourcetextdrafters,aswellasarangeofelectronicresources.

Althoughcollectivelyproducedtranslationstendtobeassociatedwithissuesof

speedandqualitycontrolinaninstitutionalcontext,thereareotherfactors

whichmotivatethispractice,most

Page144

notablythefactthatthedistributionofresponsibilityforproducingatranslated

textamongseverallayersmeansthatthetextselectedfortranslationistaken

throughaseriesofprocessesdesignedtoensurethatthetranslatedoutput

functionsseamlesslyaspartofthediscourseofagiveninstitution.Assuch,the

notionofthetranslatorinourcommonconceptualizationoftranslationmayno

longerbeserviceableinaninstitutionalcontext:‘thetranslator’isnolongeran

individualwhotranslatesatextsolelyonthebasisofpersonaltrainingand

experience,butalsoaparticipantinasituatedinstitutionalpracticethathas

becomeroutinizedandhabituatedovertime.Thedistinctionbetween‘the

translator’and‘thetranslatingagent’inaninstitutionalcontextandthe

reconfigurationofthewayinwhichtheroleof‘translator’isunderstoodina

translatinginstitutionarebothissuesthatrequirefurtherinvestigation.

Researchoninstitutionaltranslation

Oneinstitutionthathasbeenthefocusofsustainedscrutinyintranslationstudies

sincethe1990sistheTranslationServiceoftheCommissionoftheEuropean

Union,thelargesttranslatinginstitutionintheworld.Interestinthisparticular

institutionmaybemotivatedbyitssheersizeandcomplexity,andthe

consequentlightthatitsdescriptioncanthusshedonmanytheoreticaland

practicalissuesoflanguagepolicy,IDEOLOGY,economics,

GLOBALIZATIONandinterculturalcommunication.Itmayalsooriginate,in

part,fromalongstandingbiasintranslationstudies,whichremainsEurocentric

inorientation.Thatsaid,theperspectivesandtopicstakenupinthediscussions

arediverseandhaveenrichedourunderstandingoftranslation.

Onetopicthathasbeenaddressedbyseveralresearchersisthewayinwhich

textualfeaturesofEUtranslations(e.g.vocabulary,syntax,style)clashwith

targetlanguageconventions.Thesefeatureshavebeendiscussedintermsofthe

EUpolicyofMULTILINGUALISM,collectiveandcomplextranslation

processesandprocedures,andtheconceptof‘hybridity’;thelatter,according

toTrosborg,referstofeaturesoftranslatedtextthatare‘“outof

place”/“strange”/“unusual”forthereceivingculture’(1997:146).Hybridityin

EUtranslations,inparticular,hasbeenassociatedlesswith‘translationese’,or

lackoftranslationalcompetence,andmorewithaconvergencebetween

culturesorinstitutionalpatternsofbehaviour.Anotherareathathasreceived

someattentionintheliteratureistheinstitutionalcultureoftheEU.Forexample,

Koskinen(2000b:49)suggeststhatEQUIVALENCEisan‘apriori

characteristicofalltranslations’withintheEUsincetheEUpolicyoflinguistic

equalitypresupposesequalvalueforalllanguageversions.Asaninherentand

automaticqualityofalltranslations,theequivalencerelationshipholdsnotonly

betweenthesourceandthetargettextbutamongvarioustranslationsofthe

samesourcetext.KoskinenthusarguesthatEUtranslationsare‘intracultural’in

thattheyarereflectiveofadistinctEUculturethatcannotbeaccountedforby

thedichotomousconceptionsofsourceandtargetculturesorbytheconceptof

‘interculture’astheorizedbyPym(2000a).Otherscholarshavesince

attemptedtodescribethis‘distinct’institutionalcultureoftheEU(e.g.Wagner

etal.2002;HermansandStecconi2002;Pym2000b),butMasonrightly

arguesthat‘thewholeissueofinstitutionalculturesoftranslating…isworthyof

amoresystematicexploration,acrossarangeofinstitutionsandlanguage

pairs’(2004:481).

Likemanyothertermsinthediscipline,‘institutionaltranslation’continuesto

evolveandencompassnewmeanings.Whileithassofarmostlycentredon

translationpracticeatlargeandimportantinstitutions,theconceptisslowlybut

clearlybeingusedasameansofunderstandingandstudyingtranslationpractice

ingeneral:inotherwords,thereisagrowingtrendtoviewandanalyseallforms

oftranslationininstitutionalterms.Thisisnotsurprisinggiventhattranslation

itselfisarguablyaninstitution.Itmightthusbemoreproductivetoadoptan

institutionalperspectiveonallformsoftranslation.Thediachronic,synchronic

andpanchronicstudyoftranslationpracticeininstitutionaltermsmightthen

rendernewinsightsaboutdifferentformsoftranslationpracticeandprovide

moresystematicexplanations,alternativeexplanationsandspecificempirical

detailthathavesofarbeenlargelylackinginthediscipline.