Martina Ožbot, University of Ljubljana

Translation Studies – Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary, Transdisciplinary?

Abstract: The paper is concerned with interdisciplinarity as a fundamental paradigm of modern research. It discusses some of its characteristics and problems related to the concept. Special attention is paid to Translation Studies as an autonomous discipline, though of an eminently interdisciplinary nature.

1. Introductory note

The aim of this paper is to discuss the concept of interdisciplinarity as a fundamental paradigm of modern research, presenting some of its characteristics as well as some associated problems. The notion of interdisciplinarity (as well as the sister notions of multidisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity) is examined in the context of the development of translation studies as an autonomous discipline, which was formed out of linguistics, literary studies as well as some other fields, and which is today considered to be of an eminently interdisciplinary nature. Taking first into account the epistemological circumstances which favoured the rise of the new discipline, we go on to explore the nature of the relationship between the study of language and the study of translation, emphasizing the ambivalent role linguistics (and philology) played in the advancement of translation studies, on the one hand hindering it, while on the other hand actually making it possible as a result of fresh approaches to the study of language developed in linguistics and as a result of new insights into the functioning of language in all sorts of texts, in particular from the 1960s on. It is suggested that to a significant degree the study of language and the study of translation continue to be inextricably linked – so much so that the customary disciplinary divisions appear to be relatively arbitrary rather than justified by the inherent nature of the research object.

2. “Interdisciplinarity” – internal and external motivations

The term “interdisciplinarity”, which is at the core of this paper, can refer to various situations: for instance, to rigorous method- and content-related connections between disciplines (and subdisciplines), to research within one discipline which also takes into account the knowledge generated by other disciplines and,←27 | 28→ finally, to more superficial connections between disciplines, dictated by policy makers involved in the funding of research and higher education. In the latter case, interdisciplinarity would more appropriately be called multidisciplinarity, implying a more or less eclectic linking of disciplines. Regardless of the different meanings of the term “interdisciplinarity”, they all refer to ways of organizing knowledge characteristic of modern research endeavours. Knowledge integration between disciplines is, of course, not a new phenomenon; however, given the advances in various disciplines which had been made by the time when the term “interdisciplinarity” was introduced in the 1920s, as well as afterwards, such integration necessarily has a different role now than it had in the past. “Interdisciplinarity” as a synergistic integration of knowledge characteristic of modern research should, in principle, enable a qualitative leap in dealing with all kinds of research goals.

Paradoxically perhaps, the concept of “interdisciplinarity” presupposes an awareness of the specifics of individual disciplines and could only be generated when the unity of knowledge and of its mastery could no more be relied upon. With time, the single disciplines became stronger and increasingly more autonomous. However, given that the subjects of research of different disciplines are necessarily interrelated – although to different degrees and in very different ways – it is understandable that the division into disciplines also brought about the need to overcome the fragmentation of knowledge – which could also have negative consequences in various educational contexts (cf. Moran 2010, 13). Consequently, new links between disciplines were established, either by expanding traditional, existing disciplines or by creating new disciplines out of endeavours to study a given subject from an interdisciplinary perspective, whereby translation studies is a case in point (Arduini / Stecconi 2007, 46). An instance of the expansion of an established discipline is offered by sociolinguistics or psycholinguistics, which are not considered autonomous disciplines, but rather subdisciplines of linguistics, which study social and psychological aspects of language phenomena, respectively. On the other hand, the situation is different when new disciplines are created on an interdisciplinary basis. As an example one can take communication studies which draws upon disciplines such as sociology, semiotics and philosophy. As suggested, another example is translation studies, in which elements of linguistics, literary studies, sociology, computer science and other disciplines are integrated.

As with the formulation of new theories, the foundation of new disciplines is often a reaction to a crisis situation (cf. Kuhn 1996, 77 ff.) perceived by researchers dissatisfied with the ways in which a research object is dealt with in a given←28 | 29→ discipline. New, multidisciplinary perspectives on the subject in question usually appear to be advantageous and what justifies the formation of an interdiscipline is in fact a more comprehensive interest in the subject, which finally gets a chance to move from background to foreground (Kaindl 2004, 58). The fundamental issues concerning interdisciplines are now the relationship between the disciplines on which they are based and their autonomy with regard to those disciplines.

However, interdisciplinarity is not always a reflection of internal, immanent motives for knowledge reorganization, but it also mirrors power relations concerning knowledge management as well as pragmatic needs of finding new, more efficient ways of knowledge mediation in educational institutions. To an extent, this has also been the case with translation studies. Let us at this point take a closer look at the circumstances in which it was established.

3. Translation studies – a new interdiscipline

It should be stressed that the study of language is by its very nature one of the most interdisciplinary pursuits in modern research. The reason why the study of language is by nature interdisciplinary is the fact that the linguistic reality does not exist in a vacuum and cannot be observed as if in a microscope slide. Likewise, the study of literature, which is only realized in language, is also multiperspectival and is by nature interdisciplinary.

In translation, viewed as intercultural communication, the use of language is specific insofar as as the production of a target-language text presupposes a pre-existing source-language text. The target text is usually supposed to be a functional substitute of the source text intended for recipients who have no access to the message of the source text, either because the source text is not available to them or because they do not know the source language. Traditional linguistics was not especially interested in questions of translation, nor was it interested in other characteristics of communication which concern language use rather than the language system, especially if these characteristics were to be studied not in the original, but in derived linguistic production such as translation. There are several reasons why translated texts were not deemed particularly relevant for research. Let us mention three of them: First, in sheer quantitative terms, translation was much less present then than it is now. Second, in comparison to originals, translated texts had a less favourable reputation, since the process of translating a text was typically believed to consist “merely” in substituting the language of the original with that of translation and was therefore considered as an act of reproduction rather than creation. Third, until the mid-20th century, the study of language was limited mainly to the level of clause and sentence, or even to lower←29 | 30→ units, whereas translations are an eminently textual phenomenon and can only be studied from a textual perspective.

For translational phenomena to be considered a legitimate research object, some radical changes were necessary in more than one discipline, especially in linguistics and in literary studies. Of special importance was the development of text linguistics and discourse analysis since the 1960s, which underlined the importance of a textual perspective in any kind of function-oriented (as opposed to form-centred) study of language. As a consequence, different texts became potentially relevant in research terms, including translations (Ožbot 2006, 26–27). In such a function-driven approach, the notion of context also became important, and unsurprisingly, the concept of equivalence, which had traditionally been a central one, was relativized (cf. Snell-Hornby 2006, 39) – and so was the status of the original. As is well known, Hans J. Vermeer speaks of the dethronement (“Entthronung”) of the source text (cf. Vermer 1986, 42), given the primary importance of the function of the target text. In light of this, it is natural that a number of other questions which had traditionally been extensively dealt with lost their relevance (for instance the issue of the translator’s faithfulness and of the suitability of literal as opposed to free translation) and that, consequently, it was the actual translations and their functioning that came into the focus of attention.

However, it must be added that, traditionally, the study of language also fostered a strong interest for other, unorthodox research problems, some of which were related precisely to culturally conditioned aspects of language use that are of particular importance for translation too. Suffice it to remember the work by the pioneers of anthropological linguistics, Edward Sapir and Benjamin L. Whorf, who explored the possible interrelations between language on the one hand and cognition on the other hand, thus opening new perspectives in the debate on linguistic relativity. Nonetheless, this kind of language research was not predominant and global changes in the field of linguistics were necessary by virtue of which translational phenomena came to be perceived as worthy of attention.

Besides advances in linguistics, developments in the field of literary history and criticism also made possible the growth of translation studies. The study of literature began to deal with a wider range of literary texts, canonical and non-canonical ones, as well as with their cultural, historical and social contexts. Then, literary reception studies defined in new ways the relationship between the reader, the author and the text, relativizing the status of the author, which was also of importance for the study of translation. Likewise, theoretical reflections on the←30 | 31→ criteria of literariness as well as research on interliterary and intercultural transfer also opened up new avenues for the study of translation.

There were undoubtedly many other influences, originating either in the study of language or in the study of literature, that have proved formative for the development of the discipline of translation studies. What deserves perhaps to be pointed out, also because it sheds further light on the interdisciplinary nature of translation research, is the integration of some concepts which were initially developed in linguistics into what is primarily considered the study of literary translation. In this context, the conceptual apparatus of the Tel Aviv School and, in particular, of Gideon Toury’s work comes to mind: as has been pointed out by other researchers (Simeoni 2008, 329–330, 334; Fusco 2012, 340–347), concepts elaborated by Toury, such as model, transfer and interference, are clearly indebted to Uriel Weinreich’s research on language contact. As has been shown by Simeoni, of great importance for the development of Toury’s approach was also the influence of some other linguistic theoretical models, notably those proposed by Russian formalism, as well as, of course, of various literature-centred frameworks, such as those offered by the discipline of comparative literature. All those tenets, along with many others, played a role in the formation of the Tel Aviv School and of Descriptive Translation Studies in general, thus enabling the growth of the new interdiscipline.

In addition to epistemological developments, there were also practical circumstances which proved to be decisive in the formation of translation studies. After the Second World War international communication became more intense than ever before and, accordingly, more and more language experts were needed, from language teachers to lexicographers and to translators and interpreters. The formal training of translators and interpreters in particular was rather limited, so it is understandable if various schools of translation in Europe were founded in response to the needs of the market, but also in response to the demands of the new political order in post-war Europe, geared towards promoting international understanding. Indeed, also a much older institution which had as one of its main goals the training of translators, or rather interpreters, i.e. the Orientalische Akademie in Vienna, was created on the basis of current needs, which were more of a political than economic nature. The empress Maria Theresa founded the Orientalische Akademie in 1754 to enable her empire to communicate effectively with the Turkish, Persian and Arabic world. Likewise, the growth of translation and interpreter-training institutions in the second half of the 20th century are a reflection of the actual needs for translation, deriving from economic as well as from political circumstances. The introduction of←31 | 32→ courses in translation and interpreting and the growing professionalization of the practice of translation and interpreting were of particular importance for the establishment of translation studies as an autonomous discipline. Initially, those who were involved in translation teaching and research were usually trained linguists, philologists or literary scholars. Gradually, however, a relatively large group of researchers formed which now has all the attributes of a scientific community: a research object, various periodic and non-periodic publications, professional meetings and conferences, associations and, last but not least, a feeling of belonging to that community.

4. An interdisciplinary future

What remains an open question is the current relation between translation studies and the disciplines from which it has developed. The new discipline, or rather interdiscipline (Snell-Hornby 1988), has a research object of its own, i.e. translational phenomena in the broadest sense, whereas research methods and tools have been adopted from other, longer established disciplines. This is understandable, given that translation is communication and that in real life translations function like texts in general. Unsurprisingly, translation studies reflects the phases of development of the disciplines upon which it is based as well as their problems. It is an interdisciplinary field of research, which not only draws upon other disciplines but, in its turn, can also provide them with its own results and insights. And perhaps it can also be perceived as part of transdisciplinary endeavours to understand the functioning of texts as the fundamental units of human communication.

References

Arduini, S. / Stecconi, U. (2007): Manuale di traduzione: Teorie e figure professionali. Roma.

Fusco, F. (2012): Dalla linguistica alla traduttologia: osmosi e resistenze. In: Orioles, V. (ed.): Per Roberto Gusmani: Linguistica storica e teorica. Vol. II/2. Udine, 111–125.

Kaindl, K. (2004): Übersetzungswissenschaft im interdisziplinären Dialog: am Beispiel der Comicsübersetzung. Tübingen.

Kuhn, T. (1996 [1962]): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edition. Chicago/London.

Moran, J. (2010): Interdisciplinarity. 2nd edition. London/New York.←32 | 33→

Ožbot, M. (2006): Prevajalske strategije in vprašanje koherence v slovenskih prevodih Machiavellijevega Vladarja. Ljubljana.

Simeoni, D. (2008): Norms and the state: The geopolitics of translation theory. In: Pym, A. / Shlesinger, M. / Simeoni, D. (eds.): Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 329–341.

Snell-Hornby, M. (1988): Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

—.(2006): The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

Vermeer, H.J. (1986) Übersetzen als kultureller Transfer. In: Snell-Hornby, M. (ed.): Übersetzungswissenschaft – eine Neuorientierung. Zur Integrierung von Theorie und Praxis. Tübingen, 30–53.←33 | 34→ ←34 | 35→