O integralności terminu „teoria przekładu”

V.N. Komissarov as a famous theoretician in the sphere of translation was introduced to his Chinese colleagues in 1984, when modern translation theory just started in China. For forty years now, his translation theories have been disseminated, adopted, and developed. V.N. Komissarov’s major works, including Questions of Translation Theory in Foreign Linguistics (1978), Linguistics of Translation (1980), Translation Theory (Linguistic Aspects) (1990) and Modern Translation Studies (1999), have been reviewed in Chinese academic journals. His last monograph, Modern Translation Studies (2004), was translated into Chinese. Chinese translation studies introduced his theoretical ideas in the sphere of translation, such as the nature of translation, translation equivalence, translation models, translation correspondences, translation norms, translation pragmatics, textological aspects of translation studies, cultural and sociological aspects of translation studies, translation teaching methodology, etc. Certain ideas, such as pragmatic translation adaptation, have been further developed. In general, V.N. Komissarov’s theoretical viewpoints have been studied and summarized in many scientific papers and various works, which contributed to the development of Chinese translation theory. Moreover, his translation thoughts are widely used by Chinese scholars for theoretical research and the training of future translators. Some of V.N. Komissarov’s views are applied to the study of the function of cultural translation, translation adaptation, the definition of translation, translation of the national style of speech and other theoretical problems. The scholar’s theory of translation is most often used to address a variety of issues in translation practice. The most influential theory is undoubtedly the theory of translation equivalence. While using this theory, numerous master theses and translation reports analyze issues in both fiction and information translation, as well as problems in interpretation and audiovisual translation.

ON THE PERSPECTIVES OFFERED BY A ‘NEW’ HISTORY OF TRANSLATION ON THE EXAMPLE OF SEVERAL 19TH CENTURY TRANSLATIONSTo become a discipline in its own right, translation studies needs to explore its own history, not only in the traditional sense – the study of the impact of translations of masterpieces on Polish literature – but also in a more modern and eclectic one. This article tests one such newer approach, proposed by Lieven D’hulst, using several nineteenth-century translations of Hippolyte Taine’s works into Polish as examples, and it focuses on the translators and their choices, the context of their work, and the causes and effects of their translations. The aim of the study is to show that interdisciplinarity is an opportunity for translation studies and that the history of translation after the cultural turn can be a worthwhile area of research.

This opening essay of the special issue on ‘Narration and Translation’ discusses the overlaps between the fields of narratology and translation studies. The fact that translation scholars have merely skimmed the surface of narratological issues relevant for the study of translation can be understood within the context of early developments in translation studies. The first explicit use of narratological models in this discipline has grown out of unease with the extant focus on the macrostructural level of translations. In recent decades, translation scholars have begun to include narrative approaches in their research. Some conceptualize the translator’s discursive presence by referring to a model of narrative communication, or borrow concepts from narratology in order to analyse observed shifts in literary translations. Outside the domain of literary translation studies, scholars have looked into the way translation can refashion narratives in the real world. Conversely, narrative theories have rarely dealt with translational issues, even though they often rely on translations of literary texts. The issue as a whole wants to enhance the dialogue between narratology and translation studies. Each essay explores aspects of the relation between narration and translation.

Since Holmes’ founding statement for translation studies in 1972, four decades have passed. During that time some trends seem to have developed in the discipline, and it is time to stop and take stock. This paper touches upon issues essential to understanding translation studies today, such as (1) the nature of translation; (2) the research scope of translation studies; (3) interdisciplinary orientation and its implications; (4) research methods; and (5) the relationship between translation theory and practice. An examination of these issues indicates that the discipline of translation studies is increasingly subject to opposing or competing research approaches and is exhibiting a kind of disciplinary fragmentation. There are imbalances in the research methods used and in the topics that emerge in the research literature. There is a growing gap between translation theory and practice. This paper tries to examine the reasons for these trends and offer perspectives on ways to reach some common disciplinary and professional ground.

The paper deals with the study of the problems of Russian translation studies formation as an academic science in its theoretical and applied forms. The formation and development history of the famous linguistic translation theory (LTT), which up to the present day has been an officially recognized institutional discipline for scientific and educational activities in the Russian Federation, is traced. In today’s Russian scientific community, along with LTT, new transdisciplinary scientific, theoretical and methodological types of research in the field of translation theory and practice are actively developing. At the current historical stage of development, translation studies is interpreted as a social and humanitarian transdisciplinary science at the intersection of linguistics, cultural studies, communication theory, comparative literature, semiotics, sociology, history, as well as philosophy, hermeneutics, ethnopsycholinguistics and cognitive science, information theory and other related academic sciences and phenomena like “localization” within the framework of algo-cognitive culture. Three groups of paradigms operating in modern Russian translation theory and methodology have been identified: (a) linguistic profile, (b) cognitive profile, (c) discursive profile. Groups “b” and “c” can form the basis for the academic translation paradigm. Three types of discourses are introduced into scientific circulation. 1. Translation studies discourse, associated with academic discourse in its theoretical and didactic varieties. 2. Translation discourse which is theoretically and practically based on the first one and serves the translator as their theoretical and practical basis for generating the third type, viz. translated discourse. The last one is a resultant product addressed to the recipients’ reflection sphere. As a result, the author’s “discursive-game cognitive-hermeneutic paradigm” has been proposed as a preliminary model of the desired “academic-type translation studies paradigm”.

In the current era of globalization, corpus linguistics holds a special place in the fields of linguistics and translation studies. In particular, parallel corpora – that is, corpora containing two or more translated versions of the same text – serve as essential resources for machine translation, automatic language learning systems, and linguistic research. They make it possible to deeply analyze translation correspondences, translation strategies, and cultural differences between texts in different languages. Parallel corpora act as tools that test and advance both practical and theoretical approaches in modern translation studies. Concepts such as degrees of equivalence, contextual adequacy, and transcultural transmission are analyzed and modeled in real texts. Therefore translation theories must form the core foundation in the creation of a parallel corpus. Principles such as translation quality, coherence, structure, and cultural context play a crucial role in corpus development. While parallel corpora represent collections of texts conveying the same meaning in two or more languages, translation studies examine the process of transferring meaning from one linguistic system to another. These two fields complement each other: translation theories rely on corpora, while corpora empirically test translation theories.

Toury’s DTS has been playing a significant role in translation studies since the 1980s and it targets at establishing a general theory of translation, which is claimed to have quite different properties from those of traditional translation theories: pure objectiveness and descriptiveness. However, the descriptiveness of this theory is not so convincing as expected. On the contrary, its prescriptiveness is prevailing and deep rooted when closely examined. This thesis is intended to expose the descriptiveness of the theory and the thinking lines underlying it through critically analyzing several key concepts so important in this theory that they are virtually its backbone. This method involves checking Toury’s personal interpretation of Holmes’ great scheme of translation studies, the norm theory and translation laws. In this way one can clearly see that Toury’s theory has been heavily influenced by Russian Formalism and traditional translation paradigms. The thesis does not stop at discussing the prescriptiveness of Toury’s translation theory. The above discussion triggers out other ones which shall be handled with equal importance in this thesis, including the dialectical relationships of prescription and description, and translation theory and practice. Therefore, the main focus in this thesis is extended from the particular to the general. This extension is natural in that it helps to enhance rethinking the evaluation of prescription: its value and function in theoretical learning, and discussions should not be ignored or lessened for the reason that some existent problems in present translation teaching should be faced up to and addressed timely.

This two-volume work has been conceived as a resource for graduate students of a course in Translation Studies, focused both on the main theoretical issues of the discipline and on the practical task of translating, in particular from English into Italian. Within a wide range of different contemporary approaches and methods, the purpose of Translating Text and Context is to offer a particular perspective on the theory and practice of translation, that of the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), which, we believe, can prove valuable for the study of a phenomenon that we consider “[...] a complex linguistic, socio-cultural and ideological practice” (Hatim & Munday 2004: 330). Volume 2 is expected to appear in early 2009.

While a critical mass of scholarship may have been reached to launch a journal such as TIS, much work needs to be done in developing allies and growing the field of translation and interpreting studies in the United States. This paper attempts to outline a few natural academic allies—programs in creative writing, area studies, com-parative literature, and anthropology. While looking at the respective strengths of the translation scholarship in these allied fields, I also offer a critique of some of those pro-grams. The goal is to point out areas of interest that will mutually benefit both translation studies and other fields. The paper is divided into five parts: (1) The 2004 ATSA Confer-ence; (2) The First US Translation Studies Scholar; (3) The Present State of Translation Studies in the United States; (4) Connections with Emerging Area Studies Programs; and (5) Connections with Comparative Literature and Anthropology. I conclude by suggesting that, while a critical mass may have been reached to start a journal, much work needs to be done in broadening the scope of our organization to include potential partners. The goal is to build a truly open and inclusive discipline, one that reflects the true range of ongoing translation studies investigations in the country.

This article contributes to the developing recognition that the challenges raised by the enterprise of translating between languages extend beyond human language. It suggests that there are parallels between the political issues recognised by translation scholars – of exclusion, misrepresentation and speaking for ‘the other’ – and those raised by biosemiotics, the study of signs in all living systems. Following a discussion of convergence in current developments in translation studies, semiotics and human-animal studies, the article presents an analysis of empirical data, with specific reference to the different meanings of the verb hear. The findings demonstrate the anthropocentric assumptions that are embedded in the way hearing is routinely represented, and an argument is presented for the recognition of these in communications about the semiotic resources relevant to non-human life forms. The paper concludes with some reflections on the implications of these issues for the enterprise of translation.

The concept of equivalence has been of specific concern to many Western translation scholars. It was an essential feature of translation theories in the 1960s and 1970s, which sited it within the framework of structural linguistics. This paper will primarily discuss the notion of equivalence in a comprehensive way according to translation scholars since the 1950s. The first part of this paper will review the earlier debate on meaning and equivalence as one of the key linguistics issues in the 1950s. The general view of equivalence at that time attempted to explain how the source text (henceforth ST) and target text (henceforth TT) share some kind of similarity. This is followed by further efforts to explain this term according to the perspectives and approaches of several theorists. The second part focuses on contemporary translation scholars investigating equivalence in broader terms. Contemporary theorists have shifted from looking at differences in each type of equivalence and the effect of meaning to another perspective where equivalence is seen as a relationship between two texts.

Whereas traditional methods of translation process research aim predominantly at fulfilling the requirements for controlled scientific experiments, shifts towards embodiment and situatedness at a conceptual level require methodological innovations for the analysis of cognitive processes as embedded in their relevant environments. In this article, we concentrate on one of the main challenges in the ethnographic study of translation processes in the translation workplace: the relationship between the researchers and the participants. Drawing on data from a multiple case study, we investigate the perceived role of the researchers and the mutual expectations of both the observers and the observed. In doing so, we examine the attitudes of translators and translation project managers towards researchers in a series of different work settings. Our results indicate that the enquirer posture imposed on the researchers by some participants corresponds with the formers’ planned methodological and epistemological approaches, as do their expected trade-offs. Others, in turn, differ substantially from the researchers in their expectations. Based on our own experience and subsequent reflections, we argue that fostering connections between translation scholars and practitioners may contribute to overcoming some of the methodological challenges of ethnographic research in Translation Studies.

Since the mid-1950s much research has been carried out in the field of translation theories in Poland. Although the results that emerged were often of considerable interest, Polish translation theories are often ignored by experts in the West. This article investigates the Polish contribution to theoretical discussions of translation. Early contributions to the debate, in 1955, characterized by a “linguistic” approach, warned against theories limiting the “unit of translation” to single words, thus neglecting the “text.” Linguist O. A. Wojtasiewicz stressed the semiotic, psychological, and cultural nature of translation. Around the mid-1960s a group of scholars from the “Poznań School” focused on literary translation. They saw literary translation as a semiotic process and produced a theoretical and descriptive research that could be defined as “target-oriented.” Their methods are typified by the particular attention given to diachronic and reception perspectives. Since the mid-1970s, in marked opposition to the “predominant role of literary texts” in Polish translation studies, F. Grucza and scholars from Warsaw University (“Warsaw School”) favored other areas of research, such as oral translation and specialized translation and interpreting. From the research carried out in Warsaw, a new perspective opened up within the linguistic approach, resulting in a new definition of the equivalence based on cognitive and pragmatic factors. This line of research also involved cognitive linguistics, as of the 1990s the most noteworthy innovation in Polish translation studies. Since 1990 the research field has become more varied: there are now more translation study centers (Cracow, Łódź, Lublin, Gdańsk…), and the field of investigation has broadened, now following on the heels of Western debate, with which there is now more contact.

This article suggests that the discomfort with translation theory felt by some translation scholars arises from the fact that translation theory has tended to undermine itself, and hence translation studies as such, by questioning the existence of its own subject matter. An attempt is made to ease the discomfort by defending Davidson's (1973; 1974) reply to the indeterminacy thesis proposed by Quine (1960). Finally, the article draws on Davidson's later theory of linguistic interaction (1986) in presenting a model of translation which highlights features which translation does not share with other types of linguistic interaction, and which may, consequently, merit particular attention in translation theory.

The study explores the interconnected topics of interdisciplinarity and the use of digital data in research on (literary) translation. Interdisciplinarity is conceived as cooperation between translation studies and other fields of study, specifically with sociology, history and digital humanities, i.e. as an “import” to translation studies, pointing simultaneously to its potential for research in other fields, i.e. an “export” from translation studies. The main goal is to demonstrate the use of digital data (data obtained from online, publicly available, bibliographic databases on national and international levels) in translation research in terms of possibilities and limits. The analyses conducted verify the un/reliability of the UNESCO Index Translationum data sets by comparing them with results obtained from the databases of the National Library of the Czech Republic. As “byproducts”, these analyses produce surveys of fiction authors most frequently translated from Czech (into English, French, German, and Russian) and into Czech (from English). Several examples from our research exemplify the application of data sets extracted from the databases of the National Library and a qualitatively higher level of use of this data source is suggested.