UTF-8__0415396417Translation

ISSUES IN TRANSLATION STUDIESAnother important identitary question for the discipline is the distinctionbetween written translation and spoken translation (often equated to ‘interpreting’).Jakobson’s definition (above) makes no explicit mention ofinterpreting, while many others (e.g. Bassnett 1980/2002, Gentzler 2001,Munday 2001/2008, Hatim and Munday 2004) deliberately restrict themselvesto written translation. However, the difference between translationand interpreting cannot always be one of the written versus the spoken: forexample, interpreters are routinely asked to produce TL versions of writtendocuments such as witness statements and other exhibits in the courts andformal speeches that are written to be read, etc., thus blurring the boundariesbetween the modes. An alternative way of treating the question was proposedby Otto Kade (1968), who coined the superordinate German term Translationto cover both translation (Übersetzen) and interpreting (Dolmetschen). Kadeproposed a ‘far-sighted definition of interpreting’ (Pöchhacker, this volume,Chapter 8), selecting as the key features (a) the single presentation of theST which does not normally allow review by the interpreter, and (b) the timeconstraint affecting the target text production, which severely limits the possibilityof correction and more or less excludes revision. There has been asomewhat uncertain relationship between translation studies and what is nowtermed ‘interpreting studies’ (Pöchhacker and Shlesinger 2002; Pöchhacker2004; see also Snell-Hornby 2006: 162). For Pöchhacker (this volume), ‘oftenreferred to as a “(sub)discipline”, [Interpreting studies] is both an increasinglyautonomous and diversified field of academic pursuit, on a par with translationstudies, and a domain within the latter, alongside such specialized fieldsas audiovisual translation’. In this volume, we treat the ‘duality’ described byPöchhacker by giving interpreting studies, and indeed audiovisual translation,their own chapters, but also acknowledging the strong ties that link thesedifferent modalities by treating elements of the different modalities in, forexample, the chapter on cognitive theories (Chapter 4) or politics and ethics(Chapter 6). Many of the translation strategies outlined in the audiovisualchapter, section 9.4, are also directly relevant for other forms of translationand interpreting.1.4 THE SCOPE OF TRANSLATION STUDIESThe scope of the discipline of translation studies, the second issue noted in theprevious section, has been transformed since James Holmes’s time. Holmes’sfamous ‘map’ of translation studies, graphically represented by Gideon Toury(1995: 10; see also Munday 2008: 10), divides the discipline into a ‘pure’ and‘applied’ side, with much the greater emphasis being placed on the former.‘Pure’ is then subdivided into ‘theoretical’ and ‘descriptive’, and these in turnsubdivided according to the objectives and subjects of inquiry.The term ‘translation theory’ is used by Holmes (1988: 73) to refer to‘theoretical translation studies’, the goal of which is ‘to develop a full, inclusive9