Paper 10. A causal model for Translation Studies
-
Andrew Chesterman
Abstract
Three basic models of translation are used in translation research. The first is a comparative model, which aligns translations either with their source texts or with parallel (untranslated) texts and examines correlations between the two. This model is evident in contrastive studies. The second model is a process model, which maps different phases of the translation process over time. This model is represented by communication approaches, and also by some protocol approaches. The third model is a causal one, in which translations are explicitly seen both as caused by antecedent conditions and as causing effects on readers and cultures. The four standard kinds of hypotheses (interpretive, descriptive, explanatory and predictive) are outlined and illustrated with reference to the phenomenon of retranslation. Only the causal modal can accommodate all four types, and it is hence the most fruitful model for future development in Translation Studies. Descriptive hypotheses (such as statements about universals or laws) can have explanatory force, but almost all causal influences are filtered through the individual translator’s mind, through particular decisions made by the translator at a given time.
Abstract
Three basic models of translation are used in translation research. The first is a comparative model, which aligns translations either with their source texts or with parallel (untranslated) texts and examines correlations between the two. This model is evident in contrastive studies. The second model is a process model, which maps different phases of the translation process over time. This model is represented by communication approaches, and also by some protocol approaches. The third model is a causal one, in which translations are explicitly seen both as caused by antecedent conditions and as causing effects on readers and cultures. The four standard kinds of hypotheses (interpretive, descriptive, explanatory and predictive) are outlined and illustrated with reference to the phenomenon of retranslation. Only the causal modal can accommodate all four types, and it is hence the most fruitful model for future development in Translation Studies. Descriptive hypotheses (such as statements about universals or laws) can have explanatory force, but almost all causal influences are filtered through the individual translator’s mind, through particular decisions made by the translator at a given time.
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface ix
-
Section I. Some general issues
- Paper 1. On the idea of a theory 3
- Paper 2. Shared ground in Translation Studies 17
- Paper 3. What constitutes “progress” in Translation Studies? 25
- Paper 4. Towards consilience? 35
-
Section II. Descriptive and prescriptive
- Paper 5. The empirical status of prescriptivism 45
- Paper 6. Skopos theory 55
- Paper 7. Catford revisited 71
- Paper 8. The descriptive paradox, or how theory can affect practice 81
-
Section III. Causality and explanation
- Paper 9. Causes, translations, effects 97
- Paper 10. A causal model for Translation Studies 123
- Paper 11. Semiotic modalities in translation causality 137
- Paper 12. On explanation 147
-
Section IV. Norms
- Paper 13. From ‘is’ to ‘ought’ 167
- Paper 14. A note on norms and evidence 185
-
Section V. Similarities and differences
- Paper 15. On similarity 195
- Paper 16. Problems with strategies 201
- Paper 17. The unbearable lightness of English words 213
-
Section VI. Hypotheses
- Paper 18. The status of interpretive hypotheses 225
- Paper 19. Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis 237
-
Section VII. “Universals”
- Paper 20. Beyond the particular 253
- Paper 21. What is a unique item? 269
- Paper 22. Kundera’s sentence 281
- Paper 23. Universalism in Translation Studies 295
-
Section VIII. The sociological turn
- Paper 24. Questions in the sociology of translation 307
- Paper 25. The name and nature of Translator Studies 323
- Paper 26. Models of what processes? 331
-
Section IX. Translation ethics
- Paper 27. Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath 347
- Paper 28. An ethical decision 363
- References 369
- Name index 391
- Subject index 395
Chapters in this book
- Prelim pages i
- Table of contents v
- Preface ix
-
Section I. Some general issues
- Paper 1. On the idea of a theory 3
- Paper 2. Shared ground in Translation Studies 17
- Paper 3. What constitutes “progress” in Translation Studies? 25
- Paper 4. Towards consilience? 35
-
Section II. Descriptive and prescriptive
- Paper 5. The empirical status of prescriptivism 45
- Paper 6. Skopos theory 55
- Paper 7. Catford revisited 71
- Paper 8. The descriptive paradox, or how theory can affect practice 81
-
Section III. Causality and explanation
- Paper 9. Causes, translations, effects 97
- Paper 10. A causal model for Translation Studies 123
- Paper 11. Semiotic modalities in translation causality 137
- Paper 12. On explanation 147
-
Section IV. Norms
- Paper 13. From ‘is’ to ‘ought’ 167
- Paper 14. A note on norms and evidence 185
-
Section V. Similarities and differences
- Paper 15. On similarity 195
- Paper 16. Problems with strategies 201
- Paper 17. The unbearable lightness of English words 213
-
Section VI. Hypotheses
- Paper 18. The status of interpretive hypotheses 225
- Paper 19. Reflections on the literal translation hypothesis 237
-
Section VII. “Universals”
- Paper 20. Beyond the particular 253
- Paper 21. What is a unique item? 269
- Paper 22. Kundera’s sentence 281
- Paper 23. Universalism in Translation Studies 295
-
Section VIII. The sociological turn
- Paper 24. Questions in the sociology of translation 307
- Paper 25. The name and nature of Translator Studies 323
- Paper 26. Models of what processes? 331
-
Section IX. Translation ethics
- Paper 27. Proposal for a Hieronymic Oath 347
- Paper 28. An ethical decision 363
- References 369
- Name index 391
- Subject index 395
