1,725,104 research outputs found
From Cassandra to Pandora - Thoughts on Translation and Transformation in a multilingual and multicultural future. A conversation with FIT Immediate Past President, Dr. Henry Liu
No full textCritical interview between FIT Past president and the author (David Katan) regarding FIT, the translation profession and the future
Uncertainty in the Translation Professions
No full textUncertainty in the Translation professions
This issue focusses on two principal areas: uncertainties in the translation profession and transcreation; with transcreation being tentatively suggested (see Katan, forthcoming) as a possible solution to this uncertainty. The uncertainties themselves are legion, first and foremost because it still remains to be shown that translation is indeed a profession (Katan 2011). Many of the classic signs of a profession are not yet in place, and may well never will be, such as: an accepted school (or schools) of theory and practice; a national register of certified practitioners; national laws regulating the practice and safeguarding clients from malpractice, and so on. Also, clearly a sign of a profession is the increased payment given to those who are more qualified, along with public recognition of the worth of a professional translator’s creative abilities – which translators do not appear to have (e.g. Katan 2011: 149). We know for a fact that certification and legislation is unlikely to make a significant impact in the near future, partly because in the handful of areas where there is some form of regulation, there has been no discernable difference to translator status (Katan 2012), and also because (based on anecdotal evidence only) successful translators themselves are not keen on certification, as this would reduce their own individually gained status
Tools for transforming translators into homo narrans or “what machines can't do”
No full textThis chapter suggests reconceptualising the role of the translator within the context of a translator as an adaptive expert, here understood in terms of creativity and the uniquely human ability to narrate – and proposes a procedure to foster this ability. Narrativity in translation has long been either undervalued or problematized (e.g. Baker, 2006). Yet, if we take as a given that the translation profession is at a crossroads (Katan, 2016; Massey & Ehrensberger-Dow, 2017), due in part to the advances in neural machine translation (NMT), then one way in which the translator may assert their added value is to focus attention on their uniquely human ability to knowingly create meaningful texts.
The general thesis developed, is that while machines may successfully translate texts in the sense of copying or transcribing text from one language to another, the creation of texts meaningful for a particular readership in a particular moment is a uniquely homo sapiens or rather, as we shall see, a homo fictus or narrans ability. I will suggest that this ability can be enhanced through learning elements of the structure of narrativity and also through an adoption of the Metamodel (cf. Bandler & Grinder, 1975; Katan & Taibi, 2021) - all of which will help to further distinguish the human from the machine
'What Is It That's Going On Here?': Mediating Cultural Frames in Translation
Get PDFThe words “culture” and “mediation” are not new in the literature on translation. Ten years ago Neubert wrote “Translation as Mediation” in The Cultural and Linguistic Barriers between Nations. Bassnett (1991: 4) pointed to “the cultural turn” that Snell-Hornby among others of the Manipulation School were already taking. Hewson and Martin (1991: 133-155, 160, 161) talked of the translator as a “Cultural Operator”, while Hatim and Mason (1990: 128, 223-228) actually devote their final chapter to “The Translator as Mediator”, and in their more recent book (1997) discuss “mediation” in a chapter entitled “Cross-cultural communication”. More recently, this author (1999), includes the term “cultural mediator” in the sub-title of Translating Cultures.
There is a danger, however, that these turn of the century buzz words have become “dangerously fashionable” almost substituting, as Baker (1996: 16) points out “rigour and coherence” in translation studies. However, the idea of mediation in translation and mediation in culture, as Straniero-Sergio (1998: 154) points out is not a “nicety” but involves a fundamental shift in motivation, strategy and behaviour (Katan: 1999). I will first discuss the axioms upon which my thinking on culture and mediation are based, and then discuss the attributes of a mediator and the type of translation strategy that should be followed
Mediating the Point of Refraction and Playing with the Perlocutionary Effect: A Translator’s Choice?
Get PDFCultural studies and translation studies have traditionally trodden separate paths, though both have been fundamentally concerned with the processes of communication and meaning. To a large extent the former has viewed translation as a necessary but unimportant vehicle (and necessary only because many cultural studies scholars are foreign), while those involved in translation have tended to assume that culture, and the study of it, has little to do with the art of translating a text. As we shall see, though, times are changing.
This paper takes as its starting point that language is one of four filters affecting perception of reality, the other three being physiological, individual and socio-cultural (Katan 1999a: 88-90). It is, as Hanks notes (1993: 139) “one of the central vehicles of habitus”. I will refer to habitus as Simeoni does, as a “convenient stenograph for different default functions applying at different levels and in different domains” (1998: 17), a global catch-all for context of situation, map of the world and context of culture (see Katan 1999a: 71-74). It is, according to Bourdieu: “a system of durable, transposable dispositions”, of “internalised structures, common schemes of perception, conception and action”, the result of inculcation and habituation, simultaneously structured and structuring, and directed towards practice (1990: 53- 60).
Language re-presents a person’s particular vision of reality for the benefit of others. Barthes (1993: 109) calls this socially constructed representation a “myth”, suggesting that “everything can be a myth provided it is conveyed by a discourse”. This is a useful metaphor to bear in mind. Myths do not exist in the objective reality, but are parables or allegories with an array of possible significations. The reader, in interpreting the succession of words as coherent discourse (locutions or signifiers) will give the words meaning, and experience a certain effect, known in speech act theory as the perlocutionary effect.
Speech act theory deals principally with three levels of language and meaning, each of which anyone interested in communication should be aware of. The locution and the locutionary meaning, according to J. L. Austin (1962), is the dictionary or referential meaning. However, what is important in communication, both for culture studies and for translation studies is the force of the locution (the illocutionary force), which will be related to the interlocutor’s intention, and the way in which the locution affects the hearer or reader (perlocutionary effect)
Translation at the cross-roads: Time for the transcreational turn?
No full textTranslation at the cross-roads: time for the transcreational turn?
Translation Studies is a young discipline, with its “name and nature” still the object of discussion in the 1970’s (Holmes, 1988). As to the “nature” of the discipline, ‘interpreting studies’ has generally been seen as a sub-discipline of the generic term ‘translation’, and this paper will follow suit. Clearly, though, literary translators, technical translators, court and community interpreters require very different skills and are rewarded different status. Yet, these translators and interpreters (T/Is) are all very much at the same crossroads for exactly the same reasons: to what extent can or should these professionals mediate?
The idea that translation should be considered a form of ‘intercultural mediation’ (IM) (Katan, 2013) has been popularised in academic circles ever since the ‘cultural turn’ of the 1980s. As a result, academics have been calling T/Is "experts in intercultural communication” (Holz-Mäntäri, 1984); "mediators" (Hatim & Mason, 1990); "cross-cultural specialists" (Snell-Hornby, 1992); "cultural mediators" (Katan, 1999/2004) and “cultural interpreters” (Gonzalez & Tolron, 2006; Harris, 2000; Mesa, 2000). This ontological change of perception of T/Is as cultural mediators, however, remains very much more of an academic rather than professional understanding of the role and habitus (Katan, 2011; 2012). Moreover, the T/I’s traditional language mediation role is itself under threat. The focus of this paper is, hence, first to clarify the difference between language and IM, then to analyse who is actually doing IM in practice, and finally to suggest a way forward for the translator at the crossroads
Response by Katan to ‘Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies
No full textCrique of Mossop's work. on 'invaranc
The reception of creative titling on the Main and on the Second Screen: from engagement to clutter and back again?
No full textThis paper focusses on an audience response study of 50 non-native, but proficient, speakers of English of the effectiveness of ‘the second screen’ when watching film. This particular experiment is the result of both new possibilities in technology and progress made in using pop up glosses to aid non-native understanding of culture-bound concepts (see Katan 2014, forthcoming). The idea of the “second screen” experience or phenomenon stems from the evolution in consumer viewing, often watching a film while texting and so on. More recently with the rise of the tablet it has been possible for TV programmes to sync both devices so that the second device can add information, supplement and generally enhance the viewing experience in time with (in general) the TV series.
The use of pop ups, or ‘abusive’ subtitling, is rapidly becoming accepted both in academic research (see, for example the recent Access4All conference 2015), and in reality. A growing number of ground-breaking AV products, in particular Slumdog Millionnaire and the BBC TV Sherlock, have almost surreptitiously broken the rules regarding extra diegetic images and text on screen. Slumdog introduced the mainstream cinema goer to floating text, while Shelock has also introduced visual, non-verbal glosses.
Experimentation with this (Katan 2014) has shown a great deal of potential for AV translation, particularly for culture-bound issues. However one criticism levelled is that of crowding the screen. Hence, this paper will investigate to what extent the use of a second screen can address this issue.
The viewers compared their experience through both a qualitative and quantitative questionnaire of watching using ‘traditional’ pop up glosses on a single screen and watching the pop ups on a second screen. Viewers’ opinions and suggestions focused in particular on enjoyment and utility (for example for use in AV translation and language learning).
Katan, D. (2014) “Intercultural Communication, Mindful Translation and Squeezing “Culture” onto the Screen”. In Garzelli, B. and M. Baldo (eds) Subtitling and Intercultural Communication European Languages and beyond, Edizioni ETS, Pisa. pp. 55-7
Defining culture, defining translation
No full textAny discussion of definitions requires a number of provisos. They are, by their very nature, essentialist and positivist in that they distil what is the ‘essentialis ... the nature of a thing ... and what sets it apart’ (Rener 1989, 266; see also Hebenstreit 2007, 11-12). They are also often a descriptione in that they enumerate ‘the various features proper to the thing ...’ (Rener 1989, 266). Who or what is included (and excluded) from a definition easily becomes the object of heated contention, as this affects the size of the discipline, the growth or otherwise of academic departments, the professional status of those who are included in ‘the thing’ (e.g. Marco 2007, 65; Melby et al 2014; Pym, 2014, 49) and much more. Consequently, the task of defining culture and translation can move from difficult to extremely political.
That said, the human race has long been categorising and defining things. Defining dictionaries with commentary and glosses have been around since the third century BCE (Considine 2015, 605). Today the world’s ‘best-selling regularly updated book’ with 400 million sales is Xinhua Zidian [The New Chinese Character Dictionary] (Press Centre 2016). In 2014, Merriam Webster (whose Collegiate Dictionary ranks as the next best-selling dictionary with sales of 55 million) announced ‘culture’ as their ‘Word of the Year’ because it had ‘the biggest spike in look-ups’ (Steinmetz 2014) on their website. ‘People were desperate to know what “culture” meant’ (Rothman 2014.), a strong indication of what Tymoczko (2007) calls the ‘definitional impulse’: the human need for closure, and the need to put things in boxes, or at least, as Wittgenstein (1958) would have it, to organise according to ‘family resemblance’ (Familienähnlichkeit) (32-33). In short, there is an innate human need to classify and organise ‘what is what’ (and to distinguish it from what is not what).
Categorisation has traditionally been conceived in terms of horizontal co-hyponymic and vertical hypernymic levels. Here we will loosely follow Bateson (1972) and Goffman (1986) and their understanding of categorisation of experience, in terms of ‘framing’ (see also Katan 2004, 49-56). At the horizontal level, we frame ‘types of’ translation (such as literal, free or audio-visual) or ‘types of’ culture (ethnic, religious and national). Clearly there are problems in deciding where the horizontal frame boundaries are and, indeed, even if ‘the type’ itself is valid within the wider frame. A perfect case in point is Hatim and Munday’s (2004, 6) question: ‘Where do we draw the line between “translation” and “adaptation?”’
However, it is with the vertical, or wider, frames that the major issues come into view, as the widening of context or perspective brings to the fore previously unquestioned boundaries, which focus not only on ‘what’ is to be included, but also ‘in which historical period/geographical/linguistic domain’, ‘according to which discipline’, and finally even ‘according to which underlying motivations.’ In short, there is a hierarchy of ever-widening frames, each of which contextualises the frame it encloses. This in itself is problematic when it comes to definitions, which themselves presume—in enclosing the essentialisness—to be the ultimate frame.
Post-positivism brings to the fore these hidden assumptions. Clearly, this includes questioning the validity of the definition frame itself. Post-positivists suggest that although phenomena may (possibly) be observed, it is the observer’s subjectivity that will bias what is perceived towards a particular construction of ‘reality’ and towards a particular way of defining ‘the thing’. As we can see, terms at the post-positivist chunk-level come with inverted commas, suggesting that the ‘objective’ terms themselves are to be reflected on and ‘problematised’. To be fair, positivists also accept that definitions and norms are socially constructed, and are not impervious to change over time (e.g. Chesterman 1997).
We can organise these paradigms in terms of broadness of view, context or abstraction. A useful starting point is Hall’s (1990) framing of culture into a ‘major triad’ (see Katan 2004, 44-48). Hall adapts Freud’s metaphor of an iceberg, originally used to explain that the most important workings of the mind operate unconsciously, out-of-awareness. This unconscious level guides judgement, which then guides visible behaviour. Hall organised culture into three systems acting at different levels of visibility: the visible (technical), the partially submerged (formal) and finally the invisible (informal) out-of-awareness level. The metaphor highlights the fact that the most important aspects of culture are hidden. At the same time, it is these aspects that evaluate what is normal or right, and consequently guide the visible behaviour. The same iceberg metaphor can also be used to discuss ‘translation’. The visible responds to ‘what’ is tangible: the product (the source and the target texts). The partially submerged refers to the ‘how’: the processes of translation; while the most hidden aspects explore the motivations (the ‘why’), the beliefs, values and ideologies that govern both processes and product
The translators plus and how they have moved towards the collaborative circle
No full textThis paper focuses on an aspect of collaboration hitherto little explored; yet, as mentioned elsewhere, one that has been “hiding in plain sight” (Katan & Jemielity 2021; Vashee 2021): the translator plus. The plus refers to the fact that translation is viewed as only part of the translator’s profile, and it is this plus that improves their status and their pay (especially in the premium market). We distinguish between two forms of collaboration. First, there is the relatively-well documented “horizontal collaboration”, which encompasses all collaborations between translators (working in teams), between translator and experts, focus groups, proofreaders and so on. Secondly, there is a form of “vertical collaboration”. This type of collaboration entails active interaction, collaboration or ‘closelaboration’ (Levine 1991: 47) with the author, the commissioner and all other agents involved in the translation process – and where possible from the early stages. This means, for example, that in certain cases the source text may also be questioned and modified. The result is a move away from the habitus of a language expert whose services are commissioned, and whose work finishes with the translation, to a translator who is consulted, and who discusses options and alternatives. The translator is now an integral part of a collaborative circle. Bourdieu’s habitus theory will be used to discern those capitals most likely to move the translator from the end of the vertical chain towards the collaborative circle. To support our arguments we will refer to (1) a group of recognised translators plus and their published comments on the subject (2) personal experience working as translator of museum material (3) two global surveys of translator perception of their habitus
- …
