1.

Yang menyatakan translation sbg scientific studies gambier & van doorslaer, hermans,
holmes, jakobson, toury dan tymoczko.
2. Yang anti theory Cary, dan pergnier, sumber: redefining translation
3. Translation as international academic discipline must move beyond eurocentrism
4. Sejarah Translatn studies Munday, Handbook of trans stud
Despite this early work, the name Translation Studies was not proposed until 1972 as an
alternative to translatology (French translatologie) or translation science, or science of
translating and the German bersetzungswissenschaft. The proposer was James S. Holmes
(19241986), a US-born lecturer and poetry translator at the University of Amsterdam, in a
now famous conference paper aptly entitled The name and nature of Translation Studies,
delivered at the Third International Conference of Applied Linguistics, held in Copenhagen in
August 1972. The abstract of the paper begins:
Though the study of translation and translations has a long history, and during the past two
decades has begun to display more and more the characteristics of a separate discipline,
there is as yet little general agreement as to what this new discipline should be called.
(Holmes 1972: 88).

5. Identity of Transltn Stu Munday

Given these advances, a question that is frequently raised is the disciplinary and identitary nature of Translation
Studies. The question is no longer that which preoccupied Holmes in 1972 (when many were unsure of the worth of
Translation Studies), but rather whether there is so much fragmentation that we are really studying different or
incompatible things and, a related question, whether Translation Studies should therefore be considered a discipline
in its own right, or more of an interdiscipline. The problem that still confronts Translation Studies is that it (and
many of its researchers) has come together out of other disciplines and for this reason in many countries it lacks a
strong institutional identity. On the other hand, the fluidity of modern scholarship often privileges interdisciplinary
research as a dynamic and creative force. Much good research on translation also takes place in disciplines that until
recently have not obviously interfaced with Translation Studies.

6. Lingkup PoT Bermann, Comp to Trans Stud

Cassins dictionary of untranslatables, or untranslatable terms, points the

direction
in which a philosophy of translation that incorporates the question of translation
in philosophy might be developed. Such a philosophy would need to interrogate the
philosophical premises of translation, its theories of language, meaning, and
identity,
for example, while at the same time acknowledging philosophys own dependency
on
translation. Cassins project points to the hopelessness of attempts to find
equivalents
in translation when philosophy operates within a multilingual panoramic network of
incompatibilities, where conceptual terms cannot but shift in their semantic
implications
when translated and therefore, strictly speaking, remain untranslatable, offering
instead what Emily Apter (2008, 584) describes as an epistemological fulcrum
that
illuminates the differences of philosophical thought across the cartographic space
and
histories of languages.

7. Konsep Definisi Translation Munday, Handbook of trans stud

For such an area of study, the conceptualization of translation is clearly key. Yet translation is far from straightforward; it may be understood as a process of rendering a text from
one language into another (translating, see Translation process*), a product (the translated
text) or as a subject and phenomenon itself (e.g., cultural translation, translation in the
Middle Ages). Typically, Translation Studies has used the famous Russo-American linguist
Roman Jakobsons (18961982) categorization of three forms of translation as a process:
1. Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other
signs of the same language.422 Jeremy Munday

2. Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal signs by means

of some other language.
3. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of
signs of nonverbal sign systems. (Jakobson 1959: 233, emphasis in original)
In Jakobsons categorization, it is interlingual translation (i.e., translation between
different verbal languages, German>French, Chinese>Arabic, English>Russian, etc.),
which is the focus. It has also been, and remains, the main object of study in Translation
Studies. However, the definition of other language is not unproblematic (is dialect
considered a different language, for instance?) and this blurs the dividing line between
interlingual and intralingual translation. Most importantly, though, Jakobsons definitions
refer to signs, above and beyond the written or spoken word. In recent years this has
proved valuable as the interest of Translation Studies has extended to embrace many
forms of intersemiotic translation (the role of the visual, the translation of music, comics*
and films, and many other forms of adaptation, etc.) including those which cross over
with intralingual translation (e.g., sign language interpreting*, audio description,
intralingual subtitling*) and interlingual translation (e.g., interlingual subtitling).

8. Pendahuluan : redef trans p. 6 mnrt oseki-depre hubungan erat practice of trans dan theory
9. What does translation studies study? Munday Handbook of transltn studies

As well as suggesting a name for the discipline, Holmes (1972, 1988) also discusses its nature. He explicitly
proposes a structure of an empirical discipline with a pure research side divided into (1) Descriptive
Translation Studies and (2) theoretical Translation Studies or translation theory. The goals of pure research
are to describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of our
experience, and [...] to establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be explained and
predicted (Holmes 1988: 71). Holmes adds a third area (3) Applied Translation Studies* in which the
findings of the pure research are applied in actual translation situations, in translation training, and in
translation criticism.
Indeed, since Holmes time the questions which Translation Studies has sought to answer have multiplied, but,
as above, relate specifically to process (understanding the cognitive, decision-making capacities of the
translator), product (what are the features of a translated text or genre, what are the characteristics of translated
language explicitation, standardization, interference, etc. , how do we judge translation quality*, what is
untranslatable) and phenomenon (what is understood as translation by different cultures, what was translation
like at different historical and geographical points, how was a specific translation or group of translations
received in the target culture, etc.).

10. Pendahuluan Munday Handbook of transltn studies

Translation Studies is the discipline which studies phenomena associated with translation in its many forms.
Although translation* and interpreting* are practices that have been conducted for millennia, Translation
Studies is a relatively new area of inquiry, dating from the second half of the twentieth century and initially
emerging out of other fields such as Modern Languages, Comparative Literature and Linguistics. Like other
new areas of study, it has had to fight for recognition and was additionally hampered by an entrenched bias
against it resulting from a long-held disregard for translation. In academia, translation has often been perceived
to be of lesser value because, as a product, it is derivative and supposedly subservient to the original, and, as a
practice, it was associated in schools and universities with classical or foreign language learning (hence was
merely a means to a higher goal of learning Greek, Latin, etc.) or with a non-academic and underpaid
profession. It is only really since the 1980s that this perception has begun to shift significantly.

11. Source: Penting1 Perkembangan PoT in TS

a. The philosophy of translation is not identical with translation theory; it is more basic than
that.
b. For example the much rehearsed map of translation studies developed by Toury (1995: 10) on
the basis of Holmes famous paper (1972/1988), The name and nature of translation studies
has no place for a philosophy of translation: That may not be so surprising, because

philosophies of x do tend to exist outside of x itself within philosophy, in fact. For example,
the philosophy of language exists outside linguistics, within philosophy; the philosophy of
mind exists outside of psychology, within philosophy; and the philosophy of science exists
outside of science, within philosophy.
This is partly because philosophy is the original discipline from which many of the current
academic disciplines have sprung, once the understandings that developed within philosophy
began to be applied and it became clear that more needed to be done with reference to a
certain topic than speculating about its essence, and as technological development made it
possible to actually do more. But I want to argue that the case of a philosophy of translation
is different, for the following reasons:
1. Philosophers do not in fact conceive of a philosophy of translation as such; for them, the
question of translation is just one question, though a very central question, within the
philosophy of language.
2. Philosophers are not especially interested in many of the issues that interest translation
scholars, so we cannot expect to find in their writings any implications of their work for
our discipline. These, we have to draw out ourselves.
3. The philosophical debate about translation has a direct bearing on the most fundamental
questions in our discipline.
c. The importance of PoT
I want to suggest two reasons why it is important to have a philosophy of translation. One is
that it is reassuring to have a basic understanding of what translation is that underlies our
various approaches to it and holds together our various theories of it and of its constituent
concepts and descriptive notions. The other is that we need a philosophy of translation if we
are to provide satisfactory answers to some of the challenges the discipline faces both from
outside of itself and from within itself.

12. Sumber : tymozcko

a. philosophical interests in translation in the twentieth century have been
motivated primarily by linguistic concerns and, hence, the most prominent
philosophical approaches to translation are best considered with linguistic
theories of translation. Translation was taken up by Anglo-American analytic
philosophers focusing on the philosophy of language; they used translation as a
vehicle for investigating larger concerns pertaining to language and meaning.
b. By contrast, postpositivist epistemologies emerged during the breakdown and
rejection of imperialism, and they are associated with the interrogations
of dominant assumptions about race, gender, class, culture, power, and nation.
Postpositivist epistemologies decenter dominant views and have the potential
to open the field of discourse to the perspectives, viewpoints, and values of all
peoples and all subject positions. Thus, shifts in an academic field toward
postpositivist
approaches, as has happened in translation studies, will bring with them
considerations pertaining to ethics and ideology, including the perspectives of
diverse cultural groups and diverse individuals alike. In the case of translation
studies, such considerations converged on the ideology of the processes and
products of translation, as well as on the ethical position and the empowerment
of translators, the agents of translation.
c. Traditional theory of meaning and its implication to PoT
This sort of contention was not typical of earlier centuries. The so-called
Platonic theory of meaning, inherited from antiquity but amalgamated with
Christian doctrine at the end of the Roman period and during the Middle Ages,
produced a longstanding and relatively stable view of the relationship linking

ideas, language, and the realm of experience in the West. This Platonic view of
meaning had prevailed for centuries by the nineteenth century. A schematized
way to conceptualize the Platonic paradigm is to conceive of the existence of
a realm of ideal (abstract, disembodied) ideas or forms (as Plato called them),
each of which corresponds to some changeless abstract concept that was seen
as
universal. These forms (connected with the realm of the divine) were understood
as being imperfectly represented in the world of physical experience. Although
language was used to speak of the (imperfect) world of experience, the meaning
of language was derived from its relationship to the ideal forms and ideas beyond
the tangible world. Within such a Platonic framework of meaning, therefore,
translation can be looked on as a process of substitution, in which one code for
referring to the realm of universal forms is replaced with another code referring
to the same realm. In the West the concept of translation as

transfer of meaning
took shape within this philosophical context for
understanding meaning itself. In translation studies Platonic

theories of meaning persist in the idea that

translation involves deverbalization, insofar as deverbalization suggests that
translators can refer to an abstract, non-linguistic realm of ideas in moving
between
one language and another. Platonic theories also are implicit in ideas that
translators are located between (cf. Tymoczko 2003). The idea of a
transcendent
realm that serves as an ideal point of reference for the meanings of the world
is not limited to Western cultures, but that idea is inflected differently in other
cultures. Note that some of the international conceptualizations of translation
signaled
by linguistic metaphors for translation discussed in section 2.2 suggest that
the immanence of meaning makes linguistic substitution possible in translation.
Platonic views of meaning sustained a major challenge from positivism
in the nineteenth century, which stressed observation in assessing the truth of
statements of fact and recognized only positive facts and the relations between
specific facts, more general facts, and laws. Rejecting the Platonic level of ideal
forms or ideas, positivists challenged Western religious and philosophical frameworks
inherited from antiquity for construing meaning. The philosophical stance
of positivism looked back to the empiricist tradition associated with Hume and
Locke, in which meaning was rooted in sense impressions and linked to things
in the world. Because positivism rejected metaphysical and subjective views as
having no claim on truth, the legitimate domain of meaningful language was
seen as limited to the realm of facts and laws that could be empirically viewed
as universally or objectively true. This is in part why the early Wittgenstein
could hold in 1921 that What can be said at all can be said clearly, and what
we cannot talk about we must consign to silence (1961:2-3, cf. section 1.1
above). Positivism replaced a Platonic sense of universality underlying language
and meaning with another universalist criterion to which language could be
referred, namely facts and laws that were observable, verifiable, and applicable
in all circumstances. In positivism, as in a Platonic theory of meaning, the
practicalities of translation entailed in replacing one code with another might
be difficult, but in principle translation was straightforward with respect to the

question of meaning.
During the early decades of the twentieth century, however, positivist
views of meaning were challenged by various approaches to language and
philosophy (such as hermeneutics) and then further destabilized in the 1920s
and 1930s by new thinking in the natural sciences that resulted in the decline of
scientific positivism. These shifts in science were driven principally by developments
in physics and mathematics that brought into question basic positivist
understandings of facts and certainty, necessitating a reappraisal of the centrality
of perspective and the importance of the position of the observer or knower.
The fact that these shifts occurred in physics and mathematics was particularly
damaging to positivism, which had seen meaning in those disciplines as the
most certain of the certain. Scientific challenges to positivism also coalesced
with challenges about meaning coming from many other directions, including
psychology, cognitive science, literature, and various artistic movements (cf.
above, sections 1.1 and 1.4).
Third, virtually every theory of meaning stresses the central role of signs
in constructing meaning. Because language is the most important human sign
system, language itself therefore plays a fundamental role in constructing and
establishing meaning. But there are problems in consequence. The relationship
of language to context (including personal experience) is significant insofar as
context itself shifts meaning. Moreover, because language is always in flux,
if meaning is tied to signs (language), meanings cannot be stable. The current
meaning of a sign looks back to earlier meanings and forward to future meanings:
there is no originary, foundational meaning for any sign. In addition, signs can
only be explicated in terms of other signs; for any theory of meaning, the result
is a sort of infinite regress, in which again there is no stable originary or ultimate
point that grounds certainty of meaning. Because signs can only be explicated in
terms of other signs, the phenomenon of unlimited semiosis (involving endless
chains of signs) results in semiotic associations potentially having wide variability
across time, populations, and individuals. Perhaps most important in terms of the
implications for translation of the link between meaning and signs are semiotic
anisomorphisms and asymmetries across languages. If languages are the chief
human sign systems and if languages are asymmetrical and anisomorphic, then
strictly speaking the meanings of signs cross-linguistically cannot be the same
or fully commensurate, nor can they be completely determined in moving across
linguistic boundaries.35
These various aspects of contemporary Western views of meaning in other
disciplines are applicable to and consistent with what is known about meaning
in translation. As the results of brainstorming the role of meaning in translation
indicate, translators must take into account a very diverse and wide-ranging
set of phenomena in translating textual meaning. Constructivist theories of
meaning are consonant with the data that have been gathered about translationThis
congruence
is particularly apparent in data from descriptive studies of translation products
and from observations showing that translations have a one-to-many relationship
to the source text, that contextual factors (including ideology and politics)
impinge on translators constructions of meaning, that translations of the same
source text can differ radically in different languages, in different contexts, and
so forth. Translators construct meaning in translated texts by transposing and
reformulating a selection of the wide range of diverse meaningful elements that
they perceive in source texts. There is no uniformity in what different translators

see as meaningful and in what they choose to construct as meaningful for

their receptor audiences. Moreover, because languages differ in their patterns of
semiosis and their semiotic associations, translations never have the same meaning
as their source texts. Note that constructivist understandings of meaning in
translation are not limited to Western thought. An appreciation of the asymmetries
and differences involved in translation and the need to reformulate the source
text rather than transmit it unchanged are implicit in many of the metaphors and
image-schemas underlying the international terms for the cross-cultural concept
translation discussed in section 2.2 above.

as the understanding
of meaning has shifted from a Platonic norm to (contested)
positivist views to
postpositivist constructivist views of meaning. It is probably no
accident that this
seismic shift occurred during the same period that Western
cultures had contact
and contestation with so many other cultures and languages
beyond the West,
the period that spans the height of European imperialism through
World War II
to the present. The independence of most colonized territories
around the world
was accompanied temporally and historically by the
postpositivist recognition
in Western culture of the importance of alternate perspectives
throughout the
world, not just politically but linguistically and culturally also.
The result has
been a fundamental decentering of meaning itself.
In the international discipline of translation studies, these various historical
factors have favored the primacy of Eurocentric and North American conceptualizations
of translation both practically and theoretically. As a result translation
studies has privileged a particularly Western view of translation, namely the view
of translation as a carrying across, a leading across, or a setting across, the
original meanings of the words in the major Western European languages for
translation, including English translation, Spanish traduccin, French traduction,
and German bersetzung. All these words privilege transfer as the basic
mode of translation whether that transfer is figured in terms of transporting
material objects or leading sentient beings (such as captives or slaves in one direction
or soldiers and missionaries in the other) across a cultural and linguistic
boundary.3 Theo Hermans notes that if the etymology of the word translation
had suggested, say, the image of responding to an existing utterance instead of
transference, the whole idea of a transfer postulate would probably never have
arisen (1999:52). Its not so much that these Western views of translation are
pernicious per se but that they constitute only one of many possible ways of
conceptualizing
translation: they are limited and they are also ideological. I believe
that if the theory and practice of translation remain predicated upon and restricted

to dominant Western European conceptions of translation, translators will ipso

facto through their processes of translation, consciously or not, be enlisted in
the political aspect of globalization from a dominant Western point of view, that
is, the use of globalization to further the carrying across of Western dominance
military, political, economic, and cultural in the world.
Current models used to teach translation, to train translators, and to research
the products and processes of translation are generally based on these narrow,
dominant Western European practices of and discourses about translation. The
problems with Western models are manifold, however. For example, they presuppose
outmoded theories of meaning either Platonic conceptions of meaning
or positivist ones. Andrew Chesterman and Rosemary Arrojo observe that The
metaphor translation is transfer . . . implies that something is indeed transferred,
something that presumably remains constant throughout the process and is thus
objectively there (2000:153). More modern concepts of meaning, by contrast,
view meaning as being constructed by cultural practices and cultural production,
notably language, and inflected by the context. As a consequence the target text
meanings can never be fully the same as source text meanings, nor is there a
circumscribed meaning in a source text that awaits transfer or carrying across by
a translator.4 Thus, insofar as a translator is taught to use a specific protocol for
determining and transferring meaning, that protocol will narrow a translators
choices and decision making; it will circumscribe the translators agency, and
inscribe the translator within a dominant Western construction not only of translation
but also of what counts as meaning.
Moreover, Western conceptualizations of translation can be associated with
the metaphor of the translator as standing between in the transfer process. The
metaphor of between suggests that the translator is neutral, above history and
ideology; the translator can even be seen as an alienated figure in this construct, an
alienation that can be passed off as the objectivity of a professional
Presenting translation as a practice
of transfer of meaning obscures the problems a translator faces instead of opening
up those problems for inspection; it impedes the development of effective strategies
of translation instead of leading to productive discussions of how to develop
strategies for transposing, constructing, and performing meaning; it disempowers
translators instead of empowering them. Because students and translators are
aware however subliminally of the complexity of the nature of meaning, an
implicit or explicit denial of the problematic of meaning turns the question of
meaning in translation into an impossible burden for translators, a labyrinthine
trap, an insolvable puzzle. The only solution that many translators can devise is
to subordinate their own agency to prevailing norms, dominant ideologies, and
prescriptive translation protocols. Such forms of translator training construct
students and translators as subalterns

13. Seblm contructivist PoT itu narrow bgt foundationsnya

Because the field has taken shape around
a narrow Western definition of the matter, based on the
conceptual metaphors
embedded in Western European words for translation, and
because a local set
of knowledges and practices has become the basis of universalist
claims about translation,

Translation studies must move beyond Eurocentric

conceptualizations and translators must
become self-reflexive about their pretheoretical understandings
and practices
of translation, or else translation in the age of globalization will
become an instrument of domination, oppression, and
exploitation.
opening the definition of translation to include a larger range of
ideas besides
those currently dominant in the West, including ideas from
beyond the Western
sphere, would also lead to insights about the agency of
translators and ultimately
to the empowerment of translators.

14. Ontology : constructivist nature of meaning translation as an open concept

15. Epistemo : no absolute truth and value-free inquiry no unbiased, reality is
complex reality is never simplistic and involve multiplicity of factors and over time
of relationships empiricism but not objective.
In fact all research, including research in the natural sciences, is subjective,
influenced by ideas and beliefs related to subject positions, frames of reference,
interpretations, mental concepts, and received meanings, such as theoretical
16. frameworks and disciplinary paradigms.
17. Axiology :
Translation is a central cultural domain where control of meaning is imposed
and regulated because of the potentially transformative power and the constructivist
nature of translation. Raylene Ramsay notes that translation foregrounds
another way of being in the world, thus exposing the fictitious creations of
meaning in ones own language (2004:167-68). Similarly Gouanvic argues
that translation necessarily is involved in the struggle of cultural productions
for legitimation and recognition and that it can dislodge hierarchies of
18. legitimation (2000:106).
The potential to unmask and subvert the epistemological
authority of a receiving culture and the possibility of disrupting cultural
legitimations are yet other motivations for controlling the way that translators
import meaning into a culture, for such subversions and disruptions can have
momentous consequences for any society. The dimensions of meaning surveyed
here are merely illustrative of the immense ideological and political import of the
role of meaning in translation and of translators as meaning makers in cultural
interface and domestic change. It is no wonder that the intent to govern meaning
is materialized in the systemic controls and sanctioned protocols associated
with translating documents connected with power in particular, whether those
texts are business contracts, government documents, legal texts, treaties, sacred
religious books, monuments of cultural identity and cultural nationalism, or the great
works of a literary canon.48 Only by being aware of their own ability to
construct (and deconstruct) meaning as well as ways that societies attempt to
control meaning can translators fully exercise their agency as meaning makers.
Decentering power is not just a matter of politics, ideological struggles,
ethics, and values: it is also an epistemological matter related to meaning and
knowledge. Translators play key roles in these domains. The issues raised here
about translators as meaning makers take on new urgency in contemporary

contexts and conflicts; they are reasons that the lives of translators are in peril once
again in our world.
19. Contemporary theories of meaning
legitimate translation by acknowledging that shifts of meaning, multiple interpretations,
and constructivist interventions by translators are not only inevitable but ultimately
desirable.
20. Nonetheless, the ethical dimension of the loss and gain of meaning demands
attention. Decisions related to meaning in translation require that translators
invent strategies for executing their choices deliberately and that they monitor
the ethical implications of those strategies. Gillian Lane-Mercier observes that
translation is a violent, decision-oriented, culturally determined discursive
activity that compels the translator to take a position with respect to the source
text and author, the source culture, the target culture and the target reader, thus
engaging, over and above socially imposed norms and values, the translators
agency together with his or her responsibility in the production of meaning
(1997:65).
21. There are many other problems with basing translation studies on an implicit
and unexamined foundation of Western views of translation. Eurocentric
conceptions of translation are deeply rooted in literacy practices (as opposed to
oral practices, still dominant in most of world). Indeed, Eurocentric ideas about
translation are shaped by practices deriving from biblical translation in particular
and by the history of translating Christian sacred texts. Western conceptions of
translation are also heavily influenced by the tight connection of language and
nation in Europe (which privileges the view that a nation should be united around
a single language and that normal cultures are monolingual). The history of
Eurocentric translation is connected with the practices of empire and imperialism
as well. These are obviously not acceptable conceptual bases much less ideal
ones for founding an international discipline of translation studies, for serving
as the basis of translation theory around the world, or for providing international
standards of translation practices. Certainly they do not conduce to developing
internationalist approaches to translation that can facilitate an equitable
relationship among peoples and mutality in cultural exchange predicated on
multidirectionality in a globalized world.
From the postpositivist awareness of difference in perspective and position,
to new sensitivities about the workings of signs and codes, to concrete
understandings of how textual production is related to power and ideology,
wartime concerns had immediate applications for translation. It was inevitable
that these considerations should have stimulated and shaped translation studies
in the postwar period.
7. The impact of Western imperialism on academic subjects was not limited
to the humanities; indeed presuppositions associated with imperialism affected
all branches of knowledge. Academic investigations generally excluded concepts
of mathematics, medicine, alternate views of nature, and approaches to scientific
questions developed outside Western contexts. The social sciences reduced
non-Western cultures to primitive curiosities and non-Western individuals
to objects, institutionalizing aspects of an imperial or colonizing gaze in the
protocols of anthropology and other observational disciplines that focused on
peoples from beyond the Western ambit. These imperialist premises of academic

disciplines were in turn interconnected with positivism, for positivism implicitly

and uncritically asserts the dominant (and, hence, Western) perspective as the
basis of observation, taking one specific cultural viewpoint as the correct or objective
perspective for assessing the truth of statements of fact and for garnering
positive, observable data. Thus a local Eurocentric perspective was presumed to
be the only possible neutral view of the world.
These frameworks began to break down in the first quarter of the twentieth
century, eroding rapidly as the century progressed. For example, in his mature
work, The Philosophical Investigations (1953), Wittgenstein offered shattering
examples and arguments that undermined positivism. Wittgenstein began to
address issues of perspective, the habits of human communities, the difficulties
and arbitrariness in human communication, the incommensurability of life forms,
and the importance of convention, among others. His work converged with and
extended developments in the natural sciences and mathematics, as well as other
fields. As a consequence of these varied developments, positivism as an approach
to knowledge and the production of knowledge had been largely abandoned by
the end of World War II in most intellectual circles.
In this trajectory the work of three figures stands out Albert Einstein,
Werner Heisenberg, and Kurt Gdel. Although an exploration of their accomplishments
is beyond the scope of the present study, we can note briefly some aspects
of their impact. Einsteins challenges to Newtonian physics and his relativity
theories, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle (1927), and Gdels incompleteness
theorem (1931) held implications not merely for their own specific disciplines
but for the concept of knowledge itself. All of these theories turn on the significance
of perspectives and frameworks, as well as loci of uncertainty, in physics
and mathematics. Scientists were not the only figures involved in the shift away
from positivism. Figures such as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung played a role, and
artists such as James Joyce and Picasso were important as well, problematizing
objectivity and anticipating in their work discourses about perspective that
emerged later in academic fields.
The changing views of knowledge in the twentieth century undermined
nineteenth-century epistemological and ideological premises of the traditional
humanities and, indeed, of academe as a whole, thus challenging orientations in
Western culture that go back to the Greeks. It is no accident that arguments for
enlarging the conception of translation can be connected with the postpositivist
views of the later Wittgenstein, as we will see below. In the second half of
the twentieth century, postpositivist views of knowledge shifted inquiry in the
humanities and the social sciences away from research oriented toward digging
out and amassing observable facts, to self-reflexive interrogations of perspective,
premises, and the framework of inquiry itself.
What I
argue for is a full integration into translation studies of postpositivist understandings
of data collection and theory formation. Such understandings recognize
that there are multiple perspectives on the natural and social worlds, that such
perspectives need to be explicitly recognized and acknowledged, and that perspectives
utilized within the field of translation studies should increasingly include
perspectives from outside dominant spheres. An expanded framework of this sort
will include perspectives on translation that interrogate hegemonic impositions
and that will nurture self-definitions of the nature and practice of translation
throughout the world. This is a direction that I believe the field has been lurching
toward for decades, but in an inchoate and somewhat random manner: a general

broadening of perspectives and conceptualizations, including a developing habit

of self-reflexivity, has been intertwined with clear retrogressions.

Background berkembanganya contructivist dan functionalist stlh

WW II
First were linguistic approaches to translation, a school of thought
about translation that inherits the wartime interests in cracking codes, the central
concern of intelligence operations. Second were the functionalist schools that
inherit the legacy of expertise pertaining to propaganda and the manipulation
of target audiences through textual and cultural production, honed to perfection
during the 1930s and 1940s.
To summarize, therefore, postwar developments with an emphasis on postpositivist
epistemology, a new awareness of the nature of linguistic codes, and
new textual practices related to the manipulation of culture are all germane to the
strange periodization offered by Steiner and more importantly to the character
of the schools of translation theory and practice that emerged after World War
II.
9. Semiotics How do languages relate to semiotic systems
in general, including codes and other systems of signs? Are artistic codes forms of
language? Is music a form
of language? Is mathematics? How should drumming used as signals be classified?
Or the signals of traffic lights? And antecedent to all of these questions,
what types of signs and symbols are there and how do they function?
But what other types of texts are to be included? Are we
to understand images, paintings, films, and music as texts? Where are boundaries
to be drawn between texts that are translations and those that are not? Does
translation include abridgments, rewordings, adaptations for specialized audiences
(such as children or the newly literate), and texts that have paratextual
commentary as an integral feature?

Kesulitan merumuskan apa itu translation

First, the basic concepts
upon which the concept translation rests the concepts translation is defined in
terms of are themselves open terms whose definitions are not obvious. Second,
it is plainly insufficient for an international discipline to limit itself to or to frame
itself within conceptions of an activity and its products that can only be situated
within Western frameworks and associated with Christian religious and textual
practices.- jadi exploring the openness of the definition and the implications of that
openness for the emerging international discipline. but it is not so easy to define a
theoretical concept of translation
that can be used with confidence to ground the development of translation studies
as a discipline. This is largely the case because the practices and products of
translation have varied so greatly from culture to culture and from epoch to epoch.

the significance of language and culture as mediating forces

in the construction

and perception of concepts and categories, and, hence, of

reality itself.
the cross-cultural concept at the heart of the international
discipline
of translation studies is different from the more narrow Englishlanguage (and
Western European) concept of translation that is linked by
semiosis to notions of
carrying across, the movement of Christian relics, and biblical
translation
Any theoretical formulation of *translation as a cross-cultural
concept must be able to accommodate the varied semiosis associated with and the
wide-ranging set of meanings indicated by all the words used internationally for
the practice and products of translation. Translation studies must move beyond
presuppositions about the concept *translation associated with and limited by
specific Western words.

Pergeseran paradigm translation

[in the West] translation has traditionally been conceived
as an interpretive activity: the relevance of translation lies in informing addressees
of what someone else has said, written, or thought. He observes (2000a:166; cf.
2000b:47-68, 215-20) that at present increasingly the term translation is used
for communication that constitutes a descriptive use of language. Localizations,
advertisement translations, and other types of contemporary commercial translations
exemplify this shift.21 buktinya pergeseran ini All of these diverse types serve
as translations from a scholarly point of
view, moving and transmitting source materials from one cultural context to another
and from one language to another. To distinguish between the wide variety
of translation types even just within Western cultures scholars have proposed
all sorts of proliferating terminologies, including the familiar dichotomies of
word for word and sense for sense, literal and free, formal equivalence and
dynamic equivalence, adequate and acceptable, and foreignizing and domesticating.
25 There are also gloss translations (Nida 1964:159), as well as phonological
translations and graphological translations (Catford 1965:23). Eugene Eoyang
in The Transparent Eye (1993) distinguishes three additional types of translations:
surrogate translations that substitute for the source text and presuppose that
readers have no access to the source; contingent translations (such as scholarly
facing translations) that constantly refer the reader back to the primacy of the
source text; and coeval translations that can stand on their own as literary works
but are aimed at bilingual readers who have access to the source text as well.
Finally, Moradewun Adejunmobi (1998) proposes a classification specific to
postcolonial translation.
theorizing *translation as a cross-linguistic, cross-temporal,
and cross-cultural concept in the emerging international discipline of translation
studies.
*translation are in many ways extremely narrow,

culture bound, and culturally specific, incapable even of modeling past practices
of translation in the West itself. Thus, the uncritical dissemination and adoption
of Western translation norms and practices in other parts of the globe becomes
highly problematic; it is a prime example of a hegemonic form of knowledge. If
a more adequate international theory of *translation is to be developed, a theory
that does not merely serve as a vector for Western culture and Western power,
translation theorists must consider a much broader field of examples in defining
*translation and in developing translation theory for use in international contexts
than they have done heretofore. The international concept *translation must be
reconceived to encompass a wider range of examples and more diverse practices
across time and space throughout the world.

Definisi translation mnrt Toury

Toury here follows J.C. Catford who refers to translation in an open-ended
way as an operation performed on languages: a process of substituting a text in
one language for a text in another (1965:1). We have seen that Catford defines
translation formally as the replacement of textual material in one language (SL)
by equivalent textual material in another language (TL) (1965:20). For Catford
translation equivalence is an empirical phenomenon, discovered a posteriori
by comparing the source language and target language texts and by investigating
the underlying conditions of and justifications for translation equivalence
(1965:27). Catford famously formulates his definition leaving out the question
of meaning and omitting normative criteria for the relationship between the texts
in part because his definition of translation presupposes the linguistic theory of
anisomorphisms of meaning itself across languages. We will return to the question
of meaning in translation in chapter 7.
In contrast to Catfords view that stresses the production of translations,
Tourys definition of translation explicitly focuses on the reception conditions
for translation products in the target language as the decisive factors in identifying
translations empirically. For Toury it is the receptor culture that sets criteria
for translations rather than, say, some abstract decision-making procedure by
scholars or even by translators themselves. Presumably Toury would say that
the intercultural concept *translation is the aggregate of all the decisions about
receptor texts made by the various cultures of the world severally. By accepting
any text that is considered to be a translation in the context that receives it, Toury
broke with the tendency to limit the objects of study in translation studies to those
consonant with dominant, modern Eurocentric models and definitions of translation.
His definition is, therefore, inclusive of all translations ipso facto, and in his
formulation Toury opened the way for cultural self-definition within the emerging
international discipline of translation studies. This must be underscored: Tourys
move is critical in decentering translation studies as an international field, in moving
the field beyond Eurocentric positions, in offering sufficient conditions for
a transcultural concept of *translation rather than attempting to define arbitrary
necessary conditions, and in permitting self-representation regarding the basic
data of translation by people who know it best in their own cultures.
For Toury, whatever objects function as translations
within a receptor culture and are recognized as translations by members of that
culture must therefore be studied by scholars as translations, however different
such objects might be from scholars own expectations of and norms for translation
in their own cultures.

Menurut lefevere

Although Lefeveres ideas had antecedents in translation studies, it was

he who first posited that translation is a form of refraction or rewriting and then
worked out the implications of that relationship. He demonstrated that there are
commonalities to all forms of rewriting, including anthologies, abridgments,
histories of literature, works of literary criticism, and editions, as well as specialized
versions of texts such as childrens versions, film adaptations, cartoon
versions, and so on. Like other forms of rewriting, a translation is a metatext,
a text about a text.54

Paradigm Shift Hatim equivalence paradigm

positivist and eurocentrict paradigm Philosophical
influenced by linguistic approach
This survey of translation studies begins with the 1950s and 1960s,
with linguistics as the predominant paradigm, and with equivalence
as the key concept in the study of translation. But to appreciate what
the linguistics turn in the theory and practice of translation actually
involves, we must fi rst inquire into the kind of linguistics that was
current at the time and the extent to which it recognised, or was seen
to be relevant to, the study of translation.

Translation studies status of scietificism the metalang

These parameters are applied to Translation Studies, and the bottom line of Mayorals
assessment is that our discipline shows a remarkably low degree of scientificity
on all counts, mainly as a result of two factors:
a. the human factor, i.e. the fact that human beings unlike natural forces
can choose to act in a particular way by virtue of their free will. Therefore their
behaviour is highly unpredictable and sensitive to many variables. This statement,
which is meant to have general validity, holds especially true of translation
behaviour;
b. the novelty of Translation Studies as a discipline. It is only recently that it has
been able to shake off the academic fetters that tied it to its various parent disciplines
(chiefly linguistics and literary studies) and gain independent status as
a discipline in its own right.
The human factor makes Translation Studies problematic regarding quantification
and formalization. The youth of the discipline,2 on the other hand, accounts for
inadequate consensus among specialists. There is divergence even with regard to
the definition of the object of study (see Mayoral 2001: 4547, who in this respect
follows in the wake of previous authors); therefore, it should come as no surprise
that disagreement also shows in its terminology.
Mayoral describes the use of terminology in Translation Studies as chaotic
(2001: 67), and goes on to enumerate a few problematic aspects. Dozens of different
languages from the different disciplines and schools on which it [Translation
Studies] is founded have been handed down to us; we are constantly referring to
the same things with different terms, or mixing up terms from different systems
in the same discussion; moreover, we often realize that terminological problems
entail not only different ways of naming things, but also different concepts, whose
difference is obscured by the apparent synonymy of the terms; and there is no
Translation Studies interface which makes it possible to assimilate contributions
and build a common core of knowledge. The author (2001: 68) concludes that in

our discipline there is no consensus to elaborate even the initial metalanguage

which would make it possible to launch the discipline from a scientific basis. This
is just another sign of our disciplines scarce scientificity.

Definition of Paradigm Shift sociological turn

How does a paradigmatic turn come about, and

what are the factors that keep a turn going? Placing the discussion of a scientific
disciplines shifts of paradigm on a research agenda might be seen both as a sign
of its establishment within the scientific community and a stage in the scientific
branchs evolution which allows for the questioning of its results and conquests
also from outside. In recent years we have witnessed an ongoing debate on these
questions, beginning with Mary Snell-Hornbys The Turns of Translation Studies.
New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? (2006), and continuing with the special
issue of Translation Studies in 2009 on The Translational Turn. A paradigm or
turn without a doubt reveals a break with traditional views on a certain subject
in the case in question on translation concepts in their widest sense and the
introduction of new perspectives. Such perspectives do not necessarily discard
longstanding perceptions but take established approaches as a starting point for
sketching new horizons and for further developments in a specific area.
The discipline of translation studies seems thus particularly inclined toward
paradigmatic shifts, or turns. The reasons for this inclination are obvious: first,
the disciplines subject is by nature located in the contact zones between the
various cultures involved in a translation process. Consequently, it is continuously
exposed to different contextualizations and arrangements of communication. The
second reason can be found in the constitution or structure of the discipline itself.
The various shapes of communication which mold the issues dealt with in the
realm of translation studies, from the very beginning of the disciplines establishment
process, call for us to go beyond disciplinary boundaries.

Translations ontology constructing sociology of

trans
What emerges is a system that comprises communications perceived as or
concerned with translation, in other words translations and discourses about
translation. But communications, as we saw, are events. That means the translation
system does not consist so much of translations as objects such as written
texts or spoken words but of the innumerable communicative acts that count as
translations or contribute to its self-observation. Perhaps the fluidity of interpreting
rather than the fixity of translated print offers the prototype of translation.
The systems unity, its own sense of being distinct, derives from its function,
the role the system assigns to itself. The function of the translation system, I would
suggest, is to extend societys communicative range, typically across natural languages.
The system fulfils this function by producing communications that cir

Constructed realities dan hubunganya dg Bordieu

sociocultural aspect
Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist and philosopher who died in 2002,
was without doubt one of the most productive contemporary thinkers. According
to his sociological epistemology, social reality can be seen as the sum of practically
constructed relations. These relations reflect the mutual dynamics of individuality

and society. They reveal the mechanisms of how social agents (individuals or
institutions)
are constructed by society and how society is constructed by these agents.
Bourdieu establishes an interrelation between these epistemological levels
through the categories of field, habitus and capital, which, once they interact
through their agents and agencies, result in what Bourdieu calls social practice.

Impossibility of literal translation translation is not

inferior to the original Sandra Bermann Comp to
Trans Stud
a literal translation is a meaningless concept because there are no
criteria to distinguish between a translation that deviates from the original and one
that does not; and that word-by-word translations, as Octavio Paz and others have
also noted, are likely to produce awkward transpositions of the vocabulary of the
target
language onto the grammar of the source language rather than transparent
equivalencies.
The notion of a literal translation presupposes that a translation could be
identical to the original, which is not possible, and this means that all translations
are free in one way or another.
The prejudice according to which any translation is inferior to its original because
it is different from the original is commonplace, but not sound. Judgments about the
worthiness or effectiveness of a translation must presuppose difference, and implicit
or explicit criteria to determine what a text, which is different from the original, is
expected to be or to do. If what is expected from a translation is the communication
of information for a particular purpose, it is always possible that a translation can be
more effective than the original in achieving this objective. A translation might also
be more effective than the original in producing a certain literary effect. The
criterion
for determining whether a translation is faithful or unfaithful cannot be difference,
because neither faithful nor unfaithful translations are identical to their originals.
The minimal condition of a translation is the rewriting of a sequence of words with
another sequence of words. This is not enough for translation theorists, who also
expect the transfer of something from the source language to the target language.
In
some cases, it might be argued, there is nothing beyond a sequence of words to
transfer
from one language to the other, either because the original may be a random
sequence
of words, or because there may be such incompatibilities between two languages
that
whatever might be available in the source language in a particular sequence of
words
may not be available in the target language in any sequence of words.

Philosophical grounding of conventional

notion of translation
That being said, most theories of translation make
claims about what is transferred
from one language to another language when a
sequence of words in the original is
transformed into another sequence of words in the
translation. The most common
assumption is that a mental content of some kind is
transferred, and this assumption
has its roots in classical philosophy.

There is a classical view of language according to which spoken words are signs of
thoughts, ideas or impressions received by the mind, and written words are signs
of spoken ones. In Aristotles seminal articulation,
spoken sounds are symbols of affections in the soul, and written marks symbols of spoken
sounds. And just as written marks are not the same for all men, neither are spoken
sounds. But what these are in the first place affections of the soul are the same for
all; and what these affections are likenesses of actual things are also the same. 1
(Aristotle 1984, 25)

According to this view, the difference between languages would amount to the
differences
between sounds and written signs, not to the impressions made by objects
in our minds. Armin Paul Frank has noted that theoretical approaches to translation
that presuppose the Aristotelian framework concentrate on work that must be done
in the target language, on the attempt to generate the appropriate linguistic signs
that correspond to what needs to be transferred from one language to another:
thoughts, representation of objects, emotions, and the like (Frank 2007, 153436).
Obstacles to a translation may arise if the target language does not yet have certain
names, concepts, or categories, and so on, but it may often be possible to make
adjustments
to the target language, for example by defining words it does not yet have, or
by explaining new concepts.
The classical model faced challenges when European explorers, missionaries,
scientists,
and anthropologists came across other languages throughout the globe. The
encounter
with non-European peoples led to the realization that linguistic communities might
not share the same sphere of thought, and even the possibility that they might
conceive
of thoughts and objects in incompatible ways.
The Aristotelian view can also be challenged philosophically rather than
anthropologically,
in the light of views such as deconstruction, skeptical of straightforward
linguistic representation, or philosophical positions such as Wittgensteins, for whom
meaning is use. Significant developments in the Continental and the AngloAmerican

philosophical traditions have converged in the assumption that there is no simple

correspondence between mental contents, words, and things.
The post-classical view involves a move from translating content to capturing a
different world-view, or a different conceptual framework, or struggling with
incompatibilities
among languages. That being said, the classical view continues to inform
the assumptions of many theoreticians and translators. From the post-classical
perspective,
thinkers such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Wilhelm von Humboldt
pointed out that translators are faced with an inevitable choice: they can either
produce a translation that feels as if it could have been written by a fluent writer of
the target language, or capture what is foreign about the original text at the risk of
producing strangeness.

Untranslability nya Benjamin

The fleetingness of meaning is

what
creates the untranslatable.
The innovation of Benjamins essay involved his emphasis on difference rather than
identity between languages. One way of summarizing his argument would be to say
that the element of untranslatability in a text is the very thing that constitutes its
translatability: translations, he remarks, prove to be untranslatable not because
of
any inherent difficulty but because of the looseness [Flchtigkeit, volatility,
lightness]
with which meaning attaches to them
In this respect, Benjamin anticipates the Heideggerian focus on translation that
begins to appear in the mid-1930s and becomes prominent in Heideggers lecture
course of 194243 on Parmenides. Heideggers understanding of translation takes
the
word far from its conventional sense, but his work nevertheless represents the most
profound integration of the idea of translation within philosophical discourse.
Heideggers
radical move in his search for the means to effect the destruction of ontology
is to suggest that philosophy pursue not the nature of being but its history, a history
that becomes the history of translation. He does this through his demonstration of
the transformations produced by the translations of philosophical language. In doing
so, Heidegger finally brings to bear upon philosophy the Romantic resistance to
translation and quest for a pure language. The history of the movement of
philosophical
concepts from one language to another, Heidegger argues, has produced a loss of
authenticity, an authenticity which he associates with the Greeks. At the same time,
the history of philosophy amounts to the ways and the words through which truth
has been thought, unfolded, and transformed in each era.

Broges theory of translation

Borges vindicated the right of a translator to swerve away from the original and to
interpolate, and he formulated a definition of translation that is restated in several
of
his essays on translation: translation is a long experimental game of chance played
with omissions and emphasis (1999, 69). In his incisive formulation Borges affirms

that translation as re-creation involves choice, chance, and experimentation. For

Borges the incommensurability of any two languages, or even two modes of
expression
within the same language, provides stimulating possibilities to the literary
translator,
who must choose between registering the singularities of an original work and
eliminating
the details that obscure its general effects.
Borges argued that the ideal arbiter of a translation is the unlikely reader who can
resist the prejudice in favor of the original. In his essay on The Translators of the
Thousand and One Nights, Borges reiterates his view that an original and a
translation
should be appreciated as variations on a theme in which neither original nor
translation
should be favored a priori, or perhaps at all, and he adds that translators often
translate
either against each other, or in the wake of literature. To translate in the wake of
literature is to engage in a dialogue with resources fashioned by others. Borges
would
agree with George Steiners contention, in After Babel (1998) that a translation can
tap
into potentialities unrealized in the original, precisely because the linguistic
differences
or incompatibilities between two modes of expression may bring forth aspects of
the
work that might be obscured in the language of the original. Borges was well aware
that certain features in a poem may never be translatable, but he also knew that a
poem
can shine in a translation where the original falls short, and that any text can be a
pretext
for the creation of another in the same language or in a translation.

Attempt to define translation Carmen Millan

Rout Trans Stud
Many serious and informed attempts along these lines have been
made, and all, in one way or another, have fallen by the wayside. This is partly due to the
wide range of phenomena that need to be covered and the difficulty of drawing a distinct
line separating translation from what is not or no longer translation. Another reason is
that definitions are inevitably written from a certain point of view, reflecting particular
theoretical assumptions. The underlying theoretical framework will highlight some aspects
or dimensions of translation and remain indifferent to others. The very multiplicity of
attempted definitions and the diverse angles they bring to the issue suggest that translation
is a complex thing and that a comprehensive and clear-cut view of it is hard to obtain.

What is translation?

several meanings of the term translation. It can refer to a process, i.e. the act of producing a
translation, as well as to a product, i.e. an actual text, and, beyond these, to an unspecified
number of related phenomena. Translation occurs in written and spoken form

The preconditions of translation from semiotic persepctive

How translation goes about overcoming intelligibility barriers in practice is

one thing.
A prior question concerns the very possibility of translation. Ubaldo Stecconi
has developed
an interesting, logico-semiotic angle on this question. Approaching it through
the
semiotics of C.S. Peirce, Stecconi (2004: 47882) suggests that what enables
translation,
before it ever takes place in actual fact, is the combination of three things:
similarity,
difference and mediation in that order. The kind of sign-action in which
translation
engages presupposes and requires the possibility of things being perceived
as similar or
being made to seem similar, whatever precise form this similarity will
eventually take in
reality. No translation, of any kind, would be possible if some sort of similarity
could not
be invoked. However, similarity needs difference as its logical condition and
backdrop;
it is also difference which creates the practical need for translation.
Mediation, finally, is
the overcoming of difference by means of similarity but without abolishing
difference.
Mediation achieves matchings across difference. The kind of mediation in
which translation
engages typically generates a discourse in which two voices intermingle, one
speaking
on behalf of the other and representing it. Representation demands similarity
of one kind
or another, while the co-presence of interlocking utterances serves as a
reminder that
difference remains.
Descriptivism in translation studies has a theoretical arm, but its primary thrust is empirical.
Its diagnostic outlook draws it to actual translations and their immediate environment.
This is both its strength and its limitation. Whereas Stecconis three characters
(similarity, difference, mediation) sketch the semiotic conditions of existence of translation
without saying anything about how translations will actually be done or turn out, descriptivism
works the other way round and tangles with the cultural and historical conditioning
of translation as it occurs in real time and space

Semiotic Anthony Pym, Piotr Kuschwzk

Roman Jakobson's (1959: 232) statement

that 'the meaning of any linguistic sign is its translation into some
further, alternative sign. This might also be called the principle of semiosis,
of meaning itself as a constant process of interpretation or translation. The
idea can be traced back to the American thinker Peirce, sometimes
regarded as the founder of semiotic approaches to translation (see Gorlee,
1994). Taken as such, the principle of semiosis should mean that translations
do not transfer or reproduce meaning but are actively creating meanings.

pentingnya membentuk definisi translation yang

inclusive dan self-critical Carmen Millan
routledge handbook
If the study of translation is to transcend these traditional confines and become crosscultural
on a global scale, it may need to reinvent itself. For that to happen, at least two
things would seem to be required initially: a flexible, non-reductive approach to diverse
concepts of translation; and critical self-reflexivity in engaging with these concepts.
As for the former, the most promising line of enquiry may well be that sketched by
Tymoczko (2007: 54106) in terms of understanding translation as a cluster concept. The
idea of cluster concepts goes back to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953), who
suggested that in order to understand concepts and categories we may want to look at
partial similarities across a wide range of exemplars. Instead of trying to define language
or translation, we seek to establish their meaning by tracing whatWittgenstein calls family
resemblances, open-ended series of similarities, analogies, overlaps and relationships that
can be observed in varied practices in different contexts. In contrast with prototype theory,
the search does not aim to identify a pool of traits which most, or the most representative,
members of the category have in common. Instead, the process depends on recognizing
resemblances linking phenomena wherever they occur, even if they go under different names.
Whereas prototype theory assumes a hierarchy of centre and periphery, with a privileged
hard core of representative cases and more tangential zones with fuzzy edges, a cluster concept
approach remains decentred and rhizome-like, moving from case to case and, in the
process, accommodating divergent and even incommensurable instances and practices. It
engages in close, localized observation and puts the onus on the observer to demonstrate
linkages with related phenomena elsewhere. In this sense it seems well suited to exploring
translation concepts in a global context and across historical periods.

Ontology Bermann

Austins theory might also help characterize the history of translation studies. To
be sure, in the early phases of translation studies, when it struggled for a foothold
in the academy, theoretical linguistics was the discipline most often consulted, and
brief textual comparisons reigned. But as scholars studied translation more broadly,
and included the more contingent and contextual issues affecting the translation
process for example, gender, empire, inequality of languages, orality versus
different
written scripts the field shifted its focus from the more formal and abstract
strategies
of linguistic equivalence toward a study of individual acts of translation and what
these did in particular contexts. That is, if linguists first offered a view of translation
in terms of saying, the attempt to restate in the receiving language what the source
text said (and as accurately as possible), then later translation scholars, interested
in
the cultural and political acts and effects of translation, examined the doing of
translation:
the doing of languages and texts; but also the doing of translators, readers, and
audiences. In the process, this displacement signaled a move to a less essentialist
or
ontological view of translation, one less tied to the hierarchy of an authentic
original
and a secondary translation meant merely to mirror the source. Scholars became
more interested in examining translations own productive and transformative
potential,
both in literary art and in what we call real life. As translation studies turned

in this performative direction, it often engaged with distinctly theatrical

metaphors
that heighten awareness of the interpretive act of translation, its citational quality,
and the issues of gender and identity it implies (Robinson 2003, 322).

Nature of translation
Nowhere is the higher-order nature of translation more evident than when we see
it as a unique form of text processing. Translation is essentially a cross-language
textprocessing
task that involves, as we have argued, both text comprehension and text
production. We have used the notion of transfer to link these two processes.
However,
we must note that in translation, during the process of construction, background
knowledge about the target situation, never present in the source text, is almost
certainly
retrieved and added to the proposition(s) and propositional network being built.
In monolingual L1 text comprehension, there is generally no necessity for
information
pertaining to a different cultural circumstance to be factored into the semantic
representation
being built. However, in translation, at least at the level of what we think
of as functional translation, where the translation is altered to accommodate the
target
reader, it is certainly the case that both the construction and integration phases of
text processing will involve and accommodate cultural differences, differences in
conceptual systems, and differences in cultural perspective. This intervention in
text
processing may or may not be conscious, and indeed the actual use of target-side
information to alter the microproposition that might otherwise be constructed (by
following the source text) is certainly task-dependent. We might not do it, for
instance, if just reading an L2 text for information. What this means is that if one is
reading a text and is reading it for translation, then the processes of building up the
propositional structure, the situation model, will begin to involve elaboration,
inferencing,
and integration patterns that diverge from those that would take place if one
were reading for comprehension. What this means is that our notion of transfer
is

Ontology and Epistemo eve Gaudet

there are no meanings as

entities because there is no individuation criterion for meanings.
Since facts of the matter determine what is true, when there is no fact
of the matter there is no question of what is true. This happens when
we face two behaviorally equivalent translation manuals: there is no
reality, there are no meanings as entities, enabling us to favor one

manual over the other, and thus there is no question of which is the
right or the true one. After a close look at Quine's ontological take on
his indeterminacy of translation thesis, it becomes easy to see its
difference from his underdetermination of theory thesis: the latter is
an epistemological claim about the relation between observation and
theory, whereas the former is an ontological claim about what there
is.
10. Translation turn Munday,

Snell- Hornby (2006) describes the various turns* of Translation Studies from the
emergence of the discipline through to a pragmatic turn in linguistics, the cultural turn
of the 1980s, the interdiscipline of the 1990s and other turns of the 1990s (empirical,
globalization, etc.).

The same holds for the various turns* in Translation Studies, all of which are manifestations of its attempt to expand, define and establish itself as a specific academic
discipline (Snell-Hornby 2006).1 (source: handbook for transl stud 2)

11. Essentialist view on translation

handbook of transl stud arrojo

Those who believe in the possibility of separating themselves from things and meanings
from words tend to view translation as the impersonal transference of essential meaning
across languages and must condemn or repress the translators interventionist role in the
process. Actually, the resistance to the translators agency is one of the most recurrent
issues in the discourse about translation that has dominated the Western tradition, a discourse that has been generally prescriptive in its attempt to safeguard the limits that should
clearly oppose translators to authors, and translations to originals.
The ethical guidelines implied by this conception can be illustrated by the recurrent
metaphor of clothing, which imagines words as the clothes designed to protect and style
the naked bodies of their meaning. As it is usually employed to suggest that translators
should refrain from improperly touching the bodies of the texts whose clothes they are
expected to carefully change, this metaphor is also efficient in portraying the translators
task as a serving, mechanical activity that needs to be undertaken in respectful
neutrality (Van Wyke 2010). In their refusal to accept the productive character of the
translators activity, essentialist conceptions must disregard the political role of
translation and its impact on the construction of identities and cultural relations, and are,
also, largely responsible for the age-old prejudices that have often considered translation
a secondary, derivative form of writing, reducing the translators task to an impossible
exercise in invisibility.

10. Non-essentialist view

The inextricable association between translation and philosophy pointed out by Derrida
is closely related to the critique of Western metaphysics undertaken by Friedrich
Nietzsche, the first to connect the philosophical task with a radical reflection upon
language (Foucault 1973: 305), a critique that has been pivotal in the development of
anti-foundationalist trends in contemporary philosophy such as postmodern,
poststructuralist thinking, deconstruction, and neopragmatism, opening up new paths of
inquiry as the ones represented by gender and postcolonial studies.

In an essay written in 1873, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, Nietzsche outlines
the basis of a conception of language that is first and foremost anti-Platonic. As he
argues, because languages are undoubtedly human creations, there can be no essential
meaning or concept that could be clearly separated from its linguistic fabric and, therefore, be fully transportable elsewhere. As part of an arbitrary, conventional system, every
concept is necessarily human-made and arises from the equation of unequal things, a
conclusion that can be supported by the fact that even though we shall never find in
nature, lets say, the ideal leaf, that is, the original model according to which all the
leaves were perhaps woven, sketched, measured, colored, curled, and painted (1999:
83), we still manage to use it as a concept. In short, language works precisely because
the conventions that make it possible teach us to forget certain differences so that we
can sustain the illusion that the same could actually be repeated.
Concepts and meanings are not discovered, but constructed, and because the circumstances of their construction are never the same, they can never be fully reproduced.
Just as every leaf is different and cannot faithfully repeat one ideal, original leaf that
could exist apart from our conventional concept of leaf, every reproduction of a text
into any other language or medium will not give us the integrity of the alleged original,
but, rather, constitute a different text that carries the history and the circumstances of
its (re)composition. This different text may or may not be acceptable or even
recognized as a reliable reproduction of the original because the very opposition
between translation and original is not something that exists before or above context
and conventionality, but must be constructed and institutionalized, and is, thus,
always subject to revision (Davis 2002: 16).
In the wake of Nietzsches critique of Platonic thought, translation can no longer be
conceived in terms of a transportation of essential meaning across languages and
cultures. Rather, for this notion of translation, we would have to substitute a notion of
transformation: a regulated transformation of one language by another, of one text by
another (Derrida 1978: 20). An early illustration of some of the far-reaching
consequences of this conception can be found in Jorge Luis Borgess The Translators of
the Thousand and One Nights, first published in Argentina in 1935, which treats
translation as a legitimate form of writing in its own right. In his examination of a few
nineteenth-century translations of the Arabic text, Borges shows that even though their
translators explicitly pledge fidelity to the original, their work constitutes a historical
testimony of their own views about the text, in which the foreign and the domestic are
fused in different versions that both construct and reconstruct the original, revealing the
authorial thrust of translation as a mirror of each translators interests and circumstances
(2004: 94108). Instead of criticizing the translators of the Nights for their infidelities,
Borges reflects on them as constitutive elements of the process, offering us a dazzling
introduction to some of the issues that have become central for Translation Studies
today: the role of translation in the construction of cultures and identities, the
asymmetries in the relationship between the domestic and the foreign,
and, most of all, the translators agency and the complexities it brings to traditional
notions of original writing.
As an unavoidable, productive element of the relationship between originals and their
reproductions, difference has been recognized as a key issue by contemporary
approaches that implicitly or explicitly explore the consequences of post-Nietzschean
philosophy for the translators activity. The acceptance of the insight according to which
translators cannot avoid making decisions and are, thus, necessarily visible in their
rewriting of the foreign within the limits and the constraints of the domestic has allowed
Translation Studies to move beyond the usual stalemates that for at least two thousand
years have underestimated the translators authorial role in the writing of translated
texts

Epistemology source : Anthony PYM An

important step in this work was his rethinking of the

entire issue of how to determine what counts as a
translation
Ontology focus
ontological
definitions (is this a translation) or territorial disputes (does this problem
come under the remit of Translation Studies?).

Object of Trans Stud menurut Toury source : Anthony

PYM

In his work on target orientation and assumed translation (1980, 1995),

Toury
proposed a new view. Rather than defining the object of study a priori and then studying
the exemplars that fit that definition, Toury proposed the reverse: that we investigate
the phenomenon by studying exemplars that are taken to (assumed to) represent
it. The object category was not circumscribed in advance. Instead, one of the aims of
enquiry was to determine the limits of the category.
The concept of norms gives Tourys approach an extremely open and relativistic
character. Rather than impose a predefined notion, he famously defined2 translation
at least for his descriptive purposes as any target-language utterance which is
presented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds (Toury
1985: 20). The target culture decides, and for reasons that are its own, what translation
is and what it can be expected to do. jadi parameter utk menentukan

translation adalah cultural element bukan linguistics

Axiology translating dianggap meaningful krn

represent translators choice berdasarkan purpose
TL munday, evaluation in trans
The translator needs to uncover the ST writer choice and
to re-encode that choice as appropriate in the target language. Thus, the translator's
choices are also meaningful and represent conscious or unconscious decisions at the
lexical level that, together, represent the translator's interpretation of the ST

Axiology Lisa Foran

ethics ofa translation

Tyulenev suggests adopting Habermass theory of communicative action.
Under this rubric the translator can be viewed as engaging in either
communicative
or strategic action. When motivated by a desire to achieve a
mutually understanding consensus between opposing parties the translator
exemplifies communicative action. When, on the other hand, the translator
is motivated by egoistic goals (such as remuneration and/or perceived
professionalism), the translator engages in strategic action.
Translation
too is an act of judgement; in both translation and in justice we are confronted

with the problem of applying a general rule or law to a particular

case. However, as Bottone notes, translation for Ricoeur is not just similar
to justice because it entails an act of judgement; but more fundamentally
translation always concerns alterity, hence, like justice, it is always ethical.
Ricoeur elevates translation to a model of ethical engagement since translators
employ the art of mediation and ofa hosting; hosting the foreign
language in their home.
Translation and ethics by wyke Carmen Millan Routledge Hanbook
much of the history of translation discourse in the West,
ethics has not been addressed directly because it has been understood
that the correct
behaviour of the translator is fidelity to the text and author, and that a
good translation
is one that is most identical to the original. Ethical translators, in their
quest to be faithful,
have been expected to respect the hierarchy that places them under
the authority of
the author and to remain invisible, repressing any authorial desire that
may produce visible
signs of their interventions in the texts of others. However, over the
past 20 years or so there
has been a serious reconsideration of this notion of ethics, which, as
even a cursory glance
at the history of translation discourse will suggest, has dominated the
basic conception of
this activity throughout the ages.
However, although notions of fidelity have been the basis for understanding the ethical
duty of translators for at least two millennia, there has not been a consensus as to what
exactly fidelity means or to what one is supposed to be faithful. For example, the recurrent
distinction between strategies termed author-to-reader and reader-to-author signals very
different understandings of the translators ethical duty. With the first, translators are
expected to adapt the source text to the conventions of the target language and culture
in order to create a similar effect on the target audience as the one experienced by the
readership of the original, often with the goal of producing the effect that the translation
has been originally written in the target language. A reader-to-author strategy, however,
seeks to maintain foreign elements, both cultural and linguistic, in the translation so that
the target audience is exposed to cultural difference and, thus, has some sense of the
context of the original.
These two approaches, while differing in their views of what constitutes translation
ethics, reflect a common underlying assumption that by adhering to one of these particular
strategies one can truly and faithfully reproduce the alleged essence of the original.
Nicholas Perrot dAblancourt, who practised what can be called an extreme version of the
author-to-reader approach, felt he had to radically revise certain aspects of the original
in order to recreate the same author in another language (2002: 158), whereas German
Romantics such as Johann Gottfried von Herder maintained that only by bringing the
reader to the author could the target audience see authors as they truly are (2002: 208).
The common belief underlying these two approaches is that translators can and should
recover the true meaning of a text, a belief which suggests that, in spite of their differences,
they both subscribe to the traditional notion of translation ethics that is firmly
rooted in Platonism.
Translation has historically been viewed in accordance with this Platonic model. Although

translators are expected to represent the essence of an original text, their task also falls
into the same category as painting and poetry because, as is said in The Republic of painters,
the translator is often considered an imitator of what others make (Plato 1992: 597d).
Translation has been suspect throughout history precisely because it has the power to mislead
readers with respect to the originals essence. Whereas Socrates expels the poets from
his Republic, in Book X, in Book III he allows them to practise their craft, but only in
accordance with strict guidelines that he feels will point readers in the direction of truth
and instil in them the qualities that he believes are desirable in good citizens. Likewise,
throughout history translation discourse has been concerned primarily with establishing
guidelines that will lead translators to, if not copy every aspect of the original, at least
accurately reflect its essence (see Van Wyke 2010 for a more detailed account of the
relationship between Platonism and our general notion of translation
Towards the end of the nineteenth century Friedrich Nietzsche embarked on a radical
critique of Platonism that shook the foundations of theWestern notion of truth. In Platonic
thought, truth is something that is reflected in, but exists outside, language. Nietzsche, on
the other hand, maintained that what we call truth and essences are constructions made
with and within language, and cannot therefore be discovered in any rational, unbiased
manner. Language is an historical construction that bears signs of ideologies and power
structures and, therefore, so too does truth. This claim has great implications for ethics
because Nietzsche destabilized the idea of absolute and universal foundations upon which
it has traditionally been based. In this scenario, fidelity, for example, cannot refer to an
unchanging, pure idea, but will always be bound to contexts that are anything but neutral.
What is more, as all truth is a construction, brought about through interpretation,
the possibility is opened that it could be constructed differently.
Whereas most translation discourse has historically been dominated by the idea that translation
should transport the meaning of the original to another language, according to
Derrida, because an original is an unstable object that can be interpreted in various ways,
and because languages are fundamentally different from one another, translation can never
be a transferral of meaning but will always entail its transformation Consequently,

translators can no longer be seen as impartial mediators,

but, instead, as agents who play a fundamental role in the production
of meaning that constitutes
their translations. In brief, they will never be able to produce a
translation that forestalls
difference, one that provides the unequivocal meaning of an original,
or one that is
itself immune to multiple interpretations.
The absence of universals upon which one could found a universal ethics of translation
does not mean that translators have license to simply transform a text in any way they
please. On the contrary, following the rationale of deconstructive thought, the recognition
that translators must make decisions without absolute guidelines that could guarantee
correctness in all contexts does not imply the end of ethics but, rather, that difficult ethical
decisions are inevitable at every level of the process translators must take responsibility for their
decisions and cannot pretend they are invisible
by hiding behind the notion that they are simply repeating what they find in the original
or what the author might have intended.
At the same time, translators cannot be freed from the conventions that ultimately govern
their decisions; translation is transformation, but, more precisely, as Derrida adds, it is a
regulated transformation of one language by another, of one text by another (1981: 20).
Without conventions and norms, language would not function and translators must still,
according to Kathleen Davis, take law, rules, and as much else as possible into account (for
translation, obviously, this includes grammar, linguistic and cultural conventions, genre,
historical context, etc.), for these act as the guardrails of responsibility (2001: 97, quoting

Derrida 1993: 19). However, this does not mean that one must accept all conventions and
norms, or the values that they embody, at face value. In fact, many contemporary translation
theorists who subscribe to what has been called an ethics of difference contend
that the ethical responsibility of translators should lie in questioning and destabilizing
conventions
that usually suppress the fact that other realities can be reflected in language;
conventions that have been presented as neutral and natural but, nevertheless, reflect certain
interests and biases (see Davis 2001: 92).
ethics of difference
is Lawrence Venuti. Much of his work has sought to destabilize the traditional
ethics that revolve around the notion of the translators invisibility, especially in the context
of translating into the most dominant of languages, English. For Venuti, what we typically
see as invisibility is, in fact, conformity with certain expectations and interests from
dominant forces that demand fluid translations that appear as if they were not even translations
(2002: 1).
Far from providing a transparent reproduction of the original, what we
consider to be fluid translation often serves to reinforce ethnocentric values by assimilating
foreign elements into the dominant discourse of the target language, thereby obscuring
differences both between the source and target texts and cultures, as well as within the
language and culture of the translation.
As part of his own activist ethics of translation,
Venuti has proposed different strategies for confronting these domesticating tendencies.
Reminiscent of the German Romantics, and particularly influenced by Friedrich Schleiermacher,
he advocates a foreignizing strategy, one that resists assimilating the foreign into
the values of the receiving language and culture, thus upsetting the hegemonic expectations
of the target audience and bringing to their awareness a sense of cultural difference
and otherness (ibid.: 968, 264, 266). Unlike the Romantics, however, Venuti does not imply
that this approach can provide readers with unmediated access to the foreign (ibid.: 1920).
In vein with his foreignizing translation, elsewhere he focuses on what he calls minoritizing
translation, which issues from an ethical stance that recognizes the asymmetrical
relations in any translation project, and seeks to promote cultural innovation as well as
the understanding of cultural difference by proliferating the variables within English
(ibid. 1998: 11). His projects aim to call attention to differences between cultures and also
within the target language (in his case, English), thus resisting this assimilationist ethic by
signifying the linguistic and cultural differences of the text within the major language
(ibid.: 12). For Venuti, it is unethical for translators to simply accept and conform to the
paradigms that have dominated the production of translations.
The traditional ethics of fidelity and invisibility has aided in perpetuating these inequalities
because it ignores power differentials between languages and cultures as well as the
fact that in order to produce the effect of what is considered invisibility, translators are
required to simply follow dominant modes of representation.

In the introduction to The Return

to Ethics, Pym declares that the articles in the collection are united by some
general principles,
which include the refusal to return to the traditional notion of the ethics of
linguistic
equivalence and fidelity, as well as the belief that ethics should be
understood as a broadly
contextual question, dependent on practice in specific cultural locations and
situational
determinants (2001: 137).
No matter how hard they work and how earnestly they
declare their good intentions, translators will always have to make choices, choices that may
not be acceptable everywhere and by everybody. Given the multiple agendas and points
of view involving different translators in infinitely different contexts and situations, how

could any one code of ethics, such as the one proposed by Chesterman, for example, be taken
seriously? In spite of the difficulties, it is promising, however, that there has been so much
interest in discussing ethics, and that valuable space is being opened for debate on this
highly complex issue. While we will quite probably never arrive at a universal code of ethics
that will guarantee that the translators actions are always considered ethical by everyone,
the constant pursuit of ethics, the continuous examination of the positions we occupy as
mediators between languages and cultures is, in itself, an ethical endeavour

ontology
would be described as addressing the fundamental question ofa translation
studies as a discipline: what is translation? The epistemology ofa translation
is called upon to explain how we qualify a certain type ofa human
activity, or its results, as translation.

Hermeneutics

What indeed is the nature of meaning?

translation can be defined in terms of meaning (Kirsten

Mukhjemer oxford handbook)
Translation can be defined in terms of sameness of meaning across languages.
According to
some researchers, there can be no absolute correspondence between languages and
hence no fully exact
translations. Translation at some level is always possible, however, there are times
when interlocutors are aware
that they do not mean the same by particular phrases. Meaning is formed on each
occasion of linguistic interaction
There seems, then, to be a commonsense view that
the relationship between meaning and translation is close, and that translation can be
defined in terms of sameness
of meaning across languages. This, of course begs the question of what meaning is and
how sameness of meaning
can be established, a question which especially exercised philosophers of language
during the second half of the
twentieth century. As

Plurality of meaning dan task of translator mnrt

Benjamin Anthony Pym dr Piotr Kuhizcwhk
The central idea for Benjamin is
that the original expression contains a plurality of meaning in its very form,
in the same way as the Kabbalistic tradition construes meanings from the
numbers represented by the characters of Hebrew script. To work on the
original form, to bring out those hidden meanings, is the task of translation.
In Benjamin's 1923 essay 'The Task of the Translator'

Chau (1984) summarises the hermeneutic approach in terms of a few

basic tenets. Since there is no truly objective understanding of a text, no
translation can represent its source fully and all translations cannot but
change the meaning of the source text. Further, following Gadamer, 'prejudices'
are unavoidable and can be positive in all acts of interpretation. Chau
claims that this general approach makes the translator at once humble and
more responsible, taking part in the active creation of a translation rather
than remaining a slave to illusions of necessary equivalence. Others might
claim that the approach encourages the translator to transgress the ethics of
fidelity or equivalence.

Hermeneutics dipengaruhi oleh cultural relativism

and historicism
meaning menurut catford Kirsten oxford handbook
Catford (1965: 35; cf. Chapter 4 above), meaning is the total network of relations entered into by any
linguistic form. The relations are of two kinds: formal relations between forms in the linguistic system; and
contextual relations between forms and aspects of the context in which the forms are used. But every
language is
ultimately sui generisits categories being defined in terms of relations holding within the language itself
(Catford
1965: 27), so it is never possible to establish sameness of formal meaning between a text and its translation;
and
because formal meaning is part of meaning, there can never be sameness of meaning between a text and its
translation: An SL text has an SL meaning, and a TL text has a TL meaning (Catford 1965: 35).
For Catford, the next best thing to sameness of meaning is ability to function in the same situations (1965:
49, italics
original): The TL text must be relatable to at least some of the situational features to which the SL text is
relatable.
When this happens, there is translation equivalence between a translation and its source (p. 50, italics
original):
Translation equivalence occurs when an SL and a TL text or item are relatable to (at least some of) the same
features of substance. So the relationship between a translation and its source text is equivalence, and
equivalence is realized in terms of shared contextual features. Toury's famous adaptation of this definition
introduces a notion of relevance, which is hierarchical and relative to a point of view (Toury 1980c: 37, italics
mine): Translation equivalence occurs when a SL and a TL text (or item) are relatable to (at least some of)
the
same relevant features.

Teori Translation mnrt Derrida and Ricouer

For Derrida, every language is always already in
translation; a state of impurity. Languages borrow terms from each, revealing
the ever porous nature ofa the borders ofa language. Further, every text
is both translatable and untranslatable. Totally translatable a text disappears;
if it does not require a constant re-enactment ofa translation, a new
way in which to be interpreted, it is subsumed. Totally untranslatable, a
text also disappears; without the ability to reach beyond its own borders
towards the Other, it remains isolated and removed eventually collapsing.
For Ricoeur, on the other hand, the translatable/untranslatable debate
is to be eschewed for what he terms the more practical framework ofa
faithfulness/betrayal. For Ricoeur, the translator operates in a third space
between original author and reader ofa the translated text, acting as host
and
bringing both together. The translator serves both but in each translatory
choice betrays one in order to be faithful to the other. The paper seeks to

marry these two frameworks of untranslatable/translatable and faithful/

betrayal in order to highlight the necessity ofa translation and the Other
in the constitution ofa the self.
translating, in every possible
sense, can become a model for interpretation, a model for hermeneutics.
As a phenomenologist Ricoeur is not concerned with issues in the theory
ofa translation. He takes for granted that, in spite ofa theoretical and
practical
difaficulties, translation is possible. Rather, what matters for Ricoeur is
what philosophy can learn from translation theory and practice. Ricoeur
will consider translation as a model for refalection not only in linguistics
or hermeneutics but also in ethics (Ricoeur 2004: 42).

Untuk bagan Translation studies dan urain

cabang2nya lihat di Routledge Handbook Carmen
Millan
Functionalism in Translation Carmen Millan
Routled hnad
Function or functionality refers to what a text means or is intended (or rather, interpreted
as being intended) to mean for a particular receiver in a given moment. It is
therefore not a quality inherent in a text but assigned to it in the moment of reception. By
contrast, intention is defined from the viewpoint of the sender, who wants to achieve a
certain purpose with the text.
Eugene A. Nida, Bible translator and director of the
American Bible Society for many years, distinguished between formal equivalence, which
means to reproduce exactly the (linguistic) form of the source text, and dynamic or, later,
functional equivalence, which strives to enable the target audience to respond to the text
according to their own culture-specific ways of comprehension (cf. Nida 1964). Similar oppositions
have been formulated by Juliane House (1977), with overt and covert translation,
and Christiane Nord (1988), with documentary and instrumental translation.
Most of these dichotomies were based on the notion of equivalence as a constitutive
feature of translation; House (1977) speaks of primary and secondary equivalence. This
concept was questioned for the first time, albeit as an exception, by Katharina Reiss in
her book on the possibilities and limitations of translation criticism (Reiss 1971). Although
still firmly rooted in equivalence-based theory, her model may be regarded as the starting
point for a functionalist perspective on translation because it is based on the functional
relationship between source and target texts or text types, as expressed by genres. According
to Reiss, the ideal translation would be one in which the aim in the TL [target language]
is equivalence as regards the conceptual content, linguistic form and communicative
function of a SL [source language] text (Reiss 1977, English translation in Reiss 1989:
112). She refers to this kind of translation as integral communicative performance (ibid.:
114). However, being an experienced translator herself, Reiss knew that real life presents
situations where equivalence is not possible, and in some cases, not even desired. Her
approach to translation criticism thus accounts for certain exceptions from the equivalence
requirements. These exceptions are due to the specifications of what in functionalism
is referred to as the translation brief (bersetzungsauftrag). One exception is when
the target text is intended to achieve a purpose or function other than that of the original,

like in adapting prose texts for the stage, translating Shakespeare for foreign-language
students, or providing word-for-word translations of an Arabic poem intended to serve as
a basis for a free rendering by an English poet who does not know the source language. A
further exception is when the target text addresses an audience different from the intended
readership of the original, like in translations of Don Quijote or Gullivers Travels for
children. Reiss excludes these cases from the area of translation proper and suggests they
be referred to as transfers (bertragungen) (1971: 105), where the functional perspective
takes precedence over the normal standards of equivalence.
Less than ten years later, Hans J. Vermeer (19302010), who studied with Katharina
Reiss at Heidelberg University, developed a framework for a general theory of translation
(Vermeer 1978) that turned Reisss model upside down. Vermeer holds the view that
change of function and audience is the general case, not the exception, since the targetculture
audience always differs from the source culture audience, at least with regard to
background knowledge, value systems, norms and conventions, etc., which change the
function the translated text may have for them. This theory, which Vermeer calls skopos
theory (Skopostheorie) suggests that it is the skopos (Greek for purpose or intended
function) of the translation process that determines the translators choice of strategy:
either to keep to the source texts form and wording if the translation is supposed to
document any one of the source-text features or characteristics, such as language, style,
norms, genre conventions, worldview, etc. (cf. Nords documentary translation), or to
make the target text work as a functional communication instrument that takes account
of the audiences knowledge presuppositions, their needs and expectations regarding language,
style, norms, conventions, worldview, etc. (cf. Nords instrumental translation).
According to this theoretical framework, either strategy may be adequate as long as it fulfils
the requirements of the translation brief given to the translator by the client or commissioner.
The top-ranking rule for any translation is thus the skopos rule, which says that a
translational action is determined by its skopos. Vermeer explains the skopos rule in the
following way:
Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The skopos
rule thus reads as follows: translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your
text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people
who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function.
(Vermeer 1989: 20, translation by the author)
If the purpose of the translation is the main standard for the translators decision, the
traditional concept of equivalence loses its status as a constitutive feature of translation.
Equivalence may be one possible aim when translating but it is not considered to be a translation
principle valid once and for all (cf. Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 1467).
This rather loose connection between the source and the target text has raised considerable
criticism from equivalence-based translation scholars. The skopos rule, which might
be paraphrased as the end justifies the means, as indeed it was by Reiss and Vermeer
(1984), was considered to be unethical because it could be interpreted as giving carte
blanche to translators who wanted to manipulate the source text as they (or their clients)
saw fit. However, the demand that translators should take the target audiences needs and
expectations into account does not mean that translators must always do exactly what the
readers expect. Yet there is a moral responsibility not to deceive them, because in the
communicative interaction between members of two different cultures, the translator is
the only person with a profound knowledge of both. This responsibility translators have

loyalty

toward their partners has been called

(Loyalitt) by Nord, who thus added a
moral
quality to the applications of the skopos model (cf. Nord 1989, 1991, 2001a). Loyalty
commits the translator bilaterally to the source and the target sides. It must not be mixed
up with the traditional concepts of fidelity or faithfulness, concepts that usually refer to a
relationship holding between the source and the target texts. Loyalty is an interpersonal
category referring to a social relationship between people. Nords version of the functionalist
approach thus stands on two pillars, function plus loyalty. It is precisely the combination
of the two principles that matter to her, even though there may be cases where they seem

to contradict each other. Loyalty limits the range of justifiable target-text functions for
one particular source text and raises the need for a negotiation of the translation assignment
between translators and their clients.

Konsep translation ideal mengikuti model deleuze dan

Peirce Translation as relational and glissant work di
folder Wl flasdisk baru.
It is also a move from what Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guattari describe as
an arboreal or tree-like vision to a more rhizomatic one (see also Ost, Le Droit 24-26). Rather than
emphasizing a return to the same, to the past, to the trunk of the translation tree, translation would
entail a move outward, like the reaching tubers and roots of a rhizome, a reach to new words, to
continually
new possibilities of language, culture, and thought. This more earthly and outward movement
also works through processes of analogy and what Charles Saunders Peirce has called abduction
rather
than through the more scientific, hierarchical and self-confirming procedures of induction or deduction.
It would expect translation to produce a new text that echoes an earlier one but never claims
to duplicate it exactly. From this perspective, the novelty and creativity of the translated text come
into much sharper relief. Viewed this way as based on analogy and abduction translation plays an
important role in creating the new in languages, even the unforeseen and the surprising. Peirce in
fact describes abductive reasoning as a sort of reasoning that is not only more everyday, but also
more creative than the usual inductive or deductive reasoning associated with the sciences (Walton 613; Davis 22-25).
It does not reduce similarity to identity,
or create full equivalence. It encourages us to think in similar but always different terms. In this "and
zone" of analogy and abduction that is the earthly site of translation, human judgment and an ongoing
internal dialogue between texts serve as guides a judgment that owes its wisdom to a broad
historical and cultural knowledge, and a dialogue that listens as well as responds. In the process,
translation, while starting off from texts created before, inevitably creates something new through a
language that gestures toward the source text as it also transforms its own linguistic and cultural
context.
It thereby generates an ongoing dialogue between texts past and present, distant and close to
home. This language of translation will bear within it a relation to another or indeed to many others