<TARGET "mos" DOCINFO AUTHOR "Brian Mossop" TITLE "Review of “Can theory help translators?

A dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface” by Andrew Chesterman and Emma Wagner" SUBJECT "Target 15:2 (2003)" KEYWORDS "" SIZE HEIGHT "220" WIDTH "150" VOFFSET "4">

372 Book reviews

Andrew Chesterman and Emma Wagner. Can theory help translators?

A dialogue between the Ivory Tower and the Wordface. Manchester,
UK and Northampton, MA: St. Jerome, 2002. viii + 148 pp. ISBN
1–900650–49–5. [Translation theories explained.]
Reviewed by Brian Mossop (York, Canada)

In this book, Theory (Chesterman, of the University of Helsinki) tries to

persuade a skeptical but open-minded Practice (Wagner, of the European
Commission’s translation service) that it can be useful. ‘Practice’ here is the
industrial-scale translation of non-literary texts for large institutions (which W.
likens to coal-mining — hence the ‘wordface’ of the book’s subtitle).
Chapter 1 opens with C. asking whether theory should be useful. Theorists
see themselves “as studying the translators, not instructing them” (p. 2), he says,
though ‘some’ theorists would be more accurate, since much theory is covertly
prescriptive or overtly ‘committed’. However, even those who believe theory’s
task is to understand translation, not improve it, should not lose interest: the
title asks whether theory can, not whether it should be useful. Theory may turn
out to be useful even if it has no duty to be.
W. wants theorists to provide guidance, in the form of standard solutions
to translation problems or situations. C. points out that in order to know
whether something is a solution, its actual effects “on clients and readers and
cultures, both in the past and in the present” (p. 5) need to be demonstrated,
and he thinks this is one of the best contributions theorists could make to the
work of translators. (C. frequently refers to theory as it might be, with an
emphasis on the need for empirical discovery.)
W. is attracted by the idea of a “toolkit of theoretical concepts that translators
should bring to their job” (p.7). She gives a passage from a hard-to-read transla-
tion and a more readable alternative, and asks C. what theoretical tools the
translator of the latter may have used. Noting that such tools become uncon-
scious in experienced translators, C. points to such concepts as transposition,
deverbalization, relevance and implicitation. W. mentions that the names of
these tools could give translators a language in which to talk about translation.
Chapter 2 asks how theory might help with translators’ poor self-image,
uncertain professional status and lack of motivation caused by invisibility and
absence of feedback from clients. C. says scholars have looked at the image and
self-image of translators through studies of translational metaphors, which C.
and W. then proceed to discuss (the translator as builder, imitator, cannibal, etc.).
 Book reviews 373

In commenting on the computer-age image of the translator as decoder–

recoder, W. notes that machine aids make translators reflect on their work to
identify just how it differs from anything an unaided machine can do.
W. complains that many metaphors are unhelpful because they pertain to
the translation of dead authors of literary works, whereas the translators she
knows must deal with living authors who may be rewriting administrative
source texts while they are being translated. W. also notes that theories which
talk about texts moving between cultures are not very useful to the many
translators who work for transnational institutions with a single multilingual
culture. C. suggests that deconstructivist ideas (death of the author, intertext-
uality) might fit the context of a large institution where committees are con-
stantly rewriting documents. This evoked the amusing image of a translator
explaining, to a client or quality controller complaining about inaccuracy, that
the transcendental signified is a chimera!
In Chapter 3, W. and C. agree that Venuti’s idea of foreignizing translation
is antithetical to the goals of institutional translators, who must instead improve
bad writing to make their translations readable (invisible as translations). C.
might have noted that theory is valuable because it casts light on one situation
through contrast with others (where foreignizing translation might be valu-
able). He does suggest that translators who wish to have their output read like
TL originals could take advantage of corpus research that reveals differences
between translations and original writing in TL.
Chapter 4 contains classifications of translation purposes, translation types
(overt vs. covert etc.), and reader types (intended vs. unintended, expert vs.
non-expert). W. finds classifications to have a general value in that they suggest
that translators should not ‘just translate’, but translate in different ways
depending on purpose and readership — a notion she claims is still foreign to
many practitioners. She offers a list of purposes (information, publication,
marketing, use as a legal document, abstracting), but this list is not based on
any concept; it is just a summary of the practice of an institution. Theory is
conceptual; for example C. points out that one aspect of the concept of rele-
vance — achieving maximum contextual effects — provides a theoretical
underpinning for taking into account the reader’s background and expecta-
tions, while the other aspect — minimum processing effort — provides a
justification for writing clearly even if ST is not clearly written. W. dismisses this
as too abstract, but abstraction is essential to theory’s task of explanation.
Chapter 5 concerns translators’ strategies. Global strategies (adapt for
children; summarize) are distinguished from local strategies (translate a noun
374 Book reviews

as a verb). There is a 4-page listing of local strategies, which translators who

have never seen these spelled out may find useful. C. suggests trying to find out
how tolerant clients/readers are of strategies like translators’ notes and creation
of loanwords. The talk then turns to creativity strategies, i.e. what to do when
blocked. W. gives a 4-page description of some distancing strategies devised by two
colleagues of hers — ways of seeing the source text or the draft translation anew. C.
mentions in this regard that translators’ workplace procedures have not received
much attention from researchers, though TAP studies have begun to elucidate
translators’ decision-making process and attitudinal state while translating.
The chapter concludes with a discussion of translators’ motivation, given
the social framework within which they work. C. suggests that Bourdieu’s
notion of habitus might be enlightening in this regard, and mentions that
translators’ habitus appears to be one of voluntary servitude. The practical value
of this notion is that it highlights the importance of self-image and may prompt
questioning of power relations.
The first half of Chapter 6 is about quality assessment which, C. and W.
both mention, calls for an analytical, critical mentality as opposed to the
creative mentality required for the drafting phase — yet another topic for
research. C. points out that TS work on quality, being by scholars and transla-
tion teachers, has tended to reflect their concerns rather than those of readers
of translations, or clients. Also, TS writing tends to focus on the actual wording
of the translation, whereas in the translation industry, the tendency is to focus
on procedures (translator selection, contractual provisions, etc.), on the
assumption that a good procedure will lead to a good product (revision is
simply one of many production procedures).
The second half of the chapter is about translational norms. C. expounds
the norms of target-language fit, similarity to ST, intelligibility, and loyalty to
the parties involved in the communication, and how these jointly define the
notion ‘good translation’. W. points out that the norms may conflict with each
other, and loyalties to the parties may conflict. Still, it’s clear that awareness of
the norms is essential to any systematic approach to resolving conflicts. The
chapter concludes with a brief review of ethical issues discussed in the TS
literature, such as the translator’s role as censor.
Only a few passages of Chapter 7, about computer aids to translation, are
relevant to the book’s title question. Theory could inquire into the effects on the
translation production process of new technology-induced divisions of labour
in the translation industry. Also worth inquiry would be the role of spoken
language: the differences in output between translators who use dictating
</TARGET "mos">

Book reviews 375

machines and those who use keyboards; the effects of voice-recognition

software on translators’ style. Discussion of text archives and translation
memories makes C. wonder how the resulting cut-and-paste is affecting the
composition process: he suggests that the demand to re-use previous texts may
reduce creativity. There are interesting quotes from translators on their feelings
about machine aids — relevant to the theoretical issue of the role of self-image
in the production of translations. W. interestingly points out that the availabili-
ty of free MT on the Internet may for the first time be making a large public
interested in translation.
The book could have stood a bit more editing to avoid sudden departures
from topic. This may be a feature of conversation and email exchanges, but it
would have been better to stick closer to the traditional literary dialogue form,
with sustained arguments and more debate. Sometimes C. and W. appear to be
separately addressing the readers rather than each other, but then the resulting
‘ships passing in the night’ feeling accurately reflects the current theory/practice
relationship.
For practitioners, this book will be useful because it organizes a great deal
of material about translation theory in a small space. For theoreticians, the book
could be enlightening because it points out our lack of knowledge about so
many aspects of translating. This situation could change if a suggestion of C’s
were taken up, and more practitioners wrote about translation. There might
then be more empirical studies to determine the conditions which yield
translations that have desired properties, and professional activity might come
to be more grounded in a body of knowledge.
So can theory in its present state help translators? The many lists in the
book demonstrate how theory can formulate options, perhaps legitimize them
through the prestige of theory, and give them names so that they become
available for discussion (among translators perhaps; probably not with clients
as W. wants). More importantly, W. quotes two of her colleagues: “The crucial
part is becoming consciously aware of WHAT you are doing and HOW and
deliberately applying that awareness in order to develop even more effective
working routines” (p. 68). This I think gets at the heart of the practical value of
theorizing: if people become aware of what they are doing, they can become
self-critical. This is itself an interesting research topic: do translators exposed to
(the right kind of) theory feel more confident, or make better translation
choices?