Special Issue of TIS Call for Papers

Toward a Comparative Translation and Interpreting Studies

Guest edited by Sergey Tyulenev (Durham University) and Binghan Zheng (Durham
University)

Deadline: 15 September 2015

General theme

Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS) today is a discipline that has accumulated a
large body of knowledge, both theoretical and empirical, about translation and
interpreting. Starting from the last decade of the twentieth century, TIS has also
overcome its original focus on the praxis and theories of translation and interpreting in
Europe and North America and embraced postcolonial approaches. Yet there is another
step to be made – a methodology for overcoming area-restricted isolationism needs to be
developed.
Today, translation/interpreting practices and their theoretical conceptualizations are
limited to a specific language combination, a country or, at most, a region. This restricted
view, however, is only an ancillary stage which should lead to a generalized comparative
study of translation/interpreting.
The history of the humanities shows that, after isolated attempts to understand a
particular phenomenon in its diverse (period- or locale-specific) manifestations, there
comes a stage of consolidated comparative and typological studies of all discovered
varieties. A comparative-cum-typological approach allows a bringing into relief of both
shared and idiosyncratic features so that they can be appreciated as a continuum
uninterrupted by artificial regional and temporal boundaries, thereby offering an
opportunity to observe the studied phenomenon in the entirety of its manifestations. Thus,
the nature of language has been understood better with the help of
comparative/contrastive linguistics; the nature of literature, with the help of comparative
literature studies. Robert Marsh justified the development of a comparative branch in
sociology in the following way: ―The fundamental reason why more attention should be
given to comparative research and analysis is that sociological theory has been developed
in one rather small corner of the world and may therefore be highly limited as a universal
explanatory scheme.‖ This rationale seems to be applicable to TIS as well.
So far, no all-encompassing and methodologically consistent approach to research has
been attempted in TIS. At best, different diachronic and synchronic manifestations of
translation have been merely juxtaposed. The special issue ―Toward a Comparative
Translation and Interpreting Studies‖ aims to outline the foundation for the comparative
branch of TIS. No doubt, creating such a branch is a long-term and daunting project. Yet
one can hope that with the ever-growing sense of community among translation scholars
and researchers worldwide, what is lacking is a coordinated effort that will bring together
all the varied expertise available and launch a new direction of research in translation
studies—Comparative Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS).

Suggested topics

We welcome theoretical papers on the methodological aspects/issues of CTIS and

empirical studies comparing practices and theories of translation/interpreting in different
societies and cultures. We welcome papers exploring both pros and cons of creating CTIS.
We hope to address the following and similar questions:
I. Is TIS mature enough as a discipline to undertake comparative studies? And also: Can
TIS become mature enough without undertaking comparative studies?
II. Is the insularity of translation/interpreting research—whether geographical or
temporal—epistemologically problematic? Are comparative studies feasible/promising?
III. What can the relationship between regional/case studies and more generalizing,
comparative studies be? To what extent is W. H. Goodenough‘s insistence on keeping
ethnography and comparative sociology apart because an ethnographer is constructing a
theory that will make intelligible what goes on in a particular social universe, while a
comparatist is trying to find principles common to many different universes, mutatis
mutandis, applicable to translation/interpreting studies?
IV. Can chronotopically-specific studies help researchers fathom the generalizability of
identified translational phenomena? Based on a comparison of time- and space-specific
findings, can a typology of translation/interpreting be developed? What axes of the quest
for types can be proposed or explored: different types of translation/interpreting praxis?
different types of translation/interpreting descriptions and/or prescriptions, social and
cultural representations, histories and historiographies, theories and conceptualizations of
translation/interpreting? the roles assumed by or ascribed to translation/interpreting?
V. What might the methodological and conceptual ‗nitty-gritty‘ of CTIS look like?

Timeline for authors

CFP issued 15 April 2015

Abstracts (400-500 words) due to guest 15 September 2015
editors
Decisions on abstracts 15 October 2015
Submission of full manuscripts 15 April 2016
Decisions to authors 15 August 2016
Final version of paper due (based on reviews) 15 December 2016
Final versions of papers to journal from guest 15 January 2017
editors
Publication of special issue Summer 2017 (Issue two of 2017)

Submission instructions

Articles will be 5500–7000 words in length, in English (excluding of references).

Abstracts of 400-500 words should be sent to the guest editors at sergeytlnv@gmail.com
and binghan.zheng@durham.ac.uk.