TL;DR: Quick Summary of the Emergence of Translation Studies as a Discipline
Translation Studies is a relatively new academic field dedicated to understanding translating and translations. Its emergence as a distinct discipline, or "disciplinary utopia," faced challenges like finding a proper name, establishing a clear scope, and building dedicated communication channels. Pioneering scholars like James S. Holmes identified these impediments, paving the way for its recognition and development as a scientific field in its own right.
The Emergence of Translation Studies as a Discipline: A New Academic Frontier
The emergence of Translation Studies as a discipline marks a significant shift in how we approach the complex world of translating and translations. For decades, a new "disciplinary utopia" has been taking shape around this phenomenon, moving beyond incidental scholarly attention to establish a scientific field in its own right. This article explores the journey of Translation Studies, from its nascent beginnings to its current status, highlighting the challenges and developments that shaped its path.
How New Disciplines Take Shape: A Sociological View
New scientific disciplines often emerge from existing fields when new problems arise that current paradigms cannot fully address. As Michael Mulkay pointed out, "science tends to proceed by means of discovery of new areas of ignorance" (1972:136). This process typically involves researchers from adjacent areas applying existing models to newly identified problems.
In some cases, a problem proves amenable to existing paradigms, and it's then absorbed as a branch of an established field. However, in other situations, the existing models fail to produce sufficient results, leading researchers to realize that new methods are needed. This second scenario creates tension between researchers and their former fields.
This tension can gradually lead to the establishment of new communication channels and the development of what W.O. Hagstrom termed a "disciplinary utopia." This utopia represents a new sense of shared interest, common problems, approaches, and objectives among a new grouping of researchers. Hagstrom notes these steps allow scientists to "identify with the emerging discipline and to claim legitimacy for their point of view" (1972:123) within academia and society.
Translation Studies: From Scattered Interest to a Dedicated Discipline
For centuries, the phenomenon of translating and translations received only "incidental and desultory attention" from a scattering of authors, philologians, literary scholars, and occasionally theologians or linguists. However, this changed significantly after the Second World War, which served as a turning point, ushering in a "marked and constant increase" in scholarly interest.
The Influx of Scholars and Early Challenges for Translation Studies
As interest in translation solidified and expanded, more and more scholars moved into the field. These researchers came particularly from linguistics, linguistic philosophy, and literary studies, but also from seemingly more remote disciplines like information theory, logic, and mathematics. Each brought their own paradigms, models, and methodologies.
At first glance, this influx led to a situation of "great confusion," with no consensus on models, methods, terminology, or even the basic contours of the field itself. Scholars were not even agreed on the very name for this new field of research. Nevertheless, beneath this superficial level, indications suggested that Hagstrom’s "disciplinary utopia" was indeed taking shape for the field focusing on translating and translations. This development is considered salutary, making it worthwhile to address impediments consciously.
Naming the Emerging Field: The Quest for a Proper Designation in Translation Studies
One of the main impediments to the crystallization of Translation Studies as a scientific discipline was the confusion surrounding its proper designation. Continuing to refer to the discipline solely by its subject matter, "translation," was deemed unwise because, as General Semanticists remind us, "the map... is not the territory." Failing to distinguish the two could only lead to further confusion.
Why a Proper Name Matters for Academic Disciplines
Through the years, diverse terms have been used to describe the study of translation, such as "the art" or "the craft" of translation, as well as its "principles," "fundamentals," or "philosophy." These choices often reflected the writer's attitude, point of approach, or background, or simply the scholarly fashion of the moment. However, for a burgeoning scientific discipline, a distinct and appropriate name is crucial for identity and clarity.
Early Attempts at Naming and the Debate Over "Translatology"
There were a few attempts to create more "learned" terms, many utilizing the highly active disciplinary suffix "-ology." Roger Goffin, for instance, suggested the designation "translatology" in English (Goffin 1971, p.59). This term, however, faced rejection from purists. Their objection stemmed from the "contamination" of a Greek suffix ("-ology") with a root derived not even from Classical Latin, but from Late Latin in the case of translatio, which was considered etymologically inconsistent.
Overcoming Other Impediments and Paving the Way for Translation Studies' Future
Beyond the naming issue, another significant impediment to the development of this disciplinary utopia was the lack of appropriate communication channels. For researchers in the field, existing channels often ran via older disciplines, which imposed their own norms regarding models, methods, and terminology. As a result, papers on translation were dispersed across periodicals in a wide variety of scholarly fields and journals for practicing translators.
It became clear that there was a critical need for new communication channels. These channels would cut across traditional disciplines to reach all scholars working in the field of translation, regardless of their academic background. Addressing these systemic issues is vital for the continued growth and legitimization of Translation Studies as a comprehensive and coherent academic discipline.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about Translation Studies' Emergence
What is a "disciplinary utopia" in the context of emerging academic fields?
A "disciplinary utopia" refers to a new sense of shared interest in a common set of problems, approaches, and objectives among a new grouping of researchers. It signifies the collective identity and legitimacy of an emerging academic discipline, enabling its recognition by universities and society.
Why was "translatology" rejected as a name for the discipline?
The term "translatology," proposed by Roger Goffin, was rejected by purists due to its mixed etymology. It combines a Greek suffix ("-ology") with a root from Late Latin ("translatio"), which was considered an inconsistent "contamination" of linguistic origins.
When did scholarly interest in translation significantly increase and why?
Scholarly interest in translation saw a "marked and constant increase" after the Second World War. This period acted as a turning point from centuries of only incidental attention, bringing a surge of researchers from various fields to study the complex problems of translating.
What were the main impediments to Translation Studies becoming a recognized discipline?
James S. Holmes identified two primary impediments: (a) the confusion regarding its proper designation or name, and (b) the lack of general consensus on the scope and structure of the emerging discipline. A third significant hurdle was the absence of dedicated communication channels.
What academic fields contributed to the emergence of Translation Studies?
Scholars from a wide array of disciplines contributed, including linguistics, linguistic philosophy, literary studies, information theory, logic, and mathematics. They brought their existing paradigms and methodologies to help understand the new and complex problems associated with translation.