The considerations that follow ought to be short in order to be efficient. They are an invitation to all readers to do their homework in order to (re)discover translation in our contemporary culture without losing contact with traditions or more tradi
tional thinking. They provide a task rather than any so-called truth. Let us try to find out where, how, why, to what extent, etc. translations are indeed different from what they are supposed to be and may have been so far, and let us then redefine our approach to the matter, whatever our particular goals are. The answer will probably teach us as much on ourselves as on the topic dealt with, but this is not really the first issue. The real pragmatic goal is to deal better with translations, as scholars, but probably also as translators, teachers, linguists, managers, etc. But let us first talk to insiders, i.e. to experts in matters of translations. Furtheron it might become obvious that more is needed.
It is not for the first time that I deal with the mobility of communication, nor with the (too) static approaches applied to communication by scholars. I have dealt in a similar spirit with the case of literature, language and translation. In this short dis
cussion I want to improve the flexibility of scholarly/theoretical work in different cul
tural situations. What we need is open workshops rather than clearcut statements that are dogmatic by definition. The question: “How relevant are our theoretical models?” is fully incompatible with many kinds of (isolated) theoretical thinking. We need each other in order to take action in the area of translation (studies): the solip
sism of theoreticians who offer perfect and ideal models seems to have become alien to this world.
Let us start by an optimistic note.
Although there are still many misunderstandings about translation theory and its exact function(s), either from the point of view of society/translators or from the point of view of scholarship, the contemporary situation in theoretical thinking about translation seems to have made a real progress, at least among experts worldwide (though probably not within society itself, i.e. among the laymen, where contacts with scholarship and expertise are still not accepted as a need). More intelligent and well-informed books are available than ever, and many specialists are convinced that interaction between experts and their backgrounds is needed (true, machine transla
tion, according to many among its advocates, has still little to do with “translation”
as defined by translation studies).
It is more accepted than before that theoretical statements need to be supported by evidence in order to be taken seriously. The need for scholarly and empirical/descrip
tive evidence is not yet accepted by all members of the translation world, but it has
Jósé Lambert
gained at least a reasonable degree of recognition. In terms of scholarship, transla
tion studies, though very young, is sometimes better off than other disciplines in the Humanities where wishful thinking and ideology (or politics) are often stronger arguments than scholarly evidence. One of the indications that there is some progress may be that the possible simultaneous coexistence and relevance of several theoreti
cal models is not necessarily considered to be embarrassing.
The idea of a totalitarian all-encompassing explanation of the translation phe
nomenon has not disappeared at all. The distinction between different possible theo
ries that may have very different goals (one may claim to account for relevance in very specific areas only, the other may be much more general; one may offer a prospective basis for future translations, the other may explain existing translations) is not often enough accepted as an evidence, but universalistic thinking is much less widespread than in the 1960's.
The idea that theories are part of history and culture, that they are object of research as much as translators’ activities or translations has been integrated into translation studies rather recently. Many theoreticians, in a way similar to translators (and interpreters) dislike to be an object of study: they hate to be questioned. Others insist on the need for evidence, and evidence in one case, or even in many cases, does not guarantee any universality. The very fact that many colleagues still do not distin
guish between normative theories on the one hand and “descriptive” ones (or research oriented ones) on the other hand is still a remnant of previous ages to the extent that it supports the belief in one universal model.
One of the other indicators of some progress in our state of the art is the fact that methodology has developed in research, including research training: when a given investigation fails to provide convincing results, this is not necessarily due to bad theories, it may be due to the selection of the wrong model in a given situation, or to a non-systematic approach during the investigation. It may be an accident.
In many cases theoreticians have stressed themselves under what conditions their models have good chances to prove efficient, while stressing their own background, the development of their own insights and/or the parameters used. The degree of rel
ativism in their theoretical solutions to concrete problems has also become manifest in the number and the scope of their parameters, especially in the case of the so-called functional approaches, where the starting point has become: “When, why, how, etc.
do societies need translations? And to what extent does the very reason why people translate influence the translation process or the perception and reception of transla
tions?”
But in all intellectual disciplines theoretical explanations have obvious and inevi
table shortcomings, given the limited experience of the human beings that observe and analyse culture. In the case of many contemporary activities and products linked with communication, such shortcomings have excellent chances to become spectac
ular, due to the increasing speed of technological progress. In recent times, many attempts have been made to integrate the new communication world into the train
ing of translators and interpreters and also into the realm of research. It seems how
ever that the impact of the new media and communication society on languages and translation is still largely underestimated, in particular because our very concepts appear to be - at least partly - outdated. And, as we may guess, such concepts are the result of implicit or explicit theoretical thinking.
Plenary Lectures
I shall first indicate in a short way where exactly our (dominant/traditional) views need to be updated, differenciated or simply revised.
Given the socio-cultural changes in our contemporary society, in particular those related with the new (printed/electronic) media channels, we may wonder whether:
• translation theories deal (too much) with bilateral translations, i.e. with transla
tions from LI into L2;
• translation theories deal (too much) with written/printed texts;
• with the translation from printed into other printed messages;
• with translations from one country into another country;
• and, hence, from one given national language into another national language (rather than from a given language variety/level/discourse) into another lan
guage variety/level/discourse;
• with single texts rather than with text series and text production;
• with a given “original” to be translated from the beginning to the end, rather than with the instructions of the commissionner and his audiences;
• with individual translators and/or their intentions;
• with translators as writers, and not as agents in large(r) teams;
• in terms of individuals rather than in terms of (complexes of) target groups;
• with translators as decision makers and not as some of the many partners in a business/organizational chain who work on the basis of implicit (and explicit, not necessarily written) instructions, i.e. as employees who support a corporate (rather than a national) identity;
• with translators who take themselves as translators, and not as ... employees who want to make money;
• with technicians (who understand a lot about machines, chemistry, law and/or biology) rather than linguists;
• and not enough in terms of demands and expectations that are never fully con
scious;
• in terms of fidelity/faithfulness rather than as communication (with given goals);
• in terms of language rather than as communication;
• in terms of interdisciplinarity, and rather from within academic institutions.
Many other new options and features might be mentioned here. This is not the issue. The question is rather whether we take sufficiently into consideration that mes
sages are ordered, produced, distributed, used along channels and by agents that are quite new. The area of translation cannot be disconnected from internationalisation, mediatisation, privatisation, etc. True, many bilingual/multilingual messages are still the result of very traditional patterns. This is why the full list of the above statements requires simple but realistic observation. The question is not whether they are right or wrong, but much more to what kind of situations they apply. From the moment we have discovered where and when exactly our traditional (theoretical) wisdom keeps working well, we shall be better in harmony with the world that we want to co
organize.
It might turn out however that some of the statements, or many among them, also apply to previous ages. In such a case our questions deserve to become more ambi
tious. It is not sure at all indeed that translators from the past have really been as
Jósé Lambert
conscious and invidual and efficient and specific as many among us have represented them.
But in all cases from past and present historical-empirical evidence may help us to distinguish between more/less relevant paradigms. From the point of view of con
temporary world culture, it might be fascinating to establish where, how, why etc.
traditional rather than the new paradigms do apply.
Among translation experts, one of the well-established replies to theoretial quar
rels has often been the movement away from theory of any kind. This can never be the real way out, since it is another theory. In case we want to play any role in the production, use, organization, teaching or observation or study of translations, we need to understand how exactly they work. This requires an intellectual approach and the willingness to test out, to revise and to improve our concepts.
The above statements are not basically in contradiction with the established theo
ries, at least not with those where culture - and, hence, the mobility of cultures - is a central issue. The experienced reader will notice where exactly most or all of them need revision and reformulation. It would be relevant to quote in a separate bibli
ography most of the basic books on translation that have been published since the 1960’s. But I can as well drop any theoretical or methodological bibliographical ref
erence since none of them is excluded.