01 Chesterman.pmd puede ofrecer algunasherramientasconceptualesmuyútiles. rentes niveles,conelfindeencontrarexplicaciones generales.Ladisciplinadelamemética permitan proponerycomprobarhipótesissobre lasrelaciones decausalidadentre losdife- a estosniveles. Podemos comenzarcreando vínculos conceptuales ymetafóricosquenos problema radicaencómorelacionar losdiferentes marcos yafirmacionesqueseproponen distinguir almenoscuatronivelesteóricos:lingüístico,cognitivo, sociológicoycultural.El teorías ylíneasdeinvestigación.Un modelogeneralycausaldetraducciónnospermite terdisciplinar delosestudiostraducciónhadificultadolarelación entre lasdiferentes aunque hastaahorahayaexistidomásfragmentaciónqueconvergencia.Lanaturalezain- hacia “” losintentosdedefinirespacioscomunesentre losdiferentes enfoques, más generales.Enlosestudiosdetraducciónpodemosconsiderarsignosunatendencia búsqueda devínculosentre losdiferentes camposcientíficosyasíestablecerteoríascadavez mente hasidorecuperado porelsociobiólogoE.O. Wilson paraprecisar ypromover la “Consilience” esunviejotérminoquesignificaunidaddeconocimientoyreciente- RESUMEN KEY principles. tory The disciplineofmemeticsmayoffersomeusefulconceptualtools. generalexplana- about causalityrelations acrossdifferent levels,inthehopeoffindingvery tual andmetaphoricalbridges. These mightthenenableustoproposetestablehypotheses frameworks thatare proposedatthesedifferent levels. We concep- byconstructing canstart sociological, andcultural. The problemishow torelate toeachotherthevariousclaimsand of translationallows ustodistinguish atleastfourtheoretical levels: linguistic,cognitive, made itdifficulttorelate different theoriesandresearch traditions.Ageneralcausalmodel fragmentation thanconvergence. The nature oftranslationstudiesasan interdiscipline has define shared groundbetweendifferent approaches.So far, though,wehaveseenmore In translationstudies,evidenceofatrend towards consiliencecanbefoundinattemptsto between different scientificfields,inthehopeofestablishingincreasingly generaltheories. by thesociobiologist E.O. Wilson, andpromotethesearchforlinks inorder tocrystallize “Consilience” isanoldword meaningtheunityofknowledge. It hasbeenrecently revived ABSTRACT memética. PALABRAS

WORDS

CLAVE : Consilience,interdiscipline, causality, bridgeconcept,paradigm,memetics. CONSILIENCE IN TRANSLATION STUDIES : “consilience” R EVISTA C 19 ANARIA

, DE interdisciplina, causalidad,conceptospuente, paradigma, E Andrew Chesterman STUDIOS Helsingin Yliopisto I NGLESES , 51;noviembre 2005,pp. 19-32 14/12/2005, 8:46

CONSILIENCE IN TRANSLATION STUDIES 19 01 Chesterman.pmd

ANDREW CHESTERMAN 20 how tosliceupinstitutionalcakes. builtout They are thussociologicalconstructs, represent God-given categoriesofknowledge somuchastraditionalagreements on by consideringmore closelythenotionofaninterdiscipline. helpful wayofthinkingaboutthecurrent stateoftranslationstudies?Letusstart right direction, moves thathelpadisciplinetoevolve.Couldtheideaprovide a thing tobedesired andstrivenfor. Moves towards consilienceare moves inthe and . ries inthesearchforadeeperunderstandingofrelations between texts,societies modern translationstudiesannouncesitselfasanewattempttocutacross bounda- is precisely thisinterdisciplinarity thatisthestrength ofthefield.Asaninterdiscipline, orculturalstudies.Fromtics andliterary theconsiliencepointofview, however, it a signofitsimmaturity, ofitsinsecure position,balanceduneasilybetweenlinguis- a commonplacetosaythattranslationstudiesisaninterdiscipline. For some,thisis out, themostpowerful explanationsare oftenthosethatrelate different fields. ciplines...), aboutcrossing boundariesbetweentraditionalfields.As Wilson points humanities. Consilienceisallaboutinterdisciplines (ortransdisciplinesorpluridis- argues thatbiologyitselfisthekeydisciplinelinkingnaturalscienceswith interdiscipline, sittingasidetheborder between biologyandsociology. He actually also withthehumanities,isofamazingscopeandvision. out thewaysinwhichdifferent sciencescanbelinked,notonlywitheachotherbut Darwin’s ideas.(See e.g.Dennett, whichisactually based onamisunderstandingof rise ofso-calledsocialdarwinism, win’s ofevolutiontosocialandculturalchange.He theory isnotresponsible forthe social behaviourofhumanbeings.In particular, Wilson hassoughttoapplyDar- which usesideasandhypothesesderived from biologytoexamineandexplainthe Wilson isperhapsmostfamoustodayasthefounderofsciencesociobiology, 1998. Althoughhefirstmadehisscientificreputation asanauthorityonants, scientific progress. Cantheideastillberelevant inthesepostmoderntimes? marked by bothhumanism andoptimism,abeliefinthepossibilityofhuman the fore duringtheEnlightenmentperiodinEurope, Aperiod inthe18thcentury: the word isthenotionofunityallknowledge. to This notionwasparticularly cept itrepresents are older, goingbackallthewaytoAncientGreece. Underlying use inEnglish apparently datesbacktothe19thcentury, buttherootsofcon- What isadiscipline?Disciplines are institutionalcreations. They donot I amthusassumingthatconsilienceis,orwouldbe,aGood Thing, some- What istherelevance ofallthisfortranslationstudies?It hasnow become It issignificantthat Wilson’s own field,sociobiology, emergedasan Edward O. Wilson’s bookonthesubject,entitled Consilience isanoldword. Literally, itmeans“jumpingtogether.” Its first 20 2. INTERDISCIPLINARITY 1. CONSILIENCE Darwin’s ; Segerstråle). Wilson’s attempttosketch 14/12/2005, 8:46 Consilience , appeared in 01 Chesterman.pmd nally from andlogic—orevenifwe needtheconceptatall.One may Schäffner). Andwe stillcannotagree how todefineequivalence, whichcomesorigi- scholars stilldisagree how theconceptshouldbedefinedandinterpreted (see is theconceptofnorms,comingfrom sociologyandsociolinguistics. Translation lation research butgivendifferent interpretations bydifferent scholars:anexample ism” inphilosophy(seeHalverson, “Fault”). Terms canalsobeborrowed into trans- misinterpretedappears thatatonepointIhave whatismeantby“essential- partly comes from myown workontheconceptualframework oftranslationstudies.It but where keytermsare infactgiven adifferent interpretation. Anexampleofthis translation research ontheassumptionthattheyhave beencorrectly understood, and tested. methodological problemsthatneedtobesolvedasthequestionnaire isprepared questionnaire studyonclient-translatorrelations withoutbeingaware ofallthe feel mostathome.For outasociological instance,atranslationscholarmightcarry may lackappropriatemethodologicaltraininginfieldsotherthantheonewhere we derstanding oftheoriginalcontextinwhichtheseconceptswere developed. We by anadequateun- notsupported fer labels.Ourapplicationsremain superficial, and methodsfrom more established disciplines,weactuallydonomore thantrans- unites them—atleastintheinitialstages(cf. Klein71-73). may suffer, aspeoplestress whatseparatesdifferent approachesmore thanwhat own corners,andcommunicationbetween different particular sectionsofthefield it difficulttodevelopanoverall coherent theory. Scholarstendtofocusontheir may alsoshow alackofintegrationandtheshared goal. This inturnmakes tions ofdatawithinthesamefield,thismaybeasignlifeandexcitement butit new field.Ifthere isapluralityofmethods,theoretical frameworks andconcep- field isaniconicreflection ofitsobject. nature objectofstudyistranslation:theinterdisciplinary ofour field whosevery tween thempossible,andthusaddsvalue. This isanunusuallyaptmetaphorfora “translates” between neighbouringfields,makescommunicationandexchange be- geneous phenomena(Klein).AsMcCarty pointsout,anyinterdiscipline actually nature ofmuchresearch,ploratory especiallyofresearch intocomplexandhetero- from perspective.In anew sodoing,interdisciplines remind usoftheex- edge, preventing itfrom interdiscipline stagnating.Eachnew asksustolookat solutions tocomplexproblems. They thusrejuvenate theoverall fieldofknowl- think indifferent ways. They allow kindsofquestions,andtoseek ustoposenew have justmentionedtheexample ofsociobiology. of existingones,andsoatfirsttheyinevitablyhavethenature ofinterdisciplines. I within academia.Historically, disciplineshaveoftenemergedattheinterface new knowledge grows andspreads butalsoaspower relations andreputations change power relationships andthepressure ofhistory. New disciplinesemergenotonlyas of shared discourseconventions. Their creation andmaintenancehave todowith An associatedriskcanoccurwhenconceptsandtheoriesare appliedin A more seriousproblem isthe riskthat,inborrowing theoretical concepts Interdisciplinarity alsohasitsnegative sides.Oneisthefragmentationofa borders theystraddle,challengingusto thevery These newfieldsquery 21 14/12/2005, 8:46

CONSILIENCE IN TRANSLATION STUDIES 21 01 Chesterman.pmd

ANDREW CHESTERMAN 22 case), of overlooking totheborrowing whatisparticular field(translationstudies,inthis therisk ontheotherhand,mayrun (suchasrelevance theory), ing awholetheory that translationscholarswhoborrow theconceptmightnotsubscribeto. Borrow- Quine’s notionofindeterminacy, whichhasimplicationsconcerningtheorizability assumptions andimplicationsoftheborrowed concepts.She citestheexampleof emphasizes theproblem ofnotknowing enoughaboutthebackgroundcontext, ways! fields have borrowing madeoftranslationstudies—interdisciplinary cangoboth research inotherdisciplines.Onthehand,we mightalsoaskwhatuseother also asktowhatextenttranslationscholarshaveactuallymadeuseofthefindings identity, genderissues,postcolonialism,andideology. We haveseentheflourishing e.g. Bassnett &Lefevere). Translations were seeninrelation toissuesofcultural they do. ortypicaltranslationslooktheway toexplainwhyparticular description, andtry a muchwidercontext. We alsoneedawidercontextifwe seektogobeyond equivalence. Text-based research isstillcentral,ofcourse,butthisnow seenin the relation betweentranslationsthemselvesandtheirsource texts,therelation of reaction againsttext-boundresearch methodswhichtraditionallytookascentral and “ studies” approaches. This dichotomyarose (inthe West) from a Perhaps themoststrikingdivisionhasbeenthatbetween“linguistic” approaches we haveseenrathermore fragmentationthanconsilience,untilfairlyrecently. towards buildingconsilience. viduals. Collaborationacross different fieldswouldseemtobe agoodfirststep Unfortunately,expertise. mostresearch intranslationstudiesisstilldonebyindi- research doneinteamswhosemembershave different backgroundsanddifferent metaphorical level. Translation thuscontributestothestudyofinterdisciplinarity, theory atleastthe Like McCarty, Kleinalsocompares borrowers interdisciplinary totranslators(93). On theotherhand,borrowers are interpreters, creating linksbetween disciplines. ments, orrely toomuchonasingleperspective.Borrowers tendtosimplify, infact. borrower assumes. The borrower mayoverlook evidenceandargu- contradictory already beoutofdateintheiroriginaldiscipline,ormaylessreliable thanthe theories andconcepts. borrowing ofitsown, fieldtodevelop andthentobecomealsoalenderof atheory take-over,may encourageakindofinterdisciplinary abolishingtheneedfor not With respect tothe“limitedborrowing” ofconceptsortools,Malmkjaer The mostobvious kindofwider contextwasoffered by culture studies(see Largely becauseofitsnature asaninterdiscipline, intranslationstudies One goodwaytocountertheserisksseemsbeviacollaboration,with Klein listssomeadditionalproblems(88). The borrowed conceptsmay covered bythelendingone.Furthermore, thiskindoftotalborrowing 22 3. FOURSPHERES OFRESEARCH 14/12/2005, 8:46 01 Chesterman.pmd be significant,inthattheyexplicitlymakelinksbetween different spheres. another, andoverlaps are common.AsIshallillustratebelow, overlaps caninfact rated, there isofcoursemuchresearch thatcannotbeplacedeasilyintooneboxor relations between centre andperiphery, power, andethics. Central issuesare questionsofideology, culturalidentityandperception,values, on thetransferofculturalcapitalbetween different repertoires orpolysystems. actions. thus onpeopleandtheirobservable both humanandnon-humanresources (seee.g.Mossop). The sociologicalfocusis Between these twocomemanydifferent work phasesinvolving interactionwith ing withtheclient’s request foratranslationandendingwithpaymentofthefee. and what Toury (249)hascalledthetranslationevent. This canbedefinedasstart- roles oftranslatorsandthetranslator’s profession,translatingasasocialpractice, andotherpatronsoragents,thesocialstatus played by thepublishingindustry nitive processing,whichisinferred fromobservation. the routine ornon-routine qualityofthetranslationtask. The focusisonthecog- andattitudes,theamountofprofessional experience,thetimeavailable, processes inthetranslator’s mind, intheinfluenceofsuchfactorsastranslator’s kind. generalfeatures oftranslationsastextsadistinctive finding universalorvery concepts suchasequivalence, naturalnessandfluency, andinthepossibilityof texts, andparallelnon-translatedtextsinthetargetlanguage.It isthusinterested in oral form;textualresearch looksattherelations betweentranslations,theirsource cognitive, thesociologicalandcultural. spheres or levelsorfociofresearch.complementary These are: thetextual, fields, linguisticsandculture studies,Iproposeaconceptualmapconsistingoffour socials lation —seee.g.Hermans orthespecialissueof Across enon, suchasresearch usingthink-aloudprotocols.(See e.g.thespecialissueof actually leaves out.It leaves outthestudyoftranslationasacognitivephenom- A secondreason tocriticizethisoversimplified pictureistheamountofresearch it cultural one—foreachshedslightontheother(seee.g.Baker; Pym; Tymoczko). other: weneedbothperspectives—boththemicro,textualoneandmacro, Forservice. onething,itobscures thefactthatboththeseapproachesneedeach “modern” culturalapproaches. this development asaconflict between“old-fashioned” linguisticapproachesand norm theory. Some oftheleadingscholarsthis“cultural turn” tendedtopresent of polysystemtheory, themanipulationschool,descriptivetranslationstudies,and 3.1(2002).)Anditalsoomitsmentionofresearch onthesociologyoftrans- 144(2002). Although thesefourareas oftranslationstudiescanthusberoughlysepa- On theculturallevel, finally, thefocusisonideas(ormemes,ifyou like), Sociological research looksatsuchtopicsasthetranslation market,therole Research onthecognitivedimensionisinterested inthedecision-making The textuallevelfocusesontextsthemselves,aslinguisticdatainwrittenor In fact,ratherthanclassifytranslationresearch asfallingintotwoopposing But topresent translationstudiesasthussplitintotwodoesusalladis- 23 Actes dela recherche ensciences 14/12/2005, 8:46

CONSILIENCE IN TRANSLATION STUDIES 23 01 Chesterman.pmd

ANDREW CHESTERMAN 24 papers Ishallrefer touseacausalmodelthatexplicitlyincorporates more thanoneof e.g. Williams &Chesterman,chapter3). the spread ofan ideology, whatever. (For more ontypesoftheoretical models, see even onreaders’ perceptions oftheirculturalidentity, ontheirnative language,on behaviour ofreaders orgroupsthen perhapsontheobservable ofreaders, andthen the effectsthattranslationsthemselves cause:firstonthecognitive statesofreaders, selves determinede.g.bycommercial values. Similar causalchainscanbeset up for governing translationwork ofthiskindinsocietyattime,whichare them- deadline;theclientspecifiedtheseconditionsbecauseofnorms ridiculously short she took;thetranslatorworked likethatbecauseoftheclient’s andthe instructions features, becauseofthewaythistranslatorworkedanddecisionsthat particular outside thetranslation.For instance:thistranslationislikethis,itcontainsthese tions. Causalmodelsusuallyrelate textualfeatures oftranslationstosomefeatures provide anexplicitframework forinvestigating thecausesandeffectsoftransla- that have mosttocontributetheachievementofconsilience.Causalmodels explicit linkagebetween different levelsorspheres, and itisthesemodels,therefore, Chesterman & Wagner, chapter6). final product willbeofacceptablequality. (For adiscussionofthesestandards, see detail, ontheassumptionthatifvarious phasesare carriedout correctly the and DINstandards, forinstance,specifyaspectsofthetranslationprocess ingreat causal relationship betweentheprocess andthefinalproduct. International ISO time scales. They mightbecalled different phases ofthetemporalprocess, inidentifyingsequences,albeitusingvery above. These dynamicmodelsare interested inidentifyingcharacteristicpointsor solving, andthephasesofsociologicaltranslationevent thatImentioned briefly cal phasesofthetranslationprocess (e.g.Sager); thephases ofcognitiveproblem- ess takingplaceover time.Examplesare thevarious proposals concerningthetypi- process universals. (See e.g.thespecialissueof studies comparingtranslationsandparalleltexts,inthesearch fortranslation tween twosetsoftextualdata. The samebasickindofmodelisusedincorpus see whattendstocorrespond towhat. We are infactlookingforcorrelations be- study therelations betweenthetwo. We lookforsimilaritiesanddifferences, and we haveasource text(orsentence,oritem)andontheotheratargettext,we are notexplicitlycausal.Most ofthemare static, implicitly formuchlonger. played anexplicitrole intranslation research, althoughithasofcoursebeen present research isviathe notion ofcausality. It isonlyrelatively recently thatcausalityhas models. They conceptualizetranslation—orrathertranslating—asaproc- Let uslookbrieflyattworecent examplesofresearch oncausality. Boththe It isonlythe Some linguisticmodels,andmostcognitive andsociologicalmodels,are The modelsoftranslationthatare usedinlinguistic,text-basedapproaches One productivewayofforginglinksbetweenthesedifferent spheres of 24 causal models,however, thatallow, and indeedrequire, an 4. CAUSALITY implicitly Meta , 43.4(1998). causal,fortheyobviouslyassumea comparative 14/12/2005, 8:46 models.Ononeside 01 Chesterman.pmd now atsomeotherbridgeconcepts. tions, andthusprovides onewayofmoving towards consilience.Letustakealook between phenomena atdifferent levels. Indeed, itforcesustoseetheseconnec- ally richexplanationsofsomeherdata. call thesociologicalsphere. Brownlie appeals toallfourlevels,offeringexception- below);cultural (seefurther andher“intersectingfields” are ofwhatIwould part her “textuality” corresponds tomy textualsphere; socialandpartly normsare partly nitive (attitudes)andpartlysociological (theimmediatecontextofproduction); publishing, professionaltranslation).Brownlie’s “individualsituation” cog- ispartly tions, intertextual relations);tions, intertextual situations hesions, omissions,andotherstrategies.Her levels ofcausalityare: sophical texts. The features examinedincludepreferences concerningfluency, co- features ofherdata—English translations,bydifferent translators,ofFrench philo- els ofcausality, andappealstothemallinheranalysis explanationofvarious tigating Explanationsof Translation Phenonema.” Brownlie distinguishesfour lev- textual andthecognitive,isfirstcorrelational andthen(perhaps)causal. tive explanationtoaccountforthiscorrelation. The linkbetweenthetwospheres, the (textual) equivalence typeand(cognitive)processingtime,thenproposes acogni- symbolswithanattachedmeaning.So shefirstfindsacorrelationas arbitrary between too) store andaccesssuchconventionalmetaphorsviatheconceptuallevel, notsimply claim isthattheseresults indicatethattranslators(andhenceperhapsotherpeople minds andproduced amore normalbutdifferently mappedversion.Mandelblit’s (samemapping)versionseven thoughtheysubsequentlychangedtheir congruent cantly, underthedifferent mappingcondition,severalofhersubjectsfirstoffered prisingly, thissecondtypeseemstotakelongertranslatethanthefirsttype.Signifi- son temps/She isbehindthetimes main ofthemetaphorchangesinprototypicaltranslation(example: lentement lent metaphorinthetargetlanguage(example: the metaphorinsourcelanguageusessameconceptualdomainasequiva- different intranslation.In kindsofconventionalmetaphoricalstructures somecases, which isdesignedtoaccountforthedifference inthereaction timeneededtoprocess work ofcognitivegrammar, Mandelblit proposesa“cognitive translation” hypothesis, Metaphor andIts Implications for Translation Theory.” Using theanalyticalframe- the textualandcognitive, by Nili Cognitive Mandelblit,View entitled“The of my proposedfourlevelsorspheres. First, apaperdealingwiththerelation between studies viaEven-Zohar’s work oncultural transfer, buttheyare alsocentralnotions A goodexampleistheconceptof Causality isthusa“bridgeconcept,”inthatitenablesus toseeconnections My secondexampleisarecent paperbySiobhan Brownlie, entitled “Inves- ); thisisthe“same In othercases,theconceptualdo- mappingcondition.” (contextofproduction,translator’s attitudes); 25 5. BRIDGECONCEPTS norms oftranslationnorms ); thisisthe“different mappingcondition.”Unsur- Time ispassingslowly /Letempspasse norm ; and . Norms entered translation intersecting fields textuality 14/12/2005, 8:46 (stylisticconven- the individual Elle n’est pasde (academia,

CONSILIENCE IN TRANSLATION STUDIES 25 01 Chesterman.pmd

ANDREW CHESTERMAN 26 to otherspheres. reactions, responses and repercussions are alsobridgeconcepts,linkingthetextual changes innorms,theperception ofculturalstereotypes. Thus defined, work, changesintheevolution ofthetargetlanguage, the canonizationofaliterary level, we mightthenspeakof“repercussions.” Examplesofrepercussions mightbe is whatareader actuallydoes. To describetheeffectsoftranslationsatcultural feedback asaneditor. So areaction iswhat areader thinksorfeels,andaresponse Responses wouldincludecriticalones,suchaswritingatranslation review orgiving vidual orgroupbehaviour, i.e.onthesociallevel, wemightspeakof“responses.” we might use theterm“reactions.” To refer totheeffectsoftranslationsonindi- themselves) onthecognitive(i.e.mentalandemotionalreactions ofreaders), so perhapsIcansuggestsome. To refer totheeffectsoftextual(i.e.translations cognitive, socialandcultural. We donotyet have anyestablishedterminologyhere, as causes;Ihintedatabove, theyhave effectsinallthree non-textualspheres: conditions underwhichtranslationsare done.But translationsthemselves alsoact tions as“procedures,” othersas“shifts” or“techniques” (cf. Molina &Hurtado Albir). others are specifictoparticularproblems oritems.Some scholarsstudythesesolu- what todowithnames,whetherusefootnotes,foreignize ornot; tothetaskasawhole:e.g.whethertranslatefreelyeral ones,pertaining ornot, target-text features corresponding tosource-textfeatures. Some strategiesare gen- theirmanifestations,astextualsolutions, Butservable. wecanofcourseobserve cedures, i.e.cognitiveroutines, conceptualtools;assuch,theyare notdirectly ob- that ofthetranslation tion varies? translation. How whenthespecifica- dotranslationsofthesamesource textvary features ofthecognitiveprocess oftranslating,andgiven features oftheresulting the precise nature oftherelation betweengiven features ofaspecification,given the taskspecificationacentralnotion,butmuchremains tobediscovered about the wayinwhichdecisionsare hasmade madeduringtheprocess. Skopos theory task, fication (presumably) affectsthewaytranslatorthinksaboutaparticular instance, theclient’s specification,thetranslation tive translationstudiesover decades. thepastfew respect toconsilience,thatnormshave becomesuchacentralconceptindescrip- in thetextualsphere, inthetranslationsthemselves.It isthussignificant,with translation strategiesandmethods,i.e.inthesocialsphere. But wealsoseeevidence norms inthewaystranslatorswork, inhow theykeeptodeadlines,intheirgeneral iour andintheresults ofthisbehaviour. In translationstudies,weseeevidenceof sphere, buttheir prescriptive force, theircausalinfluence,isseeninsocialbehav- behave inqueuesorwhen theyare translating.Asideas,theyexistinthecultural ena. But socialbehaviour, theyare manifestedinobservable inthewayspeople intersubjectively agreed andestablished,theyare, Iwouldargue,culturalphenom- in sociology. So whatsphere are theyin, the culturalorsocial?Asvalues, So far, Ihave mentionedthree bridgeconceptsthatmediatethecausal Another bridgeconcept,mediatingbetweenthecognitive andthetextual,is Another example:betweenthesociologicalandcognitive,we have,for 26 strategy . Strategies are problem-solvingplansorstandard pro- brief , the instructions. , theinstructions. The speci- 14/12/2005, 8:46 01 Chesterman.pmd trying tosolve, whichisastart. trying These problemscanbegrouped asfollows. fairly widespread agreement onthemain kindsofresearch problems thefieldis theory,literary or anempiricalonelikesociology?However, there doesseemtobe studies actuallyis:isitanappliedfieldlikeengineering, ahermeneuticfieldlike becausethere—partly are different ofwhatkinddisciplinetranslation views and myelf. We are clearlystillfarfromagenerallyaccepted“research paradigm” and disagreement withthesetof“shared theses” proposedby Arrojo Rosemary mate motivationsofscholarsthemselves. studies, thenature ofmeaning,theimpossibilitytotalobjectivity, andtheulti- chology. The debatehasconcernedsuch issuesasthescopeandaimsoftranslation fluenced more bythemethodsofhumansciencessuchassociology andpsy- analysis,culture studies,andpostmodernism. from literary The latterhasbeenin- empirical tradition. The formerapproach takesmanyofitsconceptsandmethods both byscholarsworking inahermeneutictraditionandby those workinginan attempt todefineasetofshared assumptionsthatwould,wethought,beshared Target consilience. tion forconstructing share suchinitialassumptions,wewillhave somekindofaphilosophicalfounda- epistemological andmethodologicalquestions? To theextentthatwe doinfact we haveashared philosophicalapproach,ashared positionwithrespect tobasic interdiscipline. With aresearch area asbroad asthis,towhatextentcanwesaythat the conceptualanalysisofcentraltermssuchastranslation itself, equivalence, the ofterms,and about culturalrelativity.table theory-boundness Apart fromworkon bridge concepts.(See Figure 1). exploiting notionsthatsetupalternativecategories. These are whatIhave called toovercometime wecantry oratleastchallengethesecategoricalborders, by them, inotherwords withoutcategories,wecannotthinkatall.But atthesame intheissuesfollowing Chesterman&Arrojo. That Forum paperwasan strategies norms Problems of Responses bydifferent scholars haveshown variousdegrees ofagreement This topichasbeenthesubjectofacontinuingdiscussioninjournal So far, Ihavebeensketchingageneral mapofthe On onehand,then,we seemtoneedconceptualborders, becausewithout brief FIGURE 1. TRANSLATION RESEARCH SPHERES ANDBRIDGECONCEPTS. 6. SHAREDPHILOSOPHICAL GROUND? definition 27 . We findmany shared assumptionsabouttheinevi- SOCIOLOGICAL COGNITIVE CULTURAL TEXTUAL 14/12/2005, 8:46 subject-matter repercussions responses reactions ofour

CONSILIENCE IN TRANSLATION STUDIES 27 01 Chesterman.pmd

ANDREW CHESTERMAN 28 translations, theireffectsonculturalandintercultural history. more, asIsuggestedearlier, we canexplore thewidersocioculturalrepercussions of we canincorporateresearch onpeople’s perceptions oftranslationquality. Further- also includeevaluative responses bycritics,teachersandotherreaders. In thisway, translations andfortheapparent effectsoftranslations.If westudyeffects, can in thecausalityoftranslation. We canseekexplanationsbothforfeatures ofgiven concept orperhapsasaclusterconcept.(See e.g.Halverson, of translation,andonwhethertranslationitselfcanbestbedescribedasaprototype discourse ontranslation(including“folk definitions” oftranslation),onmetaphors translation unitandstrategies,there isalsorelevantresearch onthe Chesterman, sectionborrows fieldofmemetics. (This context istherelatively from new studies, othersstillaspartofsemiotics.For me,thepotentiallymostproductive ofculture studies aspartofcommunicationorpragmatics, otheraspart vision. The fieldhasbeen“embedded” inmanydifferent ways:someseetranslation ofawider posal concernsthecontextualizationoftranslationstudies itselfaspart lishing somecommonphilosophicalandmethodological ground. My finalpro- bridge conceptssuchascausality, normsandstrategies; and thenecessityofestab- projects; ofcollaborative thevalueof mentioned theimportance interdisciplinary perhaps seethebeginningsofbasisforone. policies inmultilingualcommunities? aids, improving translationquality, educatingclients,orpromoting viablelanguage translation— tothepracticalproblemsoftranslatortraining,developing computer apply whatwethink know —abouthow besttodefine,describeandexplain the translation texts inthetargetlanguage.Otherpotentialdescriptive universalshavetodowith translations from otherkindsoftexts:sourcetextsand/ornon-translatedparallel ing so-calledtranslationuniversals. todistinguish These features wouldthenserve research whichtests hypothesesaboutmore generalfeatures oftranslations,includ- can betested. basic terminology, andthenusingthemtoformulateinteresting hypothesesthat definitions is,Ithink,lessvaluablethansimplyagreeing on which wecanmakeinteresting generalizations.Endlessly refining theprecision of formulate claimsandarguments,ortosetupusefulclassificationsonthebasisof nitions are notendsinthemselves; theyare onlymeans,toolswhichenableusto analysis hastraditionallyplayed amajorroleintranslationresearch. However, defi- To thesewe canthenaddproblemsof I now move Ihave tomyfinalproposal sofar forconsilienceconstruction. So although we are stillfarfromashared philosophical paradigm,we can Problems of Problems of process 28 ; “Memetics”). explanation description : bothatthecognitiveandsociologicallevels. . Irefer here notonlytocasestudies,butalso . Ialready referred above totheincreasing interest 7. MEMETICS application 14/12/2005, 8:46 working . How bestshouldwe Concepts definitionsand .) Conceptual 01 Chesterman.pmd understanding. Agoodnewmetaphormayallow you notonlytostructure what so-called hard ,needsmetaphors,formetaphorsare conceptualtoolsof machines formemes. This initselfmightindeedbeuseful: anydiscipline,even the metaphor fortranslation:i.e.thatwe couldprofitablyseetranslations circumstances. It is,infact,abranchofmemetics. lation studiesisawayofstudyingmemesandtheirtransmission underparticular place toanother, makingsure thattheygetsafelyacross languageborders. So trans- is really whatthewholetranslationbusinessisabout:spreading memesfromone books orattendalecture. Memes alsospread viatranslations,ofcourse.In fact,this Memesfor spaceandsurvival. spread aspeopletalktoeachother, astheyread struggle cient machinesforspreading memes, asmemesengageintheirDarwinian more than amemeplex. theories. Blackmore notionofaselfmaywellbeno even suggeststhatthevery mememes ormemeplexes. Examplesare languages,religions, ideologies,scientific Some memestendtoco-occurwithothers,ingroups:thesegroups are called vive well,inthe“-pool,” iftheyare easilymemorable,useful,sexyoremotive. mutation. Some betterthanothers.Memes memesspread, andthussurvive, sur- —habits, jokes,ideas,songs...Memes spread likegenes,theyreplicate, usuallywith (“Teaching”; cuits” 149).(See (Wilson alsoBlackmore, andformore Aunger). varied views, cally arrangedcomponentsofsemanticmemory, encodedby discrete neuralcir- tivity.” That is,amemeisbothan“idea” andthecorresponding setof“hierarchi- anditscorrelates inbrainac- [asopposedtoepisodicmemory] semantic memory concept isthewayhelinksittoneurology. Ameme,says Wilson, is“a nodeof earlier. interesting aspectof Oneparticularly Wilson’s applicationofthememe ofgene-culture coevolution,inhisbookonconsiliencethatImentioned theory Dictionary definesitlikethis: Dictionary Daniel Dennett usesitinhisattemptstoexplainconsciousness( memetics. The termhassincebeentakenupby manyscholars. The philosopher although thetermisnew. See Laland&Brown forthegeneralbackground to the culturalequivalent ofthegene.Actually thenotionitselfhasanolderpedigree, vival. Towards theendofbook,Dawkinsintroducednotionamemeas iour oforganismsisinfluencedbythewaygenesseektopromotetheirown sur- Selfish in his defence of modern Darwinism ( in hisdefenceofmodernDarwinism You mightthinkthatall thisdoesnomore thanproposeyet anothernew From ameme’s-eye view, humanbeingsare justconvenient andrathereffi- Memes, youhave learnedbyimitatingotherpeople then,are everything Memes wereexplictlybroughtinto Translation Studies byChesterman Memetics is thestudyofmemes. What isameme? The Oxford English The termwasproposedandfirstusedby Richard Dawkins,inhisbook means, esp. imitation. Meme: anelementofaculture thatmaybeconsidered tobepassedonby nongenetic (1976). This wasapopularbookaboutgenetics,how thebehav- Memes ), andindependentlyby Vermeer. 29 Darwin’s ). Edward O. Wilson usesitinhis 14/12/2005, 8:46 as survival ), and The

CONSILIENCE IN TRANSLATION STUDIES 29 01 Chesterman.pmd

ANDREW CHESTERMAN 30 Chesterman & Wagner 37). fore Iam here (121)citesanotherbiologist,S.J.Singer, whocoinedthephrase hypothesis alsoexplored byDanielDennett(1991)inconsiderabledetail. Wilson —a suggests Wilson, seemstobeour senseofconsciousness,oura“self” network, andconstantlyzappingmessagesback forth. This dynamicnetwork, neural cellsinthebrain. They are allinterconnected,inanincredibly complex consilience. of tween translationstudiesandotherfields,allcontributestotheconstruction links, notonlybetweenthedifferent spheres oftranslationresearch butalso be- into asingletheory. Some have beenlinked,butnotyetall.Lookingforpotential ently grapplingwiththeproblem ofhow toconnectthefourknown physicalforces physicsisappar- fields tooare engagedintheconsilienceproject.Contemporary also withthesocialandbiologicalsciences. tion. We offeraconceptualbridgenotonly withcognitive andculture studiesbut its relevance notonlytocognitive ,butalsotoculturalandhumanevolu- ous, multiculturalworld. visions ofthosetranslationscholarswhoare motivated by thedream ofaharmoni- important groupofthesepropagators.Atthispoint,then,wemeettheutopian Translators are nottheonly propagators ofmemes,course;buttheyare one chances.(Inventhosts, andthusalsofortheirown yourown survival examples!) areconducive known tooursurvival asmutualistmemes:theyare goodfortheir human beings). They are Bad Ideas thatendupkillingtheirhosts.Memes thatare pool. So-called parasiticmemesare, fatalfortheir carriers(i.e.for inthelongrun, species dependssignificantlyonthekindsofmemesthatspread throughthememe- logical . are driven bytheurgetopropagate theyare andtherefore thekeytobio- survive; mind. Memetics mayonedayshow ussomethingaboutwhathappensinthetranslator’s more aboutthewaysinwhichbrainsrepresent andcommunicate information. concrete level, asneuralpatterns.Ascognitivevery sciencedevelops,we maylearn metaphorical sense.Inotedabove thatsomescientistsare investigatingmemesata some ofwhichwillperhapsturnouttobemore productive thanothers. memes, you assumethatthere willprobably bechangesalongtheway, mutations, being carriedremains unaltered. But ifyouseetranslationasthepropagationof ameaningacross aboundary,as carrying you seemtobeassumingthatthething ent metaphorshighlightdifferent assumptions.For instance,ifyouseetranslation problems thathadnot occurred toyoubefore, hypotheses.Differ- andhencenew you know inanewandproductive way;itmayalsohighlightnewaspectsand It mottofortranslators! isalsoawonderful At onepointinhisbook Which bringsusbacktosociobiologyandourthemeofconsilience.Other By thusembeddingtranslationstudiesexplicitlyinmemetics,we highlight Finally, there isstillanotherreason toinvestinamemeticapproach. However, memeticsmayeventuallybeusefultousinmore thanamerely . justificationfortheconsilienceproject (citedalsoin This isawonderful 30 Memes are thekeytosociocultural evolution. ofour The survival Consilience , Wilson discussestheroleplayed by 14/12/2005, 8:46 I link,there- 01 Chesterman.pmd H D K —— B B L H Fault—— “The LineinOurCommonGround.” B A D B C M —— “Memetics and Translation Studies.” C —— F C OLKART ALAND ROWNLIE LACKMORE ASSNETT AKER UNGER LEIN HESTERMAN HESTERMAN HESTERMAN ENNETT AWKINS ERMANS ALVERSON ALMKJAER Memes of Translation Darwin’s Dangerous Idea , Julie Thompson. , Mona. “LinguisticsandCultural Studies: orCompetingParadigms Complementary in Trans- , Kevin N.&Gillian R.B , Robert, ed. , Barbara “Translation andtheArrow of Time.” , Richard. , Theo. , DanielC. , SusanL &A. dam: John Benjamins,2000.163-170. Translation andInterpreting Geburtstag. lation Studies?” Behaviour lation andInterpreting 3:New Horizons. 2000. UP, 1990. 2002. (2000): 151-160. John Benjamins, 1996.63-71. , Siobhan. “Investigating Explanations of Translation Phenonema.” , Sandra. , Kirsten.“Multidisciplinarity inProcess Research.” , Susan. , Andrew &Emma W , Andrew &Rosemary A , Andrew. “Teaching Translation Theory: The Significance ofMemes.” Translation inSystems The Selfish Gene. . Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. The Meme Machine. ConceptsandCategoriesin Translation Studies Ed.A.Laueretal. Tübingen: Narr, 1996.9-19. Consciousness Explained. Darwinizing Culture:Darwinizing The Status ofMemetics asaScience EFEVERE Interdisciplinarity: History, andPracticeTheory Übersetzungswissenschaft imUmbruch. Festschrift für Wolfram Wilss zum70. 31 . Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1997. . London:Penguin, 1995. . Constructing CulturesConstructing ROWN Oxford: Oxford UP, 1976. AGNER WORKS CITED . Ed. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit &RiittäJääskeläinen.Amster- RROJO . Manchester: St. Jerome, 1999. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. . Sense andNonsense: Evolutionary Perspectives onHuman . Synapse . “Shared Ground in Translation Studies.” Can Theory Help Translators? Can Theory London:Penguin, 1991 Ed. CayDollerup & Vibeke Appel. 5(2000):1-17. Target . Clevedon:Multilingual Matters, 1996. TTR 12.2(2000):356-362. 2.1(1989):19-50. Tapping andMapping theProcesses of . Bergen: UofBergen, 1998. . Detroit, MI: Wayne State 14/12/2005, 8:46 Manchester:St. Jerome, Target . Oxford: Oxford UP, 15.1(2003):141. Teaching Trans-

Amsterdam: Target 12.1

CONSILIENCE IN TRANSLATION STUDIES 31 01 Chesterman.pmd

ANDREW CHESTERMAN 32 T S W M M M M S W P T S V EGERSTRÅLE CHÄFFNER AGER YM YMOCZKO OURY ERMEER C ANDELBLIT OSSOP OLINA ILSON ILLIAMS C , Anthony. “Translation Studies Beyond 2000.” ARTY , Juan. , Gideon. , Edward O. , Lucía &AmparoH , Brian. “The , Brian.Workplace “The Procedures ofProfessional Translators.” , Hans J.“Translation andthe“Meme”.” , Jenny &Andrew C Beyond Maastricht: Hogeschool Maastricht, 1996.483-495. Translation andMeaning: Part 3 tion Studies Functionalist Approach Approach.” ies.” cch/wlm/essays/inter/>. 1999. J. Vandaele. Leuven:CETRA,KatholiekeUniversitet Leuven,1999.443-448. A. Chestermanetal.Amsterdam: John Benjamins,2000.39-48. , Willard. “Humanities ComputingasInterdiscipline.”