Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies: Methodological Considerations

303 Pages·2019·1.847 MB·English

by  Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts

Complexity Thinking in
Translation Studies
This volume highlights a range of perspectives on the ways in which
complexity thinking might be applied in translation studies, focusing in
particular on methods to achieve this. The book introduces the topic
with a brief overview of the history and conceptualization of complexity
thinking. The volume then frames complexity theory through a variety of
lenses, including translation and society, interpreting studies, and Bible
translation, to feature case studies in which complexity thinking has
successfully been or might be applied within translation studies. Using
complexity thinking in translation studies as a jumping-off point from
which to consider the broader implications of implementing quantitative
approaches in qualitative research in the humanities, this volume is key
reading for graduate students and scholars in translation studies, cultural
studies, semiotics, and development studies.
Kobus Marais is professor of translation studies in the Department of
Linguistics and Language practice of University of the Free State. He
has published T ranslation theory and development studies: A complexity
theory approach (2014), A (bio)semiotic theory of translation: The
emergence of social-cultural reality (2018), and Translation studies
beyond the postcolony (2017; coedited with Ilse Feinauer).
Reine Meylaerts is full professor of comparative literature and translation
studies at KU Leuven. Currently she is vice-rector of research policy
(2017–2021). She was director of CETRA from 2006–2014 and is now
board member. She is the author of numerous articles and chapters on
these topics. (https://lirias.kuleuven.be/items-by-author?author=Meylaer
ts%2C+Reinhilde%3B+U0031976)
Routledge Advances in Translation and
Interpreting Studies
Translation and Emotion
A Psychological Perspective
Séverine Hubscher-Davidson
Linguistic and Cultural Representation in Audiovisual Translation
Edited by Irene Ranzato and Serenella Zanotti
Jin Ping Mei English Translations
Texts, Paratexts, and Contexts
Lintao Qi
Untranslatability
Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Edited by Duncan Large, Motoko Akashi, Wanda Józwikowska and
Emily Rose
Perspectives on Retranslation
Ideology, Paratexts, Methods
Edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar
A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation
The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality
Kobus Marais
A Sociological Approach to Poetry Translation
Modern European Poet-Translators
Jacob S. D. Blakesley
Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies
Methodological Considerations
Edited by Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts
For a full list of titles in this series, visit w ww.routledge.com/Routledge-
Advances-in-Translation-and-Interpreting-Studies/book-series/RTS
Complexity Thinking in
Translation Studies
Methodological Considerations
Edited by
Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts
First published 2019
by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
The right of the editors to be identifi ed as the authors of the editorial
material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been
asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-1-138-57248-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-203-70201-7 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
1 Introduction 1
KOBUS MARAIS AND REINE MEYLAERTS
2 Intersemiotic Translation as an Abductive
Cognitive Artifact 19
JOÃO QUEIROZ AND PEDRO ATÃ
3 Resonances Between Social Narrative Theory and
Complexity Theory: A Potentially Rich Methodology
for Translation Studies 33
SUE-ANN HARDING
4 “Effects Causing Effects”: Considering Constraints
in Translation 53
KOBUS MARAIS
5 On the Multidimensional Interpreter and a Theory
of Possibility: Towards the Implementation of a
Complex Methodology in Interpreter Training 73
MANUEL DE LA CRUZ RECIO
6 Exploring the Social Complexity of Translation with
Assemblage Thinking 104
EMMA SEDDON
7 Translator Networks of Networks in Digital Space:
The Case of Asymptote Journal 128
RALUCA TANASESCU AND CHRIS TANASESCU (MARGENTO)
8 A Complex and Transdisciplinary Approach to Slow
Collaborative Activist Translation 152
RAÚL ERNESTO COLÓN RODRÍGUEZ
vi Contents
9 Sacred Writings and Their Translations as Complex
Phenomena: The Book of Ben Sira in the Septuagint
as a Case in Point 180
JACOBUS A. NAUDÉ AND CYNTHIA L. MILLER-NAUDÉ
10 The Complexity of Iran’s Literary Polysystem:
An Interdisciplinary Study 216
NASRIN ASHRAFI
11 Translation as Organized Complexity: Implications
for Translation Theory 238
MARIA TYMOCZKO
12 Knowledge Translation and the Continuum of Science 259
CAROLINE MANGEREL
Contributors 285
Index 288
1 Introduction
Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts
1. The Paradigm of Simplifi cation
Complexity theory is usually described as a revolutionary break from
reductionism and as a way of seeing the world in terms of instability
and fluctuations. Complexity theory indeed challenges the notions of
disjunction, abstraction, and reduction, which together constitute the
“paradigm of simplifi cation” ( Morin 2008 , 3), also called the paradigm
of reductionism. Reductionism has been the dominant approach to sci-
ence since the 16th century (M itchell 2009, ix) and has been wrongly
associated with the only way to do “good science.” In the words of Edgar
Morin (2008, 33), one of the fathers of complexity theory, reduction
means “the search for elementary, simple units, the decomposition of a
system into its elements, the origination of the complex to the simple.”
As a typical Newtonian paradigm, reductionist thinking also wants to
predict and control. It believes in order and determinism. It started in
the natural sciences and spread from there to the social sciences. It also
underlies some of the conceptualizations in Translation Studies. Let us
take three examples from the H andbook of translation studies . When
discussing “Scientifi city and theory in translation studies,” Daniel Gile
states that:
None of these theories [Interpretive Theory and Skopos Theory, Rel-
evance Theory and Polysystem Theory, the process model of Simul-
taneous interpreting, Gile’s Effort Models] is strong in the Popperian
sense. They are more explanatory than predictive, and none of them
has been tested systematically [. . .]. If the canonical view of science
is taken as the single authoritative reference, it is tempting to con-
clude that few existing theories in Translation Studies are scientifi c.
But when including H[uman] S[ciences] C[ulture], this is no longer
the case.
( Gile 2013 , 154)
2 Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts
In her chapter on “General translation theory,” Dilek Dizdar describes
Toury’s theoretical objectives:
In his search for a general translation theory, Toury (1980) also fol-
lowed this idea of Translation Studies as an empirical science. To
counteract normative and non-systematic approaches to translation
which had dominated the discourse for centuries, he argued for a
strictly descriptive theory basis and the method of induction which,
when enough empirical data was collected and analysed, could enable
the scholars to determine general laws.
( Dizdar 2012 , 53)
And fi nally, recalling the early days of descriptive translation studies,
Alexandra Assis Rosa characterizes it as
an empirical discipline with the dual purpose of describing “the phe-
nomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves
in the world of our experience” and, based on such descriptions, of
formulating general principles that allow one to both explain and
predict translational phenomena (Holmes 1988/2000: 176).
( Assis Rosa 2010 , 94)
These examples illustrate how the paradigm of reductionism has shaped
translation studies in the 1970s and 1980s. Sure, as can already be
inferred from Gile’s reference to human sciences culture, alternative mod-
els have since questioned the search for prediction and control. Toury,
for example, has also been criticized for his strict empiricism (see D iz-
dar 2012) . Still, it is safe to say that translation studies has remained
fi rmly embedded within the reductionist model, not so much in its search
for universal laws but rather in its search for decomposing systems into
elementary, simple units and for imposing a “simple conceptualization on
a complex reality” (M arais 2015, 19). Thus, when studying audiovisual
translation, for example, is it really useful to make rigorous distinctions
between diverse translation types, strategies, and processes (dubbing, sub-
titling, voice-over, surtitling, audio description, translation, adaptation,
non-translation, standardization, condensation, deletion, reformulation,
normalization, etc.) instead of studying them in relation to each other as
they often appear in one and the same product? The same goes for the
traditional distinctions between different audiovisual media: How useful
are they? According to Fernández Costales,
the true potential of video games and the possibilities they can pose for
research in translation-related issues have not been fully approached
yet: the relation between audiovisual translation and video games
can be further studied, as the introduction of voice over, dubbing,
Introduction 3
subtitling and lip-sync techniques are still to be analysed; similarly,
the question of accessibility in audiovisual translation can also be
applied to the case of electronic entertainment.
( Fernández Costales 2012 , 388)
In sum, how useful are our disciplinary subdivisions and our conceptual
models to understand what is really going on in translation? How can
we account for a collaborative production process? How are we to deal
with signifi cant levels of uncertainty and ambiguity in terms of author-
ship, translatorship, audience, or reception? How are we to deal with a
myriad of contextual factors? How should we conceptualize the relation
between the local and the central, between agency and structure? To these
and other questions that occupy translation studies, there can be no single
answer, algorithm or protocol that would work in every circumstance—
a point that is well known in translation studies. Still, our traditional
theories and models are not able (enough) to conceptualize exceptions,
randomness, change. Translation studies’ models can deal with parts and
wholes, but they cannot deal with complexity or paradox. However, as
Prigogine (1996, 4) said: “the new rationality looks at fl uctuations, insta-
bility, multiple choices and limited predictability.” This is exactly why
Manuel De la Cruz Recio, in this volume, states that a general interpreting
theory “must necessarily be a theory of possibility.” Instead of eliminating
complexity, we should conceptualize it. Although reduction will remain
an important characteristic of science ( Morin 2008 , 33; Marais 2015 ,
15) and thus of translation studies, we need to supplement it with an
epistemology of complexity.
2. Complexity
2.1 Nonlinearity
A complex system can apply to bacteria, the brain, political theory, ants,
computers, urban life, culture, translation, and transfer, etc. and can be
defi ned in several ways. For computer scientist Melanie Mitchell (2009,
13), also quoted in Manuel De la Cruz Recio’s chapter, it is a “system in
which large networks of components with no central control and simple
rules of operation give rise to complex collective behavior, sophisticated
information processing, and adaptation via learning or evolution.” From
a cultural-philosophical point of view, a complex system is
a network of rich interactions which change over time. It is not the
number of parts interacting which defi nes complexity but rather the
nature of their interactions. These interactions are non-linear, mean-
ing that one cannot add up the interactions in a system in order to
measure their effects. In other words, “nonlinearity describes the