Theoretical Thinking vs Theorization in Translation

Mine Yazıcı

Abstract


Since translation concerns all disciplines, we may ask whether it is possible to conduct theoretical research peculiar to translations, or to what extent theoretical thinking is possible in a field of study which has a nexus of complex relations with other disciplines. We can answer these questions if we understand why we have a recourse to theorization in translation. Since the defining feature of theory as a complex set of relations overlaps with the concept of translation, they both involve complex mental procedures. Mental procedures in both actions operate similarly; that is to say, both theorists and translators draw up analogies between similar cases in order to define, classify and categorize the components of complexity. In theorization these procedures are called “abstraction” and “simplification”; whereas in translation studies, we call it “deverbalization”. It means stripping the linguistic form of a text, or a document so as to understand the sense of it (Gile 2003:47). Accordingly, we can reach such a conclusion that both translation and theorization follow the same logical sequence in understanding and overcoming the complexity. In the light of these introductory remarks the present study discusses the concept of theory, and theorization both in translation and translation studies so as to draw up similarities and divergencies between translation theory and translation practice.
Keywords: Theoretical Thinking, Theorization, Translation Criticism, Meta-level thinking


Full Text:

PDF

References


Ataç, N. (1940). Tercüme Üstüne, Günlerin Getirdiği. Istanbul: Can Yayınları. pp.128-135.

Chesterman, A. (1997). Memes of Translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Translation. Benjamins Translation Library.

Gile, D. (2003). Justifying the verbalization approach in the interpreting and translation approach. Forum 1:2.PP.47-63.

Hikmet , V. T. (1989). Nazımla Söyleşi. Çev. Ataol Behramoğlu. İstanbul: Cem Yayınevi.

Hönig, H. G. (1990). Holmes’ Mapping Theory and the Landscape of Mental Translation Processes, In: Kitty Leuven-Zwart, M. V. & Naaijkens T. (eds.). Translation Studies The State of Art. Proceedings of the First James. Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies, pp.77-89.

Kalverkämper, H. (1999) Translation swissenschaft als integrative Disziplin. In: Heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast, Gile, D., House, J., & Rothkegel, A. (eds.). Wage der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschforschung, Tübingen: Gunter Narr Yayınevi, pp.55-76.

Lefevere , A. (1992). Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. New York: Routledge.

Paker, S. (2002). Translation as Terceme and Nazire Culture-bound Concepts and their Implications for a Conceptual Framework on Ottoman Translation History. In: Theo Hermans (ed.). Crosscultural Transgressions: Research Models in Translation Studies II: Historical and Ideological Issues, Manchester: St. Jerome Publication, pp.120-143.

Pym, A. (2010). Exploring Translation Theories. New York: Routledge.

Stolze, R. (2011). The Development of Translation Studies as a Discipline - From Linguistic to Cognition. Translatio, [online] 1. Available at: http://seer.ufrgs.br/index.php/translatio/ article/view/36680/23747 [Accessed 19 Jan. 2015].

Salevsky, H. & Ina, M. (2011). Translation as systemic Interaction. Frank & Timme.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2013-2019 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

International Journal of Comparative Literature and Translation Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.