Introduction to translation studies

Holmes concludes that :

• Holmes concludes that :
• the most appropriate name for the discipline in English is TRANSLATION STUDIES (TS), for this term would avoid a lot of “confusion and misunderstanding”;
• There should be communication channels able to reach all scholars in the field, from whatever background;
• TS can be divided into 2 main research areas:
• ‘PURE’ ‘APPLIED’

• RZ

• Pure TS has 2 main goals (descriptive and theoretical):
• “to describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of experience” (Descriptive Translation Studies, DTS)
• “to establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be explained and predicted.” (Translation Theory, TTh)

• RZ

Holmes’s map of TS

• RZ

• Figure 1 Holmes’ conception of translation studies (from Munday p.10.)

The Holmes Map of Translation Studies (1)

• James S Holmes’ seminal ‘The Name and Nature of Translation Studies’ (1972) set out to orient the scholarly study of translation. It put forward a conceptual scheme that identified and interrelated many of the things that can be done in translation studies, envisaging an entire future discipline and effectively stimulating work aimed at establishing that discipline. Historically, this was a major step forward, none the least because it involved a frontal attack on the hazy but self-assured categories that had long been used to judge translations.

• RZ

The Holmes Map of Translation Studies (2)

• Holmes’ categories were simple, scientifically framed, and
• hierarchically arranged: ‘Applied’ was opposed to ‘Pure’, the latter was
• broken down into ‘Theoretical’ and ‘Descriptive’, then ‘Descriptive’
• divided in turn into ‘Product Oriented’, ‘Process Oriented’ and ‘Function
• Oriented’, and so on. Figure 1 (previous slide) shows the apocryphal
• graphic form these categories received later from, I believe, Gideon
• Toury, who saw it as a legitimate point of departure (it is also in Toury
• 1995: 10). Many wonderful things found a place in this map; a few more
• have benefited from the modifications and variants proposed since
• (notably Lambert 1991, Snell-Hornby 1991, Toury 1991, Toury 1995).
• Of course, translation studies cannot be reduced to this one map, and
• the map itself has been evolving dynamically, along with the lands it
• purports to represent.

• RZ