Microsoft Word 05 descriptions doc

5.4.4 “Assumed” translations 

 

Here is another theoretical problem that cuts to the heart of empirical methodologies. If 

we set out to discover the historical and cultural diversity of translation norms, can we 

pretend to be sure from the outset what is meant by the term “translation”? If so, exactly 

what criteria should we use for collecting a set of things called “translations”? And if 

not, how can we possibly avoid imposing our own translation norms on other cultures 

and periods? This is one of the classical theoretical aporias that tend to worry 

researchers in dominant Western cultures.  

Toury’s solution to the problem has been to leave the defining to the people we 

study. For him, “a ‘translation’ will be taken to be any target-language utterance which 

is presented or regarded as such [i.e. as a ‘translation’], on whatever grounds” (Toury 

1995a: 20). In other words, we wait to see what each culture and each period has to say 

about what is or is not a translation. The solution is the operative concept of “assumed 

translations,” which simply means that a translation is indeed a translation only for