From inward to outward: the need for translation studies to become outward-going

ABSTRACT

Translation Studies (TS) has undergone a number of internal shifts. These have focused on so-called “travelling concepts”, such as ‘culture’ or ‘cognition’, and have been crucial in building and establishing the discipline. Both the concept of ‘paradigm (change)’ and that of ‘turn’ are used to refer to these shifts and frequently the two concepts are used synonymously. This essay will show why the notion of turn should be given preference over that of paradigm.

The turns of TS are based on interdisciplinarity. Yet while the field has imported massively from other disciplines it has hardly exported anything. There is one exception to this trend: TS’s fundamental concept, translation, is experiencing a real boom outside the discipline. However, this is happening mostly without the participation of TS itself, which has so far been both passive and ignored. It is time for TS to perform two decisive outward turns. The first must take place in order to counteract misconceived notions about ‘translation proper’ and about TS as a research field held by other disciplines. The second outward turn needs to be enacted in order to counteract misconceived notions about translation and interpreting generated and disseminated by translation practice. The article discusses how and why this double turn from ‘inward’ to ‘outward’ should be performed.

KEYWORDS:

• Inward turns
• interdisciplinarity
• translation proper
• cultural translation
• translational turn

Introduction

The history of Translation Studies (TS) has often been narrated in terms of a number of turns which unfolded within the discipline, such as the ‘cultural turn’ (Bassnett and Lefevere 1990), or the more recent ‘sociological turn’ (Wolf and Fukari 2007). This narrative is present in a number of introductions to the field (e.g. Snell-Hornby 2006; Pöchhacker 2016; Prunč 2012). The terminology used to discuss these shifts is not uniform, however, and the concept of paradigm (or paradigm change) is often used synonymously with that of turn. Furthermore, there has been little critical questioning of these concepts, of their definitions, and of the rationale for using them, so the first aim of this essay is to analyse the current state of affairs and to propose a uniform concept and terminology.

A survey of TS literature shows that the discipline has undergone several major shifts as it has evolved. It is also clear that these developments were modelled on other disciplines and fields of research. In this respect, so-called ‘travelling concepts’ (Bal 2002; Neumann and Ansgar 2012) such as ‘culture’, ‘norms’, ‘ethics’, play a key role, acting as the motor behind the turns of TS and its development. These concepts have their epistemological roots in a variety of disciplines, such as anthropology, philosophy, sociology, or cultural studies, and they make clear that the development of TS is built on interdisciplinarity. TS is frequently referred to as ‘an interdiscipline’ (e.g. Snell-Hornby, Pöchhacker, and Klaus 1994), and with good reason. This interdisciplinarity, however, is mostly one-sided. The concept of interdisciplinarity would seem to suggest that there are at least two sides involved, with an exchange between them. Yet there has rarely been any exporting of concepts and theories from the side of TS. There is, however, one notable exception to this rule. The master concept of TS, ‘translation’ itself, has become a highly successful ‘travelling concept’ in recent years and has been adopted by many of TS’s neighbouring disciplines, such as cultural studies (Bachmann-Medick 2009), anthropology (Maranhão and Bernhard 2003), history (Lässig 2012), or organisation studies (Carlile 2004), to name just a few. A ‘translational turn’ has even been proclaimed across the humanities and social sciences (Bachmann-Medick 2007, 2009) based on the success experienced by the concept of translation outside TS. This success, however, is not matched by an outward turn performed by TS, as the translation concept is mostly used without ever referring to any of TS’s theories and empirical results. Instead, outside TS the notion of translation is largely used in a creative and metaphorical manner.

The second aim of this article is to analyse the reasons behind this missing outward turn in TS, for which, I will argue, TS itself may be largely to blame. The essay proposes actions aimed at counteracting this situation both from the point of view of TS and that of neighbouring disciplines which use the translation concept without (proper) knowledge of its epistemological roots. I suggest that an outward turn would be beneficial for all, as it would both further the (full) unfolding of the ‘translational turn’ outside TS and promote the future development of TS itself.

The final aim of this essay is to analyse a second and distinct outward turn. TS has thus far failed to make a substantive mark in its immediate surroundings, namely in the field of professional practice. Translation and interpreting practice still largely misconstrues notions of translation as well as the roles of translators and interpreters. Professional associations actively propagate simplified and unproblematized notions to the outside world in the name of marketing the profession. Beyond a critique of the (mis-)representations of professional roles on the part of the field of translation and interpreting practice, the discussion below will explore how this second missing outward turn may actually have serious consequences for the profession and its legal status and/or protection. Finally, I will discuss the negative impact these misconstrued notions have on the status and recognition of TS as a discipline of reference for other subjects and fields of research.

Inward turns or changing paradigms in translation studies?

The history of TS as a discipline is frequently structured through reference to the concept of turns and/or changing paradigms. The latter concept is well known and may be traced back to Kuhn ([1962]/2012) and his analysis of scientific shifts or revolutions in the natural sciences. Kuhn ([1962]/2012, xliii) defined paradigms as ‘universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners.’ The concepts of paradigm and turn are often used interchangeably in the introductions and overviews of translation and/or interpreting studies. For example Prunč (2012) uses both terms in his detailed and comprehensive overview of the entire discipline’s development. When discussing the various shifts in the discipline, he uses the concept of paradigm and/or paradigm change (Prunč 2012, 334, 361). However, as soon as he describes specific shifts in TS, such as the prominent ‘cultural turn’ (Prunč 2012, 285ff.) or the ‘power turn’, Prunč (2012, 284, 304) switches to the concept of turn, without offering any further, detailed explanation of this move.

Other comprehensive introductions to the discipline of TS take different routes. Gentzler (2001) and Bassnett (2014) provide overviews of the discipline while avoiding both concepts. Snell-Hornby (2006) dedicates an entire book to The Turns of Translation Studies. In her subtitle she poses the question of whether these turns represent New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? She suggests that a turn can be found somewhere between the two extreme poles of a paradigm and a shifting viewpoint: ‘This present book sets out to offer a critical assessment […] focusing on what have turned out to be ground-breaking contributions (new paradigms) as against what may be seen in retrospect to have been only a change in position on already established (shifting) viewpoints.’ (Snell-Hornby 2006: IX). She then lists the various turns TS has taken and orders these chronologically, from the precursors to the emergence of the discipline, to the pragmatic turn in linguistics, or the legacy of James Holmes and other influential scholars. A whole chapter is devoted to the cultural turn of the 1980s, under which she subsumes Descriptive Translation Studies and the German tradition, encompassing Skopos theory and the theory of translatorial action. The 1990s are explicitly declared as the years of the ‘interdiscipline’ (Snell-Hornby 2006, 69ff.). This period in the development of TS is marked by the influence of gender studies, postcolonial theories, and nonverbal communication theories, among others. While some of the more recent developments and turns in TS are criticised by Snell-Hornby (2006) for their return to linguistics, she attributes paradigmatic status to the 1980s and the ‘cultural turn’ (Snell-Hornby 2006, 162). With the exception of the classification of turns into paradigms or shifting viewpoints, however, there is no further theoretical refinement of these concepts.

Pöchhacker (2016), in his book, Introducing Interpreting Studies, exclusively refers to the concept of paradigm and lists a number of possible paradigms for interpreting studies, starting with the Interpretive Theory (IT) paradigm. This theory was chiefly developed and championed by ‘the Paris School’ which grew around Danica Seleskovitch (1968), and is also known as ‘theorie du sens’. This was followed by the Cognitive Processing paradigm (CP), the Neurophysiological and Neurolinguistics paradigm (NL), and an accompanying turn to cognitive and neurophysiological science, starting in the late 1970s. Furthermore, Pöchhacker (2016, 71f.) mentions the Dialogic Interactionist paradigm (DI), introducing role-theoretical approaches from sociology and related to community interpreting, as well as the Target-Text (TT) paradigm. Pöchhacker (2016, 68) stressed the co-existence of several paradigms at any one time.

In Introducing Translation Studies (2008), Munday makes use of both concepts: paradigm and turn. He explicitly uses ‘turn’ when discussing the prominent ‘cultural turn’ and other ‘ideological turns’, under which he subsumes gender, translation, and postcolonial translation theories (Munday 2008, 124ff.). Munday also seems to give preference to ‘paradigm’ when it comes to discussing shifts which are rooted in the ‘hard sciences’, such as the ‘software localization paradigm’ (Munday 2008, 190) or the ‘contrastive analysis paradigm’ (Munday 2008, 194) which is used in corpus-based translation studies. Once again, however, there is no explicit discussion of the two concepts and the precise way in which they are employed remains ambiguous.

This brief review of authoritative introductory texts to TS shows the many shifts of TS, which took place when the discipline borrowed from other fields of research. These ‘inward’ shifts have shaped TS into what it is today, yet there remains a lack of clarity about their nature and, specifically, about the distinction of the two structuring concepts of turn and paradigm. Some uses of these terms, however, at least hint at a possible distinction between the two concepts.

Turns, paradigms and their suitability for translation studies

Before Kuhn and his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn [1962]/2012), the notion of paradigm was seldom used in scientific discourses. Kuhn derived his concept of paradigm from evolutionary biology and applied it exclusively to the natural sciences in his book. The concept became enormously popular, however, reaching far beyond its original context, to the point that it may be said to have reached an inflationary status (Hacking 2012).

A new paradigm is initiated by paradigm change, which according to Kuhn ([1962]/2012), accompanies scientific revolution in a discipline. A scientific revolution or paradigm change presupposes a scientific crisis, which is triggered by several anomalies that do not fit the existing paradigm, i.e. cannot be explained by theories and models of that paradigm. A scientific revolution or paradigm change leads to a complete change of world view: ‘When the transition [from one paradigm to another] is complete, the profession will have changed its view of the field, its methods, and its goals.’ (Kuhn [1962]/2012, 84) As a perfect example of this shift, Kuhn ([1962]/2012) discusses the change from the Ptolomaic to the Copernican world view. Such a dramatic change involves the creation of a new language Hacking 2012, xxxiv) Additionally, paradigms do not exist in parallel and one paradigm completely substitutes its predecessor (Kuhn [1962]/2012, 79).

These characteristics of a paradigm and of the accompanying paradigm change do not apply to the inward shifts in TS. Bachmann-Medick (2007), notes that these cross-discipline shifts taking place in the humanities and social sciences do not take the form of revolutions breaking from the past and its language, but are rather more experimental and tentative in nature. One scientific worldview is not entirely replaced by another. Instead, a number of worldviews coexist. Therefore, Bachmann-Medick (2007, 7–27) suggests the exclusive use of the term ‘turn’ for the humanities and social sciences. This, I argue, also applies to TS.

All of the observations made by Bachmann-Medick (2007) hold true for TS, since no shift has effectively replaced another shift. Rather, all the turns listed above exist alongside one another. The cognitive turn, mentioned as one of the leading ‘paradigms’ for interpreting studies by Pöchhacker (2016), is very prominent in TS today, where it exists along research falling under the ‘cultural turn’ or the more recent ‘sociological turn’. Research into the cognitive processes of translators is, for example, conducted via think-aloud protocols (Göpferich and Jääskeläinen 2009), and this runs parallel to sociological investigations into translators’ agency (Milton and Bandia 2009).

Turns in the humanities and cultural studies are in fact interrelated and often complement one another. This is pointed out by the creator of the concept of ‘pictorial turn’, Tom Mitchell (2007), when he notes that the linguistic turn is not replaced nor opposed by the pictorial turn; instead, the two turns are complemented and enhanced by one another. The fact that turns are often closely intertwined is further illustrated by relationship between the ‘cultural turn’ and the ‘sociological turn’ in TS. The ‘cultural turn’ was a pivotal precursor for the sociological analysis of the processes of translation and the role of translators as social beings (Bassnett and Lefevere 1990). Concepts such as ‘patronage’, ‘poetics’ or ‘rewriting’ do not only emphasise the cultural aspects of translation but also foreground the concept of ideology. The cultural is also sociological, at least as understood by the proponents of the ‘cultural turn’ (Bassnett and Lefevere 1990). This may be traced back to the roots of the ‘cultural turn’ in TS, found in the tenets of British Cultural Studies (BCS), which assert that cultural studies are always fundamentally sociological (Williams 1981). Thus, we could say that the sociological turn in TS was born out of the cultural turn.

The translational turn and the ‘missing presence’ of translation studies

In recent years, a translational turn has been proclaimed outside TS in cultural studies, the humanities, and social sciences (Bachmann-Medick 2009). This translational turn is linked to the concept of ‘cultural translation’, which is broadly understood as an analytical category for the study of culture. The concept of cultural translation was championed by Homi Bhabha in the postcolonial context. Bhabha (1994) describes a space in-between or an interstice that is characterised by an overlap of cultural difference. This space is the realm of cultural translation, which is supposed to convey migrant and minority discourses and literatures. The proponents of the translational turn build on this conception of cultural translation. Bachmann-Medick (2007) explains the idea in two ways. On the one hand, the concept is used to convey one complex, living world into another. In this sense, cultural translation is about conveying ideas, values, patterns of thought, behaviour, and practices (Wagner 2009, 1) and it may be understood as a culture technique all of us (but especially migrants) apply in our everyday lives. On the other hand, the term also denotes inter- or transdisciplinary translation. In this second sense, ‘cultural translation’ is also very close to and even overlaps with travelling concepts. Bachmann-Medick (2014, 133) points this out, stating: ‘Instead of “travelling concepts”, it might perhaps be better to speak of “concepts in translation” in order to call for more historical grounding and contextualization.’

The uses of the concept of ‘cultural translation’ are enormously broad and highly metaphoric in nature. The label seems to stand for everything and nothing at the same time. The proponents of the ‘translational turn’ are aware of this issue and of its dangers:

This broadening of the horizon of translation currently poses challenges both to translation studies and to other disciplines in the humanities, specifically cultural studies. Admittedly, the process risks diluting the concept of translation, and it seems important at this stage to delineate the concept more precisely. (Bachmann-Medick 2009, 2)

Bachmann-Medick (2007, 239) explicitly mentions culturally-oriented TS as a potential ally or even a ‘leader discipline’ in this endeavour, yet the epistemological grounding TS could provide is not referenced anywhere in her work.

Boris Buden and Stefan Nowotny (2008), two further proponents of ‘cultural translation’ and ‘the translational turn’, do not see TS as an authoritative discourse when it comes to the conceptual refinement of the translation concept in cultural studies. According to Buden and Nowotny (2008, 7), there is currently no discipline that has the last word on translation. TS is rejected as a source of authority precisely because it is an interdiscipline, nurtured and developed by other disciplines. It is also seen as too narrowly focused on the transfer of language and stable meanings (Buden and Nowotny 2008, 7).

Looking outwards: cultural translation with or without translation studies?

Translation studies is either not mentioned at all or is seen with scepticism, and perhaps even rejected, by the disciplines which have embraced the translation concept. Buden (2008) reproaches ‘applied Translation Studies’, asserting that their primary concern is language while the concept of culture is only of secondary importance. According to Nowotny (2008), ‘culture’ in TS acquires a further qualifier, as in ‘source or target culture’, while for cultural translation, culture embraces both the medium and practice of translation.

For Bachmann-Medick (2008) another distinguishing feature of ‘cultural translation’, compared to ‘translation proper’ (Jakobson 1959) as it is understood in TS, is the following:

For instance, the insight regarding the reinvention (rather than mere representation) of the original through translation is certainly another important quality of a cultural-studies based understanding of translation: originals are not simply givens or precursors; they, too, are created through translation in the first place. This shatters all notions of origin as well as concepts based on authenticity (Bachmann-Medick 2008, 30; my translation)

This view ignores functional translation theories in TS, for example, which have been around since the 1980s. While Skopos theory regarded the original only as ‘Informationsbasis’ [an information base] (Reiß and Vermeer 1984, 67) for the translator, the theory of translatorial action proposed by Holz-Mänttäri (1984) went even further, completely shattering all notions of originality and authenticity. The original was conceptualised as a message carrier, on the same level with all other material the translator uses for the production of the translation. Furthermore, the founder of Descriptive Translation Studies, Gideon Toury (1995), made a strong case for defining translation as what is regarded, accepted and seen as such by the target culture. Thus, so-called pseudo-translations, which by definition have no original, also fall under this category.

While the exponents of ‘cultural translation’ discussed above at least actively refer to TS and discuss it critically, other scholars operating with the translation category do not mention TS at all. In an article examining the potentiality of ‘Translation as Transformation,’ one of the leading theorists from German Cultural Studies, Aleida Assmann (1997), discusses cultural translation as a fundamentally anthropological activity. She lists a number of Bible-oriented translation theories and also mentions ‘linguistic translation’; however TS is not even mentioned once in her entire contribution. Assmann (1997) observes that ‘in its narrow sense, the problem of translation is the preservation of meaning; in a wider sense, the problem of translation is the generation of meaning. It is precisely in these constant shifts of transferral and displacement that meaning is generated.’ (Assmann 1997, 21) She concludes her contribution (1997, 32) by stating that ‘in a transformational (as opposed to an information) theory of translation, there are no observers but only participants.’ This view in TS has been extensively elaborated upon, for example, by the representatives of the ‘Dialogic Interactionist (DI) Turn’, or ‘Paradigm’ as Pöchhacker (2016) would call it (see above). Taking as a starting point the tenets of Symbolic Interactionism (Mead 1934), TS scholars such as Wadensjö (1992) or Roy (1993) have shown how meaning is constructed in interpreting and how interpreters act not as information channels but as co-constructors of the message to be delivered. If we take into account the ‘Dialogic Interactionist turn’, then, TS could serve as a reference point for the participatory status of translators in ‘cultural translation’ mentioned by Assmann (1997) – however this and other potentially relevant aspects of TS do not feature in her work.

Proponents of the ‘iconic’ or ‘pictorial turn’ (Mersmann 2004; Mersmann and Schneider 2009) have recently made a strong call for a transcultural orientation of image studies that emphasises processes of hybridity, diffusion, and entanglement. The concept of ‘cultural translation’ is supposed to play a key role in this area. For Mersmann (2004, 107ff.), the future of image studies is conceivable only as a form of transcultural translation studies based on the concept of ‘cultural translation’ – yet there is no reference to TS or ‘translation proper’ in her work. TS, in the meantime, has also incorporated the tenets of transculturality (Welsch 1999) in recent years. ‘Translation proper’ is increasingly understood and modelled as part of broader concepts: ‘Translation as a special type of inter- and transcultural communication meta-culturally refers to any type of conventionalised, interlingual and mediated interaction.’ (Prunč 2012, 25; my translation) This conception of translation points out that the process does not just entail an exchange between two or more closed entities, but also an entanglement of cultures which is, precisely, a result of translation.

Numerous similar examples could be added, but the ones discussed above make it sufficiently clear that TS could serve as an important point of reference for studies on ‘cultural translation’ and its specific concerns. TS has the instruments needed to move the concept of ‘cultural translation’ away from a purely metaphorical level of understanding. This would be an important step for the full unfolding of the translational turn outside TS. At present, however, the real impact of this turn is even doubted by the proponent of the ‘translational turn’ herself:

will the translation category, as it moves beyond the textual and linguistic level, stubbornly stick to the path of purely metaphorical uses of the translation concept? Or will new research approaches begin to elaborate a more sophisticated and detailed translation perspective in methodological and analytical terms? (Bachmann-Medick 2009, 4; my emphasis)

One question remains: if there is such an obvious need for the concept of ‘cultural translation’ to leave the metaphorical plane in order for the translational turn to really take place, why then is there no ‘turn’ towards and endorsement of Translation studies on the part of researchers in related disciplines? After all, TS may not have the last word but on translation, but it certainly has the most extensive range of expertise as far as the concept of translation is concerned.

There are various answers to this question. One of the reasons for this state of affairs may lie in the fact that some of the proponents of ‘cultural translation’ conceptualise it, as already mentioned, as a ‘culture technique’ (Bachmann-Medick 2007) and in doing so implicitly or explicitly dismiss ‘translation proper’ as out-of-date. Mersmann (2004), for instance, highlights the ‘rise of translation to an elementary culture technique’ in cultural translation in contrast to ‘the linguistically fixated translation concept.’ The opposition between two types of translation expressed here is very telling: why should one turn to something that is perceived as linguistically fixed and, by implication, outdated? This ascription of out-datedness to TS and ‘translation proper’ is a recurrent theme in the contributions on ‘cultural translation’ (Bachmann-Medick 2007). It also serves as an important qualifier for ‘cultural translation’ which, as we have seen, could be seen as an unclear concept.

In the face of these and similar assessments, TS has behaved rather passively thus far. Bassnett (2012) ascribes this complacency on the part of TS to the process of building and establishing the discipline. During this process, she notes, TS has primarily talked to itself. According to Bassnett (2012) however, it is high time for translation scholars to look outwards, and while there have been only a few contributions so far that have dealt with the issue of the use of TS’s master concept outside its disciplinary borders (Trivedi 2007; Wolf 2008; Dizdar 2009), there seems to be an increase in investigations into this area in very recent times (Blumczynski 2016; Gambier and van Doorslaer 2016; Zwischenberger 2017).

Nevertheless, based on the examples discussed here, it is possible to say that there is a definite and ongoing lack of consciousness within the discipline. There is a continuing need, in TS, for awareness of what it has to offer, both concretely and potentially, to the unfolding of the translational turn taking place outside the discipline, as well as of what the discipline itself could gain from this ‘outward turn’. How could TS benefit, for instance, from the ‘travelling back’ of a conceptually refined and enriched concept of translation?

An outward turn towards translation practice

There is another outward turn that needs to take place in TS. This second turn has to do with translation practice and, if performed successfully, would ultimately have a positive influence on the first outward turn too. The gap between TS and translation practice remains significant, and a close relationship between theory and practice (such as that found in many other disciplines) has not developed so far. As early as the 1980s, TS was influenced, for example, by the representatives of the so-called Manipulation School (Hermans 1985), who saw translations as far from being just mimetic representations: ‘From the point of view of the target literature, all translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose.’ (Hermans 1985, 11) Furthermore, the functional translation theories elaborated by Reiß and Vermeer (1984) as well as by Holz-Mänttäri (1984) placed the emphasis firmly on the target culture, the target audience and the translation’s purpose. TS was certainly also majorly influenced by Symbolic Interactionism (e.g. Wadensjö 1992) or deconstruction (e.g. Dizdar 2006). These are only a few of the approaches developed and/or appropriated by TS that denounce the possibility of ‘a stable sense’, which is simply to be transferred by a professional translator or interpreter. Modern TS thus clearly distanced itself from simplistic, equivalence-oriented and prescriptive notions of translation, as well as from the myth of translators and interpreters as unproblematic conveyers of an author’s or speaker’s intended messages. Yet translation practice, in the form of professional associations, still propagates this myth.

Professional associations hold substantial power, as they represent the collective face and speak on behalf of translation professions around the world. They produce meta-discourses on the profession that are not only intended for insiders but also, and even more so, for outsiders and/or potential clients of the profession. These meta-discourses have the dual aim of explaining how the profession supposedly works and of marketing it effectively. Professional associations are thus the voice of translation and interpreting in the outside world, and that world has no reason to differentiate between translation practice and translation theory. Rather, the assumption will tend to be that the way professional roles are depicted by associations is backed up by theory, and thus also by the discipline behind it.

FIT, the International Federation of Translators, laid down the principles of the translation profession in its ‘Translator’s Charter’. The document defines one of the core duties of a translator in the following way: ‘Every translation shall be faithful and render exactly the idea and form of the original, this fidelity constituting both a moral and legal obligation for the translator.’ (FIT [1963]/1994; my emphasis). The translator’s professional ethics is thus based on the idea that there is a stable sense/meaning inherent in the original which is to be transferred by the translator. This is only partly weakened by a subsequent point in the Charter: ‘A faithful translation, however, should not be confused with a literal translation, the fidelity of a translation not excluding an adaptation to make the form, the atmosphere and deeper meaning of the work felt in another language and country.’ (FIT [1963]/1994)

In its ‘Code of Ethics’, the American Translators Association (ATA 2010), lists as its first point: ‘1. To convey meaning between people and cultures faithfully, accurately, and impartially.’ In the attached commentary, it becomes clear that the focus of this statement is the meaning as laid out in the original by the speaker/writer. This meaning is to be channelled wholly and completely:

Linguistic integrity is at the core of what translators and interpreters do. Faithful, accurate, and impartial translation and interpretation conveys the message as the author or speaker intended with the same emotional impact on the audience. […] Linguistic integrity implies that nothing is added or omitted in the target message. (ATA 2010)

AIIC, the International Association for Conference Interpreters, explicitly defines professionalism and quality as transferring the sense contained in the original:

As conference interpreting is a professional communication service, quality in interpreting is a function of communication. It is your job to communicate the speaker’s intended messages as accurately, faithfully, and completely as possible. At the same time, make it your own speech, and be clear and lively in your delivery. A conference interpreter is a communication professional who needs to be a good public speaker, so make your interpretation fluent, expressive, and communicative. (AIIC 2000, emphasis in the original)

A professional interpreter is thus defined in terms of their ability to identify what was intended by the speaker. This assumption is not questioned, yet the interpreter must also make the speech her/his own and endeavour to be clear and lively. Therein lies a contradiction. What if the speaker does not intend to be clear and lively and, instead, intentionally aims to come across as ambiguous and equivocal? Or what if the speaker has a monotonous way of speaking, by nature?

In the same vein, the German Federal Association of Translators and Interpreters, (BDÜ) under the rubric ‘Our profession’, explains the work of a translator in the following way: ‘Translation is a focused linguistic activity. The author of the source text has a particular intended message that must be conveyed to the recipient in the target language in a way that the message of the author is understood as intended.’ (BDÜ 2018). Once again, the professional translator is portrayed as someone who has access to an author’s intentions and thoughts.

While the meta-discourse produced by professional associations suggests that there is a stable sense/meaning which professional translators and interpreters have access to, the contradictions in these statements imply that in reality the translator’s and interpreter’s job goes far beyond simply decoding the one and only sense/meaning produced by the original author. Modern TS has long since abandoned restricted notions of equivalence between a source and its target text, or the idea of a stable sense that is to be transferred correctly. Yet the field of practice is still governed by such assumptions and propagates them actively. The reasons for this are manifold and range from wanting to depict the translating and interpreting professions as innocent to presenting translators and interpreters as trustworthy professionals steered by fidelity, accuracy, and neutrality. These buzzwords sell well – and as already noted the meta-discourses produced by professional associations are not only geared to their members but also to clients. These meta-texts, then, serve as marketing tools for the profession.

If TS wants to change these messages and the idea of translation they promote, it needs to reach out to translation practice – and it should definitely do so, since such images as that of translators and interpreters acting as ‘conduits’ bounce back, affecting both the profession and the discipline. They perpetuate misconceptions and fuel the notion that both ‘translation proper’ and TS (as the discipline focusing on it) are indeed outdated and have nothing to offer to other research areas. Ultimately, therefore, these images amount to a second missing outward turn which also has an impact on the success of the first.

Conclusions

TS has performed numerous shifts which have helped to establish the discipline. So far, however, there has not been a uniform concept for naming these shifts. This paper began by making a strong plea for using the notion of ‘turn’, as it builds upon the ability of TS to encompass multiple and concomitant world views. This is a strength of the field, since the various turns enrich one another and are often born out of one another.

After decades of inward turns, which have established the discipline, emancipating it from literary studies and applied linguistics (where studies on translation were initially undertaken), it is now time for TS to step forward and, crucially, outward. As has been shown, such a move can connect TS with other disciplines and fields of research precisely because of its inter- or transdisciplinary nature. It seems, however, that TS still lacks a full awareness of its potential and of the need for such an outward turn. The two concepts of ‘cultural translation’ and ‘translation proper’ are not as different as they may initially appear. They share very similar concerns, for instance about how translators actively participate in interactions and how meaning is co-constructed by them. Additionally, the transculturality of translation processes lends itself not only to an exchange or transfer of information but also to the creation of new, entangled, and hybrid contexts. TS does not hold any special rights to define or control the concept of translation, but it has many decades of expertise in investigating this notion – its fundamental concept – and has studied it from the perspective of many different ‘turns’. It seems, however, that TS does not just lack full awareness of all that it has to offer, but also of how and why it should actively engage with the ‘translational turn’ unfolding outside its disciplinary borders. A contribution by TS could enable the concept of ‘cultural translation’ to take more concrete forms. These new forms, which are co-constructed and transdisciplinary in nature, could then travel back to TS and enrich the discipline with new insights. TS needs to perform this outward turn moving away from a logics of self-containment and demonstrating its relevance to other disciplines. Otherwise, it may one day be taken over by those same disciplines, as their authority over the concept of translation increases, precisely because they are outward-going.

A second outward turn, towards the field of practice, needs to be taken – most probably before the outward turn towards other disciplines is initiated. TS needs to close the current gap between itself and translation practice, which centres on the misconstrued image of translators and interpreters as ‘conduits’ (Zwischenberger 2015) whose job it is to channel the sense inherent to the original. This image is particularly damaging to the discipline because it perpetuates perceptions of ‘translation proper’ and consequently also of TS as outdated.

For its own sake, then, TS needs to be called upon to initiate clear and decisive outward turns which will ensure its robust development into the future.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Cornelia Zwischenberger

Cornelia Zwischenberger works as a Professor in Translation Studies at the University of Graz in Austria. Her current research focus is on translation as a “travelling concept” in other disciplines, translation as collaboration as in the new online collaborative forms of translation such as in Translation Crowdsourcing, online fan translation etc. She has published numerous books and articles with renowned publishers and she is also co-editor of the scholarly series “Transkulturalität - Translation - Transfer” with the publishing house Frank & Timme in Berlin.