Response

If Andrew Chesterman and I were on a panel together, we would probably engage in a spirited and rousing exchange about the issues raised in his article, going back and forth, refining each other's statements, and end up thinking that in general we agreed on the basic points, which might be summarized as follows.

What matters is (1) achieving deeper understanding about translation; (2) testing ideas to see the limits of their applicability to understanding translation as a general phenomenon and to avoid claims about universality prematurely; and (3) attempting to search for patterns that apply to translation data in general through time and space. To accomplish these goals, we would agree that it is necessary to be receptive to data of all types and to look beyond what we think we already know. In particular, we would agree that data from all areas of the world are helpful because they are more inclusive than data from any particular region (such as Europe) alone.

There are sections in Professor Chesterman's article that I think are brilliant and that I endorse wholeheartedly. At the same time there are other sections that I think go astray and there are still other conclusions that I believe do not follow from what has been said. For example, in his first paragraph I believe that the first four sentences are true, but that the fifth is wrong. It is true that many scholars in the field think that translation studies (TS) is too Eurocentric and needs to incorporate additional approaches that would offer solutions to current theoretical problems. It is not true, however, that these positions are based primarily on an implicit belief that TS is particularly affected by cultural relativity. Instead, the critique has been simply that the field in fact includes a broader range of products, processes and contexts than has been explored heretofore and that, hence, translation theory is based on an incomplete sample of the actual data.

The point of the international turn in translation studies is not that the discipline needs shaking up (though that could be as useful in TS as it would be in most fields). The point is not that translation studies is particularly affected by cultural relativity (which is no more a problem in this discipline than it is in anthropology, sociology, linguistics, history, art or literary studies). The point is that the field needs more data with a broader range in order to evolve a general theoretical framework that will serve present needs, describe past practices and frame future developments. The preponderant use of case studies from European cultures has limited the field's flexibility and acuity in understanding the practice of translation, in formulating theory and in developing a sound pedagogy of translation and interpreting. As Chesterman himself notes, we need to test our assumptions “on whatever relevant data we can find, wherever we find some, and the more widely the better”. Because globalization has put more translation traditions into contact with each other and because translation technology and information technology are shifting practices everywhere, we simply need more data to go forward.

Cultural difference rather than relativism is the issue. Although some scholars have called for specific local and limited theories of translation,¹ I agree with Professor Chesterman that the field needs to look for a more general approach to research, conclusions and theory. But above all we need more data. Because of the distribution of data used internationally thus far in the field, we specifically need more data from outside Europe and outside Eurocentric cultures.² Personally, I find that I learn something important from every non-Eurocentric case study I read, not because of its country of origin as such, but because the framework of cultural presuppositions is usually different in some respects from those I already know about and that difference affects the practice of translation in context. Learning about such variations broadens my understanding of translational phenomena in general and challenges me to think about my own assumptions, presuppositions and conclusions.

There are also pragmatic problems in translation studies that justify calls to move beyond Eurocentrism: namely, that most conferences, journals and publication series in the field that reach international audiences privilege European data. (Examine the titles of papers at conferences, the articles in prominent international journals and the book lists of publication series. Do the math.) This situation is in part the consequence of translation studies having been founded by European scholars and Israeli scholars with European backgrounds. In part it is a consequence of translation being central to the EU and of the European Commission being the largest employer of translators in the world. Hence Europe is arguably most in need of thinking about its pedagogy, strengthening its practices and developing its (locally applicable) working hypotheses and theoretical frameworks.

But the situation is also in part a consequence of the intellectual and cultural habits resulting from centuries of European colonialism in which those who were physically and culturally dominated (including people of European descent in the Americas) were not encouraged to speak up or write back. Some redress is in order on ideological grounds. In the case of translation studies, however, principally the motivation behind the international turn is that there are very important perspectives, frameworks, case studies, asymmetries of language and culture, and so forth that merit being incorporated into the discipline. Specific cultural origins of hypotheses is not the issue. The fact is that translation studies is a young discipline and still needs to broaden its data base.

Sometimes the resistance to the international turn on the part of Europeans can be very blatant – the refusal to publish a keynote address challenging Eurocentric hegemony, or the rejection of a case study for lack of knowledge on the part of reviewers of the language and culture discussed. Sometimes the resistance results from the implicit desire to continue to do business as usual. It is impossible, however, to instrumentalize a Popperian view of the scientific endeavor (as Professor Chesterman proposes) if those in charge (e.g. of conferences, journals, publication series) are not receptive to examples and arguments that challenge dominant Eurocentric views.

The problem has been one of both production (scholars from outside Europe have been less active in international circles of translation studies, in part because of funding issues and in part because in some cases specific scholars have become the “token” voices recognized for representing the views of whole nations) and reception. The International Association for Translation and Intercultural Studies (IATIS) is a good corrective related to the reception problems in TS, as are the Asian translation conferences organized by Judy Wakabayashi and her colleagues, and the translation and conflict conferences organized by Mona Baker and her colleagues.

A wide range of international examples is precisely what translation studies needs if, as Chesterman argues, the field deals primarily in interpretive hypotheses. He writes:

Assessing the potential universal applicability of our interpretive hypotheses requires not only wide-ranging data of all kinds but also an imaginative openness to alternative hypotheses, alternative interpretations, a willingness to see our “X” (translation) in terms of other “Ys”, seeing it differently.

Similarly, he notes that in translation studies “our mistake has been to assume too quickly that the tendencies or regularities we have found might really be ‘universal’ ”. Ironically, an example of this hastiness is found in Andrew Chesterman's paper itself, where he examines translationese and simplification as possible universals in target texts. These characteristics are not normally found in translations in oral cultures, such as the translation and transmission of oral tales, where naturalization of language would be de rigueur, rather than translationese. Likewise, one can find innovation, reinterpretation and elaboration just as often as simplification in translations in oral traditions (cf. Tymoczko 1990; Trivedi 2006).

This is precisely the reason for calls to move beyond Eurocentrism in translation studies because the broader the interpretive base in such a field, the better. Here again I agree with Professor Chesterman on his main point that “ultimately the quest for universals [in translation studies] is no more than the usual search for patterns and generalizations that guides empirical research in general”, though I prefer to use the term general principles instead of universals, because translation is a cluster category (see below) and as such, by definition, it cannot be characterized by universal conditions or characteristics. The proper assessment of ideas may have nothing to do with geographical origin, as Chesterman indicates, but international ideas about translation have everything to do with origins because they are rooted in the different and often divergent histories, cultures and languages of people outside Eurocentric frameworks. And in translation studies these are all relevant parameters.

Probably in person I could get Professor Chesterman to agree to the propositions I've made here because we both desire more data and more rigorous interrogation of data in translation studies, and we both have as a goal the formulation of general principles (namely theory) about translation that are able to sustain such inquiry and that fit the broadest possible range of case studies. Whether he would agree to my points in print is another matter. He and I are both reasonable people, but we are also both stubborn and we like to argue. That's one reason we enjoy debating these issues with each other so much.

One final comment. Professor Chesterman has perhaps misunderstood the nature of cluster concepts and my project in chapters 2 and 3 of Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators (2007), and this misunderstanding may be related to his quest for universals. Precisely because cluster concepts cannot be defined in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, they are impossible to circumscribe definitively; they are open concepts. Hence, translation as a cluster concept cannot be fully conceptualized in terms of the qualities of transference, representation and transculturation, nor can there be any “universal” characteristic governing all translations. Nonetheless, as I argue, one gains insight into the nature of the (international) concept translation by comparing it with those other three concepts.

As ever, it is a pleasure to read Andrew Chesterman's excellent and stimulating work and it is a privilege to be able to respond to it.

Note on contributor

Maria Tymoczko is professor of comparative literature at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her publications include Translation in a Postcolonial Context: Early Irish Literature in English Translation (1999) and Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators (2007), with Neuroscience and Translation forthcoming. She has edited Translation, Resistance, Activism (2010) and, with Edwin Gentzler, Translation and Power (2002). Her essays and articles have appeared in many translation studies anthologies and journals. She is a leading theorist in translation studies.

Notes

1. See, for example, Wakabayashi (2000); for a refutation of that position, (see Tymoczko 2007, 180–186).

2. On these issues, see also Tymoczko (2006) and my position paper is printed in an integral fashion in Van Doorslaer (2011).