Hybridity in Translation Studies from Latour’s Perspective
Abstract
The expanding field of hybridity, which has been used in myriad studies such as cultural and postcolonial, may offer useful insights into Translation Studies. The present study focuses on the sociological standpoint of hybridity because it has a broader sense rather than other types of hybridity, moving from a textual concept limited to the linguistic dimension and a small-scale group of actors to a metatextual one with a wider range of actants-networks. Although the range of these actants is so extensive, this study concerns a limited one within the framework of Latour’s theory. It investigates hybrid networks of the actants in a Persian authored-compiled book. Besides, it attempts to find out whether there is any fixed border between the so-called original and translated writing. To this end, the main actants of the book were examined to find out whether they were involved in a translation process or not. After investigating the actants’ behaviors, their roles in the translation process were determined. The data was drawn from three types of sources: authors, the book, the original writing. The findings contribute to the conceptualization of translation as a social process resulting from hybridity between the so-called original and translated writing.
Keywords:
Hybridity, Latour, sociology, Networks of RelationsReferences
Bhabha, H. K. (1994). The location of culture. London. Routledge.
Blok, A., & Jensen, T. E. (2011). Bruno Latour: Hybrid thoughts in a hybrid world. Routledge.
Boll, T. (2016). Penguin books and the translation of Spanish and Latin American poetry 1956–1979. Translation and Literature, 28–57.
Bond, N. (2001). Interpreting the objectively “strange” and the strangely “objective”. Hybrid texts in social discourse and in the social sciences. Across Languages and Cultures, 2(2), 251–259.
Buzelin, H. (2005). Unexpected Allies. The Translator, 11(2), 193–218.
Buzelin, H. (2013). Sociology and translation studies. In C. Millán, & F. Bartrina (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies (pp. 186–200). Routledge.
Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems. MIT Press.
Dai, G. (2016). Hybridity in translation studies. In Hybridity in translated Chinese (pp. 11–19). Springer.
Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1998/2000). A thousand plateaus. In J. Rivkin, & M. Ryan, Literary theory: An anthology (pp. 378–388). John Wiley & Sons.
Dreher, J. (2016). What’s the truth about Latour’s hybrids?: A contribution to a more profound understanding of Bruno Latour's theory of hybrids (Master Thesis, Université Paris Sorbonne).
Farajollahi, M., & Navab, E. (2007). Cancer related fatigue and nursing care. Tehran: Iran University of Medical Sciences.
Haddaidian-Moghaddam, E. (2012). Agents and their network in a publishing house in Iran. (A. Pym, & D. Orrego-Carmona, Eds.) Translation Research Projects, pp. 37–50.
Hajibabaee, F. (2017, December 25). Tehran University of Medical Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery:
http://fnm.tums.ac.ir/faculties/section101/page1/lang/Fa.aspx
Hajibabaee, F. (2018, October 21). Tehran University of Medical Science: https://www.tums.ac.ir/faculties/f-hajibabaee?lang=fa&tknfv=015BE816H1ZUKPHAJGK6GF4J7EKMB612/
Husserl, E. (1962). Ideas: General introduction to phenomenology. Colliers.
Joolaee, S., & Hajibabaee, F. (2011). A review of the history and studies on Persian rights. Tehran: Islamic Republic of Iran Nursing Organization.
Klinger, S. (2015). Translation and linguistic hybridity: Constructing world-view. Routledge.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1993). We have never been modern. (C. Porter, Trans.) Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2002). Gabriel Tarde and the end of the social. In P. Joyce (Ed.), The social in questions: New bearings in history and the social sciences (pp. 117–132). Routledge.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University Press.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. (C. Smith, Trans.) Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Navab, E., Bahramnejhad, F., Sanaee, N., & Beikverdi, M. (2016). Comprehensive Textbook of Geriatric Nursing. Heidari.
Navab, E. (2017a, 12). Tehran University of Medical Sciences, School of Nursing and Midwifery: http://fnm.tums.ac.ir/faculties/navab-e/page1/lang/Fa
Navab, E. (2017b, December 30). Tehran University of Medical Science. https://www.tums.ac.ir/faculties/e-navab?lang=en&tknfv=015BE816H1ZUKPHAJGK6GF4J7EKMB612
Navab, E., & Bahramnejad, F. (2016). Testing and Evaluation in Nursing. Heidari.
Navab, E., & Hajibabaee, F. (2016). Phenomenology with focusing on Van Manen methodology. Andisheh Rafi.
Pym, A. (2001). Against praise of hybridity. Across Languages and Cultures, 2(2), 195–206.
Schäffner, C., & Adab, B. (2001). The idea of the hybrid text in translation: Contact as conflict. Across Languages and Cultures, 2(2), 167–180. https://doi:10.1556/Acr.2.2001.2.1
Serres, M. (1982). Theory of the quasi-object. The Parasite, 224–234.
Tak-Hung Chan, L. (2001). Cultural hybridity and the translated text: Re-reading D. H. Lawrence in Chinese. Across Languages and Cultures, 2(1), 73–85. https://doi:10.1556/Acr.2.2001.1.5
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy. State University of New York Press.
Van Manen, M. (2002a). Care-as-worry, or “don’t worry, be happy". Qualitative Health Research, 12(2), 262–278.
Manen, M. V. (Ed.). (2002b). Writing in the dark: Phenomenological studies in interpretive inquiry. Left Coast Press, INC.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright Licensee: Iranian Journal of Translation Studies. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution–NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0 license).
