The Turns of Translation Studies from a CDA Perspective
The Polysystem Theory as a Nodal Discourse in Translation Studies
Keywords:Turns of Translation Studies, Fairclough’s model of CDA, nodal discourse, Discourse change, Paradigm shift, Polysystem theory
Inspired by Thomas Kuhn’s theory of paradigm shift and guided by Fairclough’s model of critical discourse analysis (CDA), this paper is concerned with the turns of Translation Studies (TS) from a CDA perspective. It gives account of the way in which Polysystem theory as a nodal discourse redefined translation through the discursive processes of emergence and appropriation, contestation and hegemony, and recontextualization and colonization. This is done by conceptualizing the turns of TS as an order of discourse according to Fairclough’s model. The paper attempts to show that the Polysystem theory, having been appropriated into TS, displaced the existing discourses within TS and redefined the methodological and epistemological status of translation by raising a cluster of new conceptual issues, which greatly contributed to the cultural turn in the field. It is concluded that a turn in TS occurs when the three areas of methodology, epistemology and ontology are redefined by discursive processes.
Bachmann-Medick, D. (2016). Cultural turns: New orientations in the study of culture. (A. Blauhut, Trans.) Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Baker, M. (Eds.) (1998). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (1st ed.). London & New York: Routledge.
Baker, M., & Saldanha, G. (Eds.) (2020). Routledge encyclopedia of translation studies (3rd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.
Bassnett, S. (2007). Culture and translation. In P. Kuhiwczak and K. Littau (Eds.) A companion to translation studies (pp. 13–23). Clevedon & Buffalo & Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Chand, M. (n.d.) New paradigms in qualitative research. Retrieved from https://www.sfu.ca/educ867/htm/paradigm.htm
Chesterman, A. (2017). Reflections on translation theory: Selected papers 1993–2014. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (1999). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dogan, M. (2001). Paradigms in the social sciences. In International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (Vol. 16, pp. 11023–11027). USA: Elsevier.
Even-Zohar, I. (1978). The position of translated literature within the literary Polysystem. In J. Holmes, J. Lambert & R. van den Broeck (Eds.), Literature and translation: New perspectives in literary studies (pp. 117–127). Leuven: Acco.
Fairclough, N. (2005). Critical Discourse Analysis in Transdisciplinary Research. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis (pp. 53–70). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fairclough, N. (2006). Discursive transition in central and Eastern Europe. In S. Xu (Ed.), Discourse as cultural struggle. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.
Gentzler, E. (2001). Contemporary translation theories (2nd ed.). Clevedon & Buffalo: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Guerra, C., Capitelli, M., & Longo, S. (2012). The role of paradigms in science: A historical perspective. In L. L'Abate (Ed.), Paradigms in theory construction (pp. 19–30). New York & London: Springer.
Hermans, T. (Ed.). (1985). The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation. London & New York: Routledge.
Hermans, T. (1999). Translation in systems: Descriptive and system-oriented approaches explained. London & New York: Routledge.
Ho, G. (2004). Globalization and translation: Towards a paradigm shift in translation studies.(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand). Retrieved from Proquest Digital Dissertations.
Jørgensen, M., & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. London & New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lambert, J. (1995). Translation, systems and research: The contribution of Polysystem studies to translation studies. TTR: traduction, terminologie, redaction, 8(1), 105–152.
Lefevere, A. (1985). Why waste our time on rewrites? The trouble with interpretation and the role of rewriting in an alternative paradigm. In T. Hermans (Ed.) The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation (pp. 215–243). London & New York: Routledge.
Lefevere, A. (1992). Translation, rewiring, and the manipulation of literary fame. London: Routledge.
Malmkjær, K. (2000). Multidisciplinarity in process research. In S. Tirkkonen-Condit and R. Jääskeläinen (Eds.), Tapping and mapping the process of translation and interpreting (pp. 163–170). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pym, A. (2014). Exploring translation theories (2nd ed.). London & New York: Routledge.
Sakellariou, P. (2014). The appropriation of the concept of intertextuality for translation-theoretic purposes. Translation Studies, 8(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1080/14781700.2014.943677
Snell-Hornby, M. (1988). Translation studies: An integrated approach. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Snell-Hornby, M. (2009). What's in a turn? On fits, starts and writings in recent translation studies. Translation Studies, 2(1), 41–51. doi: 10.1080/14781700802496225
Wodak, R. & Weiss, G. (2005). Analyzing European Union discourses: Theories and applications. In R. Wodak and P. Chiltorn (Eds.) New agenda in (critical) discourse analysis (pp. 121–135). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.