Table Of Content

Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies This volume highlights a range of perspectives on the ways in which complexity thinking might be applied in translation studies, focusing in particular on methods to achieve this. The book introduces the topic with a brief overview of the history and conceptualization of complexity thinking. The volume then frames complexity theory through a variety of lenses, including translation and society, interpreting studies, and Bible translation, to feature case studies in which complexity thinking has successfully been or might be applied within translation studies. Using complexity thinking in translation studies as a jumping-off point from which to consider the broader implications of implementing quantitative approaches in qualitative research in the humanities, this volume is key reading for graduate students and scholars in translation studies, cultural studies, semiotics, and development studies. Kobus Marais is professor of translation studies in the Department of Linguistics and Language practice of University of the Free State. He has published T ranslation theory and development studies: A complexity theory approach (2014), A (bio)semiotic theory of translation: The emergence of social-cultural reality (2018), and Translation studies beyond the postcolony (2017; coedited with Ilse Feinauer). Reine Meylaerts is full professor of comparative literature and translation studies at KU Leuven. Currently she is vice-rector of research policy (2017–2021). She was director of CETRA from 2006–2014 and is now board member. She is the author of numerous articles and chapters on these topics. (https://lirias.kuleuven.be/items-by-author?author=Meylaer ts%2C+Reinhilde%3B+U0031976) Routledge Advances in Translation and Interpreting Studies Translation and Emotion A Psychological Perspective Séverine Hubscher-Davidson Linguistic and Cultural Representation in Audiovisual Translation Edited by Irene Ranzato and Serenella Zanotti Jin Ping Mei English Translations Texts, Paratexts, and Contexts Lintao Qi Untranslatability Interdisciplinary Perspectives Edited by Duncan Large, Motoko Akashi, Wanda Józwikowska and Emily Rose Perspectives on Retranslation Ideology, Paratexts, Methods Edited by Özlem Berk Albachten and Şehnaz Tahir Gürçağlar A (Bio)Semiotic Theory of Translation The Emergence of Social-Cultural Reality Kobus Marais A Sociological Approach to Poetry Translation Modern European Poet-Translators Jacob S. D. Blakesley Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies Methodological Considerations Edited by Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts For a full list of titles in this series, visit w ww.routledge.com/Routledge- Advances-in-Translation-and-Interpreting-Studies/book-series/RTS Complexity Thinking in Translation Studies Methodological Considerations Edited by Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts First published 2019 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of the editors to be identifi ed as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-1-138-57248-5 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-70201-7 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Apex CoVantage, LLC Contents 1 Introduction 1 KOBUS MARAIS AND REINE MEYLAERTS 2 Intersemiotic Translation as an Abductive Cognitive Artifact 19 JOÃO QUEIROZ AND PEDRO ATÃ 3 Resonances Between Social Narrative Theory and Complexity Theory: A Potentially Rich Methodology for Translation Studies 33 SUE-ANN HARDING 4 “Effects Causing Effects”: Considering Constraints in Translation 53 KOBUS MARAIS 5 On the Multidimensional Interpreter and a Theory of Possibility: Towards the Implementation of a Complex Methodology in Interpreter Training 73 MANUEL DE LA CRUZ RECIO 6 Exploring the Social Complexity of Translation with Assemblage Thinking 104 EMMA SEDDON 7 Translator Networks of Networks in Digital Space: The Case of Asymptote Journal 128 RALUCA TANASESCU AND CHRIS TANASESCU (MARGENTO) 8 A Complex and Transdisciplinary Approach to Slow Collaborative Activist Translation 152 RAÚL ERNESTO COLÓN RODRÍGUEZ vi Contents 9 Sacred Writings and Their Translations as Complex Phenomena: The Book of Ben Sira in the Septuagint as a Case in Point 180 JACOBUS A. NAUDÉ AND CYNTHIA L. MILLER-NAUDÉ 10 The Complexity of Iran’s Literary Polysystem: An Interdisciplinary Study 216 NASRIN ASHRAFI 11 Translation as Organized Complexity: Implications for Translation Theory 238 MARIA TYMOCZKO 12 Knowledge Translation and the Continuum of Science 259 CAROLINE MANGEREL Contributors 285 Index 288 1 Introduction Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts 1. The Paradigm of Simplifi cation Complexity theory is usually described as a revolutionary break from reductionism and as a way of seeing the world in terms of instability and fluctuations. Complexity theory indeed challenges the notions of disjunction, abstraction, and reduction, which together constitute the “paradigm of simplifi cation” ( Morin 2008 , 3), also called the paradigm of reductionism. Reductionism has been the dominant approach to science since the 16th century (M itchell 2009, ix) and has been wrongly associated with the only way to do “good science.” In the words of Edgar Morin (2008, 33), one of the fathers of complexity theory, reduction means “the search for elementary, simple units, the decomposition of a system into its elements, the origination of the complex to the simple.” As a typical Newtonian paradigm, reductionist thinking also wants to predict and control. It believes in order and determinism. It started in the natural sciences and spread from there to the social sciences. It also underlies some of the conceptualizations in Translation Studies. Let us take three examples from the H andbook of translation studies . When discussing “Scientifi city and theory in translation studies,” Daniel Gile states that: None of these theories [Interpretive Theory and Skopos Theory, Rel- evance Theory and Polysystem Theory, the process model of Simul- taneous interpreting, Gile’s Effort Models] is strong in the Popperian sense. They are more explanatory than predictive, and none of them has been tested systematically [. . .]. If the canonical view of science is taken as the single authoritative reference, it is tempting to con- clude that few existing theories in Translation Studies are scientifi c. But when including H[uman] S[ciences] C[ulture], this is no longer the case. ( Gile 2013 , 154) 2 Kobus Marais and Reine Meylaerts In her chapter on “General translation theory,” Dilek Dizdar describes Toury’s theoretical objectives: In his search for a general translation theory, Toury (1980) also fol- lowed this idea of Translation Studies as an empirical science. To counteract normative and non-systematic approaches to translation which had dominated the discourse for centuries, he argued for a strictly descriptive theory basis and the method of induction which, when enough empirical data was collected and analysed, could enable the scholars to determine general laws. ( Dizdar 2012 , 53) And fi nally, recalling the early days of descriptive translation studies, Alexandra Assis Rosa characterizes it as an empirical discipline with the dual purpose of describing “the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience” and, based on such descriptions, of formulating general principles that allow one to both explain and predict translational phenomena (Holmes 1988/2000: 176). ( Assis Rosa 2010 , 94) These examples illustrate how the paradigm of reductionism has shaped translation studies in the 1970s and 1980s. Sure, as can already be inferred from Gile’s reference to human sciences culture, alternative models have since questioned the search for prediction and control. Toury, for example, has also been criticized for his strict empiricism (see D iz- dar 2012) . Still, it is safe to say that translation studies has remained fi rmly embedded within the reductionist model, not so much in its search for universal laws but rather in its search for decomposing systems into elementary, simple units and for imposing a “simple conceptualization on a complex reality” (M arais 2015, 19). Thus, when studying audiovisual translation, for example, is it really useful to make rigorous distinctions between diverse translation types, strategies, and processes (dubbing, subtitling, voice-over, surtitling, audio description, translation, adaptation, non-translation, standardization, condensation, deletion, reformulation, normalization, etc.) instead of studying them in relation to each other as they often appear in one and the same product? The same goes for the traditional distinctions between different audiovisual media: How useful are they? According to Fernández Costales, the true potential of video games and the possibilities they can pose for research in translation-related issues have not been fully approached yet: the relation between audiovisual translation and video games can be further studied, as the introduction of voice over, dubbing, Introduction 3 subtitling and lip-sync techniques are still to be analysed; similarly, the question of accessibility in audiovisual translation can also be applied to the case of electronic entertainment. ( Fernández Costales 2012 , 388) In sum, how useful are our disciplinary subdivisions and our conceptual models to understand what is really going on in translation? How can we account for a collaborative production process? How are we to deal with signifi cant levels of uncertainty and ambiguity in terms of author- ship, translatorship, audience, or reception? How are we to deal with a myriad of contextual factors? How should we conceptualize the relation between the local and the central, between agency and structure? To these and other questions that occupy translation studies, there can be no single answer, algorithm or protocol that would work in every circumstance— a point that is well known in translation studies. Still, our traditional theories and models are not able (enough) to conceptualize exceptions, randomness, change. Translation studies’ models can deal with parts and wholes, but they cannot deal with complexity or paradox. However, as Prigogine (1996, 4) said: “the new rationality looks at fl uctuations, instability, multiple choices and limited predictability.” This is exactly why Manuel De la Cruz Recio, in this volume, states that a general interpreting theory “must necessarily be a theory of possibility.” Instead of eliminating complexity, we should conceptualize it. Although reduction will remain an important characteristic of science ( Morin 2008 , 33; Marais 2015 , 15) and thus of translation studies, we need to supplement it with an epistemology of complexity. 2. Complexity 2.1 Nonlinearity A complex system can apply to bacteria, the brain, political theory, ants, computers, urban life, culture, translation, and transfer, etc. and can be defi ned in several ways. For computer scientist Melanie Mitchell (2009, 13), also quoted in Manuel De la Cruz Recio’s chapter, it is a “system in which large networks of components with no central control and simple rules of operation give rise to complex collective behavior, sophisticated information processing, and adaptation via learning or evolution.” From a cultural-philosophical point of view, a complex system is a network of rich interactions which change over time. It is not the number of parts interacting which defi nes complexity but rather the nature of their interactions. These interactions are non-linear, mean- ing that one cannot add up the interactions in a system in order to measure their effects. In other words, “nonlinearity describes the