1. Yang menyatakan translation sbg scientific studies gambier & van doorslaer, hermans, holmes, jakobson, toury dan tymoczko. 2. Yang anti theory Cary, dan pergnier, sumber: redefining translation 3. Translation as international academic discipline must move beyond eurocentrism 4. Sejarah Translatn studies Munday, Handbook of trans stud

Despite this early work, the name Translation Studies was not proposed until 1972 as an alternative to translatology (French translatologie) or translation science, or science of translating and the German bersetzungswissenschaft. The proposer was James S. Holmes (19241986), a US-born lecturer and poetry translator at the University of Amsterdam, in a now famous conference paper aptly entitled The name and nature of Translation Studies, delivered at the Third International Conference of Applied Linguistics, held in Copenhagen in August 1972. The abstract of the paper begins: Though the study of translation and translations has a long history, and during the past two decades has begun to display more and more the characteristics of a separate discipline, there is as yet little general agreement as to what this new discipline should be called. (Holmes 1972: 88).5. Identity of Transltn Stu MundayGiven these advances, a question that is frequently raised is the disciplinary and identitary nature of Translation Studies. The question is no longer that which preoccupied Holmes in 1972 (when many were unsure of the worth of Translation Studies), but rather whether there is so much fragmentation that we are really studying different or incompatible things and, a related question, whether Translation Studies should therefore be considered a discipline in its own right, or more of an interdiscipline. The problem that still confronts Translation Studies is that it (and many of its researchers) has come together out of other disciplines and for this reason in many countries it lacks a strong institutional identity. On the other hand, the fluidity of modern scholarship often privileges interdisciplinary research as a dynamic and creative force. Much good research on translation also takes place in disciplines that until recently have not obviously interfaced with Translation Studies.6. Lingkup PoT Bermann, Comp to Trans Stud

Cassins dictionary of untranslatables, or untranslatable terms, points the directionin which a philosophy of translation that incorporates the question of translationin philosophy might be developed. Such a philosophy would need to interrogate thephilosophical premises of translation, its theories of language, meaning, and identity,for example, while at the same time acknowledging philosophys own dependency ontranslation. Cassins project points to the hopelessness of attempts to find equivalentsin translation when philosophy operates within a multilingual panoramic network ofincompatibilities, where conceptual terms cannot but shift in their semantic implicationswhen translated and therefore, strictly speaking, remain untranslatable, offeringinstead what Emily Apter (2008, 584) describes as an epistemological fulcrum thatilluminates the differences of philosophical thought across the cartographic space andhistories of languages.

7. Konsep Definisi Translation Munday, Handbook of trans stud

For such an area of study, the conceptualization of translation is clearly key. Yet translation is far from straightforward; it may be understood as a process of rendering a text from one language into another (translating, see Translation process*), a product (the translated text) or as a subject and phenomenon itself (e.g., cultural translation, translation in the Middle Ages). Typically, Translation Studies has used the famous Russo-American linguist Roman Jakobsons (18961982) categorization of three forms of translation as a process: 1. Intralingual translation or rewording is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of other signs of the same language.422 Jeremy Munday 2. Interlingual translation or translation proper is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of some other language. 3. Intersemiotic translation or transmutation is an interpretation of verbal signs by means of signs of nonverbal sign systems. (Jakobson 1959: 233, emphasis in original) In Jakobsons categorization, it is interlingual translation (i.e., translation between different verbal languages, German>French, Chinese>Arabic, English>Russian, etc.), which is the focus. It has also been, and remains, the main object of study in Translation Studies. However, the definition of other language is not unproblematic (is dialect considered a different language, for instance?) and this blurs the dividing line between interlingual and intralingual translation. Most importantly, though, Jakobsons definitions refer to signs, above and beyond the written or spoken word. In recent years this has proved valuable as the interest of Translation Studies has extended to embrace many forms of intersemiotic translation (the role of the visual, the translation of music, comics* and films, and many other forms of adaptation, etc.) including those which cross over with intralingual translation (e.g., sign language interpreting*, audio description, intralingual subtitling*) and interlingual translation (e.g., interlingual subtitling).8. Pendahuluan : redef trans p. 6 mnrt oseki-depre hubungan erat practice of trans dan theory 9. What does translation studies study? Munday Handbook of transltn studies As well as suggesting a name for the discipline, Holmes (1972, 1988) also discusses its nature. He explicitly proposes a structure of an empirical discipline with a pure research side divided into (1) Descriptive Translation Studies and (2) theoretical Translation Studies or translation theory. The goals of pure research are to describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s) as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience, and [...] to establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be explained and predicted (Holmes 1988: 71). Holmes adds a third area (3) Applied Translation Studies* in which the findings of the pure research are applied in actual translation situations, in translation training, and in translation criticism.

Indeed, since Holmes time the questions which Translation Studies has sought to answer have multiplied, but, as above, relate specifically to process (understanding the cognitive, decision-making capacities of the translator), product (what are the features of a translated text or genre, what are the characteristics of translated language explicitation, standardization, interference, etc. , how do we judge translation quality*, what is untranslatable) and phenomenon (what is understood as translation by different cultures, what was translation like at different historical and geographical points, how was a specific translation or group of translations received in the target culture, etc.).10. Pendahuluan Munday Handbook of transltn studies

Translation Studies is the discipline which studies phenomena associated with translation in its many forms. Although translation* and interpreting* are practices that have been conducted for millennia, Translation Studies is a relatively new area of inquiry, dating from the second half of the twentieth century and initially emerging out of other fields such as Modern Languages, Comparative Literature and Linguistics. Like other new areas of study, it has had to fight for recognition and was additionally hampered by an entrenched bias against it resulting from a long-held disregard for translation. In academia, translation has often been perceived to be of lesser value because, as a product, it is derivative and supposedly subservient to the original, and, as a practice, it was associated in schools and universities with classical or foreign language learning (hence was merely a means to a higher goal of learning Greek, Latin, etc.) or with a non-academic and underpaid profession. It is only really since the 1980s that this perception has begun to shift significantly.11. Source: Penting1 Perkembangan PoT in TS a. The philosophy of translation is not identical with translation theory; it is more basic than that. b. For example the much rehearsed map of translation studies developed by Toury (1995: 10) on the basis of Holmes famous paper (1972/1988), The name and nature of translation studies has no place for a philosophy of translation: That may not be so surprising, because philosophies of x do tend to exist outside of x itself within philosophy, in fact. For example, the philosophy of language exists outside linguistics, within philosophy; the philosophy of mind exists outside of psychology, within philosophy; and the philosophy of science exists outside of science, within philosophy.This is partly because philosophy is the original discipline from which many of the current academic disciplines have sprung, once the understandings that developed within philosophy began to be applied and it became clear that more needed to be done with reference to a certain topic than speculating about its essence, and as technological development made it possible to actually do more. But I want to argue that the case of a philosophy of translation is different, for the following reasons:1. Philosophers do not in fact conceive of a philosophy of translation as such; for them, the question of translation is just one question, though a very central question, within the philosophy of language.2. Philosophers are not especially interested in many of the issues that interest translation scholars, so we cannot expect to find in their writings any implications of their work for our discipline. These, we have to draw out ourselves. 3. The philosophical debate about translation has a direct bearing on the most fundamental questions in our discipline.c. The importance of PoTI want to suggest two reasons why it is important to have a philosophy of translation. One is that it is reassuring to have a basic understanding of what translation is that underlies our various approaches to it and holds together our various theories of it and of its constituent concepts and descriptive notions. The other is that we need a philosophy of translation if we are to provide satisfactory answers to some of the challenges the discipline faces both from outside of itself and from within itself.12. Sumber : tymozcko a. philosophical interests in translation in the twentieth century have been motivated primarily by linguistic concerns and, hence, the most prominent philosophical approaches to translation are best considered with linguistic theories of translation. Translation was taken up by Anglo-American analytic philosophers focusing on the philosophy of language; they used translation as a vehicle for investigating larger concerns pertaining to language and meaning.b. By contrast, postpositivist epistemologies emerged during the breakdown and rejection of imperialism, and they are associated with the interrogationsof dominant assumptions about race, gender, class, culture, power, and nation.Postpositivist epistemologies decenter dominant views and have the potentialto open the field of discourse to the perspectives, viewpoints, and values of allpeoples and all subject positions. Thus, shifts in an academic field toward postpositivistapproaches, as has happened in translation studies, will bring with themconsiderations pertaining to ethics and ideology, including the perspectives ofdiverse cultural groups and diverse individuals alike. In the case of translationstudies, such considerations converged on the ideology of the processes andproducts of translation, as well as on the ethical position and the empowermentof translators, the agents of translation.c. Traditional theory of meaning and its implication to PoTThis sort of contention was not typical of earlier centuries. The so-calledPlatonic theory of meaning, inherited from antiquity but amalgamated withChristian doctrine at the end of the Roman period and during the Middle Ages,produced a longstanding and relatively stable view of the relationship linkingideas, language, and the realm of experience in the West. This Platonic view ofmeaning had prevailed for centuries by the nineteenth century. A schematizedway to conceptualize the Platonic paradigm is to conceive of the existence ofa realm of ideal (abstract, disembodied) ideas or forms (as Plato called them),each of which corresponds to some changeless abstract concept that was seen asuniversal. These forms (connected with the realm of the divine) were understoodas being imperfectly represented in the world of physical experience. Althoughlanguage was used to speak of the (imperfect) world of experience, the meaningof language was derived from its relationship to the ideal forms and ideas beyondthe tangible world. Within such a Platonic framework of meaning, therefore,translation can be looked on as a process of substitution, in which one code forreferring to the realm of universal forms is replaced with another code referringto the same realm. In the West the concept of translation as transfer of meaningtook shape within this philosophical context for understanding meaning itself. In translation studies Platonic theories of meaning persist in the idea thattranslation involves deverbalization, insofar as deverbalization suggests thattranslators can refer to an abstract, non-linguistic realm of ideas in moving betweenone language and another. Platonic theories also are implicit in ideas thattranslators are located between (cf. Tymoczko 2003). The idea of a transcendentrealm that serves as an ideal point of reference for the meanings of the worldis not limited to Western cultures, but that idea is inflected differently in othercultures. Note that some of the international conceptualizations of translation signaledby linguistic metaphors for translation discussed in section 2.2 suggest thatthe immanence of meaning makes linguistic substitution possible in translation.

Platonic views of meaning sustained a major challenge from positivismin the nineteenth century, which stressed observation in assessing the truth ofstatements of fact and recognized only positive facts and the relations betweenspecific facts, more general facts, and laws. Rejecting the Platonic level of idealforms or ideas, positivists challenged Western religious and philosophical frameworksinherited from antiquity for construing meaning. The philosophical stanceof positivism looked back to the empiricist tradition associated with Hume andLocke, in which meaning was rooted in sense impressions and linked to thingsin the world. Because positivism rejected metaphysical and subjective views ashaving no claim on truth, the legitimate domain of meaningful language wasseen as limited to the realm of facts and laws that could be empirically viewedas universally or objectively true. This is in part why the early Wittgensteincould hold in 1921 that What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whatwe cannot talk about we must consign to silence (1961:2-3, cf. section 1.1above). Positivism replaced a Platonic sense of universality underlying languageand meaning with another universalist criterion to which language could bereferred, namely facts and laws that were observable, verifiable, and applicablein all circumstances. In positivism, as in a Platonic theory of meaning, thepracticalities of translation entailed in replacing one code with another mightbe difficult, but in principle translation was straightforward with respect to thequestion of meaning.During the early decades of the twentieth century, however, positivistviews of meaning were challenged by various approaches to language andphilosophy (such as hermeneutics) and then further destabilized in the 1920sand 1930s by new thinking in the natural sciences that resulted in the decline ofscientific positivism. These shifts in science were driven principally by developmentsin physics and mathematics that brought into question basic positivistunderstandings of facts and certainty, necessitating a reappraisal of the centralityof perspective and the importance of the position of the observer or knower.The fact that these shifts occurred in physics and mathematics was particularlydamaging to positivism, which had seen meaning in those disciplines as themost certain of the certain. Scientific challenges to positivism also coalescedwith challenges about meaning coming from many other directions, includingpsychology, cognitive science, literature, and various artistic movements (cf.above, sections 1.1 and 1.4).

Third, virtually every theory of meaning stresses the central role of signsin constructing meaning. Because language is the most important human signsystem, language itself therefore plays a fundamental role in constructing andestablishing meaning. But there are problems in consequence. The relationshipof language to context (including personal experience) is significant insofar ascontext itself shifts meaning. Moreover, because language is always in flux,if meaning is tied to signs (language), meanings cannot be stable. The currentmeaning of a sign looks back to earlier meanings and forward to future meanings:there is no originary, foundational meaning for any sign. In addition, signs canonly be explicated in terms of other signs; for any theory of meaning, the resultis a sort of infinite regress, in which again there is no stable originary or ultimatepoint that grounds certainty of meaning. Because signs can only be explicated interms of other signs, the phenomenon of unlimited semiosis (involving endlesschains of signs) results in semiotic associations potentially having wide variabilityacross time, populations, and individuals. Perhaps most important in terms of theimplications for translation of the link between meaning and signs are semioticanisomorphisms and asymmetries across languages. If languages are the chiefhuman sign systems and if languages are asymmetrical and anisomorphic, thenstrictly speaking the meanings of signs cross-linguistically cannot be the sameor fully commensurate, nor can they be completely determined in moving acrosslinguistic boundaries.35These various aspects of contemporary Western views of meaning in otherdisciplines are applicable to and consistent with what is known about meaningin translation. As the results of brainstorming the role of meaning in translationindicate, translators must take into account a very diverse and wide-rangingset of phenomena in translating textual meaning. Constructivist theories ofmeaning are consonant with the data that have been gathered about translationThis congruenceis particularly apparent in data from descriptive studies of translation productsand from observations showing that translations have a one-to-many relationshipto the source text, that contextual factors (including ideology and politics)impinge on translators constructions of meaning, that translations of the samesource text can differ radically in different languages, in different contexts, andso forth. Translators construct meaning in translated texts by transposing andreformulating a selection of the wide range of diverse meaningful elements thatthey perceive in source texts. There is no uniformity in what different translatorssee as meaningful and in what they choose to construct as meaningful fortheir receptor audiences. Moreover, because languages differ in their patterns ofsemiosis and their semiotic associations, translations never have the same meaningas their source texts. Note that constructivist understandings of meaning intranslation are not limited to Western thought. An appreciation of the asymmetriesand differences involved in translation and the need to reformulate the sourcetext rather than transmit it unchanged are implicit in many of the metaphors andimage-schemas underlying the international terms for the cross-cultural concepttranslation discussed in section 2.2 above.

as the understandingof meaning has shifted from a Platonic norm to (contested) positivist views topostpositivist constructivist views of meaning. It is probably no accident that thisseismic shift occurred during the same period that Western cultures had contactand contestation with so many other cultures and languages beyond the West,the period that spans the height of European imperialism through World War IIto the present. The independence of most colonized territories around the worldwas accompanied temporally and historically by the postpositivist recognitionin Western culture of the importance of alternate perspectives throughout theworld, not just politically but linguistically and culturally also. The result hasbeen a fundamental decentering of meaning itself.In the international discipline of translation studies, these various historicalfactors have favored the primacy of Eurocentric and North American conceptualizationsof translation both practically and theoretically. As a result translationstudies has privileged a particularly Western view of translation, namely the viewof translation as a carrying across, a leading across, or a setting across, theoriginal meanings of the words in the major Western European languages fortranslation, including English translation, Spanish traduccin, French traduction,and German bersetzung. All these words privilege transfer as the basicmode of translation whether that transfer is figured in terms of transportingmaterial objects or leading sentient beings (such as captives or slaves in one directionor soldiers and missionaries in the other) across a cultural and linguisticboundary.3 Theo Hermans notes that if the etymology of the word translationhad suggested, say, the image of responding to an existing utterance instead oftransference, the whole idea of a transfer postulate would probably never havearisen (1999:52). Its not so much that these Western views of translation arepernicious per se but that they constitute only one of many possible ways of conceptualizingtranslation: they are limited and they are also ideological. I believethat if the theory and practice of translation remain predicated upon and restrictedto dominant Western European conceptions of translation, translators will ipsofacto through their processes of translation, consciously or not, be enlisted inthe political aspect of globalization from a dominant Western point of view, thatis, the use of globalization to further the carrying across of Western dominance military, political, economic, and cultural in the world.Current models used to teach translation, to train translators, and to researchthe products and processes of translation are generally based on these narrow,dominant Western European practices of and discourses about translation. Theproblems with Western models are manifold, however. For example, they presupposeoutmoded theories of meaning either Platonic conceptions of meaningor positivist ones. Andrew Chesterman and Rosemary Arrojo observe that Themetaphor translation is transfer . . . implies that something is indeed transferred,something that presumably remains constant throughout the process and is thusobjectively there (2000:153). More modern concepts of meaning, by contrast,view meaning as being constructed by cultural practices and cultural production,notably language, and inflected by the context. As a consequence the target textmeanings can never be fully the same as source text meanings, nor is there acircumscribed meaning in a source text that awaits transfer or carrying across bya translator.4 Thus, insofar as a translator is taught to use a specific protocol fordetermining and transferring meaning, that protocol will narrow a translatorschoices and decision making; it will circumscribe the translators agency, andinscribe the translator within a dominant Western construction not only of translationbut also of what counts as meaning.Moreover, Western conceptualizations of translation can be associated withthe metaphor of the translator as standing between in the transfer process. Themetaphor of between suggests that the translator is neutral, above history andideology; the translator can even be seen as an alienated figure in this construct, analienation that can be passed off as the objectivity of a professional

Presenting translation as a practiceof transfer of meaning obscures the problems a translator faces instead of openingup those problems for inspection; it impedes the development of effective strategiesof translation instead of leading to productive discussions of how to developstrategies for transposing, constructing, and performing meaning; it disempowerstranslators instead of empowering them. Because students and translators areaware however subliminally of the complexity of the nature of meaning, animplicit or explicit denial of the problematic of meaning turns the question ofmeaning in translation into an impossible burden for translators, a labyrinthine trap, an insolvable puzzle. The only solution that many translators can devise isto subordinate their own agency to prevailing norms, dominant ideologies, andprescriptive translation protocols. Such forms of translator training constructstudents and translators as subalterns13. Seblm contructivist PoT itu narrow bgt foundationsnya Because the field has taken shape arounda narrow Western definition of the matter, based on the conceptual metaphorsembedded in Western European words for translation, and because a local setof knowledges and practices has become the basis of universalist claims about translation, Translation studies must move beyond Eurocentric conceptualizations and translators mustbecome self-reflexive about their pretheoretical understandings and practicesof translation, or else translation in the age of globalization will become an instrument of domination, oppression, and exploitation.opening the definition of translation to include a larger range of ideas besidesthose currently dominant in the West, including ideas from beyond the Westernsphere, would also lead to insights about the agency of translators and ultimatelyto the empowerment of translators.14. Ontology : constructivist nature of meaning translation as an open concept 15. Epistemo : no absolute truth and value-free inquiry no unbiased, reality is complex reality is never simplistic and involve multiplicity of factors and over time of relationships empiricism but not objective. In fact all research, including research in the natural sciences, is subjective,influenced by ideas and beliefs related to subject positions, frames of reference,interpretations, mental concepts, and received meanings, such as theoretical16. frameworks and disciplinary paradigms.17. Axiology : Translation is a central cultural domain where control of meaning is imposedand regulated because of the potentially transformative power and the constructivistnature of translation. Raylene Ramsay notes that translation foregroundsanother way of being in the world, thus exposing the fictitious creations ofmeaning in ones own language (2004:167-68). Similarly Gouanvic arguesthat translation necessarily is involved in the struggle of cultural productionsfor legitimation and recognition and that it can dislodge hierarchies of18. legitimation (2000:106).The potential to unmask and subvert the epistemologicalauthority of a receiving culture and the possibility of disrupting culturallegitimations are yet other motivations for controlling the way that translatorsimport meaning into a culture, for such subversions and disruptions can havemomentous consequences for any society. The dimensions of meaning surveyedhere are merely illustrative of the immense ideological and political import of therole of meaning in translation and of translators as meaning makers in culturalinterface and domestic change. It is no wonder that the intent to govern meaningis materialized in the systemic controls and sanctioned protocols associatedwith translating documents connected with power in particular, whether thosetexts are business contracts, government documents, legal texts, treaties, sacredreligious books, monuments of cultural identity and cultural nationalism, or the great works of a literary canon.48 Only by being aware of their own ability toconstruct (and deconstruct) meaning as well as ways that societies attempt tocontrol meaning can translators fully exercise their agency as meaning makers.Decentering power is not just a matter of politics, ideological struggles,ethics, and values: it is also an epistemological matter related to meaning andknowledge. Translators play key roles in these domains. The issues raised hereabout translators as meaning makers take on new urgency in contemporarycontexts and conflicts; they are reasons that the lives of translators are in peril once again in our world.19. Contemporary theories of meaninglegitimate translation by acknowledging that shifts of meaning, multiple interpretations,and constructivist interventions by translators are not only inevitable but ultimately desirable.

20. Nonetheless, the ethical dimension of the loss and gain of meaning demandsattention. Decisions related to meaning in translation require that translatorsinvent strategies for executing their choices deliberately and that they monitorthe ethical implications of those strategies. Gillian Lane-Mercier observes thattranslation is a violent, decision-oriented, culturally determined discursiveactivity that compels the translator to take a position with respect to the sourcetext and author, the source culture, the target culture and the target reader, thusengaging, over and above socially imposed norms and values, the translatorsagency together with his or her responsibility in the production of meaning(1997:65).

21. There are many other problems with basing translation studies on an implicitand unexamined foundation of Western views of translation. Eurocentricconceptions of translation are deeply rooted in literacy practices (as opposed tooral practices, still dominant in most of world). Indeed, Eurocentric ideas abouttranslation are shaped by practices deriving from biblical translation in particularand by the history of translating Christian sacred texts. Western conceptions oftranslation are also heavily influenced by the tight connection of language andnation in Europe (which privileges the view that a nation should be united arounda single language and that normal cultures are monolingual). The history ofEurocentric translation is connected with the practices of empire and imperialismas well. These are obviously not acceptable conceptual bases much less idealones for founding an international discipline of translation studies, for servingas the basis of translation theory around the world, or for providing internationalstandards of translation practices. Certainly they do not conduce to developinginternationalist approaches to translation that can facilitate an equitablerelationship among peoples and mutality in cultural exchange predicated onmultidirectionality in a globalized world.

From the postpositivist awareness of difference in perspective and position,to new sensitivities about the workings of signs and codes, to concreteunderstandings of how textual production is related to power and ideology,wartime concerns had immediate applications for translation. It was inevitablethat these considerations should have stimulated and shaped translation studiesin the postwar period.

7. The impact of Western imperialism on academic subjects was not limitedto the humanities; indeed presuppositions associated with imperialism affectedall branches of knowledge. Academic investigations generally excluded conceptsof mathematics, medicine, alternate views of nature, and approaches to scientificquestions developed outside Western contexts. The social sciences reducednon-Western cultures to primitive curiosities and non-Western individualsto objects, institutionalizing aspects of an imperial or colonizing gaze in theprotocols of anthropology and other observational disciplines that focused onpeoples from beyond the Western ambit. These imperialist premises of academicdisciplines were in turn interconnected with positivism, for positivism implicitlyand uncritically asserts the dominant (and, hence, Western) perspective as thebasis of observation, taking one specific cultural viewpoint as the correct or objectiveperspective for assessing the truth of statements of fact and for garneringpositive, observable data. Thus a local Eurocentric perspective was presumed tobe the only possible neutral view of the world.These frameworks began to break down in the first quarter of the twentiethcentury, eroding rapidly as the century progressed. For example, in his maturework, The Philosophical Investigations (1953), Wittgenstein offered shatteringexamples and arguments that undermined positivism. Wittgenstein began toaddress issues of perspective, the habits of human communities, the difficultiesand arbitrariness in human communication, the incommensurability of life forms,and the importance of convention, among others. His work converged with andextended developments in the natural sciences and mathematics, as well as otherfields. As a consequence of these varied developments, positivism as an approachto knowledge and the production of knowledge had been largely abandoned bythe end of World War II in most intellectual circles.In this trajectory the work of three figures stands out Albert Einstein,Werner Heisenberg, and Kurt Gdel. Although an exploration of their accomplishmentsis beyond the scope of the present study, we can note briefly some aspectsof their impact. Einsteins challenges to Newtonian physics and his relativitytheories, Heisenbergs uncertainty principle (1927), and Gdels incompletenesstheorem (1931) held implications not merely for their own specific disciplinesbut for the concept of knowledge itself. All of these theories turn on the significanceof perspectives and frameworks, as well as loci of uncertainty, in physicsand mathematics. Scientists were not the only figures involved in the shift awayfrom positivism. Figures such as Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung played a role, andartists such as James Joyce and Picasso were important as well, problematizingobjectivity and anticipating in their work discourses about perspective thatemerged later in academic fields.The changing views of knowledge in the twentieth century underminednineteenth-century epistemological and ideological premises of the traditionalhumanities and, indeed, of academe as a whole, thus challenging orientations inWestern culture that go back to the Greeks. It is no accident that arguments forenlarging the conception of translation can be connected with the postpositivistviews of the later Wittgenstein, as we will see below. In the second half ofthe twentieth century, postpositivist views of knowledge shifted inquiry in thehumanities and the social sciences away from research oriented toward diggingout and amassing observable facts, to self-reflexive interrogations of perspective,premises, and the framework of inquiry itself.

What Iargue for is a full integration into translation studies of postpositivist understandingsof data collection and theory formation. Such understandings recognizethat there are multiple perspectives on the natural and social worlds, that suchperspectives need to be explicitly recognized and acknowledged, and that perspectivesutilized within the field of translation studies should increasingly includeperspectives from outside dominant spheres. An expanded framework of this sortwill include perspectives on translation that interrogate hegemonic impositionsand that will nurture self-definitions of the nature and practice of translationthroughout the world. This is a direction that I believe the field has been lurchingtoward for decades, but in an inchoate and somewhat random manner: a generalbroadening of perspectives and conceptualizations, including a developing habitof self-reflexivity, has been intertwined with clear retrogressions.

Background berkembanganya contructivist dan functionalist stlh WW IIFirst were linguistic approaches to translation, a school of thoughtabout translation that inherits the wartime interests in cracking codes, the centralconcern of intelligence operations. Second were the functionalist schools thatinherit the legacy of expertise pertaining to propaganda and the manipulationof target audiences through textual and cultural production, honed to perfectionduring the 1930s and 1940s.To summarize, therefore, postwar developments with an emphasis on postpositivistepistemology, a new awareness of the nature of linguistic codes, andnew textual practices related to the manipulation of culture are all germane to thestrange periodization offered by Steiner and more importantly to the characterof the schools of translation theory and practice that emerged after World WarII.

9. Semiotics How do languages relate to semiotic systemsin general, including codes and other systems of signs? Are artistic codes forms of language? Is music a formof language? Is mathematics? How should drumming used as signals be classified?Or the signals of traffic lights? And antecedent to all of these questions,what types of signs and symbols are there and how do they function?But what other types of texts are to be included? Are weto understand images, paintings, films, and music as texts? Where are boundariesto be drawn between texts that are translations and those that are not? Doestranslation include abridgments, rewordings, adaptations for specialized audiences(such as children or the newly literate), and texts that have paratextualcommentary as an integral feature?

Kesulitan merumuskan apa itu translationFirst, the basic conceptsupon which the concept translation rests the concepts translation is defined interms of are themselves open terms whose definitions are not obvious. Second,it is plainly insufficient for an international discipline to limit itself to or to frameitself within conceptions of an activity and its products that can only be situatedwithin Western frameworks and associated with Christian religious and textualpractices.- jadi exploring the openness of the definition and the implications of that openness for the emerging international discipline. but it is not so easy to define a theoretical concept of translationthat can be used with confidence to ground the development of translation studiesas a discipline. This is largely the case because the practices and products oftranslation have varied so greatly from culture to culture and from epoch to epoch.

the significance of language and culture as mediating forces in the constructionand perception of concepts and categories, and, hence, of reality itself.

the cross-cultural concept at the heart of the international disciplineof translation studies is different from the more narrow English-language (andWestern European) concept of translation that is linked by semiosis to notions ofcarrying across, the movement of Christian relics, and biblical translation

Any theoretical formulation of *translation as a cross-culturalconcept must be able to accommodate the varied semiosis associated with and thewide-ranging set of meanings indicated by all the words used internationally forthe practice and products of translation. Translation studies must move beyondpresuppositions about the concept *translation associated with and limited byspecific Western words.

Pergeseran paradigm translation[in the West] translation has traditionally been conceivedas an interpretive activity: the relevance of translation lies in informing addresseesof what someone else has said, written, or thought. He observes (2000a:166; cf.2000b:47-68, 215-20) that at present increasingly the term translation is usedfor communication that constitutes a descriptive use of language. Localizations,advertisement translations, and other types of contemporary commercial translationsexemplify this shift.21 buktinya pergeseran ini All of these diverse types serve as translations from a scholarly point ofview, moving and transmitting source materials from one cultural context to anotherand from one language to another. To distinguish between the wide varietyof translation types even just within Western cultures scholars have proposedall sorts of proliferating terminologies, including the familiar dichotomies ofword for word and sense for sense, literal and free, formal equivalence anddynamic equivalence, adequate and acceptable, and foreignizing and domesticating.25 There are also gloss translations (Nida 1964:159), as well as phonologicaltranslations and graphological translations (Catford 1965:23). Eugene Eoyangin The Transparent Eye (1993) distinguishes three additional types of translations:surrogate translations that substitute for the source text and presuppose thatreaders have no access to the source; contingent translations (such as scholarlyfacing translations) that constantly refer the reader back to the primacy of thesource text; and coeval translations that can stand on their own as literary worksbut are aimed at bilingual readers who have access to the source text as well.Finally, Moradewun Adejunmobi (1998) proposes a classification specific topostcolonial translation.

theorizing *translation as a cross-linguistic, cross-temporal,and cross-cultural concept in the emerging international discipline of translationstudies.*translation are in many ways extremely narrow,culture bound, and culturally specific, incapable even of modeling past practicesof translation in the West itself. Thus, the uncritical dissemination and adoptionof Western translation norms and practices in other parts of the globe becomeshighly problematic; it is a prime example of a hegemonic form of knowledge. Ifa more adequate international theory of *translation is to be developed, a theorythat does not merely serve as a vector for Western culture and Western power,translation theorists must consider a much broader field of examples in defining*translation and in developing translation theory for use in international contextsthan they have done heretofore. The international concept *translation must bereconceived to encompass a wider range of examples and more diverse practicesacross time and space throughout the world.

Definisi translation mnrt Toury Toury here follows J.C. Catford who refers to translation in an open-endedway as an operation performed on languages: a process of substituting a text inone language for a text in another (1965:1). We have seen that Catford definestranslation formally as the replacement of textual material in one language (SL)by equivalent textual material in another language (TL) (1965:20). For Catfordtranslation equivalence is an empirical phenomenon, discovered a posterioriby comparing the source language and target language texts and by investigatingthe underlying conditions of and justifications for translation equivalence(1965:27). Catford famously formulates his definition leaving out the questionof meaning and omitting normative criteria for the relationship between the textsin part because his definition of translation presupposes the linguistic theory ofanisomorphisms of meaning itself across languages. We will return to the questionof meaning in translation in chapter 7.In contrast to Catfords view that stresses the production of translations,Tourys definition of translation explicitly focuses on the reception conditionsfor translation products in the target language as the decisive factors in identifyingtranslations empirically. For Toury it is the receptor culture that sets criteriafor translations rather than, say, some abstract decision-making procedure byscholars or even by translators themselves. Presumably Toury would say thatthe intercultural concept *translation is the aggregate of all the decisions aboutreceptor texts made by the various cultures of the world severally. By acceptingany text that is considered to be a translation in the context that receives it, Tourybroke with the tendency to limit the objects of study in translation studies to thoseconsonant with dominant, modern Eurocentric models and definitions of translation.His definition is, therefore, inclusive of all translations ipso facto, and in hisformulation Toury opened the way for cultural self-definition within the emerginginternational discipline of translation studies. This must be underscored: Tourysmove is critical in decentering translation studies as an international field, in movingthe field beyond Eurocentric positions, in offering sufficient conditions fora transcultural concept of *translation rather than attempting to define arbitrarynecessary conditions, and in permitting self-representation regarding the basicdata of translation by people who know it best in their own cultures.For Toury, whatever objects function as translationswithin a receptor culture and are recognized as translations by members of thatculture must therefore be studied by scholars as translations, however differentsuch objects might be from scholars own expectations of and norms for translationin their own cultures.

Menurut lefevereAlthough Lefeveres ideas had antecedents in translation studies, it washe who first posited that translation is a form of refraction or rewriting and thenworked out the implications of that relationship. He demonstrated that there arecommonalities to all forms of rewriting, including anthologies, abridgments,histories of literature, works of literary criticism, and editions, as well as specializedversions of texts such as childrens versions, film adaptations, cartoonversions, and so on. Like other forms of rewriting, a translation is a metatext,a text about a text.54

Paradigm Shift Hatim equivalence paradigm positivist and eurocentrict paradigm Philosophical influenced by linguistic approach This survey of translation studies begins with the 1950s and 1960s,with linguistics as the predominant paradigm, and with equivalenceas the key concept in the study of translation. But to appreciate whatthe linguistics turn in the theory and practice of translation actuallyinvolves, we must fi rst inquire into the kind of linguistics that wascurrent at the time and the extent to which it recognised, or was seento be relevant to, the study of translation.

Translation studies status of scietificism the metalang These parameters are applied to Translation Studies, and the bottom line of Mayoralsassessment is that our discipline shows a remarkably low degree of scientificityon all counts, mainly as a result of two factors:a. the human factor, i.e. the fact that human beings unlike natural forces can choose to act in a particular way by virtue of their free will. Therefore theirbehaviour is highly unpredictable and sensitive to many variables. This statement,which is meant to have general validity, holds especially true of translationbehaviour;b. the novelty of Translation Studies as a discipline. It is only recently that it hasbeen able to shake off the academic fetters that tied it to its various parent disciplines(chiefly linguistics and literary studies) and gain independent status asa discipline in its own right.The human factor makes Translation Studies problematic regarding quantificationand formalization. The youth of the discipline,2 on the other hand, accounts forinadequate consensus among specialists. There is divergence even with regard tothe definition of the object of study (see Mayoral 2001: 4547, who in this respectfollows in the wake of previous authors); therefore, it should come as no surprisethat disagreement also shows in its terminology.Mayoral describes the use of terminology in Translation Studies as chaotic(2001: 67), and goes on to enumerate a few problematic aspects. Dozens of differentlanguages from the different disciplines and schools on which it [TranslationStudies] is founded have been handed down to us; we are constantly referring tothe same things with different terms, or mixing up terms from different systemsin the same discussion; moreover, we often realize that terminological problemsentail not only different ways of naming things, but also different concepts, whosedifference is obscured by the apparent synonymy of the terms; and there is noTranslation Studies interface which makes it possible to assimilate contributionsand build a common core of knowledge. The author (2001: 68) concludes that inour discipline there is no consensus to elaborate even the initial metalanguagewhich would make it possible to launch the discipline from a scientific basis. Thisis just another sign of our disciplines scarce scientificity.

Definition of Paradigm Shift sociological turn How does a paradigmatic turn come about, andwhat are the factors that keep a turn going? Placing the discussion of a scientificdisciplines shifts of paradigm on a research agenda might be seen both as a signof its establishment within the scientific community and a stage in the scientificbranchs evolution which allows for the questioning of its results and conquestsalso from outside. In recent years we have witnessed an ongoing debate on thesequestions, beginning with Mary Snell-Hornbys The Turns of Translation Studies.New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? (2006), and continuing with the specialissue of Translation Studies in 2009 on The Translational Turn. A paradigm orturn without a doubt reveals a break with traditional views on a certain subject in the case in question on translation concepts in their widest sense and theintroduction of new perspectives. Such perspectives do not necessarily discardlongstanding perceptions but take established approaches as a starting point forsketching new horizons and for further developments in a specific area.The discipline of translation studies seems thus particularly inclined towardparadigmatic shifts, or turns. The reasons for this inclination are obvious: first,the disciplines subject is by nature located in the contact zones between thevarious cultures involved in a translation process. Consequently, it is continuouslyexposed to different contextualizations and arrangements of communication. Thesecond reason can be found in the constitution or structure of the discipline itself.The various shapes of communication which mold the issues dealt with in therealm of translation studies, from the very beginning of the disciplines establishmentprocess, call for us to go beyond disciplinary boundaries.

Translations ontology constructing sociology of transWhat emerges is a system that comprises communications perceived as orconcerned with translation, in other words translations and discourses abouttranslation. But communications, as we saw, are events. That means the translationsystem does not consist so much of translations as objects such as writtentexts or spoken words but of the innumerable communicative acts that count astranslations or contribute to its self-observation. Perhaps the fluidity of interpretingrather than the fixity of translated print offers the prototype of translation.The systems unity, its own sense of being distinct, derives from its function,the role the system assigns to itself. The function of the translation system, I wouldsuggest, is to extend societys communicative range, typically across natural languages.The system fulfils this function by producing communications that cir

Constructed realities dan hubunganya dg Bordieu sociocultural aspectPierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist and philosopher who died in 2002,was without doubt one of the most productive contemporary thinkers. Accordingto his sociological epistemology, social reality can be seen as the sum of practicallyconstructed relations. These relations reflect the mutual dynamics of individualityand society. They reveal the mechanisms of how social agents (individuals or institutions)are constructed by society and how society is constructed by these agents.Bourdieu establishes an interrelation between these epistemological levelsthrough the categories of field, habitus and capital, which, once they interactthrough their agents and agencies, result in what Bourdieu calls social practice.

Impossibility of literal translation translation is not inferior to the original Sandra Bermann Comp to Trans Studa literal translation is a meaningless concept because there are nocriteria to distinguish between a translation that deviates from the original and onethat does not; and that word-by-word translations, as Octavio Paz and others havealso noted, are likely to produce awkward transpositions of the vocabulary of the targetlanguage onto the grammar of the source language rather than transparent equivalencies.The notion of a literal translation presupposes that a translation could beidentical to the original, which is not possible, and this means that all translationsare free in one way or another.The prejudice according to which any translation is inferior to its original becauseit is different from the original is commonplace, but not sound. Judgments about theworthiness or effectiveness of a translation must presuppose difference, and implicitor explicit criteria to determine what a text, which is different from the original, isexpected to be or to do. If what is expected from a translation is the communicationof information for a particular purpose, it is always possible that a translation can bemore effective than the original in achieving this objective. A translation might alsobe more effective than the original in producing a certain literary effect. The criterionfor determining whether a translation is faithful or unfaithful cannot be difference,because neither faithful nor unfaithful translations are identical to their originals.

The minimal condition of a translation is the rewriting of a sequence of words withanother sequence of words. This is not enough for translation theorists, who alsoexpect the transfer of something from the source language to the target language. Insome cases, it might be argued, there is nothing beyond a sequence of words to transferfrom one language to the other, either because the original may be a random sequenceof words, or because there may be such incompatibilities between two languages thatwhatever might be available in the source language in a particular sequence of wordsmay not be available in the target language in any sequence of words.

Philosophical grounding of conventional notion of translationThat being said, most theories of translation make claims about what is transferredfrom one language to another language when a sequence of words in the original istransformed into another sequence of words in the translation. The most commonassumption is that a mental content of some kind is transferred, and this assumptionhas its roots in classical philosophy.There is a classical view of language according to which spoken words are signs ofthoughts, ideas or impressions received by the mind, and written words are signsof spoken ones. In Aristotles seminal articulation,spoken sounds are symbols of affections in the soul, and written marks symbols of spokensounds. And just as written marks are not the same for all men, neither are spokensounds. But what these are in the first place affections of the soul are the same forall; and what these affections are likenesses of actual things are also the same.1(Aristotle 1984, 25)According to this view, the difference between languages would amount to the differencesbetween sounds and written signs, not to the impressions made by objectsin our minds. Armin Paul Frank has noted that theoretical approaches to translationthat presuppose the Aristotelian framework concentrate on work that must be donein the target language, on the attempt to generate the appropriate linguistic signsthat correspond to what needs to be transferred from one language to another:thoughts, representation of objects, emotions, and the like (Frank 2007, 153436).Obstacles to a translation may arise if the target language does not yet have certainnames, concepts, or categories, and so on, but it may often be possible to make adjustmentsto the target language, for example by defining words it does not yet have, orby explaining new concepts.The classical model faced challenges when European explorers, missionaries, scientists,and anthropologists came across other languages throughout the globe. The encounterwith non-European peoples led to the realization that linguistic communities mightnot share the same sphere of thought, and even the possibility that they might conceiveof thoughts and objects in incompatible ways.The Aristotelian view can also be challenged philosophically rather than anthropologically,in the light of views such as deconstruction, skeptical of straightforwardlinguistic representation, or philosophical positions such as Wittgensteins, for whommeaning is use. Significant developments in the Continental and the Anglo-Americanphilosophical traditions have converged in the assumption that there is no simplecorrespondence between mental contents, words, and things.The post-classical view involves a move from translating content to capturing adifferent world-view, or a different conceptual framework, or struggling with incompatibilitiesamong languages. That being said, the classical view continues to informthe assumptions of many theoreticians and translators. From the post-classical perspective,thinkers such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe and Wilhelm von Humboldtpointed out that translators are faced with an inevitable choice: they can eitherproduce a translation that feels as if it could have been written by a fluent writer ofthe target language, or capture what is foreign about the original text at the risk ofproducing strangeness.

Untranslability nya Benjamin The fleetingness of meaning is whatcreates the untranslatable.The innovation of Benjamins essay involved his emphasis on difference rather thanidentity between languages. One way of summarizing his argument would be to saythat the element of untranslatability in a text is the very thing that constitutes itstranslatability: translations, he remarks, prove to be untranslatable not because ofany inherent difficulty but because of the looseness [Flchtigkeit, volatility, lightness]with which meaning attaches to themIn this respect, Benjamin anticipates the Heideggerian focus on translation thatbegins to appear in the mid-1930s and becomes prominent in Heideggers lecturecourse of 194243 on Parmenides. Heideggers understanding of translation takes theword far from its conventional sense, but his work nevertheless represents the mostprofound integration of the idea of translation within philosophical discourse. Heideggersradical move in his search for the means to effect the destruction of ontologyis to suggest that philosophy pursue not the nature of being but its history, a historythat becomes the history of translation. He does this through his demonstration ofthe transformations produced by the translations of philosophical language. In doingso, Heidegger finally brings to bear upon philosophy the Romantic resistance totranslation and quest for a pure language. The history of the movement of philosophicalconcepts from one language to another, Heidegger argues, has produced a loss ofauthenticity, an authenticity which he associates with the Greeks. At the same time,the history of philosophy amounts to the ways and the words through which truthhas been thought, unfolded, and transformed in each era.Broges theory of translation Borges vindicated the right of a translator to swerve away from the original and tointerpolate, and he formulated a definition of translation that is restated in several ofhis essays on translation: translation is a long experimental game of chance playedwith omissions and emphasis (1999, 69). In his incisive formulation Borges affirmsthat translation as re-creation involves choice, chance, and experimentation. ForBorges the incommensurability of any two languages, or even two modes of expressionwithin the same language, provides stimulating possibilities to the literary translator,who must choose between registering the singularities of an original work and eliminatingthe details that obscure its general effects.Borges argued that the ideal arbiter of a translation is the unlikely reader who canresist the prejudice in favor of the original. In his essay on The Translators of theThousand and One Nights, Borges reiterates his view that an original and a translationshould be appreciated as variations on a theme in which neither original nor translationshould be favored a priori, or perhaps at all, and he adds that translators often translateeither against each other, or in the wake of literature. To translate in the wake ofliterature is to engage in a dialogue with resources fashioned by others. Borges wouldagree with George Steiners contention, in After Babel (1998) that a translation can tapinto potentialities unrealized in the original, precisely because the linguistic differencesor incompatibilities between two modes of expression may bring forth aspects of thework that might be obscured in the language of the original. Borges was well awarethat certain features in a poem may never be translatable, but he also knew that a poemcan shine in a translation where the original falls short, and that any text can be a pretextfor the creation of another in the same language or in a translation.

Attempt to define translation Carmen Millan Rout Trans StudMany serious and informed attempts along these lines have beenmade, and all, in one way or another, have fallen by the wayside. This is partly due to thewide range of phenomena that need to be covered and the difficulty of drawing a distinctline separating translation from what is not or no longer translation. Another reason isthat definitions are inevitably written from a certain point of view, reflecting particulartheoretical assumptions. The underlying theoretical framework will highlight some aspectsor dimensions of translation and remain indifferent to others. The very multiplicity ofattempted definitions and the diverse angles they bring to the issue suggest that translationis a complex thing and that a comprehensive and clear-cut view of it is hard to obtain.What is translation?several meanings of the term translation. It can refer to a process, i.e. the act of producing atranslation, as well as to a product, i.e. an actual text, and, beyond these, to an unspecifiednumber of related phenomena. Translation occurs in written and spoken form

The preconditions of translation from semiotic persepctiveHow translation goes about overcoming intelligibility barriers in practice is one thing.A prior question concerns the very possibility of translation. Ubaldo Stecconi has developedan interesting, logico-semiotic angle on this question. Approaching it through thesemiotics of C.S. Peirce, Stecconi (2004: 47882) suggests that what enables translation,before it ever takes place in actual fact, is the combination of three things: similarity,difference and mediation in that order. The kind of sign-action in which translationengages presupposes and requires the possibility of things being perceived as similar orbeing made to seem similar, whatever precise form this similarity will eventually take inreality. No translation, of any kind, would be possible if some sort of similarity could notbe invoked. However, similarity needs difference as its logical condition and backdrop;it is also difference which creates the practical need for translation. Mediation, finally, isthe overcoming of difference by means of similarity but without abolishing difference.Mediation achieves matchings across difference. The kind of mediation in which translationengages typically generates a discourse in which two voices intermingle, one speakingon behalf of the other and representing it. Representation demands similarity of one kindor another, while the co-presence of interlocking utterances serves as a reminder thatdifference remains.Descriptivism in translation studies has a theoretical arm, but its primary thrust is empirical.Its diagnostic outlook draws it to actual translations and their immediate environment.This is both its strength and its limitation. Whereas Stecconis three characters(similarity, difference, mediation) sketch the semiotic conditions of existence of translationwithout saying anything about how translations will actually be done or turn out, descriptivismworks the other way round and tangles with the cultural and historical conditioningof translation as it occurs in real time and space

Semiotic Anthony Pym, Piotr Kuschwzk Roman Jakobson's (1959: 232) statementthat 'the meaning of any linguistic sign is its translation into somefurther, alternative sign. This might also be called the principle of semiosis,of meaning itself as a constant process of interpretation or translation. Theidea can be traced back to the American thinker Peirce, sometimesregarded as the founder of semiotic approaches to translation (see Gorlee,1994). Taken as such, the principle of semiosis should mean that translationsdo not transfer or reproduce meaning but are actively creating meanings.pentingnya membentuk definisi translation yang inclusive dan self-critical Carmen Millan routledge handbook If the study of translation is to transcend these traditional confines and become crossculturalon a global scale, it may need to reinvent itself. For that to happen, at least twothings would seem to be required initially: a flexible, non-reductive approach to diverseconcepts of translation; and critical self-reflexivity in engaging with these concepts.As for the former, the most promising line of enquiry may well be that sketched byTymoczko (2007: 54106) in terms of understanding translation as a cluster concept. Theidea of cluster concepts goes back to the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1953), whosuggested that in order to understand concepts and categories we may want to look atpartial similarities across a wide range of exemplars. Instead of trying to define languageor translation, we seek to establish their meaning by tracing whatWittgenstein calls familyresemblances, open-ended series of similarities, analogies, overlaps and relationships thatcan be observed in varied practices in different contexts. In contrast with prototype theory,the search does not aim to identify a pool of traits which most, or the most representative,members of the category have in common. Instead, the process depends on recognizingresemblances linking phenomena wherever they occur, even if they go under different names.Whereas prototype theory assumes a hierarchy of centre and periphery, with a privilegedhard core of representative cases and more tangential zones with fuzzy edges, a cluster conceptapproach remains decentred and rhizome-like, moving from case to case and, in theprocess, accommodating divergent and even incommensurable instances and practices. Itengages in close, localized observation and puts the onus on the observer to demonstratelinkages with related phenomena elsewhere. In this sense it seems well suited to exploringtranslation concepts in a global context and across historical periods.Ontology BermannAustins theory might also help characterize the history of translation studies. Tobe sure, in the early phases of translation studies, when it struggled for a footholdin the academy, theoretical linguistics was the discipline most often consulted, andbrief textual comparisons reigned. But as scholars studied translation more broadly,and included the more contingent and contextual issues affecting the translationprocess for example, gender, empire, inequality of languages, orality versus differentwritten scripts the field shifted its focus from the more formal and abstract strategiesof linguistic equivalence toward a study of individual acts of translation and whatthese did in particular contexts. That is, if linguists first offered a view of translationin terms of saying, the attempt to restate in the receiving language what the sourcetext said (and as accurately as possible), then later translation scholars, interested inthe cultural and political acts and effects of translation, examined the doing of translation:the doing of languages and texts; but also the doing of translators, readers, andaudiences. In the process, this displacement signaled a move to a less essentialist orontological view of translation, one less tied to the hierarchy of an authentic originaland a secondary translation meant merely to mirror the source. Scholars becamemore interested in examining translations own productive and transformative potential,both in literary art and in what we call real life. As translation studies turnedin this performative direction, it often engaged with distinctly theatrical metaphorsthat heighten awareness of the interpretive act of translation, its citational quality,and the issues of gender and identity it implies (Robinson 2003, 322).

Nature of translation

Nowhere is the higher-order nature of translation more evident than when we seeit as a unique form of text processing. Translation is essentially a cross-language textprocessingtask that involves, as we have argued, both text comprehension and textproduction. We have used the notion of transfer to link these two processes. However,we must note that in translation, during the process of construction, backgroundknowledge about the target situation, never present in the source text, is almost certainlyretrieved and added to the proposition(s) and propositional network being built.In monolingual L1 text comprehension, there is generally no necessity for informationpertaining to a different cultural circumstance to be factored into the semantic representationbeing built. However, in translation, at least at the level of what we thinkof as functional translation, where the translation is altered to accommodate the targetreader, it is certainly the case that both the construction and integration phases oftext processing will involve and accommodate cultural differences, differences inconceptual systems, and differences in cultural perspective. This intervention in textprocessing may or may not be conscious, and indeed the actual use of target-sideinformation to alter the microproposition that might otherwise be constructed (byfollowing the source text) is certainly task-dependent. We might not do it, forinstance, if just reading an L2 text for information. What this means is that if one isreading a text and is reading it for translation, then the processes of building up thepropositional structure, the situation model, will begin to involve elaboration, inferencing,and integration patterns that diverge from those that would take place if onewere reading for comprehension. What this means is that our notion of transfer is

Ontology and Epistemo eve Gaudetthere are no meanings asentities because there is no individuation criterion for meanings.Since facts of the matter determine what is true, when there is no factof the matter there is no question of what is true. This happens whenwe face two behaviorally equivalent translation manuals: there is noreality, there are no meanings as entities, enabling us to favor onemanual over the other, and thus there is no question of which is theright or the true one. After a close look at Quine's ontological take onhis indeterminacy of translation thesis, it becomes easy to see itsdifference from his underdetermination of theory thesis: the latter isan epistemological claim about the relation between observation andtheory, whereas the former is an ontological claim about what thereis.

10. Translation turn Munday, Snell- Hornby (2006) describes the various turns* of Translation Studies from the emergence of the discipline through to a pragmatic turn in linguistics, the cultural turn of the 1980s, the interdiscipline of the 1990s and other turns of the 1990s (empirical, globalization, etc.).

The same holds for the various turns* in Translation Studies, all of which are manifestations of its attempt to expand, define and establish itself as a specific academic discipline (Snell-Hornby 2006).1 (source: handbook for transl stud 2)

11. Essentialist view on translation handbook of transl stud arrojo Those who believe in the possibility of separating themselves from things and meanings from words tend to view translation as the impersonal transference of essential meaning across languages and must condemn or repress the translators interventionist role in the process. Actually, the resistance to the translators agency is one of the most recurrent issues in the discourse about translation that has dominated the Western tradition, a discourse that has been generally prescriptive in its attempt to safeguard the limits that should clearly oppose translators to authors, and translations to originals. The ethical guidelines implied by this conception can be illustrated by the recurrent metaphor of clothing, which imagines words as the clothes designed to protect and style the naked bodies of their meaning. As it is usually employed to suggest that translators should refrain from improperly touching the bodies of the texts whose clothes they are expected to carefully change, this metaphor is also efficient in portraying the translators task as a serving, mechanical activity that needs to be undertaken in respectful neutrality (Van Wyke 2010). In their refusal to accept the productive character of the translators activity, essentialist conceptions must disregard the political role of translation and its impact on the construction of identities and cultural relations, and are, also, largely responsible for the age-old prejudices that have often considered translation a secondary, derivative form of writing, reducing the translators task to an impossible exercise in invisibility.

10. Non-essentialist view The inextricable association between translation and philosophy pointed out by Derrida is closely related to the critique of Western metaphysics undertaken by Friedrich Nietzsche, the first to connect the philosophical task with a radical reflection upon language (Foucault 1973: 305), a critique that has been pivotal in the development of anti-foundationalist trends in contemporary philosophy such as postmodern, poststructuralist thinking, deconstruction, and neopragmatism, opening up new paths of inquiry as the ones represented by gender and postcolonial studies.In an essay written in 1873, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, Nietzsche outlines the basis of a conception of language that is first and foremost anti-Platonic. As he argues, because languages are undoubtedly human creations, there can be no essential meaning or concept that could be clearly separated from its linguistic fabric and, therefore, be fully transportable elsewhere. As part of an arbitrary, conventional system, every concept is necessarily human-made and arises from the equation of unequal things, a conclusion that can be supported by the fact that even though we shall never find in nature, lets say, the ideal leaf, that is, the original model according to which all the leaves were perhaps woven, sketched, measured, colored, curled, and painted (1999: 83), we still manage to use it as a concept. In short, language works precisely because the conventions that make it possible teach us to forget certain differences so that we can sustain the illusion that the same could actually be repeated.

Concepts and meanings are not discovered, but constructed, and because the circumstances of their construction are never the same, they can never be fully reproduced. Just as every leaf is different and cannot faithfully repeat one ideal, original leaf that could exist apart from our conventional concept of leaf, every reproduction of a text into any other language or medium will not give us the integrity of the alleged original, but, rather, constitute a different text that carries the history and the circumstances of its (re)composition. This different text may or may not be acceptable or even recognized as a reliable reproduction of the original because the very opposition between translation and original is not something that exists before or above context and conventionality, but must be constructed and institutionalized, and is, thus, always subject to revision (Davis 2002: 16).In the wake of Nietzsches critique of Platonic thought, translation can no longer be conceived in terms of a transportation of essential meaning across languages and cultures. Rather, for this notion of translation, we would have to substitute a notion of transformation: a regulated transformation of one language by another, of one text by another (Derrida 1978: 20). An early illustration of some of the far-reaching consequences of this conception can be found in Jorge Luis Borgess The Translators of the Thousand and One Nights, first published in Argentina in 1935, which treats translation as a legitimate form of writing in its own right. In his examination of a few nineteenth-century translations of the Arabic text, Borges shows that even though their translators explicitly pledge fidelity to the original, their work constitutes a historical testimony of their own views about the text, in which the foreign and the domestic are fused in different versions that both construct and reconstruct the original, revealing the authorial thrust of translation as a mirror of each translators interests and circumstances (2004: 94108). Instead of criticizing the translators of the Nights for their infidelities, Borges reflects on them as constitutive elements of the process, offering us a dazzling introduction to some of the issues that have become central for Translation Studies today: the role of translation in the construction of cultures and identities, the asymmetries in the relationship between the domestic and the foreign,and, most of all, the translators agency and the complexities it brings to traditional notions of original writing. As an unavoidable, productive element of the relationship between originals and their reproductions, difference has been recognized as a key issue by contemporary approaches that implicitly or explicitly explore the consequences of post-Nietzschean philosophy for the translators activity. The acceptance of the insight according to which translators cannot avoid making decisions and are, thus, necessarily visible in their rewriting of the foreign within the limits and the constraints of the domestic has allowed Translation Studies to move beyond the usual stalemates that for at least two thousand years have underestimated the translators authorial role in the writing of translated texts

Epistemology source : Anthony PYM An important step in this work was his rethinking of the entire issue of how to determine what counts as a translation

Ontology focus ontologicaldefinitions (is this a translation) or territorial disputes (does this problemcome under the remit of Translation Studies?).

Object of Trans Stud menurut Toury source : Anthony PYM In his work on target orientation and assumed translation (1980, 1995), Touryproposed a new view. Rather than defining the object of study a priori and then studyingthe exemplars that fit that definition, Toury proposed the reverse: that we investigatethe phenomenon by studying exemplars that are taken to (assumed to) representit. The object category was not circumscribed in advance. Instead, one of the aims ofenquiry was to determine the limits of the category.

The concept of norms gives Tourys approach an extremely open and relativisticcharacter. Rather than impose a predefined notion, he famously defined2 translation at least for his descriptive purposes as any target-language utterance which ispresented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds (Toury1985: 20). The target culture decides, and for reasons that are its own, what translationis and what it can be expected to do. jadi parameter utk menentukan translation adalah cultural element bukan linguistics

Axiology translating dianggap meaningful krn represent translators choice berdasarkan purpose TL munday, evaluation in transThe translator needs to uncover the ST writer choice andto re-encode that choice as appropriate in the target language. Thus, the translator'schoices are also meaningful and represent conscious or unconscious decisions at thelexical level that, together, represent the translator's interpretation of the STAxiology Lisa Foran ethics ofa translationTyulenev suggests adopting Habermass theory of communicative action.Under this rubric the translator can be viewed as engaging in either communicativeor strategic action. When motivated by a desire to achieve amutually understanding consensus between opposing parties the translatorexemplifies communicative action. When, on the other hand, the translatoris motivated by egoistic goals (such as remuneration and/or perceivedprofessionalism), the translator engages in strategic action.

Translationtoo is an act of judgement; in both translation and in justice we are confrontedwith the problem of applying a general rule or law to a particularcase. However, as Bottone notes, translation for Ricoeur is not just similarto justice because it entails an act of judgement; but more fundamentallytranslation always concerns alterity, hence, like justice, it is always ethical.Ricoeur elevates translation to a model of ethical engagement since translatorsemploy the art of mediation and ofa hosting; hosting the foreignlanguage in their home.

Translation and ethics by wyke Carmen Millan Routledge Hanbook much of the history of translation discourse in the West,ethics has not been addressed directly because it has been understood that the correctbehaviour of the translator is fidelity to the text and author, and that a good translationis one that is most identical to the original. Ethical translators, in their quest to be faithful,have been expected to respect the hierarchy that places them under the authority ofthe author and to remain invisible, repressing any authorial desire that may produce visiblesigns of their interventions in the texts of others. However, over the past 20 years or so therehas been a serious reconsideration of this notion of ethics, which, as even a cursory glanceat the history of translation discourse will suggest, has dominated the basic conception ofthis activity throughout the ages.However, although notions of fidelity have been the basis for understanding the ethicalduty of translators for at least two millennia, there has not been a consensus as to whatexactly fidelity means or to what one is supposed to be faithful. For example, the recurrentdistinction between strategies termed author-to-reader and reader-to-author signals verydifferent understandings of the translators ethical duty. With the first, translators areexpected to adapt the source text to the conventions of the target language and culturein order to create a similar effect on the target audience as the one experienced by thereadership of the original, often with the goal of producing the effect that the translationhas been originally written in the target language. A reader-to-author strategy, however,seeks to maintain foreign elements, both cultural and linguistic, in the translation so thatthe target audience is exposed to cultural difference and, thus, has some sense of thecontext of the original.These two approaches, while differing in their views of what constitutes translationethics, reflect a common underlying assumption that by adhering to one of these particularstrategies one can truly and faithfully reproduce the alleged essence of the original.Nicholas Perrot dAblancourt, who practised what can be called an extreme version of theauthor-to-reader approach, felt he had to radically revise certain aspects of the originalin order to recreate the same author in another language (2002: 158), whereas GermanRomantics such as Johann Gottfried von Herder maintained that only by bringing thereader to the author could the target audience see authors as they truly are (2002: 208).The common belief underlying these two approaches is that translators can and shouldrecover the true meaning of a text, a belief which suggests that, in spite of their differences,they both subscribe to the traditional notion of translation ethics that is firmlyrooted in Platonism.Translation has historically been viewed in accordance with this Platonic model. Althoughtranslators are expected to represent the essence of an original text, their task also fallsinto the same category as painting and poetry because, as is said in The Republic of painters,the translator is often considered an imitator of what others make (Plato 1992: 597d).Translation has been suspect throughout history precisely because it has the power to misleadreaders with respect to the originals essence. Whereas Socrates expels the poets fromhis Republic, in Book X, in Book III he allows them to practise their craft, but only inaccordance with strict guidelines that he feels will point readers in the direction of truthand instil in them the qualities that he believes are desirable in good citizens. Likewise,throughout history translation discourse has been concerned primarily with establishingguidelines that will lead translators to, if not copy every aspect of the original, at leastaccurately reflect its essence (see Van Wyke 2010 for a more detailed account of therelationship between Platonism and our general notion of translation

Towards the end of the nineteenth century Friedrich Nietzsche embarked on a radicalcritique of Platonism that shook the foundations of theWestern notion of truth. In Platonicthought, truth is something that is reflected in, but exists outside, language. Nietzsche, onthe other hand, maintained that what we call truth and essences are constructions madewith and within language, and cannot therefore be discovered in any rational, unbiasedmanner. Language is an historical construction that bears signs of ideologies and powerstructures and, therefore, so too does truth. This claim has great implications for ethicsbecause Nietzsche destabilized the idea of absolute and universal foundations upon whichit has traditionally been based. In this scenario, fidelity, for example, cannot refer to anunchanging, pure idea, but will always be bound to contexts that are anything but neutral.What is more, as all truth is a construction, brought about through interpretation,the possibility is opened that it could be constructed differently.

Whereas most translation discourse has historically been dominated by the idea that translationshould transport the meaning of the original to another language, according toDerrida, because an original is an unstable object that can be interpreted in various ways,and because languages are fundamentally different from one another, translation can neverbe a transferral of meaning but will always entail its transformation Consequently, translators can no longer be seen as impartial mediators,but, instead, as agents who play a fundamental role in the production of meaning that constitutestheir translations. In brief, they will never be able to produce a translation that forestallsdifference, one that provides the unequivocal meaning of an original, or one that isitself immune to multiple interpretations.

The absence of universals upon which one could found a universal ethics of translationdoes not mean that translators have license to simply transform a text in any way theyplease. On the contrary, following the rationale of deconstructive thought, the recognitionthat translators must make decisions without absolute guidelines that could guaranteecorrectness in all contexts does not imply the end of ethics but, rather, that difficult ethicaldecisions are inevitable at every level of the process translators must take responsibility for their decisions and cannot pretend they are invisibleby hiding behind the notion that they are simply repeating what they find in the originalor what the author might have intended.At the same time, translators cannot be freed from the conventions that ultimately governtheir decisions; translation is transformation, but, more precisely, as Derrida adds, it is aregulated transformation of one language by another, of one text by another (1981: 20).Without conventions and norms, language would not function and translators must still,according to Kathleen Davis, take law, rules, and as much else as possible into account (fortranslation, obviously, this includes grammar, linguistic and cultural conventions, genre,historical context, etc.), for these act as the guardrails of responsibility (2001: 97, quotingDerrida 1993: 19). However, this does not mean that one must accept all conventions andnorms, or the values that they embody, at face value. In fact, many contemporary translationtheorists who subscribe to what has been called an ethics of difference contendthat the ethical responsibility of translators should lie in questioning and destabilizing conventionsthat usually suppress the fact that other realities can be ref