John Benjamins Publishing Company

This is a contribution from Target 25:3

2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company
This electronic file may not be altered in any way.
The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to
be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.
Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible
to members (students and staff) only of the authors/s institute, it is not permitted to post
this PDF on the open internet.
For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the
publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com).
Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com

Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. The metalanguage of

translation (Benjamins Current Topics 20). Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
2009. 192 pp. ISBN 978 90 272 2250 3. 85.00, US$128.00.
Reviewed by Roberto A. Valden (Oviedo)
The Benjamins Current Topics series publishes a selected number of special issues
of journals in book format with the purpose of engaging wider audiences than
those of the journals themselves. Volume 20 of the series publishes the 2007 special
issue of Target devoted to the metalanguage of translation. It was guest-edited by
Yves Gambier (University of Turku) and Luc van Doorslaer (CETRA, University
of Leuven and Stellenbosch University) and gathered a number of specialists to
reflect on the evolution of the terminological conundrum around the discipline,
thirty-five years after James Holmess famous sentence Let the meta-discussion
begin (1). The editors, who also edit the online Translation Studies Bibliography
as well as the Handbook of Translation Studies (three volumes published), call for
fresh reflections on the role of metalanguage in the discipline because, as they argue, the role of the metalanguage is inevitably of the utmost importance (ibid.).
The papers set out to question, explore and challenge issues that will be of great
relevance for the evolution of the discipline. Some of these are quite controversial,
such as the concept of equivalence, which has bewildered theoreticians and practitioners for decades. In his contribution Anthony Pym traces it back to Cicero and
suggests two terms for two major types of equivalence, directional (which leads,
replaces or reproduces a source text, thus going in one direction [87]) and
natural (which is the concern of more linguistic approaches, and seems to work
in both directions [88]). Pym assigns twentieth-century schools to one type or
the other, depending on whether theories emphasize the target side or rather the
nature of the thing to translate (87). Pym shows us how equivalence has come in
many forms and flavours (101), and warns us of the danger of localization projects
that return to the narrower view of the concept, as they tend to regard translation
as the interlingual replacement of natural-language sentences or phrases, in tune
with the narrowest of linguistic approaches of the 1960s or 1970s (101).
Most contributors discuss more general terminological or conceptual issues,
even if they use specific examples in their arguments. In fact, most papers seem
to agree on a number of points. First, that Translation Studies has a subjective dimension to it, and, therefore, that it might be an unrealistic task to try to achieve
universal consensus not only as regards translation as a product but also as a
Target 25:3 (2013), 439443. doi 10.1075/target.25.3.11val
issn 09241884 / e-issn 15699986 John Benjamins Publishing Company

440 Book reviews

science (accepting here Hebenstreits broad definition of a science [10]). What is

more, many of the authors consider the human component an asset rather than
a disadvantage. This results in another feature of the discipline, also mentioned
in most papers, that is, the fuzzy nature of the terms used by scholars and practitioners (Hebenstreit [1617], Marco [66], Snell-Hornby [132], Pokorn [142]).
Gernot Hebenstreit, for instance, points out that definitions are fundamental for
the advancement of any science. The author presents an overview of classical and
modern definition theories before delving into definition theory in terminology.
However, he also stresses that one has to be ready to live with more or less fuzzy
concepts (17) since concepts in the humanities tend to have fuzzy borders (16).
To prove this point Hebenstreit examines two German texts to conclude that there
is no terminological uniformity, although this does not reduce the concepts determinancy (23). In fact, many of the contributors believe that this lack of terminological uniformity is not necessarily negative because, as van Doorslaer suggests, it gives free play to terminological creativity, conceptual multiplicity and
renewal of the discipline (31). Mary Snell-Hornby shares a similar view when
she states that scholarly interchange, at least in disciplines outside the natural sciences, would be fossilized if all terms and concepts were standardized to the point
of uniformity (132), while Pokorn openly calls for the need to learn to live with
more fuzzy definitions (142).
Even Gambier and Mazur, who deal with specific attempts at providing uniform tools within the discipline, encounter inconsistencies. Yves Gambier examines the various versions of Delisles Terminologie de la traduction/Translation
terminology/Terminologa de la traduccin/Terminologie der bersetzung and interviewed their editors to find out that, in spite of a tendency to harmonisation
(188), omissions, additions and adaptations of terms do occur. The production
and revision processes of versions in other languages were also dissimilar. In her
contribution, Iwona Mazur covers the terms used in the localization industry, one
of the latest developments in the discipline. Although it may seem that translation
as localization has avoided the fuzziness of other subfields, partly as a result of the
establishment of a number of institutions aiming at using standard terms around
the globe, Mazur also provides examples of ambiguity or lack of uniformity. Terms
are far from well-established, partly due to the fact that they originated in the
general language or because they are at the crossroads between translation and
IT. Thus globalization and localization might be used differently by different
authors, as acknowledged by specialists in the field (153). For this reason Mazur
suggests her own definitions of globalization (ibid.), internationalization (154)
and localization (156). Although she attempts to incorporate elements of previous definitions in order to achieve some degree of consensus, it remains to be
seen whether her proposals will become standard, given the fragmentation of the
2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved

Book reviews 441

discipline (Chesterman 2005). In point of fact, the terminological lack of uniformity (or chaos, as some of the authors have put it) affects the volume itself. Pym,
for instance, refers to Vinay and Darbelnets seven strategies (90) whereas Marco
talks about their technical procedures (69).
The interdisciplinary nature of Translation Studies mentioned by van
Doorslaer (30, 38), van Vaerenbergh (46), Marco (76) and Laiho (105) has also
had an effect on its terminological chaos. This explains why scholars share terms
and concepts with other fields such as sociology, communication, linguistics and
literary studies, although their use might differ significantly. Interdisciplinarity is
at the base of Leena Laihos paper on the translatability of an original literary work.
The chapter is rather loosely connected with the rest of the book since the author
chooses Borges Pierre Menard, autor del Quijote as a case in point in order to
illustrate some of the philosophical and translational approaches to the general
concepts of original, translation and identity within the subfield of literary
translation. The variety of views presented in her paper allows the author to call
for the importance of the explicit formulation of a theoretical framework (118).
This runs parallel to Josep Marcos call for a more unified and uniform use of
specialized terminology in Translation Studies. Its fuzziness, the author claims,
contributes to the lack of social prestige of the profession (76). This is a far cry
from the current state of the discipline, but also from the position most contributors seem to support.
In fact, as indicated, other contributors regard this lack of uniformity as an
advantage to make the discipline advance. Luc van Doorslaer, for instance, starts
from the Holmes/Toury map to report on the construction of the larger and
more recent map that has served as the basis for the online Translation Studies
Bibliography. A six-hundred keyword tool, the map is presented as a flexible project
that establishes hierarchies between relevant terms, and, above all, confronts itself
and all translation scholars with the ambiguities and conceptual differences in the
discipline (41). These ambiguities are reflected in the comparison between how
some of these terms are presented in the map itself and elsewhere in the book. So,
for example, in van Doorslaers article the terms rules/norms/conventions/laws/
universals (3738) are presented at the same level, whereas the chapter by SnellHornby presents an overview of how these terms are placed at different levels by
authors like Nord or Vermeer. In fact, the most salient feature of the map is that
criticism, changes and additions are regarded as part of its future evolution (41).
On the other hand, Leona van Vaerenbergh notes that polysemy and synonymy
are a sign of research progress and dynamism and do not only occur in Translation
Studies, but also in e.g. linguistics and communication (46).
Another relevant issue mentioned by some of the contributors is the increased
monolingual uniformity of the discipline. Particularly valuable in this respect are
2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved

442 Book reviews

the chapters by Pokorn and Snell-Hornby, although Marco also makes the point
(67, 72). Nike K. Pokorn starts off with an anecdotal, but hardly unusual story, of
how terminological issues can be strongly related to relations of power between
languages, cultures and, consequently, scholars and practitioners working within
the discipline. Whereas Translation Studies claims to have embraced post-colonial
approaches to translation, the largely anglophone-dominated and anglophonebased discipline still retains a suspiciously colonial attitude among many of its
academics. The critical approach to the contemporary role of English as a lingua
franca (Phillipson 1992, 2003) seems to have left some natives unmoved. Pokorn
here challenges the concepts native speaker and mother tongue as understood
by colleagues in some traditional quarters, for whom the standard of the language
relies on birthplace alone. She exemplifies this with the words of a colleague who
claimed: No non-native speaker is ever going to tell me how to call something in
English (135). The author remains rather pessimistic as she concludes that the language we use, unfortunately, cannot change society (142). Conversely, Mary SnellHornby scrutinizes a fundamental tenet in Translation Studies, that of norms, to
show how authors from various schools might use the term in different ways. The
discussion also covers other key concepts in the discipline, such as equivalence or
coherence. Snell-Hornby believes that terminological issues remain fuzzy, partly
because the use of English as the dominant language of the discipline (which she
has challenged elsewhere, Snell-Hornby 2010) tends to increase metalinguistic
problems rather than reduce them (129). The anglophone academic community,
she argues, has an unfair advantage, but the main problem could be the tendency to
concentrate on English not just as a means of communication but also as part of the
problem under discussion (130). Her very sensible recommendation is for more
proficiency in foreign languages, particularly among Anglo-Americans (ibid.).
Otherwise, we might be heading for the defeat of the very purpose of Translation
Studies as the world becomes increasingly monolingual (133).
Finally, although the editors emphasized that it is time to challenge the socalled Eurocentric bias of Translation Studies by exploring the diversity of nonWestern discourses on and practices of translation (1), the volume offers but a
glimpse of alternative discourses through Jun Tangs paper and a very small number of minor references in some of the other papers. As the only non-Western
contribution to the volume, Tangs paper is an interesting, even if somehow repetitive, overview of the two major academic trends in Translation Studies in China:
the traditionalists, who defend the epistemological and empirical approaches of
Chinese scholars, and the Westernized authors, who were heavily influenced by
the works of Nida, Toury, etc., as the regime opened the doors to foreign publications and academics. Although Tang does not discuss particular conceptual or
terminological issues, but rather more general approaches to the discipline from a
2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company
All rights reserved

Book reviews 443

Chinese perspective, the article offers some valuable insights into how the struggle
between the local and the global on the one hand, and tradition and evolution on
the other, interact in China. In fact, even if some of the claims made by the author
remain unexplained (e.g. To remain unrecognized is bad, but to become homeless and unremembered is worst of all [176]), the questions posed on page 172 for
the Chinese context could be applied to other world areas (national, linguistic, cultural, virtual) or to the discipline itself (such as how to deal with power dynamics in our globalized world or how to consider local knowledge [174]). Conversely,
most authors stick to the Eurocentric bias, with particular sub-biases close to what
Mazur would call their virtual territory. Thus, Hebenstreit and Snell-Hornby, for
instance, remain very much within the Eurocentric sphere with a German subbias, whereas Marco is also situated within the Western tradition with a certain
Spanish sub-bias.
The decision to publish this edited collection of essays as a book in order to
give it a wider audience can only be welcome. The range and importance of issues
discussed show that, as the discipline continues to grow, its interdisciplinarity can
only bring exciting developments in the future. As the editors write in the conclusion to their introduction (194): Let the meta-discussion continue!

References
Chesterman, Andrew. 2005. Consilience in Translation Studies. Revista Canaria de Estudios
Ingleses 51: 1932.
Gambier, Yves, and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. 2007. The Metalanguage of Translation. Special issue
of Target 17 (2).
Gambier, Yves, and Luc van Doorslaer, eds. 20102012. Handbook of Translation Studies. 3 vols.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Phillipson, Robert. 1992. Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Phillipson, Robert. 2003. English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge.
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2010. Is Translation Studies Going Anglo-Saxon? Critical comments on
the globalisation of a discipline. In Why Translation Studies Matters, ed. by Daniel Gile,
Gyde Hansen, and Nike K. Pokorn, 97104. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Reviewers address
Roberto A. Valden
Departamento de Filologa Anglogermnica y Francesa
Campus El Miln
Universidad de Oviedo
E-33011 Oviedo
Spain
valdeon@uniovi.es

2013. John Benjamins Publishing Company

All rights reserved