Wolf, Michaela (ed.). 2006. Übersetzen – Translating – Traduire: Towards a “Social
Turn”?, Repräsentation – Transformation, representation – transformation, representation – transformation. Translating across Cultures and Societies, Band 1.
Wien-Berlin: LIT. ISBN 3-7000-0553-9. 368pp.
Übersetzen – Translating – Traduire: Towards a “Social Turn”?
is the first volume of the
“Repräsentation – Transformation, representation – transformation, representation – transformation” series, a refereed book series edited by Michaela Wolf (University of Graz).
The series seeks to be a forum for interdisciplinary research on translation in its widest sense with special emphasis on the role of translation and interpreting in the construction or deconstruction of societies and on interaction with other disciplines like literary studies, cultural studies, anthropology, sociology, etc.
This trilingual (French – English – German) volume focuses on interactions between sociology and translation and interpreting studies. It is subdivided in six sections: “Symbolic
Power in the Translation Field” (5 articles), “Social Inquiries into a Field under Construction”
(4 papers), “Ideological Pressures on the Production of Translation” (5 contributions), “The
Social Construction of Images in Translation” (6 articles), “Issues in the Sociology of
Profession” (6 articles) and “Literary Displacements” (4 papers). A “List of Contributors”, a useful “Subject Index” and “Name Index” conclude the book.
The volume contains for a “large” (p. 13) (but non specified) part the revised articles of an international conference on “Translating and Interpreting as a Social Practice” held in
May 2005 at the university of Graz in Austria. In line with the conference goal, it aims at conceptualising a general translation sociology and conveying a “comprehensive methodological framework, substantiated by empirical studies, which would allow (…) to analyse the social implications of the translation process in its various contexts” (p. 13). In the light of recent evolutions in Translation Studies towards a sociological orientation and a parallel rise of publications in this domain, the set standard is not only promising and challenging but also essential.
However, as Michaela Wolf correctly stresses in her introduction, (pp. 9-19), since the
1970s already, both Even-Zohar’s Polysystem Theory and Gideon Toury’s norms concept have given the initial impetus to the conceptualisation of a translation sociology. She distinguishes three main lines of research along which a further elaboration of their concepts and methods according to more specific sociological lines has been worked out. They constitute the vast and complex “state of the art” of social approaches in Translation Studies and the background for the articles in the volume. A “sociology of the agents in the translation process” concentrates on the role of individual and collective agents for translating, a
“sociology of the translation process” analyses the constraints during the production of translation and a “sociology of the cultural product” concentrates on the transfer mechanisms that shape translations. Still according to Wolf, three sociological models have inspired until now sociological approaches in Translation Studies: Luhmann’s Soziale Systeme , Bourdieu’s cultural sociology and Latour’s Actor-Network-Theory. Nonetheless, the editor rightly concludes that “what still seems to be missing is a theoretical model which could do justice to the complex process-dependent character of translations and shed light on the agents involved in translation while conceptualising them within an open system”, “the translation ‘proper’, definitively transcending the dichotomy of ‘external and internal sociologies’” (p. 13).
For sure, Übersetzen – Translating – Traduire: Towards a “Social Turn”?
stands out for its richness and variety, for the international profile of its contributors, for its open language policy. Trilingual publications remain a rare occurrence in an academic world usually accommodating to the requirements and benefits of the lingua franca. Based in 16

different countries divided over four continents, the contributors moreover form a real international venture. Not surprisingly, the thirty articles also cover a wide variety of subjects and topics. Since Descriptive Translation Studies’ origin was strongly linked with Literary
Studies and since so many Descriptive Research through the last decennia was located within literary departments, it comes as no surprise that about half of the articles are devoted to literary translations, from all over the globe, mainly but not exclusively during the 20 th century. In line with the sociological focus of the volume, the various agents in the translation process receive special attention. So, e.g.. for Santini, the presence of Arabic intellectuals in
Paris was of primary importance for the translation of Arabic literature in French since the
1970s. In the Philippines, translators deploy(ed) translations of (often oral) folklore texts between various indigenous languages and Spanish for different social motives, such as correcting colonial misconceptions (Villareal). Orality being also a crucial feature for theatre,
Louise Ladouceur studies the translation of oral codes and bilingualism in English translations of French Canadian theatre. Several other papers unmask socio-political constraints governing the translation process. Ileana Dimitriu focuses on translation and censorship under the
Communist regime in Romania whereas Mihalache deals with Western translation initiatives in postcommunist Romania. In Portugal, on the other hand, translated literature under Salazar
(1939-1950) coexisted with Portuguese literature and partly escaped censorship mechanisms
(Seruya). Luc van Doorslaer shows how translations of the Flemish (Dutch Belgian) author
Cyriel Buysse into German during the First World War fitted in the German support for
Flanders’ independency. Ideological factors of a different kind influenced selection strategies governing translations of French novels into Polish between 1945-1960, as is illustrated by
Elzbieta Skibińska. In a more theoretically oriented contribution, Michael Schreiber pleas for an expansion of Nord’s loyalty concept in terms of social parameters, especially for research on historical literary texts.
However, a significant other half of the contributions testifies of Translation Studies’ inclusive attitude towards non literary research objects. Again, various aspects of the translators’ and other agents’ role are emphasised. In Alexander Künzli’s paper, the revisers’ loyalty towards themselves and their partners in the translation process is elaborated upon, whereas Hanna Risku and Richard Pircher focus on the social interaction between translators and technical communicators for cooperative text design within an Austrian translation agency. Catherine Way shows how sworn translators of degree certificates in Spain play a social role in the recognition of foreign qualifications in Spain. This mediator role of technical
(i.c. medical) translators between experts and non experts has, according to Cornelia Feyer, important implications for didactics: next to translation competence, social intelligence and social management should form essential aspects of translator training. Kayode Kofoworola and Beatrice Okoh take a broader societal viewpoint and argue that due to the sociological stratification between majority (dominant) and minority (dominated) languages in a multilingual society, translations of one indigenous language into another in Nigeria typically use English as an intermediate language. Other papers engage in a more conceptual, theoretical direction: Freddie Plassard explores e.g. the possible transfer of sociological concepts for studying translators’ online distribution lists and Leona Van Vaerenbergh compares functionalist and cognitive translation theories’ definition of “the social and communicative dimensions of translation” (p. 99).
In comparison to translation, interpreting stays in the background with only three papers: Kaufmann presents a historical overview of the interpreter’s position in between cultures, Tomaszkiewicz studies a small group of Polish community interpreters in conflict situations, whereas the deaf interpreter’s habitus is explored by Turner. In view of the increased importance and societal relevance of interpreting, in view of its ‘suitability’ for

sociological, agent-oriented research, this quasi absence of the field of Interpreting Studies comes as a surprise.
However, given the volume’s ambitions to “represent an important step” in “the conceptualisation of a general translation sociology” and “deliver a comprehensive methodological framework” (p. 13), the real challenge concerns the papers’ contribution to this theoretical-methodological goal. Clearly, Bourdieu’s sociology runs like a leitmotiv through many a paper whereas Latour and Luhmann, although explicitly advanced in the introduction, remain absent. Sometimes Bourdieu’s model serves more as an underlying, sporadic reference (e.g. Ladouceur, Skibinska). A number of articles however explicitly draw on the interrelated concepts of field, illusio, symbolic capital. Yvonne Lindqvist e.g. studies consecration mechanisms in the Swedish field of high prestige literary translation between
1980-2000. Sometimes these concepts are combined with the study of ideological (Skibinska) or censorship mechanisms (Dimitriu, Merkle), giving insight in sociological power mechanisms underlying translation as a process and/or as a product. So, e.g., in her study on translations in late-Victorian Britain, Denise Merkle uses Bourdieu’s concept of the censorship of discourse in order to demonstrate how, unlike dominated groups, socially and politically dominant groups will find successful alternative strategies for importing forbidden literature. Therefore, Merkle convincingly concludes, Bourdieu’s sociology can contribute to a theory of censorship in translation. Rakefet Sela-Sheffy investigates contemporary literary translators’ strategies for increasing their symbolic capital in the field of literary translation in
Israel. Through the sociological mechanism of distinction governing their self-representation in interviews, reviews etc., she argues that literary translators typically seek to create a smallscale field of production, illustrative of their search for autonomy.
Bourdieu’s central habitus concept has also been frequently used for research on the role of various agents in the translation process. However, since fine-grained analyses of translators’ habitus are generally lacking, the concept has frequently been criticised for being deterministic and static (see Meylaerts 2008). Hannes Schweiger correctly underscores the quantity and variety of research material and the resulting methodological complexity of interrelating factors in understanding a translator’s habitus, especially in historical research.
His essay on Shaw’s translator Siegfried Trebitsch avoids these pitfalls, carefully reconstructing the complex aspects of Trebitsch translatorial habitus, making use of an elaborate combination of sources (autobiography, archives, reviews…).
Yet, Bourdieu insistently acknowledged the ethnographic foundations of his work in general and of his habitus concept more in particular (see Blommaert 2005). Without linking her paper explicitly to Bourdieu, this type of research is convincingly exemplified by Kaisa
Koskinen. Ethnographic research as a method for studying translators in the European
Commission is part of Koskinen’s three-level (institution, translator, text) analysis of translation in the European Commission. According to Koskinen, ethnographic methods can, among other things, “support theory building” in TS “by providing methods for eliciting new kinds of qualitative data on the social aspects of translation” (p. 114, emphasis in original). In the light of the importance of these and other methodological benefits (see pp. 114-117), in the light also of other papers using qualitative methods like interviews or questionnaires
(Coracini, Way, Tomaszkiewicz) and pleading for more active field work (Risku & Pircher), more elaborate investigations along this line should open new alleys for Translation Studies.
In short, a further integration of ethnographic models in Translation and Interpreting Studies forms indeed one of the future challenges for a general translation sociology.
Given the already mentioned sociological foundation of the more traditional descriptive, polysystemic approach (cf. supra), the latter serves as a methodological basis for quite a few articles (e.g. van Doorslaer on Cyriel Buysse or Lopes on the reception of Uncle
Tom’s Cabin in Portuguese translation during the 19 th
and 20 th
century), sometimes in

combination with other models. Against the background of Foucault’s concept of the “other”,
Weissbrod e.g. uses Toury’s norms concept, Vermeer’s skopos and Venuti’s visibility in order to explain selection strategies and manipulative translation processes for anti-Semitic literature in Hebrew translation.
Other papers’ link with sociology is somehow looser, more implicit, using quantitative data (e.g. Seruya and Santini) or adopting a (implicit) factual historical approach. This is e.g. the case for Kaufmann (cf. supra), for Sabina Matter-Seibel’s study on Margaret Fuller’s translations of Goethe and von Armin or for Wolfgang Pöckl’s contribution on translators and translations in King Charles V’s court between 1364 and 1380.
Rather than testifying of a unified sociological approach in Translation Studies, rather than designing a comprehensive methodological framework, the various contributions illustrate how at present a general translation sociology functions at best as an umbrella with so many ramifications. Sure, every separate branch presents its own merits and legitimacy but a real integration is yet to come. This volume represents an valuable step in this direction.
References:
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. “Bourdieu the Ethnographer: The Ethnographic Founding of Habitus and Voice”.
The Translator 11:2. 219-236.
Meylaerts, Reine. 2008. “Translators and (Their) Norms : Towards a Sociological construction of the Individual”. In: Miriam Shlesinger, Daniel Simeoni, Anthony Pym (Eds).
Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies. Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury .
Benjamins Translation Library. Amsterdam – Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 91-102.