Specialised Translation: A Concept in Need of Revision
Specialised Translation: A Concept in Need of Revision
Specialised Translation: A Concept in Need of Revision
Introduction
Specialised translation and its corollaries – general translation, scientific translation,
technical translation, legal translation, medical translation, and so on – are well-
established denominations in our field, according to which many professional aspects
have been organised: professional fees and standing, calls for employment, courses and
degrees, academic events, etc. They are the result of attempts to classify the activity of
translation (classifications, typologies or categorizations) and, as such, they should
make thinking, communicating and acting on translation easier. My opinion is that, at
this moment in time, they are hindering rather than facilitating our task and that some
reflection on them is vital.
Categorization of translation
The activity of translation can be subjected to different kinds of categorization
according to different criteria. If the criterion is the medium, we speak about translation
and interpreting. If the criterion is the situation in which translating is developed, we
can speak about audiovisual translation, official translation, court interpreting,
translation for publishing companies, etc. We can also describe translation according to
two different axes, both related in different ways, to the concept of specialisation of the
texts translated:
Borrowed categorizations
Translation studies have not created these categories. They originated in other fields,
older than translation, and have been inherited by us, in my opinion, through hasty and
mechanical borrowing. They were adopted by translation studies from textual studies,
which in turn had borrowed them from Language for Special Purposes
(LSP)/Terminology studies. Where did LSPs find these concepts? They took them from
the current classification of knowledge, which establishes a correlation between
concepts and words. Further correlating built up a cascade which covers these steps
concept
word
text
translation
extremely minimally
specialised specialised
each reality being allocated at a different point on the scale or continuum. Specialised
communication is considered to be that which occurs among experts in the field,
communicating on specific matters and using specific jargon, whereas general
communication is considered to be that which occurs among lay people, communicating
on everyday facts and using the vocabulary shared by all speakers.
The former means that there is not a clear frontier separating general and specialised
language, communication or translation, that every text and every act of communication
include, in different proportions, elements which can be characterized as general, and
elements which can be characterized as specialised. This is admitted by a growing
number of experts in LSP, terminology and translation. Phenomena such as
metaphorization, linguistic variation and idiolect which used to be thought specific of
general communication, are easily detected in highly specialised communication as
well. On the other hand, as specialised knowledge has increasingly spread over the
whole community, parcels of knowledge (mechanics, economics, law, medicine…)
which were exclusive to specialists have become common ground for larger segments of
population and are found in everyday communication. In my opinion, any attempt to
draw the line between general and specialized is doomed to failure.
Terminology studies used to reduce specialised communication to that which was taking
place between experts but, interlocutors intervene in more varied combinations (expert
to expert, expert to lay, expert to politician, expert to buyer, expert to learner, expert to
user…; and the vehicles and situations for communicating specialised information also
present a richer variety than the one admitted by the more traditional approaches to
communication (when standardization of the communication between experts was their
main concern).
The concept of specialization is also mainly subjective. The same text is perceived with
different grades of specialisation according to the familiarity of the receiver with the
subject matter and the field. A lecture given by an expert might be perceived as too
specialised by a part of the audience, as “acceptable” by some and as too down to earth
by others.
In our field of translation, and in LSP studies as well, the most frequent way of
categorizing translation is through the patchwork diagram. But it has proved highly
inaccurate as no reality, not even biological realities, present clear cut boundaries with
other contiguous realities.
Fields of knowledge are not strictly isolated from each other, science, technology,
economy, law; civil law, property law, marriage law, procedural law. And their
categorization varies according to time and place. Even when translation is frequently
divided into scientific, technical, economic and legal types, fuzzy boundaries among
them are evident. Furthermore, categories such as legal translation prove ill-defined as
• sometimes this category is established according to the content of the texts and
other times according to the legal frame of the activity
• the legal frame covers extremely different types of text, contracts, legislation,
court procedures, registry documents, administration, treaties, etc., each of them
liable to be chosen as the prototype of legal translation by different authors
• legal texts rarely present a single subject matter or thematic frame and almost all
of them offer other information, technical, medical, etc.
• last but not least, there is no correlation between these categories of translation
and specific ways of translating
In my experience, mostly, subject matter of the text has been shown to be irrelevant for
translating.
Recently, new diagrams have been proposed trying to avoid the excessive simplification
present in earlier diagrams: overlapping roof tiles (myself); overlapping scales
(cognitivism, Rosch, Lakoff…); chains (Givón)…, and new approaches to
categorization have emerged, such as gestalt (Snell-Hornby), family resemblances
(Witgentstein), cluster analysis and prototype semantics.
Apart from that, any classification of a set of elements requires choosing which of them
will represent it for each class, becoming the prototype of the class. If all the elements
of the class present the same characteristics, any of them will do as prototype, but
realities related to translation and texts are usually all different from each other. In this
case, elements which are not selected as prototypes are peripheral elements and do not
exactly abide by all the characteristics of the class/prototype. Furthermore, the choice of
the protypical element is arbitrary, as we can chose different criteria and personal
preferences for representativeness (some authors offer the translation of legislation as
the prototype of legal translation and extrapolate their conclusions to the generality of
legal translation, whilst others may chose contracts, treaties, wills, court judgements or,
other civil registry certifications, .
The concept of genre was conceived for intralingual communication and only provides
for one receiver. In the case of translation, there are at least two receivers, the translator
and the reader of the translated text, and somebody should explain which of them is
supposed to identify the genre of both texts, especially when genre is a question of
perception and subjectivity and the ability to recognize a particular genre varies
according to different readers and, particularly, between the translator, a linguist, and
the reader. As in the case of subject matter, the designation of a certain text as the
prototype for a genre is subjective and the characteristics assigned will not cover all the
other peripheral texts. The alleged utility of genre in translation is seriously reduced
when we consider that imitating the conventions of the text in the target language is
only one of the possible strategies for translation and that, more often than not, the
translated text imitates the conventions of the original text or tries to adopt an
intermediate form between the source textual conventions and the target language ones.
Finally, as with the parameter of subject matter, different genres do not seem to be
related to different specific ways of translating and, as is often the case, distinctions
which are relevant for a disciplinary field lose at least a great part of their relevance and
usefulness when borrowed by different fields.
Conclusions
Any attempt to categorize human activity –translation– oversimplifies it. This is the
case of theorization, which, in many occasions, adopts the form of metaphorization.
Classification and theorization are useful, but cannot replace the reality from which they
originate. A peculiarity of human sciences –as compared to natural sciences– is that the
proposals of their scholars can modify the reality they are analysing, i.e. the process of
reification of theory. Furthermore, classifications are not immutable, everlasting
systems as they depend on the variability of the parameters used, such as specialisation
and categories of knowledge. Classifications usually contain a strong subjective
component. So, translation scholars should be aware that classifications of translation
must evolve, that the activity of translation must be the hallmark for their proposals. We
should also remember that, to date, classifications of translation are not
straightforwardly related to different ways of translating, to specific problems, strategies
and solutions and their usefulness is therefore rather limited when we think of
translating and training translators.
Efforts should be made to provide a semantics of legal texts which is applicable to the
work of translators since regular semantics is more easily applied to scientific-technical
texts.
bionote