See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/43174545

Rethinking translation in the 21st century

Article in MonTi Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación · July 2009

DOI: 10.6035/MonTI.2009.1.2 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

8 1,766

1 author:

Mª Carmen África Vidal Claramonte

Universidad de Salamanca
246 PUBLICATIONS 471 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mª Carmen África Vidal Claramonte on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 RETHINKING TRANSLATION
IN THE 21ST CENTURY

M. Carmen África Vidal Claramonte

University of Salamanca

Aída Martínez-Gómez Gómez (Translation)

Abstract
In the latest decades the concept of translation has dramatically changed: we have
gone from absolute equivalence to a widening of the definition of this field which
sometimes reaches unforeseen limits. Translation certainly reflects the kind of society
which produces it and, thus, it is hardly surprising that a culture like the western one
– contradictory, hybrid and enriched thanks to migration but at the same time bur-
dened with problems arising from cross-cultural clashes – offers a definition of trans-
lation as a never-neutral and ethically-complex process. The different current theories
provide much help when pondering over these issues and reflect the choices which
we, translators, constantly make, our negotiations and the margins of (in)fidelity be-
tween which we move, always around a core meaning which is no longer universal.

Resum
El concepte de traducció ha canviat moltíssim durant les darreres dècades: hem passat
de l’equivalència absoluta a l’ampliació de la definició d’aquest camp fins a límits de
vegades insospitats. I és que, efectivament, la traducció és sempre reflex del tipus de
societat que la genera, així que no és d’estranyar que una cultura com l’occidental,
contradictòria, híbrida, enriquida per les migracions però també carregada de proble-
mes pels xocs interculturals, oferisca una definició de traducció que és ara un procés
mai neutre i èticament complex. Les distintes teories contemporànies ajuden molt a
reflexionar sobre tot açò, i reflecteixen les eleccions que com a traductors fem cons-
tantment, les nostres negociacions i els marges d’(in)fidelitat en què ens moguem
respecte a un nucli de significat que ha deixat de ser universal.

Keywords: Translation. Neutrality. Ideology. Culture.

40 M. Carmen África Vidal Claramonte

Cocinar exige recetas y técnicas que se basan en suposiciones

de lo que constituye una buena comida. Si los traductores son
como cocineros, entonces se guían por una teoría que rige la
elección de los ingredientes, las estrategias y los efectos. Nece-
sitan aprender qué es lo que tienen a su disposición y qué usos
le pueden dar; y, en especial, qué usos culturales y políticos1.
Lawrence Venuti (2000: 34)

La mala suerte de cualquier teoría de la traducción es que de-

bería partir de una noción comprensible (y férrea) de “equiva-
lencia de significado”, mientras que lo que suele pasar es que en
muchas páginas de semántica y filosofía del lenguaje se define
el significado como lo que permanece inalterado (o equivalente)
en los procesos de traducción. Círculo vicioso como pocos2.
Umberto Eco (2008: 35)

For a long time, translating was, almost intuitively, a synonym for finding an
equivalent for a source text, for saying the same thing in another language, for
replacing or substituting. In fact, the term translation belongs to that group
of terms which the general public claims to understand without any problem.
However, this is not only a feature of non-specialized circles: for centuries,
the main aim of translation was to find the way of transferring meaning from
one language to another without altering the message of the source text at
all. And, certainly, this seems to be the most logical approach. However, in
practice, we all know that things finally prove to be much more complex:
nowadays many translation scholars (Hermans 1999; Tymoczko 2007; Davis
2001 et al.) and translators (I could name here important translators such as
Miguel Sáenz, Juan Gabriel López-Guix, Dora Sales, Gayatri Spivak and many
others) confidently assert that the translator is not invisible and, thus, transla-
tion is at the same time a complex and fascinating activity:

1. C
 ooking requires recipes and techniques based on assumptions about what a good meal
is. If translators are like cooks, they are guided by a theory which regulates the choice
of ingredients, strategies and effects. They need to learn what is available for them, what
this can be used for and, especially, what this can be used for in cultural and political
arenas. [Translated by Aída Martínez-Gómez.]
2. T
 he misfortune of any translation theory lies in the fact that it should be based upon an
understandable (and solid) notion of “equivalence of meaning”, whereas what actually
happens is that meaning is usually defined, in the fields of semantics and philosophy
of language, as what remains unaltered (or equivalent) in translation processes. A real
vicious circle. [Translated by Aída Martínez-Gómez.]

MonTI 1 (2009)
Rethinking Translation in the 21st Century 41

It would be natural enough, prima facie, to bring these two activities – of

translating and theorizing about meaning – together, because of the simplest
of beginning thoughts about translation: namely that it is an attempt to find
ways of saying in one language something that means the same as what has
been said in another. What I would like to do in this essay is to explore some
of the reasons why it is that this prima facie thought should be resisted: I shall
argue that most of what interests us in the translations that interest us most is
not meaning, in the sense that philosophy of language uses the term: in many
cases […] getting the meaning, in this sense, right is hardly even a first step
towards understanding (Appiah 2000: 418).
It is, therefore, very difficult to define translation, basically because the task of
translating has always run parallel to the epistemology of an era, to cultures,
to societies and to every philosophic, artistic and scientific change which has
influenced mankind. Everything influences translation, which is not foreign
to anything. This is precisely the reason why it is one of the most fascinating
activities one can carry out. Statements such as “defining translation is easy”
or “anyone can translate with the help of a dictionary” (as once ironically sug-
gested by Susan Bassnett when making her readers reflect upon the complex-
ity of translating) are fallacies in themselves. They are fallacies firstly because
there are many different kinds of translations (from self‑translations, authen-
ticated official documents and Constitutions with several versions – such as
the Swiss one, with German and French versions, none of which is considered
to be a “translation” – to the so-called pseudotranslations, multilingual texts
or “zero translations”, among others; cf. Tymoczko 2007: 66-67), and second-
ly because even the concepts used to explain the translation process – from
the concept of language to that of text or communicative system – are prob-
lematic themselves (Tymoczko 2007: 54ff). It is surprising that the more we
know about translation and the more we reflect upon it, the less sure we are
that it is something as easy as we would like it to be, as shown, for instance,
in such interesting observations as “When is a Translation not a Translation?”
(Bassnett 1998: 25-40), “Defining Translation” (Tymoczko 2007: 54-106) or
“Undefining Translation” (Hermans 1999: 46-54), among others.
Almost every traditional definition of translation stems from the idea of
equivalence, from the possibility of replacing a text for one written in the
target language. Nevertheless, even if equivalence is a concept which works
in the scientific arena, the more one analyzes it, the more problematic it be-
comes (Hermans 1999: 47). Today, in the era of globalization, it is obvious
that translating does not mean saying the same thing, but saying almost the
same thing. And besides, we must always bear in mind how difficult it is to
define that thing and never forget that we are often seriously uncertain of what

MonTI 1 (2009)
42 M. Carmen África Vidal Claramonte

saying means (Eco 2008: 13). The question, then, may not be whether equiva-
lence exists or not (it is already clear nowadays that absolute equivalence in
translation is impossible), but “to what degree should a translation exhibit
this or that species of equivalence […] what is the minimum equivalence
required […] And who decides” (Hermans 1999: 48).
The discussion about faithfulness in translation or about the importance
and meaning of the term “equivalence” has led to questions which redefine
the object of study of the discipline: “what is studied is text embedded within
its network of both source and target cultural signs” (Bassnett & Lefevere
1990: 11-12). Thanks to the advances in traductology, especially during the
second half of the 80s and throughout the 90s, wide issues related to ideology,
ethics and culture have been included in translation research (Bassnett 2007:
14). Translation theories of the 21st century consider neither equivalence nor
the definition of an absolute criterion to produce a good target text as a prior-
ity (Cronin 2000 & 2003; Gentzler 2001; Hardwick 2000). On the contrary,
the activity developed by the translator reflects an intrinsic connection with
the problems which seriously concern today’s society, from migrations and
national identities to the problem of margins – common issues in institutional
and legal translation and in social mediation, which are particularly relevant
in our country as can be evidenced by the work of some research groups in
universities such as those of Granada and Alcalá de Henares, to name only a
few. Thus, translation is not understood as a simple intellectual task – it is not
possible to “‘simply’ translate –translations are ethical-political acts” (Davis
2001: 51) –, but as an ethical problem, as a possibility for linguistic hospital-
ity (Ricoeur 2005) and even for conflict (Baker 2006), since translating means
enabling interaction between cultures whose mutual relationship is, in many
cases, asymmetrical.
Nowadays, when translation is the language of Europe (quoting Umberto
Eco), when, in the age of globalization, we are facing an ethically challenging
activity – since it needs to combine identity and otherness in a world which
is becoming richer thanks to migration, the coming and going of peoples and
the resulting pluralism and cultural relativism, but which is also confronted
with the problems this may lead to – translation is much more than just a
mirror. One of the main reasons for that, as Borges reminds us in El idioma
de los argentinos, is that we cannot be so naïve as to forget that language
is like the moon, and has a shadowed hemisphere. Speaking is not neutral.
Objectivity does not exist, nor do the alleged equivalence and faithful con-
veyance of information from one side to the other. Translators’ choices are
always determined by their universe of discourse and this not only results in

MonTI 1 (2009)
Rethinking Translation in the 21st Century 43

different translations, but also, and most importantly, it reflects different ways
of understanding the world. As Cristina Peretti (1995: 9) states, translation
is closely linked to philosophy, and philosophy – together with metaphysics
– is the discipline which forces us to reflect upon our own identity and the
identity of other people.
Therefore, translating is a serious task (Eco 2008: 31), since it influ-
ences all spheres of life. People access reality through translations, versions
of realities which are temporary, circumstantial, interesting and self-inter-
ested, which continuously become contextualized, corrected and translated
along with one’s hermeneutic and ethical trajectories. As the anthropologist
Lluís Duch explains in Mito, interpretación y cultura, if living is speaking and
speaking is translating, it is obvious that living is translating: translation, as
an unavoidable process which every human being is subject to from birth
until death, is a clear sign of the deep alienation of mankind. We speak be-
cause immediacy, despite the great efforts we make to reach it, is unattainable
for mortals (Duch 1998: 467). We are translating from the very moment we
open our eyes every morning. This is why it is not easy to define translation
(ibid.: 34).
Si interpréter, c’était mettre lentement en lumière une signification enfouie
dans l’origine, seule la métaphysique pourrait interpréter le devenir de l’hu-
manité. Mais si interpréter, c’est s’emparer, par violence ou subreption, d’un
système de règles qui n’a pas en soi de signification essentielle, et lui imposer
une direction, le ployer à une volonté nouvelle, le faire entrer dans un autre
jeu et le soumettre à des règles secondes, alors le devenir de l’humanité est
une série d’interprétations. (Foucault 1971: 145-146)3
Therefore, the concept of translation has changed as other epistemological
fields have evolved, since translation is an activity which is closely related to
existence. Evidence of this is that, especially during the 20th century – when
the notion of knowledge itself changed radically (Tymoczko 2007: 18ff),
when post-structuralism replaced structuralism and postmodernity replaced
modernity and when analytical philosophy opened new paths towards the

3. I f interpretation were the slow exposure of the meaning hidden in an origin, then only
metaphysics could interpret the development of humanity. But if interpretation is the
violent or surreptitious appropriation of a system of rules, which in itself has no essen-
tial meaning, in order to impose a direction, to bend it to a new will, to force its partici-
pation in a different game, and to subject it to secondary rules, then the development of
humanity is a series of interpretations. [Foucault, Michel. (1977) “Nietzsche, Geneal-
ogy, History”. In: Bouchard, Donald F. (ed.) Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected
Essays and Interviews. Trans. Donald Bouchard & Sherry Simon. New York: Cornell
University Press. pp. 139-164. (This quote appears in pages 151-152)]

MonTI 1 (2009)
44 M. Carmen África Vidal Claramonte

linguistic turn, the semiotic turn or the cultural turn –, we began seeing trans-
lation in a new light. It was then when we realized that the important thing
“is not to solve the problems but to problematize the solutions” (Tymoczko
2007: 18ff) and when we started wondering about the role of the translator
after the Second World War or, later on, in the new institutions created by
the European Union – situations where one element was highlighted: “the
significance of translators’ choices and their processes of decision making,
indicating that these choices determine meaning itself in the target text and
that translated texts are constitutive of representations of their subject mat-
ter” (Tymoczko 2007: 189).
This is the reason why it is so important to reflect upon the foundations
on which the translation process has been constructed from the beginning.
There are already relevant contributions in this sense, such as those by Susan
Bassnett & André Lefevere (1998), Michael Cronin (2003), Theo Hermans
(2006) or Maria Tymoczko (2007). These authors, among others, warn of the
westernization of translation studies – we forget that translation is also car-
ried out in other continents – and suggest that, in the 21st century, the disci-
pline must be able to face new challenges which entail leaving homogenizing
and universalistic positions aside.
Given the current situation, and bearing in mind that we live in a glo-
balized era characterized by constant migration, our aim as translators can
only be to find the most appropriate association for the local and the global,
for the Self and the Other, through specific cultural experiences which are
also related to what is alien, unknown and different to us (Cronin 2006: 3).
This is precisely the key: the dual nature – or better, the multiple nature –
of cultural experiences, both specific and interrelated, will lead us to an in-
between space where neither exotization nor domestication in translation will
prevail. This solution, far from being perfect, although being the best choice
available, is not utopian. It will enable us, translators, to face an era which
has undoubtedly witnessed dramatic changes resulting in a revolution in the
very nature of societies. On the one hand, globalization has transformed the
epistemological approaches to everyday life and individual discourses and
experiences, partly because the new technologies contribute to bringing soci-
eties together and partly because the notion of diversity itself is blurred, as is
that of cross‑cultural gaps and misunderstandings, given the uneven nature
of globalization, ruled by the homogenizing patterns set by world powers.
Our age, that of cultural pluralism, cannot allow nihilism and lack of values
nor authoritarism and absolute equivalences: the perfect scenario would be
a situation of constant compensation, as Bauman (2002: 92) suggests, where

MonTI 1 (2009)
Rethinking Translation in the 21st Century 45

the dilemma does not lie in the fact of living according to certain values or
not, or living according to one set of values or another, but in the fact of ac-
knowledging the validity of other values, different to ours, without underesti-
mating our identity or feeling tempted to discredit what is different.
On the other hand, alongside knowledge, migrations have become global
– a phenomenon which has transformed lifestyles, demography and the com-
position of societies. In this scenario, the challenge which translation faces is
obvious: the everyday professional activity needs to be rethought, from the
literary to the legal fields, but especially in the latter, since its norm favors
absolute equivalence and assumes equality-based cross‑cultural relationships,
whereas reality has proved to be far beyond these theories. Therefore, transla-
tion is not just a mirror, but rather seems closer to Alice’s looking glass, that
which turns everything upside down, enters it and scans what lies at the other
side. According to Bauman (1999: xlvii), translating is, at the same time, a
process of self-creation and of mutual creation, where neither the author nor
the translator are able to exercise their authority in absolute terms:
There is no supra-cultural and supra-historical (and so free from all contin-
gency) observation point from which the true and universal meaning can be
sighted and subsequently portrayed; none of the partners in the encounter
occupies such a point. Translation is an ongoing, unfinished and inconclu-
sive dialogue which is bound to remain such. The meeting of two contingen-
cies is itself a contingency, and no effort will ever stop it from being such. The
act of translation is not a one-off event which will put paid to the need of fur-
ther translating effort […]. Cross-cultural translation is a continuous proc-
ess which serves as much as constitutes the cohabitation of people who can
afford neither occupying the same space nor mapping that common space in
their own, separate ways. No act of translation leaves either of the partners
intact. Both emerge from their encounter changed, different at the end of an
act from what they were at its beginning […] and that reciprocal change is
the work of translation (Bauman 1999: xlviii)
Nowadays, in the era of globalization, the translator seems to understand very
clearly that the idea of “universal” words such as “die”, “live”, “star”, “swim”,
and even ubiquitous artifacts like “mirror” and “table”, which are not prob-
lematic from the point of view of translation (Newmark 1988: 94), is impos-
sible (Fernández González 2008: 45-47). The fact that not even words which
designate allegedly universal concepts are universal themselves – a fact which
translators are well aware of – proves to be extremely important, for instance,
in the field of legal translation (one just needs to remember the changes suf-
fered by the approach to legal translation following the Critical Legal Studies,
the Feminist Jurisprudence or the Critical Race Theory). Nevertheless, the re-

MonTI 1 (2009)
46 M. Carmen África Vidal Claramonte

al problem in translation is to be found in the limits. We know that translat-

ing unavoidably entails manipulating, but to what extent? Translating, today,
significa siempre “limar” algunas de las consecuencias que el término ori-
ginal implicaba. En este sentido, al traducir, no se dice nunca lo mismo. La
interpretación que precede a la traducción debe establecer cuántas y cuáles
de las posibles consecuencias ilativas que el término sugiere pueden limarse.
Sin estar nunca completamente seguros de no haber perdido un destello ul-
travioleta, una alusión infrarroja.
Así y todo, la negociación no es siempre un proceso que distribuye equi-
tativamente pérdidas y ganancias entre las partes en juego. Puedo considerar
satisfactoria incluso una negociación donde le he concedido a la parte con-
traria más de lo que ella me ha concedido a mí y, aun así, considerarme igual-
mente satisfecho al tener en cuenta mi propósito inicial y saber que partía en
condiciones de neta desventaja. (Umberto Eco 2008: 119)4
Theory helps – a lot – with the translating task. It helps us to reflect upon the
problems of a text and to ask ourselves questions about who commissioned
the translation of this precise text, who the target reader is, why we were
chosen to translate it, etc. However, theory may also influence the choices we
constantly make, since the negotiation process mentioned by Eco allows for
certain infidelity margins around an allegedly faithful core which depends on
the purposes of the translator (Eco 2008: 23). Eco is one of the most fervent
current supporters of the fact that there is what he calls a Core Content in
every translation process (2008: 105ff), where a certain degree of universal-
ism may be discerned, even if the author himself admits that neither the defi-
nition of universal nor the criteria for homogeneity is clear. Eco believes that
we have gone too far when interpreting Peirce’s infinite semiosis and what he
himself named “open work” in the 60s (Eco 1992), and thinks that we must
respect that core meaning which is common to every translator and reader
of the text and which would enable us to understand the same thing and yet
interpret different nuances. From his point of view, the translator is under the
obligation to legally respect what others have said, even if determining what is

4. A
 lways means “trimming” some of the consequences which the source term implies. In
this sense, when one translates, one never says the same thing. During the interpreting
process previous to translating one thing must be decided upon: how many and which
potential illative consequences of the term can be trimmed away. And still, one can
never be completely sure that an ultraviolet sparkle or an infrared reference have not
been missed.
Even so, negotiation is not always a process which equally distributes gains and losses
between the parties to the game. I can consider a negotiation satisfactory even if I have
awarded the other party more than what it has awarded me, and yet feel satisfied, since
I am aware of my initial purpose and my clearly disadvantaged initial position. [Trans-
lated by Aída Martínez-Gómez.]

MonTI 1 (2009)
Rethinking Translation in the 21st Century 47

understood by respect for what others have said, when moving from one lan-
guage to another, constitutes an interesting legal problem (Eco 2008: 27-28).
Other theoretical approaches, however, encourage us to go further, which
could also be matter of discussion or which, at least, would raise ethical con-
cerns if translators finally become a dominant centre, that Foucaultian Self
which they wanted to fight at first. The theory or theories which we adopt as
a starting point for the actual task of translating will provide different answers
for our texts; they will offer different possibilities and choices. Nevertheless,
the most important thing is to be aware, as 21st‑century translators, of the
fact that such choices will not be irrelevant, because “choices that might be
thought of as merely linguistic always imply ethical standards as well, which
has made the activity of translating itself the vehicle of such values as integ-
rity, responsibility, fidelity, boldness, humility” (Sontag 2007).

References
Appiah, Kwame Anthony. (2000 [1993]) “Thick Translation”, apud The Transla-
tion Studies Reader, Lawrence Venuti (ed.) London & New York: Routledge.
pp. 417-429.
Baker, Mona. (2006) Translation and Conflict. London: Routledge.
Bassnett, Susan. (2007) “Culture and Translation”. In: Kuhiwczak, Piotr & Ka-
rin Littau (eds.) 2007. A Companion to Translation Studies. Clevedon: Multi-
lingual Matters. pp. 13-23.
Bassnett, Susan & André Lefevere. (1998) Constructing Cultures. Clevedon: Mul-
tilingual Matters.
Bauman, Zygmunt. (1999) Culture as praxis. London: Sage Publications.
Cronin, Michael. (2006) Translation and Identity. London: Routledge.
Cronin, Michael. (2003) Translation and Globalization. London: Routledge.
Cronin, Michael. (2000) Across the Lines: Travel, Language, Translation. Cork:
Cork University Press.
Davis, Kathleen. (2001) Deconstruction and Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Duch, Lluís. (1998) Mito, interpretación y cultura. Barcelona: Herder.
Eco, Umberto. (2008 [2003]) Decir casi lo mismo. Experiencias de traducción. Bar-
celona: Lumen. Trans. Helena Lozano.
Eco, Umberto. (1992) Interpretation and Overinterpretation. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Fernández González, Vicente (comp.) (2008) La traducción de la A a la Z. Cór-
doba: Berenice.
Foucault, Michel. 1971. “Nietzsche, la généalogie, l’histoire”. In: Foucault, Mi-
chel. Dits et Ecrits II. Paris: Gallimard, 1994. pp. 136-157

MonTI 1 (2009)
 48 M. Carmen África Vidal Claramonte

Hardwick, Lorna. (2000) Translating Words, Translating Cultures. London:

Duckworth.
Hermans, Theo. (2006) Translating Others. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Hermans, Theo. (1999) Translation in Systems. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Newmark, Peter. (1988 [2003]) A Textbook of Translation. Essex: Longman.
Peretti, Cristina. (1995) “Introducción”. In: Derrida, Jacques. 1995. El lenguaje
y las instituciones filosóficas. Barcelona: Paidós. pp. 281-394.
Ricoeur, Paul. (2005) Sobre la traducción. Barcelona: Paidós. Trans. Patricia
Willson.
Sontag, Susan (2007). “The World as India”. In: Sontag, Susan. At the Same Time:
Essays and Speeches. New York. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Tymoczko, Maria. (2007) Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Man-
chester: St. Jerome.
Venuti, Lawrence. (2000) “¿Será útil la teoría de la traducción para los traduc-
tores?” Vasos comunicantes, 16. pp. 26-35. Trans. Juan Gabriel López-Guix.

MonTI 1 (2009)

View publication stats