Cfp: Toward a Comparative Translation and Interpreting Studies

Translation and Interpreting Studies (TIS) today is a discipline that has accumulated a large body of knowledge, both theoretical and empirical, about translation and interpreting. Starting from the last decade of the twentieth century, TIS has also overcome its original focus on the praxis and theories of translation and interpreting in Europe and North America and embraced postcolonial approaches. Yet there is another step to be made – a methodology for overcoming area-restricted isolationism needs to be developed.

Today, translation/interpreting practices and their theoretical conceptualizations are limited to a specific language combination, a country or, at most, a region. This restricted view, however, is only an ancillary stage which should lead to a generalized comparative study of translation/interpreting.

The history of the humanities shows that, after isolated attempts to understand a particular phenomenon in its diverse (period- or locale-specific) manifestations, there comes a stage of consolidated comparative and typological studies of all discovered varieties. A comparative-cum-typological approach allows a bringing into relief of both shared and idiosyncratic features so that they can be appreciated as a continuum uninterrupted by artificial regional and temporal boundaries, thereby offering an opportunity to observe the studied phenomenon in the entirety of its manifestations. Thus, the nature of language has been understood better with the help of comparative/contrastive linguistics; the nature of literature, with the help of comparative literature studies. Robert Marsh justified the development of a comparative branch in sociology in the following way: ―The fundamental reason why more attention should be given to comparative research and analysis is that sociological theory has been developed in one rather small corner of the world and may therefore be highly limited as a universal explanatory scheme.‖ This rationale seems to be applicable to TIS as well.

So far, no all-encompassing and methodologically consistent approach to research has been attempted in TIS. At best, different diachronic and synchronic manifestations of translation have been merely juxtaposed. The special issue ―Toward a Comparative Translation and Interpreting Studies‖ aims to outline the foundation for the comparative branch of TIS. No doubt, creating such a branch is a long-term and daunting project. Yet one can hope that with the ever-growing sense of community among translation scholars and researchers worldwide, what is lacking is a coordinated effort that will bring together all the varied expertise available and launch a new direction of research in translation studies—Comparative Translation and Interpreting Studies (CTIS).

Suggested topics

We welcome theoretical papers on the methodological aspects/issues of CTIS and empirical studies comparing practices and theories of translation/interpreting in different societies and cultures. We welcome papers exploring both pros and cons of creating CTIS. We hope to address the following and similar questions:

1. Is TIS mature enough as a discipline to undertake comparative studies? And also: Can TIS become mature enough without undertaking comparative studies?
2. Is the insularity of translation/interpreting research—whether geographical or temporal—epistemologically problematic? Are comparative studies feasible/promising?
3. What can the relationship between regional/case studies and more generalizing, comparative studies be? To what extent is W. H. Goodenough‘s insistence on keeping ethnography and comparative sociology apart because an ethnographer is constructing a theory that will make intelligible what goes on in a particular social universe, while a comparatist is trying to find principles common to many different universes, mutatis mutandis, applicable to translation/interpreting studies?
4. Can chronotopically-specific studies help researchers fathom the generalizability of identified translational phenomena? Based on a comparison of time- and space-specific findings, can a typology of translation/interpreting be developed? What axes of the quest for types can be proposed or explored: different types of translation/interpreting praxis? different types of translation/interpreting descriptions and/or prescriptions, social and cultural representations, histories and historiographies, theories and conceptualizations of translation/interpreting? the roles assumed by or ascribed to translation/interpreting?
5. What might the methodological and conceptual 'nitty-gritty' of CTIS look like?

Timeline for authors

Abstracts (400-500 words) due to guest editors: 15 September 2015
Decisions on abstracts: 15 October 2015
Submission of full manuscripts: 15 April 2016
Decisions to authors: 15 August 2016
Final version of paper due (based on reviews): 15 December 2016
Final versions of papers to journal from guest editors: 15 January 2017
Publication of special issue Summer 2017 (Issue two of 2017)

Submission instructions

Articles will be 5500–7000 words in length, in English (excluding of references).
Abstracts of 400-500 words should be sent to the guest editors at sergeytlnv@gmail.com and binghan.zheng@durham.ac.uk.