A Guide to Bible Translation: People, Languages, Topics
Edited by Philip A. Noss and Charles S. Houser
Click here to view details.
A Guide to Bible Translation: People, Languages, Topics
Edited by Philip A. Noss and Charles S. Houser
Click here to view details.
Call for abstracts (Deadline: 15 September 2020)
Panel on sustainable development and indirect translation
(incl. pivot AVT, machine translation and relay interpreting)
IATIS congress, Barcelona, 29 June – 2 July 2021
Convenors: Hanna Pieta, James Hadley, Jan Buts & Laura Ivaska
In an increasingly global society, people are often expected to translate from already translated texts or with further translation in mind. This is especially the case in contexts where multiple low-diffusion and/or low-resource languages are used . Such translating for and from translation, here called “indirect translation” and understood to include both oral and written texts (Assis Rosa, Pieta, and Maia 2019), has traditionally been perceived as a work-around to be avoided.
For quite some time now, research has focused on negative effects associated with this practice, particularly on mistakes that are added as one moves away from the ultimate source text (Pas 2013). Others have noted the disturbing economic implications of English as a dominant pivot language worldwide (de Swaan 2020), and the damaging consequences associated with taking translation work away from people who are already marginalized because of the language they use (Brodie 2012).
However, more recent studies have shifted the focus from these negatives, to the benefits associated with indirect translation, suggesting its potential to work as a tool for the social, economic and political development of countries and peoples (Schäffner, Tcaciuc, and Tesseur 2014); an empowering device that allows people from the margins to access relevant information (Van Rooyen 2018); a life-saving measure in crisis situations (Federici and O’Brien 2020); a productive way of maximining linguistic diversity in educational outlets (Torres-Simón, Pieta, Maia and Xavier, forthcoming); or a catalyst for feminist solidarity across borders (Castro and Ergun 2017).
The aim of this panel is to cast light on indirect translation and its role in the context of social, economic, political, technological or linguistic sustainable development. More specifically, we invite papers analyzing practices and products of indirect translation in relation to at least one of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.
We welcome proposals focusing on any type of indirect translation. Successful proposals will outline specifically which of the SDGs they address and how. For a full list and more details about the SDG, please see this page: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals.
Proposal should be made in the form of a 300-word abstract, directly addressing one or more of the SDGs, accompanied by a brief bionote.
Panel convenors have secured a slot for a post-panel special issue of Translation Spaces (https://benjamins.com/catalog/ts), to be out in 2023. It will result from a separate call, open to all, regardless of their participation in the panel.
Update from the Chair of the Organizing Committee and the IATIS International Conferences Committee:
The panels, workshops, roundtables and artistic initiatives are now published on our website (access it here). See below the list of titles & convenors.
We are now inviting oral communications and posters until 15th of September 2020.
Oral communications, submitted in response to either one of our thematic panels (view them here) or the general theme (see it here) of the conference, will run for 20 minutes followed by 10-minute discussions. Some oral communications originally submitted to a panel may be moved to the general theme of the conference by recommendation of the convenor and/or the Scientific Committee.
Posters will be submitted in response to thematic panels (view here) or the general theme (view here) of the conference. Some oral communications may be accepted only in poster format by recommendation of the Scientific Committee and/or the Advisory Board.
All proposals must be submitted through the conference management platform:
Click here for the link.
CFP Panel for IATIS 2021 Conference in Barcelona
Submission details here: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.iatis.org_index.php_7th-2Dconference-2Dbarcelona-2D2021_item_2078-2Dconference-2Dpresentations-2Dformats&d=DwIFaQ&c=vTCSeBKl9YZZHWJzz-zQUQ&r=BJ7h8997pt_RZHkSLH8iS1BbqbqWASD8pyYbLya1lik&m=KjQjxtb_6WCwiBQJKVK2O4f5ER6VseCAG3fLbzYsjNQ&s=ae-YBN_jx-GlnqZgUnUTEUmTDrJ78wIm_ZNHVOVGyZk&e=
Deadline 15 September for abstracts
Panel 1: Translation in the global media ecology: New patterns of translation and distribution in the streaming age
Convenors: Jinsil Choi (Keimyung University), Jonathan Evans (University of Portsmouth) & Kyung Hye Kim (Shanghai Jiao Tong University)
Keywords: media, centre/periphery, dominant/dominated, streaming, fansubbing, attention ecology.
While there have been calls to ‘recenter globalization’ since the early 2000s (Iwabuchi 2002), the development of streaming media since the late 2000s has effectively disrupted older patterns of film and media distribution, leading to more access globally for what had been marginalised cultures in the global media ecology, such as South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand and Nigeria. The contribution of streaming service platforms turned content creators such as Amazon, Netflix and Rakuten Viki is in the process of overturning previous understandings of the global mediasphere. Increasingly invested in international services, these companies’ practices fragment, deconstruct and reconfigure media space.
Translation is central to this, as these streaming providers offer most media content in translated versions, be it dubbed or subtitled, resulting in geographical boundaries becoming increasingly volatile and propelling cultural mobility. Not all such translations are official, and there continue to be thriving fan translation cultures on streaming platforms such as Youtube and Viki which offer access to media between ‘dominated’ cultures and as well between ‘dominating’ and ‘dominated’ cultures. This increasing fluidity is having a significant effect on Anglosphere understandings of world media, which had previously seen ‘foreign’ film and TV as elite, highbrow productions but now, especially through streaming platforms and fansubbing, more popular media such as Korean soap operas or Chinese teenage TV dramas are becoming widely available. At the same time, the massive abundance of available media around the globe is creating a scarcity of attention and affecting a new attention ecology (Citton 2017) which risks ‘dominated’ languages being overlooked in the sheer quantity of ‘dominating’ language production. This panel aims to explore the role of translation in the streaming age, especially in relation to the shifting definition of ‘peripheral/dominated’ and ‘central/dominating’ media producing cultures.
We welcome contributions critically addressing translation (understood broadly) in the global media environment that has been created in relation to streaming and on demand services.
Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
-Video streaming giants (e.g. Netflix, Amazon) and popular translation -Transnational and translational co-productions for international streaming -Shifting notions of centre/dominant and periphery/dominated and ways of retheorising the position of cultures in the current media ecology -Streaming, translation and the media environment -Economies of attention, digital distribution and translation -Shadow economies of media translation and their effects on global circulation -South-South or other ‘dominated-dominated’ translation practices (i.e. that do not pass through ‘dominant’ languages) for popular media
For informal enquiries: email@example.com
Bionotes of panel convenors:
Jinsil Choi is Assistant Professor, Keimyung University, South Korea. Her research interests include corpus-based translation, pre-modern Korea in translation, and subtitles and film ratings in Korea. She is now working on a monograph, entitled Government Translation in South Korea: A Corpus Based Study, to be published by Routledge in 2020.
Kyung Hye Kim is Lecturer in Translation Studies at the School of Foreign Languages, Shanghai Jiao Tong University and an Honorary Associate Director of the Baker Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies at Shanghai International Studies University, China. Her academic interests lie in corpus-based translation studies, retranslation, and critical discourse analysis.
Jonathan Evans is currently Senior Lecturer in Translation Studies at the University of Portsmouth, UK. From August 2020 he will be Senior Lecturer in Translation Studies at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of The Many Voices of Lydia Davis (2016) and co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Politics (2018). His academic interests lie in the circulation of media and non-hegemonic ideas.
Announcement & Call: https://www.iatis.org/index.php/7th-conference-barcelona-2021
Deadline: 15 September for abstracts
Panel 19: Ecological turn in translatology
Convenor: Rindon Kundu (Sri Sri University)
Keywords: Darwinian evolution, biological, eco-environment, natural selection, survival, organic, ecological, translatology
While formulating the definition of Life in the planetary systems, a committee assembled by NASA in 1994, suggested, following Carl Sagan’s idea, that life is, “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of growth, replication and Darwinian evolution”. According to this definition, living species go through metabolism or chemical transformations in an environment filled with the right ingredients i.e., water, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulphur. As stated by Oparin-Haldane theory and later ratified by Miller-Urey experiment if the fundamental inorganic molecules present on early earth are given the right conditions they can start interacting with each other and form organic molecules and thereafter evolves into an organism. Now, in accordance with the Darwinian paradigm, an organism sustains and evolves with the changing environment due to its natural selection and Darwin’s principle of the ‘survival of the fittest’ is heavily based on biological evolution and adaptation of the organism through ‘natural selection’. Keeping in mind this biological conceptualisation of ‘natural selection’, ‘evolution’, and ‘survival’, can we then attempt to form an ecological model of the process of translation? Does the translator attempt to carry out both “adaptive selection” and “selective adaptation” in terms of adapting his/her body into the target socio-lingual and politico-cultural environment as well as selecting the text for the translational eco-environment?
If we consider author, language, culture, theme, genre, authorial intention and other textual elements as organic and inorganic molecules which by interacting with each other can form an organic text living and sustaining in its own environment, can we then consider translation of it as an evolution and adaptation in Darwinian sense where a transformed species will evolve in a completely new environment mutating with new sets of elements i.e., translator, target language, target culture, translatorial purpose?
Further, borrowing John Bowlby’s idea of “Environment of Evolutionary Adaptation”, can we argue that often times conditions present in the target environment allow a species or text to adapt into it for which that species/text is naturally selected for? And can we extend “Encoding/Decoding” (Nida, 1964; Hall, 1973) beyond the linguistic realm of transferring message to the field of genetics as transformation of genetic information resulting in mutation. How should we maintain an eco-balance between two diverge ecosystems while performing the translational act? Or does the act of translation inevitably imbibe imbalance due to distinct unequal geographies bound up with asymmetrical power relations between their respective nation-states?
Finally, the panel will try to formulate the ecological turn in translatology which may chart new territories in translation studies.
Participants will be invited to present papers along the following lines (not exclusive):
For informal enquiries: firstname.lastname@example.org
Bionote of panel convenor:
Rindon Kundu is presently working as an Assistant Professor of English at Sri Sri University, India. He is acting as the Treasurer of Comparative Literature Association of India (CLAI) as well as has been nominated by Prof. Gengshen Hu as the South Asian Regional Director of International Association Eco-Translation Research (IAETR). He has been awarded several international grants like IATIS 2018 Hong Kong Bursary holder by International Association of Translation and Intercultural Studies; Full Grant by the British Academy to participate in the African Translation and Interpreting Studies Writing Workshop at South Africa in 2019 and Young Researcher Travel Grant 2019 by European Society for Translation Studies. He has recently been selected for the Volkswagen Stiftung 2020 Grant.
The first edition of the Journal for Translation Studies in Africa, edited by Carmen Delgado Luchner and Kobus Marais, is now available. Click here to access the content.
The Journal for Translation Studies in Africa promotes the scholarly study of translational phenomena in the widest sense of the word, including intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation, and values interpreting and translation equally. It welcomes interdisciplinary research, including but not limited to interpreting studies, multimodality and multimedia studies, development studies, media studies, cultural studies, political science, sociology and history. Contributions can be theoretical, empirical or applied.
Call for Papers
Beyond the translator’s invisibility: Critical reflections and new perspectives
Peter J. Freeth, University of Leeds, UK
Rafael O. Treviño, Gallaudet University, Washington, DC, USA
In The Translator’s Invisibility (1995), Lawrence Venuti argued literary translations are deemed most acceptable by Anglophone readers and critics when they appear to be transparent, original texts with an invisible translator. Focusing on the ethical implications of this illusion of transparency, Venuti calls for translators to become more visible in their work by adopting “foreignizing methods” that minimize the “ethnocentric violence of translation” and resist the hegemonic linguistic and cultural position of English (1995:20). The limitations of Venuti’s selectively Anglophone and literary focus, as well as the challenges that stem from his distilling of complex theoretical concepts into binary oppositions, have been criticized by several scholars (Pym 1996, Delabastita 2010). Nonetheless, the concept of the translator’s invisibility and its ethical implications have seen widespread migration across the discipline, proving fruitful for research into translator and interpreter (in)visibility in textual, paratextual and extratextual spaces (Koskinen 2000). For instance, research on the visibility of translators in non-Anglophone contexts (Corbett 1999, Bilodeau 2013) and in other historical periods (Coldiron 2012, 2018) has expanded on Venuti’s original work and demonstrated the relevance of translator (in)visibility across a variety of cultural and historical contexts.
However, as we turn to sociologically informed and multimodal research contexts, and the scope of translation and interpreting studies as a discipline continues to broaden, the theoretical concept of translator (in)visibility has been increasingly applied in contexts far removed from Venuti’s original focus on literary translation. For example, Littau (1997) and Hassen (2012) highlight the relevance of the translator’s (in)visibility in digital contexts, while others have applied visibility to other translational practices, such as Bielsa and Bassnett (2008) focus on political and news translation and the visibility of translators within such organizations, and Baker’s (2010) and Ellcessor’s (2015) interpreting-based perspectives. As such, the issue of visibility has stretched beyond specific literary texts and individual translators, to the overall visibility of translation and interpreting within a variety of contexts, thereby creating new challenges for researching the notion of visibility within these spaces and requiring alternative approaches.
This volume therefore seeks to critically reflect upon current theoretical understandings of visibility across translation and interpreting studies, as well as to highlight potential new directions and approaches for visibility focused research. Doing so will provide new insights into how we can continue to investigate the visibility of translation and interpreting outside the realms of Venuti’s original theoretical approach, such as in digital, multimodal or sociological research contexts. To achieve this, the volume understands translation and interpreting studies in the broadest sense by incorporating intralingual and intersemiotic translational practices, such as subtitling, sign-language interpreting, rewriting and adaptation, alongside a traditional understanding of translation and the translator’s (in)visibility.
The editors welcome contributions of 6,000–8,000 words focusing on, but not limited to, the following issues:
Abstracts will be sent to the volume editors above at email@example.com by September 15, 2020. The length of the abstract must be 500–750 words, inclusive of references. The volume editors will review all submissions based on relevance to the scope of the volume and the overall quality of the abstract. Authors invited to submit a full manuscript will be notified by October 30, 2020.
Chapter manuscript submission
Authors must adhere to Chicago style guidelines and follow the author-date system for citations. The length of the manuscript must be 6,000–8,000 words, exclusive of references. Authors are responsible for obtaining the appropriate permissions for copyrighted material.
All manuscripts will be double peer reviewed. Upon receipt of the chapter manuscript, the volume editors will submit it to two reviewers. Based on this review, the editors will make a decision to accept (with or without revisions) or reject the manuscripts. An invitation to revise a manuscript does not guarantee publication. Upon receipt of (revised) chapter manuscripts, the entire volume will be submitted for a final independent review by the publisher and series editors. Authors may be requested to revise their chapter manuscripts further at this second stage of review. Again, invitations to revise do not guarantee publication.
|Call for papers issued||May 20, 2020|
|Abstract due to volume editors||September 15, 2020|
|Decision on abstract||October 30, 2020|
|Submission of chapter manuscript||April 30, 2021|
|Decisions to authors, with review comments if applicable||July 30, 2021|
|Revised chapter manuscript due, based on reviews||September 30, 2021|
|Submission of book manuscript to publisher for additional review||October 29, 2021|
|Manuscript feedback to authors||February 2022|
|Submission of final book manuscript to publisher||May 2022|
Baker, Mona. 2010. “Interpreters and translators in the war zone: narrated and narrators.” The Translator 16 (2): 197-222.
Bielsa, Esperança and Susan Bassnett. 2008. Translation in Global News. London: Routledge.
Bilodeau, Isabelle. 2013. Discursive Visibility: Quantifying the Practice of Translator Commentary in Contemporary Japanese Publishing. Emerging Research in Translation Studies: Selected Papers of the CETRA Research Summer School 2012. Accessed 25 February 2020.
Coldiron, A. E. B. 2012. “Visibility now: Historicizing foreign presences in translation.” Translation Studies 5 (2): 189-200.
——. 2018. “The Translator’s Visibility in Early Printed Portrait-Images and the Ambiguous Example of Margaret More Roper.” In Thresholds of Translation: Paratexts, Print, and Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Britain (1473-1660), edited by Marie-Alice Belle and Brenda M. Hosington, 51-74. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Corbett, John. 2000. “Translating into Scots.” TradTerm 6: 39-59.
Delabastita, Dirk. 2010. “Histories and Utopias: On Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility.” The Translator 16 (1): 125-134.
Ellcessor, Elizabeth. 2015. “Is there a sign for that? Media, American Sign Language interpretation, and the paradox of visibility.” Perspectives 23 (4): 586-598.
Hassen, Rim. 2012. “Online Paratexts and the Challenges of Translator’s Visibility: A Case of Women Translators of the Quran.” New Voices in Translation Studies 8: 66-81.
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2000. “Beyond Ambivalence: Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation.” PhD Doctoral dissertation, Department of Translation Studies, Tampere University.
Littau, Karin. 1997. “Translation in the age of postmodern production: from text to intertext to hypertext.” Forum for Modern Language Studies 32 (1): 81-96.
Pym, Anthony. 1996. “Review article of Lawrence Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London and New York: Routledge, 1995.” Target 8 (2): 165-177.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. Edited by Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere.Translation Studies. London and New York: Routledge.
Conference dates & venue: 26-28 August 2021, KU Leuven, Belgium
Kobus Marais, University of the Free State
Reine Meylaerts, KU Leuven
Maud Gonne, UNamur/ UCLouvain
Since the emergence of complexity thinking, scholars from the natural and social sciences as well as the humanities are renewing efforts to construct a unified framework that would unite all scholarly activity. The work of Terrence Deacon (2013), at the interface of (at least) physics, chemistry, biology, neurology, cognitive science, semiotics, anthropology and philosophy, is a great, though not the only, example of this kind of work. It is becoming clear that this paradigm of complex relational and process thinking means, among others, that the relationships between fields of study are more important than the differences between them. Deacon’s contribution, for instance, lies not (only) in original findings in any of the fields in which he works but (also) in the ways in which he relates bodies of knowledge to one another. An example would be his links between a theory of work (physics) and a theory of information (cybernetics) by means of a theory of meaning (semiotics).
This line of thinking indeed situates semiotics and biosemiotics in the centre of the abovementioned debate (also see Hoffmeyer, 2008; Kauffman, 2012).
In semiotics, Susan Petrilli’s (2003) thought-provoking collection covers a wide variety of chapters focused on translation, which she conceptualizes as semiotic process. Her work made it possible to link biosemiotics and semiotics through the notion of “translation”, which is what we aim to explore further in this conference.
Michael Cronin’s work in translation studies links up with the above through his use of the notion of “ecology”. To apprehend interconnectedness and vulnerability in the age of the Anthropocene, his work challenges text-oriented and linear approaches while engaging in eco-translational thinking. He calls tradosphere all translation systems on the planet, all the ways in which information circulates between living and non-living organisms and is translated into a language or a code that can be processed or understood by the receiving entity (Cronin, 2017, p. 71). The aptness of Cronin’s work on ecology finds a partner in that of Bruno Latour, whose development of a sociology of translation (2005) responds to the need to reconnect the social and natural worlds and to account for the multiple connections that make what he calls the ‘social’.
In an effort further to work out the implications of this new way of thinking, Marais (2019, p. 120) conceptualized translation in terms of “negentropic semiotic work performed by the application of constraints on the semiotic process” (see also Kress 2013). Building on Peirce, namely that the meaning of a sign is its translation into another sign, translation is defined as a process that entails semiotic work done by constraining semiotic possibilities. This conceptualization allows for the study of all forms of meaning-making, i.e. translation, under a single conceptual framework, but it also allows for a unified ecological view for both the sciences and the humanities. “The long standing distinction between the human and social sciences and the natural and physical sciences is no longer tenable in a world where we cannot remain indifferent to the more than human” (Cronin, 2017, p. 3).
These kind of approaches open ample possibilities for a dialogue between Translation Studies, Semiotics and Biosemiotics, exploring translation not only in linguistic and anthropocentric terms, but as a semiotic process that can take place in and between all (living) organisms – human and non-human organic and inorganic, material and immaterial alike. Not only the translation of Hamlet into French, or of oral speech into subtitles, but also communication between dolphins or between a dog and its master, or moving a statue from one place to another, or rewatching a film are translation processes. However, many of the implications of this line of thinking still need to be explored, and if the references to Deacon, Petrilli and Cronin holds, this should be done in an interdisciplinary way that tests, transgresses and transforms scholarly boundaries.
It is for this reason that we call for papers for a conference in which we hope to draw together biosemioticians, semioticians and translation studies scholars to discuss the interdisciplinary relations between these fields and the implications of these relations for the study of social and cultural reality as emerging from both matter and mind. We invite colleagues to submit either theoretical or data-driven or mixed proposals, reflecting on the complexity of social-cultural emergence as a translation process. Some of the topics that colleagues could consider would be the following:
We plan an interactive conference. Firstly, we invited three keynote speakers, one from each of the fields involved, to give their views on the relationships between these three fields. Secondly, apart from the normal responses to papers, we would like to end each day of the conference with a session (about one hour) in which the keynote speakers reflect, round-table style, on the papers of the day and in which participants have the opportunity to engage them and one another in open debate style.
Confirmed keynote speakers:
Please e-mail enquiries and abstracts of around 300 words to one of the following addresses:
Cronin, M., 2017. Eco-translation: Translation and ecology in the age of the anthropocene. New York: Routledge.
Deacon, T. W., 2013. Incomplete nature: How mind emerged from matter. New York: WW Norman & Company.
Hoffmeyer, J., 2008. Biosemiotics: An examination into the signs of life and the life of signs. London: University of Scranton Press.
Kauffman, S., 2012. From physics to semiotics. In: S. Rattasepp & T. Bennet, eds. Biosemiotic gatherings. Tartu: University of Tartu Press, pp. 30-46.
Kress, G., 2013. Multimodal discourse analysis. In: J. P. Gee & M. Handford, eds. The Routledge handbook of discourse analysis. New York: Routledge, pp. 35-50.
Latour, B., 2005. Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marais, K., 2019. A (bio)semiotic theory of translation: The emergence of social-cultural reality. New York: Routledge.
Petrilli, S., ed., 2003. Translation Translation. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
The SISU Baker Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies, Shanghai International Studies University, is pleased to announce that the Martha Cheung Award for Best English Article in Translation Studies by an Early Career Scholar is now accepting applications for the 2020/21 round.
The Award is established in honour of the late Professor Martha Cheung (1953-2013), formerly Chair Professor of Translation at Hong Kong Baptist University. It aims to recognize research excellence in the output of early career researchers, and since its establishment in 2018, has attracted a substantial number of high quality applications that have positioned it as one of the top awards in the field.
The award is conferred annually for the best paper published in English in the previous two-year period, and takes the form of a cash prize of 10,000 RMB (equivalent to around 1,400 USD). A certificate from the SISU Baker Centre for Translation and Intercultural Studies is also be presented. The work of the award winner and any runners-up is publicized widely by the Centre and featured on the website (see https://www.sisubakercentre.org/martha-cheung-award-winners/).
Application closing date for the 2021 Award: 31 October 2020
Announcement of award winner: 31 March 2021
Eligibility and Submission Criteria
Applicants must have completed their PhD during the five-year period preceding the deadline for submission of applications or be currently registered for a PhD, and their article must be single-authored. The article must have been published between 30 September 2018 and 30 September 2020.
For further details of the Award, including the full set of eligibility and submission criteria, please visit the Award website at: https://www.sisubakercentre.org/the-martha-cheung-award/.
The Department of French at University of Ghana is hosting the 2020 Autumn School
for Translation Studies in Africa (ASTSA) from 08 to 12 June 2020 in Accra, Ghana.
The ASTSA aims at providing a voice to translation scholars in Africa. Making their
voices heard implies decolonising their own minds. The ASTSA wants to be
instrumental in this respect by exposing post-graduate students in translation studies
to the most recent trends in translation theory and practice and by creating networks
amongst scholars and future scholars for discussing uniquely African notions of
For more information, click here.