 Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Let's see if you can find a seat. Please find a seat. Please, can may I have your attention? Okay. Oh, have I been looking forward to today? Have I? Dear EST President, Executive Board and EST members, dear, you can't hear me? Are you sure you can't hear me? Okay. Thank you. Okay, so dear EST President, Executive Board and EST members, dear keynote speakers, participants and presenters, dear members of the scientific committee, dear sponsors and publishers, dear colleagues and friends. On behalf of the OHS Organizing Committee, I'm profoundly happy to extend a warm welcome to you all. We are truly pleased to finally have you here. The fact that we are able to gather well over 400 translation scholars from more than 50 countries for a congress with some 20 sponsors pays testimony to the significance and expansion of our discipline, translation studies and to the importance of our society, the European Society for Translation Studies. I think we should all be happy and proud today. But then before I go into practical or even emotional details about the event ahead of us, I will leave the floor for a word of welcome from the Dean of OHS School of Business and Social Sciences at OHS University, Thomas Palasen. Thomas, the floor is yours. Dear guests, I leave the jacket. It's such a nice weather. Dear guests, it's my great pleasure to welcome you to OHS University and the EST Conference. It is great to see that the conference brings together academics and practitioners from across the country and the world. Because in a collaborative exchange of knowledge and experience, the opportunity of moving boundaries, not only of translation studies, but of any study, becomes even more important. And combining the best of both worlds can provide beneficial insights and synergies in further development of the discipline. At OHS University, we strive to put our knowledge through close, enduring and innovative relationship with the world around us. The business community, public authorities, organization and society in general. Our knowledge exchange builds on the University's strong research foundation and interdisciplinary research collaboration and contributes to find solutions to the challenges faced by society on local, regional and global levels. Since its establishment in 1928, our university has grown to become a leading public research university with an international research, covering the entire research spectrum across our faculty of arts, faculty of science and technology, faculty of health and school of business and social sciences. Each year, more than 7,000 new students start a degree program here. They encounter courses and activities that develop and challenge them across disciplines and national boundaries. The university offers over 200 degree programs and 4,000 courses, all aiming to meet the highest international standards. Today, 45,000 students are enrolled in the university and we have more than 8,000 faculty and staff members employed coming from more than 95 different nationalities. International collaboration is an integrated part of all activities at Aarhus University. We have a long-standing tradition of partnering with some of the world's best research institution and university networks and over the years, we have seen a considerable rise in the level of international mobility among our researchers and students. It is a trend we are committed to support and would like to see continue in the future. We pride ourselves in being a research intensive institution of higher education among the best 100 universities in the world. The university defends the academic freedom of individuals and wants to maintain and develop a culture that promotes collaboration, critical dialogue, curiosity and the independent search for new knowledge and insight. The strong research environments have also contributed to winning two Nobel prize laureates in recent times. All of this testifies to our strong commitment to research and have an impact on the world around us. In all of our degree programs, research and education are closely combined to ensure the depth, quality and content that reflects the latest scientific developments. This creates an inspiring academic environment where highly qualified researchers use their findings as a basis for teaching. We strongly believe that excellent research must be foundation that ensures our graduate acquire competencies which are valued by the labour market. All of this serves to strengthen our international competitiveness and increases our contribution to society. We exploit our strengths to consolidate our position as an attractive university for students and faculty. Although translation studies are not equivalent to language studies, language is an essential part of translation. I will therefore take the opportunity to mention that Orhus University's strategic focus on language as a means to strengthen our position in language research and education. The university board decided in June of this year to approve a merger of business language with cultural language. The initiative was supported with four million euros from the university's strategic funds over the coming years. The reason for the merger is to strengthen the research core of our foreign language studies and to create the largest research environment in Scandinavia within this field. The purpose of the initiative is to improve our graduate qualification even more. What we invest in our students' academic and professional development today is what graduates, employers and society will benefit from in the future. I will conclude by wishing you a very productive conference. I hope that you will gain new insights and new collaboration across academia and the industry for the good benefit of translation research. I would also like to thank Professor Heli Ronning Dam and the entire crowd, crew who have put lots of energy, thoughts and hundreds and hundreds of working hours in organizing this conference. Thank you very much. And to the rest of you, enjoy your time here in Orhus and thank you for your attention. Thank you very much Thomas. So the next speaker needs no introduction. So here he is. Anthony Pym, the floor is yours. Thank you. Hello. Good morning. Welcome to our congress in Orhus at last. On behalf of the Executive Board of the European Society of Translation Studies, of which I am the outgoing president, I extend sincere thanks to Orhus University and the Dean for this implicit support of translation studies and thereby translation and thereby the model of a multilingual pluralistic society which is not just involved in language training for business but also in maintaining a certain kind of human diversity. There are more profound things at stake. My sincere thanks to Heller and Karen and the entire organizing team will have more occasion to thank them when we have seen what a success this congress will have been. But I know how many hours the work have gone into this so far and the success will be theirs. My thanks to the organizing team for the whole process. Since this was presented in Galmasheim three years ago, we've been working not only on the logistics but the topic, the theme of the congress which was part of the deal has proved to be stimulating and timely as we see by your presence and by the topics of many of the papers that are to be presented. The notion of pushing boundaries can be taken in several ways though and I want to pause personally to have a reflection on what that means. What does it mean to push a boundary? Implicitly it's a claim to the occupation of international space perhaps to the exclusion or incurring the opposition of other disciplines so it's not quite so easy as some of us imagine. Pushing a boundary might be simply referring to something that's happening in the world, new technologies and their consequences and saying oh we can look at that. It might simply be redefining our basic terms. Translation now means this before it meant that and on we go. I think those are rather factitious strategies easy to do easy to sell within our particular coterie but not easy when we enter into dialogue with other disciplines. If we want to push boundaries and occupy intellectual space I suggest we have to do it along the lines of something like this identifying new problems or new ways of solving old problems and then showing that we can draw on the accumulated knowledge models research skills and research tools that we have in our short history that we identify as being ours and showing that we can use what we have to do things to help solve problems in the new terrain that is opening up. So please don't take the topic lightly let's not just assume oh now we are bigger we are bigger physically we're overwhelmed by the success the numbers of papers proposed for this congress their growth in membership but we'll talk about that tomorrow. Yes we're getting bigger yes in our research community but let's not assume that we automatically occupy new intellectual space. I wish you pleasant debates over the following days thank you. As for the practical information screens in the in this building displaying messages and announcements of events to come there is one screen on each floor we actually have three floors here and we are on the second now just to give you an idea and then we have the first on the ground floor. We will also be posting old-fashioned paper-based messages on boards and walls in various places in and around this building so please make sure to keep yourself updated via these channels and follow the signs when you move from one room or building to another. We also have a number of human information sources the most important one the heart and the nerve of the congress is the welcome desk it's manned or women as Carol said yesterday throughout the conference that is the one that you have on the ground floor by the entrance where you came in and down there they'll solve any problem or query you may have. We also have like somewhere between 10 and 25 student helpers at any given point in time and they are all eager to help and very very visible I think in their red t-shirt that was the idea so ladies within red dresses sorry I'm so sorry well we chose red. Well last but not least we're a large group of local organizers I have lost count this is not of course true but the composition of the group has changed considerably over the four years we've been preparing for this conference some have left others have joined the group and our young people have been on and off maternity leaves in fact a total of six babies have been born while we prepared for this conference I think we may even see some of them today but let us just see who the organizers are at this point so I see some could I could I ask you to stand up please local organizer can you stand okay local organizers do we have some of the administrative staff here so we have all the local administrative they're busy down at the welcome desk are they okay student helpers let us let us see our assistants you know they would be like Isabella down here in a red t-shirt I'm sorry so the ladies will not be wearing red tomorrow so so grab any of these people and and and they'll help you with anything okay then we have a lot of uh electronic information sources they'll be really important during this congress to access the wireless wireless internet you can use either edge room if you have it installed or you can connect the network that you have on the slide here it's called AU guests and you just log in by following the instructions that appear on your screen also I have given you the address of the conference website because there you can find the detailed program so it's really important you only have like an outline to have you do you all realize that this is the program okay and we have a code system with red dots and all sorts of dots um that you'll figure out as we proceed I believe um we uh well uh so the detailed program the book of abstracts is on the the internet um and uh we will also use twitter to communicate with you during the congress so follow us there if you're a twitter person so uh I want to pay attention to another detail which is there at the bottom of uh here there's a logo there um you know generally this is a congress of many sponsors and the main conference sponsor however is uh communication and sprawl this was uh well a little bit in Danish it's a professional association and union that represents language and communication specialists of all kinds translators and interpreters included and it's of great symbolic value to have an organization of practitioners support this research conference uh the representatives are here as a matter of fact I think I've seen Pierre and Jörn are you here I think you are there okay so when you see them over lunch or coffee go and congratulate them they paid for your conference um okay I would also say a few words about the topic so it is translation studies moving boundaries the underlying idea as you know from the call uh is to discuss uh what is currently happening in translation studies and in the in in the field of practice with all these new concepts and notions and phenomena uh and and practices as well that we see such as trans creation post editing revision trans editing trans language and this is just to mention an unordered few um we also see concepts such as interlingual and and interlingual and intersemiotic translation also they seem to be gaining ground at least in some areas and among some scholars and so the question that we pose here is how to deal with these trends are these concepts and practices really all translation or are some of them in fact not translation so this is where the question of boundaries or even borders come in where does translation studies begin and where does it end and does it end at all many of us will probably agree that borders are unwelcome that they should be torn down that barriers should be eliminated for unity and interaction to flourish in translation studies we have a history of counterproductive uh internal boundaries one example in my opinion is the boundary between written translation and interpreting another could be the sharp distinction we often still make between conference and community interpreting despite calls to the contrary I also wonder about the barrier between literary and business or specialized translation is it really well founded another gap could be the one that we find between research and practice um well these are these are borders that should or could probably best be torn down but on the other hand we need borders or boundaries we need to be able to define and not least the limit our field because as is commonly acknowledged in sociology without borders we have no community we cannot not have borders and still have a community so if we embrace all thinkable notions and phenomena phenomena under the term translation for example we risk losing our common core that which unites us and sets us apart so without borders we would be left with nothing together around for congresses such as this one and now to our hope and ambition for this congress it is that it will be fertile ground for lively discussions about these and other boundary issues in translation studies conceptual disciplinary methodological professional geographical you name them and we hope that you will participate in all sorts of sessions panel paper poster plenary sessions and in lobby lunch and dinner discussions we hope that you will reunite with old colleagues and friends and that you will meet new ones but we also hope that you will just enjoy yourselves immensely we used to say that oh who's is the city of smiles our first keynote speaker i'm not calling on you just yet andrew andrew is andrew chesterman he has visited several times here and oh who's and he uses to say that he comes here to get some good danish laughs and this is another ambition of ours for this congress let us try to have some good laughs okay before i give the floor to andrew i'd like to say just two words about our choice or a few more uh choice of keynote speakers in previous est congresses it's been tradition to invite some keynotes from within translation studies but also some from other perhaps related fields such as linguistics semiotics writing research neurology and so on it's a very deliberate choice that the plenary speakers of this congress are all from within translation studies uh in choosing keynotes from our own field we have so to speak opted for strengthening the basis rather than expanding the boundaries which i say alluding to the title of one of the many interesting panels to come translation studies is often referred to as an interdiscipline the point we wish to make is that the field has reached maturity that it has become a discipline in its own right with its own theoretical and methodological underpinnings with authorities even dinosaurs of its own and one of the fields undisputed authorities is andrew chesterman we all know him as an excellent scholar and speaker he has written numerous widely read and cited articles and books especially on translation theory or meta translation studies a particular favorite of mine is memes of translation andrew i just looked it up it's almost 20 years old now it's from 97 it's still one of the best really um andrew is of course original from england but he has been based and been a professor in finland for many many years i noted andrew it's you came you came in 68 that's a magical year now i want to know more about that but andrew is now retired in principle but fortunately he continues to be active in our field it took a little persuasion to make him speak at this congress but fortunately we were successful the title of andrew chesterman speech is moving conceptual boundaries so what's in his usual informal style andrew please take the floor well good morning everybody hope you're all warm enough uh i want to start by thanking my hosts or whose university and the dean and of course the congress committee and mr president of est and the all of the x est committee for organizing the conference and um i'm really very proud and humbled can you be proud and humbled at the same time uh maybe i can to be asked to to speak to this morning i hope you won't be too too disappointed um let's see um i really want to say something very simple and it has to do with um a very general topic which has occupied me for many years which is really the relation between um concepts or conceptual ideas and empirical facts or facts and ideas to say it really simply um i'm interested in the way they interact the way one depends on the other and so on and i'm going to focus this morning on conceptual boundaries and what happens when we try to move them and the point i want to make is really a very simple point which is this that when we set out to move a conceptual boundary uh when we make that proposal i think it is our duty to point out not only what advantages this move might have but also what the costs might be antony mentioned just now that when one moves a boundary it may be encroaches upon somebody else's territory and there may be opposition etc and this is a point that i will refer will come back to i'm going to give various sorts of examples and this is roughly speaking the structure of what i'm going to say i'm going to start by outlining three or four different ways in which we divide up our stuff uh this is stuff right and and we divide it up and make sections and categories and the like out of it and we create new categories and new names and so on that will be the first chunk and then i'm going to look at the way in which we try to see things differently in some innovative way by using different kinds of similarities and metaphors and so on seeing something as something else and then i will come back to the point about are all these proposals uh such proposals are we clear that they add value and that the added value is more important than the uh cost and then finally i'm going to look at some examples of what i call risky rhetoric where it seems to me that the conceptual innovation idea has gone wrong it's been misused or abused and what we have is the risk of a bad argument or at least a bad expression of a good argument something has gone wrong with the relation between that which is purely conceptual and that which we might consider to be factual and there will be some examples of all these as we go and we'll start with the great god terminus who i'm sure is familiar to many of you or at least those of you who work in terminology because terminus was of course the god of boundaries and borders uh he really would be the official mascot of the conference you might say and we are trying to perhaps to to move him now the point about terminus who in roman uh and the ancient mythology was uh symbolized as a stone marking the boundary between two fields two territories okay and the idea about terminus is that uh he is not easily moved to this motto concedo nulli i give way to nobody i stand my ground and there is a wonderful legend which i got off the internet as one gets stuff off the internet that apparently king ta quinn wanted to build a great new temple to jerusalem to to jupiter sorry to jerusalem to jupiter on the remains of some old holy site but this meant moving all the old shrines to the gods that were there before in order that the new temple could be built so they consulted all the gods did it okay if we move your shrine 100 meters down the road in order that we can build our new territory our new temple and all the gods said yes but terminus said no you're not moving my shrine and he refused and apparently uh his shrine remains in the new temple to jupiter why do i keep saying jerusalem uh to jupiter that was built uh anyway in the legend so i will start with the first um kind of uh how we create new categories and i've got a class of four here new categories we make a new category for a new phenomenon and we claim that this is useful and i'm going to call these platypus categories you know a platypus i'm sure here he is here he is and i even worked i looked up the danish but i couldn't work out how to pronounce it so i gave that up yeah yeah right danish for a platypus anyway i thought i had it right but it obviously it's not quite right i i'm still working on my pronunciation uh yeah yeah right i you can more or less right okay okay now the idea of this is that when apparently the first platypus was discovered the geologist had no idea what to call it or where to place it it couldn't be fitted into any of the taxonomies that were available at the time and so what they had to do was to make a new category to put it into and they gave it a new name which uh it described it's platypus means flat foot so it's a flat footed animal which has a duck like bill so in english it's the duck build platypus um so that seems to me to be a model for one kind of conceptual innovation you find something which is genuinely new and you give it a name and then it has a new place all of its own um in your in your system and i rather like these and i'm going to give you a few examples uh from translation studies but occasionally i want to point out that uh there may be some problems with some of these examples because of the cost that you pay in order to have um a new a new thing here so you can add your own to this list because this is a very short list there must be hundreds and hundreds more these are some that have occurred to me or come before me in the last year or so and i quite liked and here is one by peris gonzales now he proposes the new concept of an adhocracy which is a word i really like to describe temporary groups which are formed for a particular online project and then they disband again and so on it's a very nice term i think but there is a cost to it because one wonders how on earth you're going to get this rather jokey pun as it were aristocracy adhocracy and so on ad hoc you can see how it means what it means it's an ad hoc group how you're going to translate this into all the other languages in which we might want to use it it might not come out as being quite so witty so it might not be a good term i'm not sure uh an example i think of a platypus concept new idea a new con a new phenomenon these ad hoc groups um of online translators so you give it a new name fan subbing is another i'm sure you all know more about that than i do uh i think it's a useful coinage for a new practice um and one that can obviously be studied as a kind of translation scanlation do you do scanlation or possibly scanlation um apparently this is used to describe scanning uh and translating and editing comics it's a rather special field and so it's a new field it's a new phenomenon you've discovered it uh it this is it's your platypus and you give it a name okay fine and trans fiction is a rather different sort of platypus concept i think this is a rather an interesting idea too where you are gathering together a whole lot of phenomena which have existed perhaps for some time but you are now grouping them for the first time as something uh which can be studied as a separate subject a separate topic so trans fiction is a word that refers to any kind of fictional representation of translation translators and interpreters and i think that's um a very nice idea it groups together uh a possible area of research and indeed there has been more there have been more publications on this in recent years here's another one translation entropy when i came across in a very different field dealing with the new applications of technology to to translation work and this is a term that really brings in something from statistics and mathematics and physics even if you go to entropy and apparently it refers to the probability of a given target language item being selected for a given source text item and you can measure this if you're into a machine translation this is one of the things you do i'm told it's not my field at all one of the things you can do is to measure the translation entropy of different possible items and then you can derive various uh empirical hypotheses from this depending on which group of translators you're studying and so on if it's a new term to you then go google i will give you some references at the end and uh you can ask if you need them later uh that for me was a whole new phenomenon i knew a new concept a new idea um although it did remind me of catford's translation rules um i think it's a modern version of an older idea but i thought it was quite an interesting and productive idea translatorship is another uh and this introduces the first example of a case where we might have a kind of problem which i've discussed a little bit with with old de balacos boski in an email exchange earlier i first came across this across this term in in one of her papers dealing with the history of translators where you have the term is used to describe the ordinary profession the normal profession of somebody who often who also has translated so the person might be an academic or a teacher or a a minister of the church and then also they have been doing translations so it refers in that work to uh the kind of profession uh that a translator might have apart from being a translator but the problem here a little bit is that there the term has also been used in a slightly different sense by uh other scholars yansen and vegana for example refer to the different agents that are involved in producing a translation the different members of a translatorship kind of team um publishers editors and so on produced in marking it and i was very interested in in otie's email that she sent uh to me on this point she said maybe translatorship is an example of a term and a concept which is still somehow flexible and fuzzy and it hasn't sort of settled into uh an accepted meaning a generally accepted uh meaning so you could say that it's the uh that we are seeing the birth perhaps of a new conception a new concept uh i was very interesting indeed in terms of innovation so the idea is that this is a case which you could say isn't something that comes just like that adhocracy like we had before but it's an idea of a term which appears to have occurred to several people simultaneously and a concept which begins by being two rather different concepts and maybe they then merge i'll come back to that idea in a few minutes this is the second sense of the word in yansen and vegana's work so i wonder what will happen to the term translatorship another example of what i call the platypus concept is the translation space idea um originally uh this was um coined i think by michael cronin and um sharyl simon maybe two the idea that you can look at a particular site a geographical site like a city uh where translation takes place and you can go around and see evidence of translation uh in this area and so you are looking at translation as it exists in a certain geographical territory which i think is very interesting however it's also been used in again a slightly different sense which i find even more interesting by a Finnish colleague of mine Pekka Kujomaki who looks at it who uses the term to mean an area where we assume that translation must have taken place or must take place but we can't seem to see it very clearly and you have to go and look for it and he has been researching for example the work of interpreters during wartime and it takes quite an effort to discover evidence of interpreters work during wartime you have to go to all kinds of old photographs and documents and all kinds of things it's not immediately evident that here we have interpretation or translation and i also notice as some of you may know that there is a new journal which i believe you're on the board of anthony as well of course that's nothing new what is anthony not on the board of uh called translation spaces which is interested in exploring this idea of uh marking out research areas uh which is of interest to translation scholars actually which are geographically somehow um bounded i think that's a very fruitful um fruitful research field so i was the first group okay the platypus categories what will happen to them the platypus concepts will they last which ones will last where there is something really new it seems to me and it's been given a name or a new grouping or something now we move on to the next two groups which i will treat more or less together which are the splitters and the lumpers if you are into uh lexicography you will know that a splitter is a certain kind of lexicographer originally who likes having lots of different entries for different senses of the same word so you have table meaning one table meaning two table meaning three and they're all different entries and then you have the lumpers who think that they're all the ideas all the meanings of table are really examples of the same big table meaning and then you have it all in one big thing with the table this table that and it's all they're all grouped together and the idea i'm sure is familiar to you and well the splitters of course are focusing on the differences between the meanings and the lumpers who lump them together are focusing on the similarities and we have some wonderful examples of course outside translation studies my favorite is Pluto which used to be a planet and then all the astrologers got together not the astrologers the astronomers sorry too early in the morning is really astronomers got together and decided that no Pluto is too small and it doesn't fulfill certain other criteria it's not going to be a planet proper proper it's going to be a dwarf planet so I feel for Pluto on this I think this is tough tough fate so in other words they make a split between planets and little planets which are kind of not proper planets so we have like Jacobson we have translation proper and we have other things it's a similar kind of attitude okay this is a splitting attitude on the other hand you have the lumpers who like similarities and my favorite example of a lumpa is is the wonderful Gaia hypothesis I'm sure you are familiar with that the idea that we can consider the planet that we live on as one unit and therefore if we do this then we see all kinds of things that we might not otherwise notice because we see it as a as a whole and the planet looks after itself and if it's really hot in all who's today it's because the planet is organizing itself and etc an interesting thought occurred to me as I was preparing this lecture is a hypothesis that could be tested which we can actually briefly now test I suppose it would be quite fun I have this hypothesis that in translation studies there are more splitters than lumpers now put up your hand if you are a splitter nobody one we have we have a splitter in the front and one over here oh my my hypothesis is here by rejected ah put up your hands if you are a lumpa the lumpers have it clearly okay so rejection of hypothesis thank you that's science always moves forward you know by rejecting bad hypotheses okay okay now let us look at some examples from translation studies the point okay I've forgotten to say one thing which is splitters and lumpers really raised the question of what is their empirical evidence for that we should split rather than lump or lump rather than split what are the facts is is the thing that is being split or lumped is it a natural kind I don't think this is perhaps a relevant argument because we're dealing with concepts the the point should be the one that I made at the very beginning of this of this talk which is consider what the pros and cons are of being able to take a very general view versus taking a more specific view it's a question of the scope of the claim that you are trying to make so apart from being an advert for other fiscals Finnish acts which is of course the best acts in the world made in Finland yes here are some examples we have of course a long tradition of binary distinctions in TS we have Juliana House's famous split between the translation and a version the version is a translation which is culturally filtered if I remember I get that right which is her her way of splitting and it's an example of I think a nice idea because it divides two different sorts of translation but I think there is a cost here which is that it reduces the area of the territory called translation the things which are versions are no longer than translations and the same sort of thing comes up with good division between interpretive and descriptive use you may remember those of you that have studied relevance theory that for good it's only the interpretive use interpretive use examples which he counts as translation when you are interpreting what somebody else has said but if you have descriptive use for example multilingual product descriptions where you are describing the same product in a different language for a different audience for him this is outside the central the range of translation and I think that too makes translation rather small because many translations many translators are of course also involved in descriptive use so there's a cost to be paid for these distinctions and here's another one which came to my attention recently which is extremely interesting but there is a cost to be paid here I don't know whether you have met the term sizzlation yet I know Brian Mossup has because he's written about it which is one of the reasons I wanted to bring it up here because it's interesting um Goodibitch argued I think first before Brian Morris and Norris at Mossup that um sizzlation should be distinguished from translation and he gave sizzlation a very specific meaning the meaning that it is carrying the reader to the source text in other words for Goodibitch sizzlation is a term used to describe uh very source oriented translation very um literal in the in a in a special sense literal translation carrying the reader right to the source text making the reader aware of the source text and translation is the other here we have another another example of a case like um translatorship where the same term has come up uh used by another scholar with a different sense uh because in a recent article Brian Mossup uses sizzlation suggests sizzlation as a term meaning uh intralingual translation about which we shall hear a great deal more during this conference as you know there is a panel on this um uh this of course has a cost to be paid because if you limit translation to uh interlingual translation and you you introduce a new concept for intralingual and you call it sizzlation then the cost that you pay is that the range of the boundary of the term translation is smaller you cut off a corner and call it something else now it's I repeat my main point it's not whether whether or not this is empirically good or bad it's a question of which is more useful for a given purpose are you interested in looking at what makes intralingual translation different from interlingual or are you interested in what they share another example comes from um Michael Schreiber's work on uh translation strategies um he has a very interesting and good distinction I think between what he calls Ubersetzung and Bearbeitungen so Ubersetzung is uh when you are working to get the optimum equivalence with the source text Brian Mossup calls this equivalent sing and then there's Bearbeitungen which is what you do when you are trying to polish the sort the the target text um not relating it to the source but relating it to its purpose so he he reckons that these are two big activity types that translators are involved in and I think the idea is is really good I'd be interested to see research on how translators divide their time between working on getting equivalence and working on polishing the target which is the Bearbeitungen the kind of polishing side of this but why call the first type Ubersetzung because this suggests that Bearbeitungen is not Ubersetzung it's something else so again we have paid a price we have made our concept of Ubersetzung translation smaller and we've called the other staff which is the polishing of the target text something which is not Ubersetzung and that seems to me to be counter-interactive I think they're both Ubersetzung but there are two different things that we do within it another example a recent paper by Valdeon talks about the difference between stable and unstable source texts I think this is a fascinating idea it's a split now between two different sorts of source texts some which remain stable others which shift like medieval manuscripts or these days like in many internet source texts or committee texts which where you have the source text which moves and lives as it's being translated and for him for Valdeon this appears to be a kind of black and white distinction but really I think it must be more fuzzy than that but the idea I think of making this split between different sorts of source texts is quite interesting then there are a few lumper ones I'd like to just give you and this one of course is one of the oldest given to us by our German colleagues translation's vision shaft there's a lumper concept including both translation and interpreting this answers your your problem heli that you mentioned of keeping them separate so a lumper concept is useful when you're looking to find the generalities between those two I think also I would put the word text here nowadays we use the word text in a sense which is far more expansive than it would have been used 100 years ago 50 years ago even 30 years ago nowadays a text is any form of any message in any medium and so on it doesn't have to be verbal so we have expanded it to include a great many other things I think that allows us to make much more general hypotheses than we would have made before my next two examples come from work on so-called translation universals people have looked at to try to see what generalizations can be made about translations in general and then there have been scholars who have pointed out maybe these things that we discover tendencies in translations in general are actually more general than that they are not just found in translation but in other kinds of communication and one such proposal is the one that it's it they are found in any kind of constrained communication there's an article there by lunch jack and and heli that introduces that term references come later if you need them and other people have talked about mediated discourse that what we think of as being universals of translation possibly they're really universals of a broader range of text types than simply translations so it's an attempt to go above the category of translation into a more general category lumping translation with something else another example very different indeed is robinson's book of a few years back on sway I don't know how many of you will have read this Douglas robinson's book this is a book that groups together research into all the possible kinds of influences that impinge upon translator's decisions norms temperament temperature in the room whether you're wearing a tie or not anything can influence what you decide to do in your translation and Robinson puts all these under the heading of sway and then he takes us back to the origins of the use of this term in somebody else's work I forget the details now and for him this is a good way to group together a whole lot of very very very different things for me when I read it it didn't work I didn't think that the concept was justified the the the higher level concept was justified there were too many differences for me for him it did work and we're not dealing with empirical facts we're dealing with are you persuaded or not that this is a useful way to group together things and make generalizations at a rather general level a high level of abstraction about different kinds of influences another example is voice which has come into fashion recently quite interestingly in several studies that have come come to my attention there are research projects going on on this in various places and the characteristic which is shared by this kind of research is that there is a move to put together into one category voice aspects of translation which or translator work which have previously been thought of as being rather different so that voice in the way it's used in this project now seems to put together two senses of the word voice that we had before the idea first of all that there are different voices in any given text the Bactin's heteroglossier idea so voices within a text and then they are we bring into this the idea that any translation is a result of different agents voices the editor the translator the this that the publisher and so on these are all people involved in in producing the the the text and they do this because they think that they can find interesting similarities between these two senses of voice and they can then look and test hypotheses which cover both sorts of voice you might say this is a very interesting example of a lumping approach I think let us see whether it will catch on and prove to be a lasting innovation another example is from good again good would like to see translation theory puts inside communication theory we don't need a translation theory at all we can just have a proper communication theory and it will include translation so translation disappears more or less that's the ultimate lump you could say and we just have communication and a recent book which I have not read but I read a review of it by Marais or Marais I found the review by Sandra Halverson absolutely fascinating but I've not read the book this argues that translation should be simply studied as part of all kinds of intersystemic relationships and it makes quite quite big terms about this apparently where do I have it here I think to have lost my place in my text but never mind but Marais seems to be arguing that translation translators scholars should be studying a much wider range of things all kinds of intersystemic relations not just translations and an example from one of my own research students in Finland who has argued that we can we ought to include interspecies translation as well she's been researching the way in which birds song is translated into verbal descriptions in literature for example and she's used translation terminology and concept in order to analyze people's reactions to birds song and she says this is all part of translation it's big big big translation including all the interspecies stuff I found it totally fascinating she's a lump so we have and it occurs to me and that perhaps this is perhaps the most serious of these examples translation itself is a lumpa concept it's a huge mess a heterogeneous lump of stuff and we put it all under the same heading because we can then meet at conferences like this and discuss all possible bits and pieces that belong to it and maybe it's not a natural kind at all well so what it doesn't have to be a natural kind it's a way of grouping together things that we all find interesting I think translation is a very good example of a lumpa concept last example is rebranding of the last example of this these ways of creating new categories like this with rebranding what you do is you take something which already exists and give it a new name which then allows it to have different associations and a different you see it differently so as soon as we begin to call translation studies an interdiscipline we see it differently from when it used to be called just a discipline or was it ever a discipline well we know now that we are an interdiscipline don't we yeah we do don't we yeah we do you're not sure I think we're an interdiscipline all right localization another example but a terrible cost if you ask the localizers do they do translation oh translation is only a tiny tiny tiny part of what we do the rest of what we do is create a bit creation and all kinds of other things so to call the big thing localization and the small thing inside localization translation means that you see translation that's something very small and the same is true I think of transcreation if you say we do transcreation we in the marketing world we do transcreation and as a student told me if I can call my work transcreation they pay me three times as much because this is but this involves special creativity thinking of the needs of the reader the you know the aim and so on if you ask an ordinary translator do you ever think of the needs of the reader do you think you're creative and most people would say yes of course I'm creative most translators assume that they are being creative as they translate so the cost of calling what you do transcreation is that you reduce the value of the creativity of people who are doing ordinary translation not trans translation transcreation and I think that cost is very high I'm interested to see what people in the transcreation panel think about this universal is another one when universals became a very popular term in translation studies looking for these very general tendencies we all followed Mona Baker at the beginning and we called them universals I put them in quotation marks there because really what what she was saying is wait for your own field a rather nice example here is the way in which translation has been borrowed by the Scandinavian institutionalists now you won't know about the Scandinavian institutionalists probably and nor do I much but this was brought to my attention by a Finnish scholar who pointed out to me some time ago that there is a group of sociologists who study business communication called these institutionalists and they're interested in the way in which ideas about how to manage organizational change how they move from one company to another or one country to another and people used to say apparently we are studying the diffusion of ideas from one place to another and nowadays this group of people say we are studying the translation of ideas from one place to another because for them translation has this positive connotation of being creative and new and interesting and dynamic it's not just diffusion it's something bigger and more beautiful it's translation so that's kind of nice so we are being used here to rebrand something else second chunk fairly short this chunk is to remind you that when we try to make some conceptual innovation by introducing some as seeing translation as something we are dealing with interpretive hypotheses as usual where we are arguing that's a given way to interpret something to see something is more useful than some other concept you test these claims according to how useful they are not against the truth criterion the nice quote from the Guardian Weekly from last year that talks about Einstein's relative relativity theory about which I'm sure we all know a great deal the innovation according to this article was that Einstein treats gravitation not as a force but as a distortion in a geometry of space and time there you have it this is the hermeneutic as that you understand something by comparing it or seeing it as something else well what do we see translation as we have our million famous metaphors repacking us UK's transfer and all the rest of them which I won't go into now but what are the pros and cons what is highlighted and what is overlooked about these ways of seeing and of course other things can be seen as translation Dawkins raises a problem this is the famous anti god Dawkins who also happens to be a naturalist he argues that one of our problems when we try to understand the world is that things which are naturally actually a continuum we tend to break up into little bits and we tend to see the individual elements in a continuum we we don't realize that it is really a continuum for example are we living in the anthropocene theory a period in other words we are making such a mess of the planet that we ought to call it something different or is there just a continuation of what we've been what the life has been like before the interesting point of view I think and one of the things that happens here is that we get bad arguments I want to spend 10 minutes or so on this before we open up for questions there is a risk of confusion that conceptual innovation is misused and I want to show you first of all some ways in which it's misused and misunderstood leading to bad arguments and then I'll give you some examples and all the examples are anonymous except one except two actually so if you say for example there are two or 17 kinds of translation that looks as if you are making an empirical claim I have studied my data and here are my three things that I have found but in fact it's not of course it's an interpretation what this really means is I see translation as consisting of three different kinds or two different kinds it's not a fact it's an opinion it's not a fact it's an interpretation sometimes the rhetoric hides this especially if you're trying to be innovative you know factive verbs verbs like point out and show if you use those they suggest that it is accepted that it is a fact what you're saying if I say he pointed out that the earth was flat you would think I was very strange because we all know I guess that the earth is not flat if you say he argued that the earth was flat that's a grammatical sentence you might think I was a bit crazy but it's a grammatical sentence if you say he pointed out that the earth was flat there's something grammatically wrong about that sentence because of the clash between the factive assumption of point out and the fact that we know that the earth is not flat there's a semantic clash but sometimes people use this distinction wrong and they make a claim which sounds like a conceptually innovative claim and then you have to stop here is one that occurred to me recently that somebody anonymously points out and I expect a fact to follow that concepts are essentially theories about ontology well is this a fact I'm not I would say well that's an interesting argument an interesting way of looking at the concept is it true or not do I agree with it do I not it's not an obvious fact and I think this is an example of a risky rhetoric here's another example where you mix up a definition which is actually temporary or stipulative specific to you as a factual or lexical one that you might find in a dictionary if you see as I have often seen in student papers translation is defined as x as if this was a universally acknowledged fact rather than saying I define translation like this in this study because this and this and this I think there are often confusions between these two kinds of definition I once wrote myself translation is something that people do with words that was supposed to be a witty introduction to a paper it was not supposed to be a definition and a colleague of mine came up to me afterwards and said this is a terrible definition of translation and I thought oh no have I expressed myself so badly that she thought it was a definition okay so risky rhetoric on my part there I hear a few examples I had a student who after my memos book came out emailed me from the other side of the world and said have you found any new super memes recently as if the super memes were empirical things that I would go out and find she completely missed the point I obviously either she'd misunderstood or my rhetoric had been had been bad somebody else argues this translation strategy is wrong because it goes against scopus theory now there's an innovation that's been missed here it's been concealed because what she should have argued would have been this data that I have here the translators are doing this and this is actually data against scopus theory she'd misunderstood the relation between the conceptual claim the conceptual theory and the empirical situation here's one that came up recently I'm very carefully make it anonymous some people still resist the poststructural view of meaning as something negotiated and interpreted rather than transferred meaning of course we all know don't we that the poststructural view of theory is of meaning is the only correct empirically true person nonsense I say to myself this is an interpretation it's a view of something why do why why put it like this it's very very misleading rhetoric other people have argued that you can only make sense of the world by construing it as narrative it's not true it's an interpretation of what a good way to interpret the world it's not a truth somebody else has argued that because of the position taken by a particular philosophy certain things should be done well only if you agree with that philosophy it doesn't logically follow a scopus critic argues that the scopus should not be seen as essential in the translation process whoops how do you mix an as and a should okay and as is an interpretation you try to argue that it's a good interpretation you can't argue that we should adopt it or we must adopt it you can try to persuade us we look at the evidence for and against here's a one which I now give a give a citation for I thought it was really quite funny one should never take the meaning of a technical artifact or technological system as residing in the technology itself as I've underlined instead one must study how the technologies are shaped and acquire their meaning in the heterogeneity social well this is a point of view it's not an empirical fact I think there is confusion between a claim that might be an innovative claim let us look at technology in this way and see what we find let us let us treat it as this and see whether we can find some interesting generalizations to be made so what do we learn this is my sort of summing up slide so we have some time for some questions and there is my good friend on the right and there is my favorite question to all everybody so what you're making a claim what will follow from this claim how do you know that this claim is more useful than some counterclaim etc etc etc I think in translation studies we do not test our interpretive hypotheses anything like enough they are proposed and then we all run away and use them but we don't actually test them what is the cost of these conceptual innovations that we are proposing and what are the benefits of the in these innovations that we are we are proposing we are proposing is there really an added value what might the added value might be here are some possible added values obviously I think we should give more attention to these sorts of things and what are the consequences for the status of the existing concepts what will happen to them are we actually making translations smaller if we make certain sorts of conceptual innovations what will it what will it mean for existing conceptions of translation why would this be better than what we already have we are not critical enough I think of the purely conceptual innovations that are proposed and well watch out for careless argument as I just tried to show those are some references which are frankly small can you read them at all you probably can a little bit if anybody needs it more details on the references or those or you can't read them then come up and grab me and I'll I'll show you show you what they are so I'll stop there and we have 10 minutes or so for some queries thank you for your attention I can leave go back and leave that up there no I would wait a minute I would leave that one there for people to see it okay that's great you want to turn just yeah yeah thank you very much Andrew very enlightening we have time for questions comments surely surely there must be questions oh there is one where where why did I not if this this place is too very hello yen okay so I know who you are but could you please please say your name you know just right yes I'm Jan Peterson of Stockholm University thank you very much Andrew this was brilliant as always I sort of want to ask your opinion not your facts but your opinions on the last bit about risky rhetoric some of us sometimes feel that we live in a world which is ever more relativistic and where opinions and facts are being relativized and mixed and people can't tell the difference between the two do you think that this is becoming part of translation studies as well so that we see more of this risk rhetoric now than we used to before or is this like a constant thing I have no idea how to answer that I've not made any kind of historical study I gave you but you've been around for a long time so I'll see you afterwards on that one I took the example from works which have come across my desk in the last five years or so because since retiring I've been doing quite a lot of refereeing and reviewing and when one does those things one has really to be critical because that's what one is there for and I have kind of begun to collect some of these examples of people who present opinions as if they were facts I have no idea whether this is increased or not I don't think it has increased for example I think it's always been there a much older example which I didn't give now is a famous case of you remember in Antoine Bergman's classic book on or his classic article on retranslation some of you may know this where he argues that the first of all there are two kinds of translation there are great great translations and there are not great translations and then he says well in order to be a great translation it has to be a retranslation the first time anything is translated it can never be a great translation and this is presented as if this was an eternal truth and it's always made me think well hang on now what's the evidence what's the counter evidence so why do you have this opinion and so on of course it's not a truth and it's easy if it's a claim supposed to be empirical it's easy to prove it wrong that it's not a universal truth so there is a I think the risk has always been there and I hope that we are now more aware of it than maybe we were maybe were before I don't know I take comfort in that thank you thank you for a very uh mind-simulating introduction all these are topics that have been bothering me for quite some time I'm sorry I'm my name is Vasry Yanagopoulou from the University of Cyprus the question is what I think the discrepancy lies here is between delimiting the concept of translation per se and as opposed to translation studies and what translation studies can include so I understand a concern to all encompass everything under the blanket term of translation in order to be able to address topics like adaptation intrasimiotic translation localization you can go on and on would you agree or rather okay I'll rephrase would you see as translation studies as being able to address all those interdisciplinary fields without necessarily calling all that stuff translation yes I would I don't see a problem there is not what you call something is not so important what is important I think is the the the claims and hypotheses that you can make whatever you call them if you don't want to call it translation call it bananas if you prefer that that's fine I I don't think that matters but it might make it difficult for your readers if you talk about bananas I don't know but no I don't think the term is the point the point is ultimately what are the claims being made and the hypothesis in the generalizations being proposed and how might they increase our understanding of the world around us in this particular corner of it that we're interested in I don't think the actual names matter so much somebody in the front yeah you're next okay okay you go first thank you thanks that was really interesting Claire Vasallo University of Malta coming to translation from semiotics is another perhaps lumpen way of looking at the discipline because through semiotics translation is simply how we make sense of things how we understand and I think that's also one of the ways in which the term translation has broadened in its use recently which we keep hearing the word to translate as to understand and I think that's really positive for the discipline and for what we're about so I don't perhaps all all these different aspects of translation adaptation they're all sort of yes breaking down the concept breaking it down into different ways but all under the general heading of translation as in making sense and transferring sense and if we do it from one language system to another from visual to verbal and so forth I think it's still the same principle of translation of making sense of understanding under the heading of semiotics which I actually see as I agree I mean I could have indeed included semiotics it's it's one of the great lumping disciplines isn't it yeah I agree you can certainly see it that way Riyamat Masoud Alex University I'm interested uh on whether you view that kind of expansion of the trans the boundaries of translation part of the current interest interest in expansion of culture or at least understanding of culture because somehow when I see that kind all those terms and the the boundaries they push it's always underneath that pushing of boundaries is a desire for understanding the culture or at least the culture turn has pushed that boundaries to the extent that we're viewing translation as a means to understanding the word or the culture different cultures of the word this is because what I have in mind is that in compare in connection to what you what you were saying how we understand the word and how we is very much bound to the the the need to the new culture orientation in the human science do you agree with that or not because there's clearly a relation between the two I mean if you push translation boundaries what we would call translation or what we can study as translation if you make that bigger then clearly you are also pushing cultural boundaries and concepts of culture at the same time the terms are very closely related yes I do agree with that I don't see that there's a problem but that yes clearly that's happening yeah I think there may be more that I think there's more than one driving force I don't think it's just a question of politics or cultural politics you yeah yeah thank you Andrew for very inspiring lecture my name is Rainer Meilers from Leuven I have the idea it's not an hypothesis it's an idea that your or yes that your lecture was based on a specific idea of what is doing good science could you perhaps expand what in your opinion or idea or hypothesis or whatever what is your vision of doing good science related to everything what you said well that's how long I got that's a rather big question let me answer it this way in order to be relatively brief I think one of the central criteria of doing good science in whatever field within humanities or physics or whatever is to be critical to be rigorous to be systematic and so on and I would say that we need to be aware of the difference between if I put it simply facts and opinions I know that the concept of a fact can be queried and facts what is taken to be a fact now may no longer be taken to be a fact generally speaking in a hundred years time and so on and so on but still I would say perhaps respect for evidence to would be and for counter evidence the power of counter evidence both as a counter argument a counter argument and counter evidence is in an empirical sense you see so many claims put forward in the name of broadening translation studies which provide all kinds of evidence in favor and no attention paid to possible counter evidence for example I think that's not good science to to sum up a concept of science very briefly is I think too too too big a task for me at the moment but perhaps I might ask you back is there some concept of science which you have which you find does not fit in with what I have been trying to to talk about do you want to answer that or is that is that something for coffee afterwards that's for coffee afterwards I'm not allowed to ask questions no dear okay thank you it's my name is Eva Sherwood I'm from the Queen's University of Belfast I'd like to ask you about your final point the point you made I found it quite interesting that you didn't question that coming up with new conceptual innovations has an added value but you also said that we are not critical enough of our ideas or that we don't test them enough my sort of question is why do you think we don't test them or are not critical enough and if we do if we don't test them where is the added value of those ideas okay if we don't test the ideas and if they're not tested by others in use if they don't turn out to be useful then I think they don't have added value I think one reason why we propose conceptual innovations without testing them in terms of their usefulness I repeat not in terms of whether they are true or false that's not the correct criterion they're not empirical things they are it's a question of how useful they are it's pragmatic testing the reason we don't do it as much as we should might be the pressures on publication we are all supposed to be publishing very fast if you're working on a doctorate you have to do something innovative and so on so on so on we are pushed to be innovative we're not pushed to be critical we're not pushed to test we're pushed to be innovative thus the system seems to be somehow unbalanced in that respect I think and partly but maybe because we're too lazy I don't know I don't know I don't know why we don't test enough and maybe I'm wrong maybe we do test enough maybe it's just my my picture that we don't test enough okay don't need an opinion okay I'm so sorry we don't have time for any more but should we give Andrew a hand it was it was so extremely extremely interesting there is enough to discuss just a few practical questions why you why you're leaving the room there is there is you will find coffee not just outside here but on all three floors so don't just go to the first coffee station it's it's all over there's a poster session afterwards there's a poster session and posters are on display on the first and second floors so this floor and the one below please note that there will be a best poster award and that you all of you must vote for this is not an opinion it's a fact you must vote for the poster that you think is best this this is how we find it and information on how to vote is posted in lobbies and hallways in this building and it's of course also available on the congress website then just please note that after the poster session we go for lunch and it's not served in this building so find a student helper in a red t-shirt they'll take you to the right place the same goes for tonight's reception just you know follow the red t-shirt so thank you very much for now enjoy your coffee and posters luncheon everything