Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
323–333 (2017)
DOI: 10.1556/084.2017.18.2.9
− At what point and for what purpose did you (did your discipline) feel
the need to adopt the concept of translation? And how has this concept
been adapted to and understood in your discipline?
− How would you define ‘translation’ the way it is used in your
discipline?
− Do you see any theoretical/conceptual/methodological exchange/input
between your discipline and TS?
− Did you profit from work in TS? How would you describe the exchange
(if there is any) between your field and TS?
− What has your discipline gained by applying ways of thinking about,
and looking at, translations?
of the various fields of study and their relationships to translation show that this
interdisciplinarity is ever expanding, bringing more and more disciplines into
contact with each other. As the editors put it in their introductory chapter: “It is
a feature of fruitful dialogues that they generate new perspectives and new
approaches again and again. The best dialogues are never ending stories, never
ceasing border crossings. Even if the boundaries as such do not change, their
perception does. Once you begin an interdisciplinary journey, you cannot really
stop it anymore” (p. 18).
Summing up, Gambier and van Doorslaer’s ambitious undertaking may be
said to be successful. The volume does provide important and interesting
insights into the relationships between TS and other disciplines, contains lots of
useful suggestions for further cooperation and places translation and TS in a
wider context. However, it remains unclear how many readers the book will
attract. In their introduction, the editors note the difficulties of co-authoring
involving scholars from different disciplines: disciplinary discourses are
different and hardly accessible to outsiders. The same difficulties may be
expected to arise with readers: those involved in TS (like the present reviewers)
may find it difficult to follow the jargon of other disciplines, especially in the
condensed form imposed by the genre, and non-TS scholars may find
themselves in the same position faced with TS jargon. Therefore, Border
Crossings is not easy reading; it presupposes a dedicated audience.
We must also note another problem. The editors, as well as the authors,
seem to treat the word translation and TS as synonyms. This ambiguity may
well undermine the effort to show that TS is extending its scope. The term
translation may figure in several disciplines but in itself, in our view, this does
not mean that the given discipline and TS are closely related, or that TS
concepts, models, theories and empirical findings are or could be used in the
given discipline.
On the whole, however, there is no denying that this is an important book,
recording the evolution of TS from an interdiscipline into a transdiscipline. We
expect that it will rank high on the reading list of any translation scholar and,
hopefully, some non-translation scholars, too.
Edina Robin
Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest
E-mail: robin.edina@btk.elte.hu
Note
1
It is a pity that the volume contains a number of linguistic errors (e.g. on pages 170, 174,
181, 276, 277) that more careful editing could have eliminated.