Constructing a Sociology of Translation.pdf
Constructing a Sociology of Translation.pdf
Constructing a Sociology of Translation.pdf
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
20 Michaela Wolfthat over the centuries the translatorial habitus has contributed to the internalisation<strong>of</strong> a submissive behaviour, thus generating low social prestige for translators.As a result <strong>of</strong> the continuous, historically conditioned acceptance <strong>of</strong> norms bytranslators, Simeoni argues, the translators’ willingness to accept these norms hassignificantly contributed to the secondariness <strong>of</strong> their activity (ibid.: 6). He stressesthe key role <strong>of</strong> this internalized position in the “field <strong>of</strong> translation”. Simeonitries to integrate the category <strong>of</strong> the translatorial habitus into systemic translationmodels, not least by reframing Toury’s concept <strong>of</strong> norms “on the assumption <strong>of</strong>a translating habitus understood as: (culturally) pre-structured and structuringagents mediating cultural artefacts in the course <strong>of</strong> transfer” (ibid.: 1). Ultimately,a habitus-led consideration <strong>of</strong> translation practices would encourage more finelygrainedanalyses <strong>of</strong> the “socio-cognitive emergence <strong>of</strong> translating skills and theiroutcome”.The question <strong>of</strong> the translator’s alleged subservience is also discussed by MoiraInghilleri. On the basis <strong>of</strong> Bourdieu’s concepts <strong>of</strong> field and habitus, as well asBasil Bernstein’s theory <strong>of</strong> pedagogic discourse, Inghilleri elaborates a theoreticalframework for the analysis <strong>of</strong> community interpreting as a norm-driven activity(Inghilleri 2003). With this framework Inghilleri proposes not only to reveal theconstructivist nature <strong>of</strong> norms, but also to analyse the principles which generatethe practice <strong>of</strong> public service interpreting in its various contexts. She paysspecial attention to reconstructing the interpreters’ habitus, which Inghilleri isnot willing to locate within the subordination <strong>of</strong> the translators’ and interpreters’activity under norm systems. She points instead to the interplay <strong>of</strong> the distinctive,conflictual and contradictory habitus <strong>of</strong> the agents participating in the process<strong>of</strong> community interpreting, which eventually make up the dynamics <strong>of</strong> the interpretingsituation and have the potential to change existing social relationshipsand social practices. In another paper, Inghilleri further explores the interpretinghabitus. She first investigates the phenomenon <strong>of</strong> interpreting in the political asylumapplication procedure adopting ethnographic questions which address the“representation <strong>of</strong> the other” 16 in interpreting. She then stresses Bourdieu’s idea <strong>of</strong>the “zones <strong>of</strong> uncertainty in social space” where problematic gaps are opened upbetween individual expectation and actual experience (Inghilleri 2005a: 70). Thediscordance evident within these zones, however, creates the potential for agentsto redefine their role, thus enabling a change “from within”. This also entails achange <strong>of</strong> the interpreting habitus, generating new forms <strong>of</strong> interpreting practices.In her introduction to the special issue <strong>of</strong> The Translator “Bourdieu and the<strong>Sociology</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Translation</strong> and Interpreting”, Inghilleri discusses the ethnographic1. For the relationship between “representation techniques” in translation and ethnographicmethodologies, see also Agorni, in this volume.