Constructing a Sociology of Translation.pdf

8Erich Prunčsmall social groups. Writing by itself was a highly prestigious activity. The inventionof the printing press triggered a revolution which turned translation into amarket factor. Shortly after Gutenberg invented movable type in 1450, the firstmajor translations of the bible were undertaken and increasing number of genreswere being translated and printed. This development reached its first climax inthe translation factories of the nineteenth century which fragmented the translationprocess thus imitating industrial production processes (Bachleitner 1989).In addition to the doyens and patrons of translators, who tried to derive symboliccapital from translations, and the institutions and holders of power, whotried to gain influence through translations, now a new group evolved, namelythe publishers who were keen to maximize their profits. This development eventuallybrought forth a translation market where speed and quantity were the maincompetitive parameters. This trend further intensified in the nineteenth centuryas the number of readers and the number of lending libraries increased and thelibraries became a powerful factor in the field of translation. Mass production andcompetition also resulted in negative side effects like price dumping, poor qualitytranslations and loss of image for the translators.The last stage in this development was initiated by recent advances in theprinted media, the development of electronic media as well as the emergenceof global networks which led to an exponential rise in the number of publishedtranslations and gave translation as a field of action its current form.The use of audiovisual media, however, initiated yet another development.Because interpretations can now also be reproduced and recontextualised, theonce clear dividing line between translation and interpreting is once becomingblurred.The habitus of translatorsA review of the history of translation from a sociological perspective shows thatthe habitus of translators not only involves the internalisation of subalternity andmarginality (Simeoni 1998) but that there is now a wide range of prototypicalhabitus, located on a cline between the habitus of the priest and the habitus of theself-effacing pariah.The translator-priests see themselves as the guardians of the word and as thegate keepers and constructors of culture. They know that they have the power toselect, to transform and to define, which also provides them with the key to sociallyaccepted values and truths. The habitus of the translator-priest first emergedin Mesopotamia where the priests guarded and interpreted the interlinear translationsof the Akkadian texts (Vermeer 1992 :52). It was later adopted by the great