Stridon Volume 1 Issue 2 (2021) STRIDON: Journal of Studies in Translation and Interpreting Stridon Vol. 1 No. 2 (2021) ISSN: ISSN 2784-5826 Editor-in-Chief Nike K. Pokorn, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Editors Tamara Mikolic Južnic, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Agnes Pisanski Peterlin, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Editorial Board Brian James Baer, Kent State University, United States of America Mona Baker, University of Manchester, United Kingdom Yves Gambier, University of Turku, Finland Dorothy Kelly, University of Granada, Spain Kaisa Koskinen, Tampere University, Finland Outi Paloposki, University of Turku, Finland Anthony Pym, Rovira i Virgili University, Spain Douglas Robinson, Hong Kong Baptist University, China Sebnem Susam-Saraeva, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom Sehnaz Tahir Gürçaglar, Bogaziçi University, Turkey Roberto Valdeón, University of Oviedo, Spain Lawrence Venuti, Temple University, United States od America Michaela Wolf, University of Graz, Austria Review Editor Donald Reindl, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Technical Editor Nataša Hirci, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia Journal Design Žiga Valetic Cover Design Lucijan Bratuš Proofreading Paul Steed Published by Ljubljana University Press, Faculty of Arts Znanstvena založba Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani For the publisher Mojca Schlamberger Brezar, Dean of the Faculty of Arts Issued by STRIDON Slovene Association of Translation Studies (Slovensko translatološko društvo) Department of Translation Studies, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana (Oddelek za prevajalstvo Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani) Publikacija je brezplacna./Publication is free of charge. Publikacija je dostopna na/Available at: https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/stridon To delo je ponujeno pod licenco Creative Commons Priznanje avtorstva-Deljenje pod enakimi pogoji 4.0 Mednarodna licenca (izjema so fotografije). / This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike 4.0 International License (except photographs). Table of Contents 5 25 49 65 87 115 125 Table of ContentsARTICLESCooperation, risk, trust: A restatement of translator ethics Anthony PymThe translation field in Serbia 1960-1990: Organizational-theoretical aspects Borislava ErakovicBeyond the libretto: Searching for the source text of intersemiotic surtitles prepared for modernised opera productionsAleksandra OzarowskaTranslation of forms of address from Portuguese to Turkish through English: The case of José Saramago’s A Jangada de PedraImren Gökce Vaz de CarvalhoConceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018: Replication of Sandra Halverson’s survey from 1997 Anna KuznikBOOK REVIEWSAdriana Serban and Kelly Kar Yue Chan, eds. Opera in Translation: Unity and Diversity Reviewed by Benjamin VircKristiina Taivalkoski-Shilov and Bruno Poncharal, eds. Traduire les voix de la nature / Translating the Voices of NatureReviewed by Tamara Mikolic Južnic and Adriana MezegIN MEMORIAMIrena Kovacic (1951–2021) 131 Cooperation, risk, trust: A restatement of translator ethics Anthony Pym Rovira i Virgili University, Spain and University of Melbourne, Australia ABSTRACT Within the general approach known as translator ethics, complementary roles are played by the concepts of cooperation, risk, and trust. Cooperation, as a technical term, describes the attainment of mutual benefits as the desired outcome of an interaction, indeed as the foundation of social life. In translator ethics, the aim is more specifically to enhance long-term cooperation between cultures. The concept of risk is then used to think about the probabilities of that general aim not being obtained and what kinds of strategies and efforts can be employed to avert that outcome by increasing mutual benefits. Trust, finally, characterizes the relationship that translators must have with those around them in order for them to contribute to cooperation, such that the most critical risk they face is that of losing credibility. Together, these concepts are able to address some of the thornier issues in translator ethics and provide a frame for ongoing discussion and research. Keywords: translator ethics, cooperation, risk management, trust, translator decisions Sodelovanje, tveganje, zaupanje. Nova opredelitev prevajalceve etike IZVLECEK V okviru širšega pristopa, imenovanega prevajalceva etika, se pojmi sodelovanja, tveganja in zaupanja med seboj dopolnjujejo. Sodelovanje kot tehnicni termin pomeni, da je zaželeni cilj vsake interakcije, še vec, da je temelj družbenega življenja doseganje vzajemnih ugodnosti. V okviru prevajalceve etike se zasleduje še bolj specificni cilj, in sicer krepitev dolgorocnega sodelovanja med kulturami. Koncept tveganja se uporablja za presojo možnosti, da se ta splošni cilj ne doseže, in za razmislek o tem, kakšne strategije in napori se lahko uporabijo, da bi se takemu izteku izognili na nacin, da se vzajemne ugodnosti še povecajo. Zaupanje pa oznacuje odnos, ki ga morajo prevajalci imeti s tistimi, ki jih obkrožajo, da lahko prispevajo k sodelovanju, saj je najvecje tveganje, s katerim se soocajo, izguba kredibilnosti. Skupaj ti trije pojmi omogocajo obravnavo nekaterih težjih izzivov prevajalceve etike in predstavljajo okvir za nadaljnjo razpravo in raziskovanje. Kljucne besede: prevajalceva etika, sodelovanje, obvladovanje tveganja, zaupanje, prevajalceve odlocitve I beg forgiveness for the retro three-balls-in-the-air title. The concepts are indeed to be juggled, each in the air in its own time, yet going around together. My pragmatic purpose in using them is to formulate ethical guidelines that might help translators decide between alternatives. My more academic mission is to allay a few misunderstandings and refresh a framework for discussion.1 1 This text is based on the talk “Translator ethics: From cooperation to risk and trust” given online for Hong Kong Baptist University on 24 September 2020. The talk and additional responses to the subsequent questions can be seen at: http://hkbutube.lib.hkbu.edu.hk/st/ display.php?bibno=st969 and at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353333229_ Questions_on_ethics_with_a_few_answers. 1. Introduction Over the past few decades I have been working on an ethics of the translator. The general approach might be called a “translator ethics”, focused on relations between people, possibly opposed to an “ethics of translation”, which would work from relations between texts. In the course of my work, I have used several related concepts as points of anchorage, mostly as ways of thinking about what translators should or should not do. To summarize the trajectory in very broad terms, I first talked about “cross-cultural cooperation” as an ideal that translators should strive for; I then spent several years trying to apply risk management to what translators do, generally claiming that translators have to manage the probability of non-cooperation; and more recently I have been working with concepts of trust, since translators cannot achieve cooperation without being trusted, which means that the major risk they have to manage is perhaps that of losing credibility. How those three concepts actually relate to each other is a little more complicated. My purpose here is to trace the ways in which cooperation, risk, and trust can be placed within a fairly unified approach to translator ethics. My presentation will be partly autobiographical, although not entirely in search of self-justification. I also hope to show what kinds of intellectual climates have provided groundings for theory. There was context then, and there is new context now. At the time of writing, surrounded by a pandemic, the basic concepts of cooperation, risk, and trust acquire renewed resonance. When members of a society take actions like wearing masks, respecting social distancing, washing hands, or being vaccinated, they perform acts of cooperation since these things are good not just for the person who does them, but also for the people around that person. There could be no clearer illustration of the principle: the aim of cooperation is to produce mutual or win-win benefits; certain acts of self-interest also serve the interests of others. The purpose of healthcare translation in this context is consequently to foster such cooperation (going beyond health literacy as a general aim, which seeks to enable the individual to make optimal choices for their body). As for risks, all of our societies have been calculating, publicly or privately, the probabilities of negative consequences along several dimensions, mostly involving trade-offs between economic hardship and number of deaths. There could be few clearer examples of public policy as (good or bad) risk management. And then, in the world of a pandemic, trust is all: any concerted collective action requires public trust in specialized information, much of it translated, while public distrust is manifested in conspiracy theories and disruptive dissent, in some cases feeding off translations perceived as being defective and thus untrustworthy. Cooperation, risk, and trust are thus all very much at stake in pandemic communication and are closely interrelated. This is thus an appropriate time to think them through again. That said, I see the pandemic as a training exercise for an even greater public task. All three concepts also apply to the challenges of the climate emergency, which is even more clearly where communication has to connect with collective cooperative action. That is why cooperation, risk, and trust might be relevant now. So how did I get here? 2. What cooperation is better than One does not wake up one day and say: cooperation, what a great idea! In 1992 I published a book that was looking for an ethical principle but did not find one. Instead, I offered copious critique of the available ideas, but dissent is always the easy part. It is not hard to pick at faithfulness and equivalence as criteria for ethics. I was by no means alone in that: the 1980s and 1990s were the years of Skopos theory and what was becoming Descriptive Translation Studies, both of which pointed to the target side as the place where the game was to be played. Faithfulness and equivalence were looking backwards, the wrong way. For some, my subsequent disinterest in looking backwards has meant avoiding the proper subject of ethics. Meschonnic (2007, 13), extending his “police actions” (Sieburth 2000, 323) based on the text to translate, concludes that “he [Pym] wanted an ethics, he only presents a social morality”, when apparently I should have seen that ethics is actually a poetics calqued on the rhythms of a source. Yes, it is good to listen very carefully to the cadences of the other, but is that really the whole show? With similar aplomb but rather less authority, Gao and Tian (2020, 327) regard faithfulness as the cornerstone of ethics and lament that “Pym avoids talking about it, which is not the correct way to deal with it”. So why not elaborate a poetics of faithfulness of some kind? Easy answer for those who look backwards: because of hermeneutics and deconstruction. I have long held a view of sense as something that is construed in acts of reception. All texts have to be interpreted; none has imminent value, not even in the rhythms from which Meschonnic panted his poetics – if only because different cultures have different rhythms. If you take hermeneutics on board seriously, with whatever degree of deconstruction, there is nothing in a text that is solid enough to be faithful or equivalent to; we must work from the variable decisions actively made in the process of reception. So from that general position in the philosophy of language, I have long striven to exclude essentialist thinking about translation – and it has not been easy. That said, faithfulness, especially in its historical avatar as equivalence, has by no means been excluded. Social or individual beliefs in the representative status of a text must be recognized as useful, operative, even necessary social fictions. They serve collective functions and we can analyse that. In fact, they were later to become the stuff of trust analysis (the repressed returns). But as a foundation for serious ethics, as an orientation for the way translators make decisions, they were never enough. For precisely the same reason, I have never tried to base ethical thought on the translator’s or client’s supposedly unique purpose, on Skopos, at least not in the sense of blindly carrying out someone’s instructions. Why? Because purposes are just as much essentialist idealizations, transcendental signifieds if you will, as anything in the equivalence paradigm ever was. Purposes also have to be construed. And then, more obviously, an ethics of mercenary behaviour is never going to satisfy a thinking person. My 1992 book thus had some fairly powerful reasons for expressing discontent with the available professional codes of ethics, which made idealist assumptions about communication and then mostly said what translators should not do, with rarely an affirmative message about what they should do. I was searching for something more than inherited limits on action; I wanted to know how and why active communication decisions should be made. Similarly unappealing in those years was the idea that if we do what is expected of us, we are doing well, as seemed to be the argument in Chesterman (1993), as well as in some versions of norm theory and some usages of habitus. That would be a paroxysm of conservatism, philosophically justifying what the codes of ethics were stating: here is what we all agree on, so we must all agree on this. No, tradition cannot be reason. In the same vein, Nord’s principle of “loyalty” looked merely motherly: “Loyalty may oblige translators to reveal their translation purposes and justify their translational decisions” (Nord 2002, 37). So if you the translator are not doing what is expected, tell the reader about it – you can go out late at night, my mother used to say, “as long as I know where you are”. That is a very good general principle for all communication: own up to what you do and take responsibility for your decisions. But it is in no way specific to translation and it offers no guidelines at all as to how to decide. In the early 1990s I was thus wandering across a small intellectual desert. I was looking for a principle that could guide a translator when choosing between alternative renditions. I sought something beyond essentialism, endemic expectations, and sincerity. Some eight years later, in a conference in Manchester (Pym 2000), I proposed what such a guideline might look like, in lapidary form: the goal of any translation project should be long-term cooperation between cultures. That seemed to offer something affirmative; it avoided essentialism, tradition, and assumed sincerity; it also avoided the huge binarisms that had been inherited from classical translation theory. My hope was that a translator in a particular situation, with a particular client, with a particular text and hopefully with some future text receivers, would be able to think about cooperation as a way of relating all those ever-particular elements. And that thinking along these lines could inform decisions that would become actions in the world. You can describe norms, narratives, complexities, or language differences, but all you will ever find are that norms, narratives, or languages are different and complex. That knowledge can be useful to subvert official or monological views of the world. But it cannot offer a context-sensitive guide to action. Cooperation can. 3. What cooperation says How do translators decide between alternatives? One set of constraints belongs to the laws of the land, which we respect unless there is good reason to do otherwise: laws concerning privacy, defamation, fair pay, contracts, and so on. Within the laws of the land, other ideas concern professional conduct: respect for colleagues, timeliness, confidentiality, et cetera, all of which apply to any service profession whatsoever. And then, within the field of professional conduct, we might find a few principles that concern translation and interpreting as specific occupations (here I include both under the term “translation”): issues of copyright, where the name of the translator should appear, uses of translation technology, where dead labour becomes capital, and so on. Our various codes of ethics can be broken down into those levels: some principles adhere to the laws of the land, others reflect the norms of professional conduct, often leaving very few that intimately concern translation. Now, on a plane quite different from that analysis, we might place the translator as a person. That is, in addition to being a citizen, a service provider, and a translator, we have this person who can make good or bad decisions. That person might decide to act in order to help achieve universal equality, freedom, justice, diversity, inclusion, general respect for the other, and so on, which, stated as such, are principles so empty that few would try to disagree with them. Or that person might want to act in favour of specific oppressed minorities, maligned cultures, less-spoken languages, non-violence, public health, climate action, and so on, acting in the interests of causes that are more specific to each historical moment and might thus be topics for debate. And still others will decide to spread the word of their god, the virtues of their nation, or the greatness of their author. There is no reason at all why individual translators should not subscribe to any or all such aims and seek to attain them. But they will do this on the basis of individual decisions, and then enact those decisions in all their actions, in all forms of communicating, not just when translating. That is, these causes are not in any way specific to translation and thus have no special reason to be included within any ethics that pretends to be specific to translation. They can certainly guide actions, they can justify decisions, but any discussion of them tends to be more on the level of universalist ethics, not with respect to translation as such. Cooperation is only deceptively like those general principles. Admittedly, if you use the word on that universalist level of discussion, it looks remarkably empty and idealistic. Cooperation can certainly be considered a good thing in and of itself; it can be seen as a particularly good thing in the face of a pandemic or climate change. And it is clearly a fact of innumerable types of communication, not just translation. The one difference with respect to most of the other good things is that cooperation becomes particularly crucial in the field of cross-cultural communication – that is, in a wide field within which we find translation. To put the argument in simple terms, cooperation is relatively easy when communication partners share the same language and culture; it becomes more difficult to achieve when different languages and cultures are involved. That is one reason why cooperation can be a privileged goal in translation, even though it is not rigorously specific to translation. Cooperation is also something that is very commonly misunderstood, and this has caused me a little frustration. Cooperation does not just mean being nice with each other, which is how some scholars seek to sideline the concept or write it off as simple naïveté. It does not involve any supposed neutrality; no one is called on to be an “honest broker”. On the contrary, in its neoclassical formulations, cooperation is a model of rational egoistic action. Cooperation is a technical term with a technical meaning. It is worth understanding that meaning before leaping to judgement – few things are more naïve than an ignorant accusation of naïveté. Here is the neo-classical model. In a cooperative interaction, all parties act in their own interests but do so in such a way that they all acquire more value than what they started with. Non-cooperation is a zero-sum game where if I win, you lose. In cooperation, I win something and you win something, and that possibility gives us a very good reason to communicate. So in cooperative communication, you want to make sure not only that you win but also that the others do not lose. Note carefully, though: the theory does not say that all parties make equal benefits, and it assumes that all parties can make decisions egoistically, in search of their own benefits. As long as all parties make gains on their initial positions, then the interaction can be considered ethically valid in terms of cooperation. And then, if there are non-egoistic or altruistic actions, there can certainly be more equitable distributions of benefits. Cooperation is not just a beautiful idea. It is something we do every day, with each purchase, each greeting, each morning glance of recognition of a partner, friend or companion: this is another day that is better spent together than apart. So where did that idea come from? References to cooperation are actually all around us. If you are doing pragmatics, it is in Grice’s “cooperative principle” (1975, 45): “Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.” I take this to be a definition of what a conversation is: it is very possible to be uncooperative, to mislead, insult, or abuse the other, but that would betray the initial assumptions of a conversation. Grice nevertheless seems not to tell us what conversations are good for; I would like to be able to suggest what they are good for: they enable cooperation. In translation studies, a notion of cooperation also figures prominently in Holz-Mänttäri (1984), where the translator is seen as an expert in cross-cultural communication who cooperates with area experts in particular fields of activities. Again, this recognizes that cooperation is going on, but it does not say really why it should be there. Not until I encountered neoclassical economics did I become interested in concepts of cooperation that are more precise and more powerful in explanatory capacity. I had educated myself politically in a world where one side was good and the other side was bad, and many of my fellow scholars are still in that world. I nevertheless gradually began to see a real alternative to competition, right in the middle of ideologies that I saw (and still see) as being mostly on the wrong side of history. The idea dates from Adam Smith’s passing note that when exporters pursue their own interests, the result may be beneficial for all ([1776] 2000, 4.2). That blossomed into an entire mathematics of win-win situations with multiple players – you might remember the Nash Equilibrium from the film A Beautiful Mind (Howard 2001). From the 1980s, that “mutual benefits” concept began to influence other disciplines. For me, one of the most important references was Robert Keohane’s After Hegemony (1984), which laid out the possibilities for international trade and diplomacy at the end of the Cold War. You then find cooperation in the extended game theoretics of Axelrod (e.g. 1997), who ran multiple-player prisoner’s dilemma games between computers and applied the model to the economic analysis of friendship, marriage, gang formation, trench warfare, and much else. Since then, biology and sociology have developed a range of techniques for measuring the degrees of cooperation or competition that characterize particular societies. And sustainability is analysed as cooperation with future generations, which is why I emphasize long-term cooperation here. Why was cooperation of interest in the 1980s and 1990s? In the United States, the apparent end of the Cold War opened up debates on ways of reorganizing international relations. In Europe, on the other hand, prolonged conflicts such as the painful disintegration of Yugoslavia showed the extent to which cultural differences could lead to competition over cooperation. There were good historical reasons for seeing the prime task of cross-cultural cooperation as being long-term cooperation between cultures. I pause to point out what cooperation is not: • No equality or symmetry: To restate: The people involved in cooperation can have very different starting positions and very different degrees of agency. As long as each party gains something, there is still cooperation. • No neutrality: Since mediators are active parties to cooperative interactions, they too seek gains and can be expected to act egoistically in that sense. There is no assumed neutrality. • No truth: Since communicative success is in the cooperative outcome of the communication act, there is no necessary assumption of an a priori truth. Truth can certainly enter the frame later, when viruses kill people, vaccines fail, and oceans rise, but those truths exist beyond the frame of human communication. • No full understanding: Since there is no assumption of an a priori truth, there is no basis for positing that the ethical aim is to have something ‘understood’. Instead, we might seek a series of ‘understandings’, in the sense of shared but transitory mutual expectations –what Davidson (1986) might call “passing theories”. • No clarity: Once you do not give priority to criteria of truth and understanding, there is little reason to subscribe to ideals of clear expression, as if there were a truth to which language can or should be transparent. The beauties and mysteries of difficult expression can also enter into calculations of cooperation. • No one-sided loyalty: As stated, the translator is here regarded as an active participant. If the translator systematically supports just one side to the systematic detriment of the other, mutual benefits are unlikely to result and the interaction could not be regarded as ethical. These positions are not shared by many of the Enlightenment idealisms in Chesterman (2000), for example, and would seem puzzling when seen from the perspectives of most professional codes of ethics. Yet there is no adamant admonition here. If appeals to truth, understanding, clarity and loyalty can, in particular situations, enhance the probability of cooperation, then they should be considered positive values. But they are not ends in themselves. A final consequence of cooperation theory requires a little more explanation. Cooperation can help address questions of how much effort should be put into mediated communication. If there are no great benefits to share, then it is not worth investing huge efforts in a translation, and vice versa. Indeed, by some calculations (Pym 1995), low-cost translations can allow a wider range of benefits, to be distributed across wider social groups. From this perspective, the use of online machine translation, with or without light post-editing, can be considered a potentially ethical mode of communication. Now that less than one percent of the words translated in the world are done by professionals (see the calculation in Pym and Torres-Simón 2021), any ethics of translation has to be able to address questions of effort. But not every translation can be left to machines. And that, of course, raises the problem of risks. 4. Risk If you can allow that cooperation describes a successful communication outcome (win-win), the step to risk analysis is easy. Once we have an idea of what success is, we can start calculating the probabilities of failure, which is minimally defined as non-cooperation. Mistakes still exist and they are still bad, but now we can say why they are bad: they can get in the way of cooperation. And now we can start to assess ways of dealing with the probability of that happening. The very rich literature on risk management gives us at least four ways of avoiding failure: • Risk aversion: Change your behaviour in order to lower the probability of a negative outcome. • Risk transfer: Make someone else take on the risk. • Risk taking: Assume the risk in the hope of attaining high rewards. • Risk trade-offs: Take a minor risk to reduce a major risk. Let me explain each of these in turn. There is an abundance of research that suggests translators are likely to be risk averse. All the “translation tendencies” announced by Levý ([1963] 2011) can be read in this sense: the language used in translations tends to be simpler, clearer, less rich, and less extreme than in non-translations. Keep it boring, keep it safe – translators tend not to take chances with language. Yet it is not all so clear-cut: if there is a high chance that your reader will not understand a reference, put in a piece of explicitation in order to help them. A Spanish text, for example, refers to “the last war”; the translator suspects the English-language reader will have doubts about which war is being referred to; the translator reduces that risk by explicitating the reference as “the Spanish Civil War”. This is risk aversion for as long as the translator is very sure that the explicitation is correct. So what would risk transfer be? Any action that moves the risk away from the translator would count as an instance of transfer. Most commonly, translators can check points of doubt with their project manager or client, as recommended by Gouadec (2007). In other situations they can refer to an authoritative glossary or draw on a client’s translation memory. Even when they suspect there is a probability of error, they can always later say: It wasn’t me – I followed the material I was given! In many instances, simple literalism can work as risk transfer: Don’t blame me; I put what was in the text! In the case of the Spanish “last war”, for example, the translator may not be sure of which war is being referred to and therefore renders the reference literally as “the last war” in English. The risk of misinterpretation has thus been transferred both to the start text and to the readers, who are left to construe the reference for themselves. Risk taking is then when translators are very aware that their decisions may lead to non-cooperative outcomes but they decide to take their chances. To follow the same example, the translator may not be sure of which war is referred to but opts for “the Spanish Civil War” nevertheless. In order to justify taking a risk in this way, the translator would have to envisage some major benefit being at stake somewhere down the line. If the reader does not have this particular information, for example, a whole series of similar historical references in the text might go off course. Trade-offs, finally, are when the translator takes a minor risk in order to mitigate a major risk. In Pym and Matsushita (2018) this strategy is actually called “risk mitigation”, but “trade-off” seems a clearer term. To continue with the same example, the translator may not want to take the absolute risk of specifying “the Spanish Civil War” and so will opt for literalism, but nevertheless take a minor risk by adding a footnote suggesting the nature of the reference. Most cases of trade-offs involve similar instances where two or more translation solutions are offered to solve the one problem. These risk management strategies give a fairly complex way of discussing translator decisions without entailing any dependence on essentialist notions of meaning or reference. There are doubts at every turn, yet translators can make reasoned decisions in search of cooperation. The most worrying thing that ensues from these analyses, as might be predicted from studies on translation “tendencies” or “universals”, is that translators tend to be overwhelmingly risk averse. In our studies on COVID-19 communication in Melbourne in 2020 (Karidakis et al. forthcoming), we found that most official translations were extremely literalist, not wishing to take chances with potentially high-stakes information and effectively transferring risk to the authors of the start texts. In the various language communities, however, those translations were often not effective in changing behaviour: the risk transfer meant that the technical language was confusing. The official translations were thus reworked, simplified, discussed, and put into multimedia formats by the many community associations, who adopted a far more diversified approach to risk management. So why were the official translators more reluctant to take chances than were the community associations? It has to do with the nature of trust. 5. Trust Andrew Chesterman (2000, 182) states that translators “must be trusted by all parties involved, both as a profession and individually. […] Without this trust, the profession would collapse, and so would its practice.” Why should trust be so important to translators? The most obvious reason is that the translator is representing a prior text and the person they are communicating with typically has no way of testing the linguistic validity of the representation – the reader of a translation normally does not understand the foreign language and is thus condemned to trust its representational validity, mostly on the basis of who the translator is and how much the translation corresponds to what is expected. Without that trust in the representation, the translator cannot hope to contribute to cooperative interactions. In terms of risk management, we might therefore say that the greatest risk the translator faces is that of losing trust, or what might be termed “credibility risk” (Pym 2015). Beyond that simple logic, the concept of trust plays a key role in making translator ethics speak in terms that can have at least some psychological verisimilitude. Once we have dispensed with faithfulness and equivalence as criteria on which to judge a translation, we are nevertheless able to recuperate the presumption of those values downstream, from the perspective of the client or user of the translation. Trust here is initiated (or taken away) not by the translator – this is not the initial trust that Steiner (1975, 312) saw in the translator’s relation to the text to be translated – but by the users of translations. To talk about trust orients the translator’s view to the actions of people of the future, not back to the text in the past. This kind of trust is to be distinguished from simple familiarity. True, we tend to trust the people we think we know best, and we may consider a person to be trustworthy on the basis of the repeated actions they have carried out in the past. But when we accept a translation as a substitute of a text to which we do not otherwise have access, the act of trusting is necessarily accompanied by complex factors that are beyond our control. We decide to trust a translator because it is a way of reducing that complexity (Luhmann 1968); trust, in this sense, is “a solution for specific problems of risk” (Luhmann 1988, 95); it can always flip into distrust, even in situations of great familiarity. The workings of trust are very clear in pandemic communication, where an ideal chain would see science being trusted by governments, who are trusted by professional writers of media communications, who are trusted by translators, who are trusted by users of translations, who adopt cooperative behaviour accordingly. At no point in this ideal chain can one party be assumed to fully ‘understand’ the previous link: this is not a model of relayed truth. However, when trust works, the end users may believe they are trusting science directly. Of course, trust tends not to be so linear but branches out in networks (since we tend to trust those who are trusted by people around us)2 2 My thanks for the observation made by Piotr Blumczynski in the discussion following the talk on which this paper is based. and any link in the resulting network can be broken and active distrust may result: governments seek trade-offs between medical experts and the calculations of economists; many people do not trust their governments in principle; professional writers address only the highly educated; translators follow suit; end users do not believe the translations; narratives of dissent give structure to instances of distrust. In practice, of course, many other factors can influence the workings of trust and distrust. In our study of pandemic communication in Melbourne (Karidakis et al. forthcoming), a pressured workflow meant that in two cases official translations actually mixed languages (Arabic and Farsi in one case, Indonesian and Turkish in the other). These became memes that spread across all media, leading to widespread reports that the official translations were not trustworthy. No matter how much I tried to argue (in Pym 2020) that the mistakes were not due to bad translators (they came from bad project management) and that the Australian translator certification system was actually one of the best in the world, distrust abounded. As a result, the Victorian government invested considerable additional funds into multilingual communication, with only a fraction of it earmarked for official translations. The revised government recommendations included an instruction that organizations should use not only certified translators but also “a trusted, credible source to promote your message” (Victorian Government 2020), for example “a health practitioner” or “a local elder as a messenger” when reaching out to a specific language community. In terms of trust, this means mixing “thin trust” (we trust a translator because they have professional certification) with “thick trust” (we trust a local mediator because we know a lot about them) (see Hosking 2014, 46–49). A focus on trust thus invites us to move well beyond praise of any closed profession as the only way to achieve ethical communication. At the most general level, trust is involved in all acts of cooperation, if only because each party must trust the other in order for benefits to ensue over time. But trust is particularly important in cross-cultural communication, where familiarity levels are lower and the need for thin, risk-based trust is consequently higher. All the educational qualifications and certification systems for translators address precisely this issue. The entire institutionalization of translation works to this end. As recognized by perhaps the foremost dismantler of scientific communication in our age, “facts remain robust only when they are supported by a common culture, by institutions that can be trusted, by a more or less decent public life, by more or less reliable media” (Latour 2018, 23). Translation must be placed within that wider view of social communication, as part of a kind of trust can extend beyond cultural borders. 6. Addressing problems An ethics based on cooperation, risk, and trust would be of little interest if it were unable to address some of the knottier problems ensuing from practice. This does not mean solving problems, as in mathematics. It does not mean calling the shots between ethical and non-ethical, as in a line decision in tennis. The more modest aim must be to provide considerations that might help translators decide for themselves how to choose between the very particular alternatives they confront. I select a few problems from recent debate and research. 6.1 Are translators in the sole service of their country? A growing strand of ethics in China takes issue with the very principle of difference- based cooperation, which seems to contradict a “National Translation Program”. Ren and Gao (2015a) posit that the purpose of a national translation program is to further the one-sided interests of the state, and they further explain that “.... .........,...........,.......,... .... .......” (2015b, 108), which we might translate as follows: “In the internal cooperation of the national translation practice, the interests of the cooperating parties are the same, since they are the interests of the country, and therefore there is no question of reconciling the interests of all parties.” So Pym’s win-win ethics of cooperation is explicitly rejected (still, it’s nice to be noticed). This is quite logical: if all participants in the translation act are in the one country and agree on everything a priori, there is nothing to be negotiated and thus no basis for seeking a “win-win” outcome. The ethics of mutual benefits does not apply; there is no risk of communicative failure; there is no primal doubt or dialectics; trust is absolute. That is certainly an ideal for the national production of translations, on a level that is basically no different from the national production of tractors. But what about outgoing translation as a mode of communication across cultures? One is not surprised to see “cooperation” working as a key term in Xi Jinping’s thought, with “win-win cooperation” repeatedly used since 2014 as an ideological cornerstone of China’s foreign policy. One need only look at the titles of a few speeches: “Asia-Pacific Partnership of Mutual Trust, Inclusiveness, Cooperation and Win-Win Progress” or “Build a Win-Win, Equitable and Balanced Governance Mechanism on Climate Change” (both in Xi 2017). So, as much as one would like to agree that all Chinese translation agents always agree on everything within their own country, that does not discount the search for win-win cooperation as an ethical purpose for translations between China and the rest of the world. 6.2 Should the interpreter reveal what Trump and Putin said? Our second problem is deceptively similar. In Helsinki in 2018, Donald Trump had a private meeting with Vladimir Putin. Present was the State Department interpreter Marina Gross, who took notes. After the meeting, a US congressional committee called on her to tell them what was in her notes. So should she tell them? On the face of it, the question is easily answered by the standard codes of ethics, where “confidentiality” is a stock principle. The International Association of Conference Interpreters (Field 2018) swiftly issued a statement saying that the interpreter should not testify, and the American Translators Association was reported as taking the same position (Segal 2018). So how might we respond to this in terms of cooperation, risk and trust? The question to ask here is whether cross-cultural cooperation would be served by revealing what was said in that private meeting. Probably not. And a good argument can be made for the practice of private meetings as trust-building exercises between heads of state, exploiting the virtues of face-to-face spoken conversation. So we might agree with the principle of confidentiality in this case, but for a reason that goes beyond the fact that it just happens to be in the established codes of ethics. A more engaging question is whether Marina Gross was wholly a professional interpreter in this case, since she was also an employee of the State Department and thus belonged to the same institutional system that was asking her to testify – this is basically the identity problem of Sperthias and Bulis in Pym (2012). As role-identity analysis might tell us (Forde 2021), Gross could have assumed that one identity prevailed over the other and responded accordingly. In terms of translator ethics, she would be deciding in which network she was likely to achieve more long-term cooperation and trust. 6.3 Are interpreters of torture themselves torturers? Takeda (2021) examines the British trial transcripts of 39 interpreters who worked for the Japanese in the Second World War. The interpreters were civilians charged with “being concerned in” the ill-treatment of prisoners of war and local citizens in Japanese- occupied territories. So should the interpreters’ work be considered unethical? From the perspective of translator ethics, the first observation to make here is that the act of torture is very difficult to analyse in terms of mutual cooperation: the mediation is not likely to bring any particular benefit to the subaltern party. So we cannot offer justification on that count. Another consideration, however, is whether the interpreters were able to refuse to mediate. If they were able to refuse the task and proceeded nevertheless, then they are indeed liable for the consequences, both legal and ethical, of their non-cooperative actions (Pym 2012, 166). On this point, we once again reach a position that is in agreement with the standard codes of ethics (RedT, AIIC, and FIT in this case) when they insist that translators and interpreters should be able to refuse an assignment. An ethics based on cooperation can nevertheless point to something that unethical interpreters could be specifically responsible for: a radical mode of non-cooperative interaction. That said, one hesitates to condemn any mediator simply because they happened not to foresee which side was going to win. The same principle we apply to the interpreters working for the Japanese should also be applied to those working for the American, British, or Australian forces in any similar situations. By the same logic, an ethics based on cooperation cannot condemn the diplomat and interpreter Eugen Dollmann, for example, because he facilitated exchanges between Hitler and Mussolini. Other kinds of ethics are more than capable of dealing with that problem. 6.4 Should translators work for free for profit-making companies? Zwischenberger (2021) looks in labour-value Marxist terms at the translators who work for free on Facebook sites. She correctly describes the company’s use of their work as “exploitation”. Along the way, though, she accepts that each individual translator may rationally decide that their labour is more than compensated for by what they gain from the activity in terms of experience, social interaction, or the fact that they are providing support for a particular language. Zwischenberger recognizes that the exploitation can indeed be “mutually beneficial” within the frame of that interaction, but should nevertheless be considered reprehensible on a more global level. There seem to be two reasons for this. First, in terms of Marxist analysis (actually from Engels), the translators suffer from “false consciousness”, since if they knew the enormous profits being made from each language Facebook opens up into, they would not give their labour for free. And second, drawing on consequentialist ethics from Wertheimer (1999), cooperative exploitation “may be individually rational but collectively self-defeating” when a third party suffers as a consequence. Zwischenberger posits that in this case the third party would be professional translators, the market value of whose work is undermined by the labour given for free. So can a translator ethics support the condemnation on either of these counts? Once we abandon essentialist truth, unfortunately there is no certitude from which to distinguish between true and false consciousness – and I am not sure the world would be better if our activist academics’ presumably ‘true consciousness’ were universally in charge. Rather than assume we are right and the translators are wrong, we might want to act empirically (hence the move into consequentialist ethics). And then, if the translator is wholly aware of Facebook’s profits and translates nevertheless, what side is truth on then? Personally, I have interacted with the Facebook crowdsourcing site and I have contributed voluntarily and very knowingly to Google’s language assets, in both cases in the interests of developing electronic resources for Catalan, a language that I like very much and that needs support. Contrary to those who are outraged by the very mention of commerce, I see no reason to consider a company unethical simply because of its profitability. The consequentialist argument is more interesting. To make it stick, though, Zwischenberger would have to identify not just how professional translators are unfairly affected by Facebook getting some translations for free (there are indeed some languages where the company would otherwise pay for professional services), but also how that result has negative consequences for cross-cultural cooperation. Neither argument is easy to make. In fact, the only evidence Zwischenberger presents on this score is that the translator associations seem peculiarly unperturbed by the threat posed by volunteer translators – perhaps because the associations need enlightenment from true consciousness, but perhaps also because the threat is not significant. So what evidence is there? One cannot assume that translations done for free are in any way inferior (that risk is taken care of by employing professional checkers anyway); one cannot say that they are not trusted (since they come from the community of users themselves); one cannot point to marked revenue loss among professionals: superficial evidence suggests that the global market for translations is growing, not retracting, even despite the many instances of deprofessionalization (Pym and Torres 2021). And then, even if you do locate some way that less work for professional translators diminishes cross-cultural cooperation, that result would have to be compared with the trade-off benefits of extending the range of less-spoken languages that are used in electronic space. The world has a long tail of smaller languages for which volunteer work or government subsidies are needed if profit-making companies are going to operate in them (Catalan is on the edge of that space). But that is another story. An ethics should be able at least to address that kind of trade-off, prior to condemning out of hand everything that looks like unequal exchange. 7. A conclusion: How far should one look? It seems unreasonable to ask translators to save the world, as if they were prime revolutionary subjects. And yet it is quite reasonable to suggest that, confronted by alternatives between which an ethical decision is to be made, translators should at least look beyond the text in front of them. This means reflecting on the upstream provenance (How did this text get here? Why was effort invested in its presence? Can the text be improved?) and downstream effects (Who is seeking to cooperate with whom? In search of what potential benefits? With which lasting effects?). The work of ethical discourse should be to extend reflections in both those directions, to make translators think within wider frames, and hopefully, as a result, to give them the courage to take risks in search of rewards. As for the community of translation scholars, there can be little doubt that they are increasingly looking well beyond relations between texts. Ethics is these days a rich and exciting field of debate, as I hope the above few examples illustrate (and indeed as is made very clear in Pokorn and Koskinen 2021). At its best, our exchanges feed into empirical studies of the ways translators actually resolve problems, and the various reasons they give. At its worst, though, discussions of ethics slip into universalist certitudes about issues well removed from mediation between cultures, where good and bad are decided before any consideration of translation itself. One can look too far, too fast. I hope that the above concepts of cooperation, risk and trust can help provide some shared frames for continuing debate. References Axelrod, Robert. 1997. The Complexity of Cooperation: Agent-Based Models of Competition and Collaboration. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Chesterman, Andrew. 1993. “From is to ought: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies.” Target 5 (1): 1–12. Chesterman, Andrew. 2000. Memes of Translation. The Spread of Ideas in Translation Theory. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Davidson, David. 1986. “A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs.” In Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, edited by Ernest LePore, 433–46. Oxford & New York: Blackwell. Field, Martin. 2018. “Confidentiality in the spotlight.” Communicate! 73, October 24, 2018. https://tinyurl.com/m52c49pd. Forde, Shane. 2021. “Role Identity Theory and Ethical Decision Making in Translation and Interpreting: The Case of Coordinators for International Relations.” Paper presented at the conference Ethics and Professionalism in Translation and Interpreting, Ewha Womens University, Korea, July 15, 2021. Gao, Ning and Tian Chuanmao. 2020. “A Review of Anthony Pym’s Translator Ethics.” Journal of Humanities and Education Development 2 (5): 324–29. Gouadec, Daniel. 2007. Translation as a Profession. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Grice, H. Paul (1975) “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts, edited by Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica. Hosking, Geoffrey. 2014. Trust: A History. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Howard, John, director. 2001. A Beautiful Mind. Universal / Dreamworks. Karidakis, Maria, Robyn Woodward-Kron, Riccardo Amorati, Bei Hu, Anthony Pym, and John Hajek (forthcoming) “Enhancing COVID-19 public health communication for culturally and linguistically diverse communities: An Australian interview study with community representatives.” Qualitative Heath Communication. Keohane, Robert. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. Latour, Bruno. 2018. Down to earth. Politics in the new climactic regime, translated by Catherine Porter. Cambridge UK and Medford MA: Polity Press. Levý, Jirí. (1963) 2011. Umení prekladu. Translated by Patrick John Corness as The Art of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Luhmann, Niklas. 1968. Vertrauen. Ein Mechanismus der Reduktion sozialer Komplexität. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke. Luhmann, Niklas. 1988. “Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives.” In Trust Making and Breaking. Cooperative Relations, edited by Diego Gambetta, 94–108. New York: Blackwell. Meschonnic, Henri. 2007. Éthique et politique du traduire. Paris: Verdier. Nord, Christiane. 2002. “Manipulation and loyalty in functional translation.” Current Writing: Text and Reception in Southern Africa 14 (2): 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1013929X.2002.9678123. Pokorn, Nike, and Kaisa Koskinen, eds. 2021. The Routledge Handbook of Translation and Ethics. Abingdon: Routledge. Pym, Anthony. 1992. Translation and Text Transfer. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. Pym, Anthony. 1995. “Translation as a Transaction Cost.” Meta 40 (4): 594–605. Pym, Anthony. 2000. “On Cooperation.” In Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I: Textual and Cognitive Aspects, edited by Maeve Olohan, 181–92. Manchester: St Jerome. Pym, Anthony. 2012. On translator ethics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Pym, Anthony. 2015. “Translating as risk management.” Journal of Pragmatics 85: 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.06.010. Pym, Anthony, and Kayo Matsushita. 2018. “Risk mitigation in translator decisions.” Across Languages and Cultures 19 (1): 1–18. Pym, Anthony. 2020. “When trust matters more than translation.” Pursuit, July 29, 2020. https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/when-trust-matters-more-than-translation. Pym, Anthony, and Ester Torres-Simón. 2021. “Is automation changing the translation profession?” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 270: 39–57. https://doi. org/10.1515/ijsl-2020-0015. Ren, Dongsheng, and Gao Yuxia. 2015a. “A Preliminary Study on National Translation Practice.” Chinese Foreign Languages 3: 79–85. Ren, Dongsheng, and Gao Yuxia. 2015b. “National Translation Program: A New Concept.” Foreign Languages in China 3: 92–7. Segal, Corinne. 2018. “Lawmakers Want Trump’s Interpreter to Testify. That Might be Unethical.” PBS Newshour. Accessed July 19, 2021, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/ politics/putin-trump-russia-interpreter-marina-gross. Sieburth, Richard. 2000. Review of Antoine Berman, Pour une critique des traductions: John Donne. The Translator 6 (2): 321–27. Smith, Adam. (1776) 2000. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Random House. Steiner, George. 1975. After Babel. Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Takeda, Kayoko. 2021. Interpreters and war crimes. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Victorian Government. 2020. Best practice guide for translating content. Accessed July 20, 2021, https://www.vic.gov.au/interpreters-and-translation-guides Wertheimer, Alan. 1999. Exploitation. Princeton University Press. Xi Jinping. 2017. The Governance of China. Beijing: Foreign Language Press. Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2021. “Online collaborative translation: its ethical, social, and conceptual conditions and consequences.” Perspectives https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2021.1872662. About the author Anthony Pym has been a professional translator and translator trainer in Spain, the United States and Australia for more than 20 years. He currently teaches at the University of Melbourne and is Distinguished Professor at the Rovira i Virgili University in Tarragona in Spain. He was President of the European Society for Translation Studies from 2010 to 2016. He has authored, co-authored or edited 28 books and more than 200 articles in the general field of translation and intercultural communication. He holds a PhD in sociology from the École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris. The translation field in Serbia 1960-1990: Organizational-theoretical aspects Borislava Erakovic University of Novi Sad, Serbia ABSTRACT The paper presents a chronological overview of diverse translation related activity in Serbia between 1960 and 1990 that led to a successful interplay of four types of perspectives on translation enquiry: Policy, Public, Scientific and Critical (Koskinen 2010). It is based on the data available in periodicals, conference proceedings and other publications issued by two major translator associations and book-length publications on translation theory in Serbia during this period. The analysis presents the events, topics, participants and publications on translation as well as the role of state ideology in the promotion of translation activities. Finally, it is argued that the continuous dialogue between practitioners and scholars on numerous pragmatic questions (translator training, development of terminologies, the status of the profession and others), as well as on theoretical ones (on the nature of translation theory) led to the emergence of theoretical discourse on translation in Serbia. Keywords: translator associations, Policy Translation Studies, Public Translation Studies, Serbian discourse on translation, translation theory Prevodoslovna misel v Srbiji med letoma 1960 in 1990: organizacijsko- teoreticni vidiki IZVLECEK Clanek predstavlja kronološki pregled razlicnih prevajalskih dejavnosti v Srbiji med letoma 1960 in 1990, ki so pripeljale do uspešnega prepleta štirih pogledov na raziskave prevajanja in jih lahko umestimo v družbenopoliticno, javno, znanstveno in kriticno prevodoslovje (Koskinen 2010). Pregled temelji na podatkih iz periodicnih publikacij, konferencnih zbornikov in drugih objav dveh najvecjih prevajalskih društev in knjižnih objav na temo teorije prevajanja v Srbiji v omenjenem obdobju. Analiza predstavlja dogodke, teme, akterje in objave, ki se navezujejo na prevajanje, pa tudi vlogo državne ideologije pri promociji prevajalskih dejavnosti. Na koncu argumentiramo, da je trajni dialog med prevajalci iz prakse in prevodoslovci, ki se je osredotocal na številna pragmaticna vprašanja (izobraževanje prevajalcev, razvoj tehnologij, status poklica in druga), pa tudi na teoreticna vprašanja (v zvezi z naravo teorije prevajanja), pripeljal do izoblikovanja teorije prevajanja Srbiji. Kljucne besede: prevajalska društva, družbenopoliticno prevodoslovje, javno prevodoslovje, srbski diskurz o prevajanju, teorija prevajanja 1. Introduction A growing interest in the study of translation in Eastern Europe and the USSR has recently resulted in a number of publications dealing with their contributions to early Translation Studies (Baer 2019, Dmitrienko 2019, Baer and Witt 2018, Pym and Ayvazyan 2015, Ceccherelli, Constantino and Diddi 2015, Špirk 2009, Jettmarová 2008). To the best of our knowledge, the only presentation .f the achievements of translation theory in the former Yugoslavia in English1 1 Janicijevic 1999 provides a wealth of data on this period in Serbian. can be found in the compilation of essays on translation theory in Slavic countries edited by Ceccherelli, Constantino and Diddi (2015). Two of the fourteen chapters in this volume describe several studies in Croatia and Serbia (Badurina 2015) and the role of translation in the development of culture in Slovenia (Ožbot 2015). The section on Serbia in Badurina’s chapter centres on one of the representative publications from this period, edited by Ljubiša Rajic (1981), which is a collection of articles by scholars (university professors), writers and literary translators. These articles cover a range of topics: the nature of translation theory, its relevance for translation activity, current linguistic or literary approaches to literary translation, types of equivalence, translation criticism, history of translation, indirect translation, machine translation and reflections on the processes in literary translation. They are illustrative of the diversity that characterized the discourse on translation in Serbia in those years. It is however, important to note that while research topics and applied methodologies in the discourse on translation in Serbia reflected some of the developments in Western, Eastern European and Soviet traditions, it was also characterized by a sustained dialogue between scholars and the practitioners embodied by the two major translator associations, The Association of Literary Translators (ALTS) and the Association of Scientific and Technical Translators (ASTTS). The chronological overview offered in this paper will therefore shed light on the translation activity that created the conditions for a burgeoning discourse on translation in Serbia, especially after 1975. The overview mostly follows the activities initiated and organized by the ALTS and ASTTS that are documented in their periodicals and book-length publications by Serbian scholars during this period. We believe that the developments in the field of translation in Serbia during these three decades closely resemble what Koskinen (2010), drawing on Buroway (2005), describes as a successful interplay between the four branches of Translation Studies: Policy, Public, Scientific and Critical. While Policy TS provides research-based solutions for the problems defined by the community, the Public TS “brings the instrumental knowledge generated by scientific TS to the professional field” (2010:22). Koskinen suggests that a dialogue between clients, practitioners and scholars can lead to the generation of new knowledge, by which Policy TS grows into Public TS (2010, 24). The two other types, Scientific TS (rigorous studies) and Critical TS (reflexive examination of research agendas and values) address academic audiences alone; in order to remain relevant, they need the first two branches. Some publications from this period also point to another significant factor for the development of the discourse on translation in Serbia – the state. Introductory sections to the proceedings of the first translation conferences held in Yugoslavia/Serbia after WWII contain indications that theorizing on translation was in part motivated by ideological reasons. Yugoslavia, a multicultural country with its self-management socialism (cf. Liotta 2001) was a unique case, but there are some similarities in the way ideology influenced translation practices across former socialist countries. Baer (2019) and Dmitrienko (2019), for example, independently note that in the Soviet context translation (expectedly) aided modernization, but also served to create a “supranational Soviet identity” (Dmitrienko 2019, 205) or to “construct Soviet society as cosmopolitan” (Baer 2019, 300). As we shall see, the role of translation was similarly understood in some Yugoslav/Serbian contexts. In presenting this overview, we are therefore also interested in finding relations between the ideology of the socialist Yugoslavia and the way some translational practices supported the emerging translation theory. 2. Methodology and sources Up until the conflicts of the 1990s, Serbia was a republic of the second Yugoslavia (1945-1992). The Yugoslav discourse on translation cannot easily be segmented into separate geographical/national traditions, because scholars from all former republics (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia) participated in its creation. Some of the most notable conferences from this period were in the capital, Belgrade. The delineation of Serbian discourse on translation during the 1960s-1990s period is therefore, out of necessity, based on a geographical criterion, i.e. the place where a journal or a book was published and the location of the institutions to which the most prominent scholars were associated at the time. The attribute ‘Serbian’ in this paper denotes that a book, periodical or an article was published in Serbia (noting that some contributors to these volumes were often from other Yugoslav republics), and/or that it is authored by scholars affiliated with a Serbian institution (a university or journal). In addition, some relevant data are only available for Yugoslavia, and are indirectly reflective of the situation in Serbia, as is the case, for example, with the data obtained from the Index Translationum. This overview has been constructed from the perspective of someone who was not educated in this tradition, but who first came across it in the faculty library accidentally, searching for references while working on a thesis. The list of publications on translation was established on the basis of a subject search of electronic catalogues of the libraries of Matica Srpska2 2 The Library of Matica Srpska keeps a sample copy of all publications in Serbia. and the Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad. The main sources of data about translator associations were Z. Jovanovic (2000) and Janicijevic (1999). The timeline of major events and activities initiated by the translator associations, the range of topics and the participants in the discourse on translation were also identified through the tables of contents in the periodicals Mostovi (78 volumes, 1970-1990) and Prevodilac (29 volumes, 1982-1991), conference proceedings Prevodna književnost (nine volumes of proceedings from the Belgrade Meeting of Translators 1976-1989) and Kopca (four volumes of proceedings from Novi Sad conferences Translational Connections [Prevodilacke spone], 1983-1984). A selection of 136 texts (910 pages) from these periodicals and conference proceedings was then consulted for more in-depth analysis. The main criteria for the selection were the text type (introductions, afterwords, book reviews, chronicles), subject matter (theory, training, profession) and authorship. The selected texts were written by: a) scholars who are prominent names in Serbian linguistics and literature studies (Universities of Belgrade, Novi Sad and Niš), who authored book-length publications, book reviews, texts on translation theory and translator and interpreter education (Babic, Bugarski, Hlebec, Ignjacevic, M. Jovanovic, Koljevic, Marojevic, Rajic, Sibinovic and Stojnic) b) non-academic authors (freelance and in-house translators, prominent members of translator associations and editors-in-chief in the publishing houses) whose names repeatedly appeared in the tables of contents in Mostovi and Prevodilac, who wrote on the topics of translator education, the profession, the activities of translator associations and chronicles of major events (Z. Jovanovic, Janicijevic, Bertolino, Stakic, Hajdin and others). In constructing this overview, we searched for explicit statements on the motivations for the study of translation in the forewords and afterwords in the consulted publications. In addition to scholarly texts, we were interested in the range of texts on translation contributed by non-academics, especially if they were published in the same volumes or periodicals alongside the theoretical contributions, because they shed light on the general climate in the society that surrounded the discourse on translation. In the following section, we first present the historical context in which the theoretical discourse on translation began. The next three sections present the events, topics, participants, and publications on translation for each of the three decades – the 1960s, 1970, and 1980s. The last section gives some examples where ideology might have created conditions for the occurrence of some topics in the discourse on translation during these three decades. 3. The background According to the chronicles of translator associations of Serbia (Z. Jovanovic 2000, 8) and the information that can be found on their websites, the first translator association, the Association of Translators of Serbia (ATS) was founded in 1951. In 1953, ATS initiated the creation of the Alliance of Literary Translators of Yugoslavia (ALTY, or Savez književnih prevodilaca Jugoslavije, SKPJ), as a state-level representative of the seven Associations of Literary Translators from Yugoslav republics and autonomous provinces (Janicijevic 1999, 161). Through the ALTY, Yugoslav translators became members of the International Federation of Translators (FIT) from its beginnings. The ALTY was also the organizer of major translational events in the 1960s: the Fourth FIT Congress in Dubrovnik, 19633 3 The ASTTS will repeat this feat in 1990, with the organization of the XII FIT in Belgrade. (Z. Jovanovic 2000, 45), and the first publications on translation in Belgrade (SKPJ 1963a, 1963b, 1967). In 1960, a group of technical translators from the ATS founded the Association of Scientific and Technical Translators of Serbia (ASTTS), whereas the ATS became ALTS, i.e. the Association of Literary Translators. The foundation of the ASTTS was closely related to the economic development of Yugoslavia and its international politics at the time. After WWII, one significant consequence of the membership of Yugoslavia in the UN and the Non-Aligned Movement from 1961 onwards was that Belgrade became a busy centre of translation and interpreting activity: it hosted numerous diplomatic meetings, international events and conferences. According to the chronicle of the ASTTS (Z. Jovanovic 2000), such a situation created a demand for translation from Serbian into a number of languages, which was largely met by the Translation Centre of the ASTTS. In addition to this, economic relations were established with the countries from Western and Eastern political blocs, and with the ‘Third World’. Historians record that exports to the Soviet bloc rose from the 1950s, and that a long sought commercial agreement was signed with the European Economic Community in 1967 (Lampe 1996: 265, 268, Liotta 2001). This was also the time of the key investment projects in Serbia, such as the building of one of the greatest hydroelectric power stations in Europe at the time, “Ðerdap I” and “Ðerdap II”, the steel mill “Smederevo”, and the mining and smelting combine “Bor”. In all these projects, the Translation Centre of the ASTTS was the preferred provider of translation services for the state, so the economic benefit of these projects created the conditions for the growth and development of the ASTTS (Z. Jovanovic 2000, 54). The ASTTS thus became a profitable organization, capable of financing various initiatives and publications. Such historical circumstances are reflected in the foreword to the first collection of papers on theory and literary translation (SKPJ 1963b) by Živojin Simic, one of the founders of the ATS back in 1951. Commenting on the number of translations in socialist Yugoslavia, Simic expresses a belief that more has been published in the short period after WWII (i.e. 1945-1963), than in all the time up to the war (SKPJ 1963b: 4)4 4 All texts on translation theory from this period are in Serbian, and the citations are translated by the author. . This remark is not accompanied by any supporting data, but available data on Yugoslavia from the Index Translationum (Šajkevic 1992) confirm a constant and considerable rise in the number of published translations in Serbo-Croatian, even when comparing the period 1955-1959 to 1965-1969: the average number of translated books in the latter period almost doubled (from 820 to 1500). 4. Discourse on translation in Serbia 4.1 Periodization One of the chroniclers of the field of translation in Serbia and its active participant from the 1970s5 5 Janicijevic, a translator and a writer, was the president of ALTS (1974-1978) and of the Alliance of Literary Translators of Yugoslavia (1974-1978), a member of the editorial board of Mostovi since 1970 and its editor-in-chief for seven years (1984-1991), one of the initiators of the Belgrade Meetings of Translators (BEPS) in 1975 and one of the editors of several books of proceedings Prevodna književnost from the BEPS annual conferences. , Jovan Janicijevic, looking back on what had been achieved prior to 1982, identifies three post-war periods (1995/19916 6 Janicijevic’s 1991 book is a collection of texts he previously published in Mostovi and other periodicals or presented at various conferences, so the first of the two years denotes the time of previous publication. ,149–50): (1) 1945-1962 – preliminary phase, a period of intense translation activity when the first associations were formed; (2) 1963-1969 – the period of consolidation of the translation scene, the beginning of an organized study of translation in Yugoslavia and the appearance of the first theoretical publications; (3) 1970-1982 – the period of rapid development of the study of translation. Our periodization is slightly modified, rounded to the decades: the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. Although we agree with Janicijevic’s view of how the field progressed, we see the first volumes of journals Mostovi (1970-) and Prevodilac (1982-) as landmarks of qualitative changes and new directions in the discourse on translation in Serbia. In this overview, we also skip the preliminary phase (1945-1960) because there were no book-length publications on translation theory during this period. 4.2 The 1960s: How to translate and interpret? The first publications on translation-related issues in the 1960s were the Bibliography of Published Translations in Yugoslavia from 1944-1959 (SKPJ 1963a), two collections of papers on theory and literary translation (SKPJ 1963b, SKPJ 1966) and the first textbook on consecutive interpreting (Kordic 1967). In the foreword to the first collection of papers on translation theory (SKPJ 1963b), Živojin Simic, the first president of the ALTY, states that the purpose of the publication is to contribute to the development of literary translation and to answer the question of how to translate (SKPJ 1963b: 3,5). The essays in the SKPJ 1963b compilation deal with the theory, practice and history of translation. The authors were translators, who were also university professors, writers and members of other professions, from almost all Yugoslav republics. This form of collaboration between translator associations, practitioners and scholars will characterize the majority of publications on translation in the next two decades as well. The first textbook on consecutive interpreting was authored by Mara Kordic (1967), who was also one of the first simultaneous interpreters for French in Serbia. The book was published by the Institute of Foreign Languages in Belgrade, a higher education institution. In line with the state politics to keep the communication open with ‘the West’ and ‘the East’, scholars interested in translation theory were aware of the major developments in translation studies on both sides of the Berlin Wall (cf. Baer 2020). This is evident in the afterword to Kordic’s textbook – she cites Nida (1945), Vinay and Darbelnet (1958), Fedorov (1958), Mounin (1963), and Catford (1965). The afterword also reflects the ongoing debate on whether translation is predominantly a linguistic or literary activity. Kordic’s own view is interdisciplinary, and she defines translation as a dominantly linguistic activity that includes psycholinguistic, sociological, stylistic, and ethnological considerations, as well as theory of communication (1967, 42), which is a view that will be shared by some of the leading Serbian translation scholars in the next two decades (Bugarski 1981; Rajic 1989; Hlebec 1989 and others). 4.3 The 1970s: Discourse on literary translation 4.3.1 The call of Mostovi The ALTS journal Mostovi [Bridges] was started in 1970. In addition to the theory, history and criticism of translation, Mostovi included chronicles of recent events, bibliographies of publications on translation and portraits of distinguished translators. Occasionally, Mostovi also published translations of articles authored by some of the leading foreign translation scholars or a recent literature survey on particular translation topics in British, French, German, Russian, Polish, Czech and Slovakian, but also Belgian, Japanese and other less familiar traditions. The journal was therefore open to current thinking on translation in various cultures. The first editorial of Mostovi gives an indication of what is meant by translation theory: “the periodical will inform about foreign literary texts of high quality, but also about the theoretical issues that became apparent during their translation” (Mostovi 1 (1), 4). Here we also learn that the main contributors would be the translators themselves, because “they are highly interested in theoretical issues and want to share what they have discovered, thought about, understood and solved with a wider circle of cultural experts” (Mostovi 1(1), 4). Many of these translators were also university professors at language and literature departments, but quite a number of them were not – some were editors in publishing houses, lawyers, librarians and members of other professions. 4.3.2 The relevance of indirect translation The first annual translation conference, the Belgrade Meeting of Translators (BEPS), which also resulted in books of proceedings titled Prevodna književnost [Translated Literature], started in 1975 (Janicijevic 1990, 150). The policy of supporting a cosmopolitan outlook among Yugoslav citizens is directly observable in some of the topics covered in these conferences. Translation from and into languages of limited diffusion (such as the languages of the non-aligned nations) recurs both in conference proceedings (BEPS 1978 – Prevodna književnost 1980) and as a topic in individual papers (Janicijevic 1979/1999, 183–191; Jankovic 1987, 447–448 and others). This ambition to present literature from all over the world led to the indirect translation of literary works from languages that at the time were either not taught at philological departments or had few proficient translators (often languages from India, China, and sometimes Arab countries, but also Scandinavia). Indirect translation was generally done through English or German, a practice that was considered undesirable but unavoidable (Rajic 1981b, 201; Janicijevic 1979/1999, 198–9). The majority of papers published in the proceedings from The Belgrade Meeting of Translators (Prevodna književnost 1980) address pragmatic issues. Examples include the questions of criteria for the selection of works for translation from more distant languages and cultures, or the analysis of possible strategies in the translation of “strange formulations” that reflect unique cultural perspectives (Koljevic 1980, 33). The topic of indirect translation was also relevant for the translation of Scandinavian literature, and it was further discussed by Ljubiša Rajic, the founder of the department for Scandinavian languages at the University of Belgrade. Rajic (1981b, 206–207) brings the issue of the role of the intermediary culture into the discussion of indirect translation. In his view on the translation of Scandinavian authors from English, German, French and Russian in Yugoslavia, Rajic stresses that the intermediary culture’s prior selection of works for translation can be based on particular publishing policies, commercial reasons, translator affinities, genre preferences and other reasons. These factors, as well as the time span between the first and indirect translations, led to a skewed representation of Scandinavian literature in Yugoslavia. For this reason, he proposes that any study of indirect translation also needs to include an analysis of the factors that influenced translation of a particular work in the intermediary culture (Rajic 1981b, 205). 4.3.3 The beginnings of T&I education in Serbia Considering the role of translation in the economic development of the country, the training of highly skilled translators and interpreters was one of the common topics in the ASTTS. It is not surprising then, that the first steps toward creating training programs for translators and interpreters were made by the president of the ASTTS, who organized the Terminological School that enrolled the first trainees in 1961 for English (40), German (25), French (16) and Russian (14). Six years later, this school became an official training centre of the ASTTS, and for the next decade, it was the only facility that trained language graduates in non-literary translation (Prevodilac 1 (3) 1982, 82–5). The ASTTS continually revised their curriculum to fit the market needs, which they were aware of through their translation centre (Prevodilac 1 (3) 1982, 84). By the time various types of translation courses entered secondary schools and universities (late 1970s), the ASTTS was the most experienced participant in the conference on translator education, which they also organized (Prevodilac 2(3) 1983). Following numerous discussions on the necessity to educate translators and interpreters, towards the end of the 1970s translation courses were introduced into philological secondary school programs and undergraduate programs of language and literature at various universities (Sibinovic 1983a, 8–15; M. Jovanovic 1983, 73; 1986, 22). Toward the end of this decade, a postgraduate vocational course in translation started at the University of Niš (M. Jovanovic 1986, 22) and translation theory was introduced into the curricula of philological secondary schools and at the Philological Faculty, University of Belgrade. This resulted in three textbooks, the first of which was written by the Croatian translation scholar, Vladimir Ivir (Teorija i tehnika prevodenja [Translation Theory and Procedures]) for the Secondary School for Translation in Sremski Karlovci (Ivir 1978). Although intended for secondary schools, its scope and structure is quite comprehensive. The first part of the book summarizes translation as a field and touches upon the nature of translation and translation theory, social functions and history of translation in Europe and Yugoslavia, as well as more practical issues related to the various types of translation and interpreting, the status of translators and interpreters in society, and the translation tools that are available. The second part of Ivir’s textbook was seen as an example of a general theory of translation that is complementary to the other two publications by Sibinovic (1979) and Stojnic (1980) that soon followed (Rajic 1980, 240). Ivir discussed translation within the framework of contrastive analysis and a communicative model of translation, whereas the outlook of Sibinovic and Stojnic, who wrote their textbooks for students of philological studies, was more based on literary theory. The first section of Sibinovic’s book Introduction to the History and Theory of Translation (1979) is an overview of the translation theory in Europe and Serbia up to the 20th century. Regarding Serbia, he traces the first explicit theoretical considerations of translation back to the second half of the 18th century, and this is the first diachronic presentation of how translation was understood by some of the leading cultural figures in Serbian history. Sibinovic identifies free translations and posrbas (similar to today’s localization) as common in the 18th century, and suggests that their main role was to make the best literary achievements of foreign cultures integral parts of Serbian culture. The second part of the book is a presentation of “the main currents in the contemporary science of translation”, which Sibinovic understands as “an open theoretical system, flexible enough to include diverse problems of translation as a process and as a product” (1979, 3). The third part of the book is of pragmatic nature, and offers analyses of some issues in literary translation: the role of temporal distance between the source text and its translation, translator’s individual style, and the translation of poetry. The topic of how to train translators will remain a burning one in the next decades as well, and, again, the translator associations will create opportunities and invite contributions on this issue. Stojnic, alongside Sibinovic, was a professor at the University of Belgrade (Russian Department) and her book, published in 1980 in Sarajevo, O prevodenju književnog teksta [On the Translation of Literary Texts], is primarily a university textbook, in which she describes typical translation problems as they appear in numerous examples from Russian literature and explains the analytical process in solving them. Stojnic describes the task of a literary translator by drawing on Vigotsky’s (1934, 305) and Vinogradov’s (1959, 234) differentiation between meaning and sense (i.e. that artistic words have stable meanings but that their senses change and multiply depending on the context in which they are used). Stojnic further sees literary works as comprising of two complex systems of linguistic and literary structures, from which it is impossible to isolate distinct units of translation that could be replaced by equivalent elements in the target language. The task of a literary translator is therefore not to search for linguistic equivalents, but to decipher the source literary text as a system of artistic features and to construct a corresponding system in the target language (Stojnic 1980, 190). Toward the end of the 1970s, Sava Babic, a translator and university professor interested in studying the decisions translators make in the process of translation, describes another role of translation theory. According to Babic, translation theory “does not solve concrete problems for translators nor it gives ready paradigms, but tries to examine the phenomena that occur during the “replacement” of one language with another, when [literary] works and languages appear in a new light, so that even unconscious, practical decisions made by translators can be interpreted as conscious theoretical conceptions” (1979, 105). Babic also believes that translation criticism should focus on how successfully the translator has realised an explicit or implicit ‘translation conception’. The way Babic describes this notion, it encompasses the general goal the translator wants to achieve in a translation, his/her general strategy that informs the decision-making process regarding particular translation problems and the selection of original features to be preserved or omitted in the translation. Babic also notes that translations are reflections of the translator’s personality and that the choices made are not accidental, regardless of whether the translator is aware of them (Babic 1986, 51). In his view, the sole purpose of any unit-by-unit comparison of the original and the translation should be to determine whether and to which extent specific translation choices are congruent with the overall logic of the translation (Babic 1986, 50). Babic’s work on the history of translator conceptions and translation criticism is an important contribution to the present day attempts to understand how translation practices (and norms) changed over time in the Serbian context. 4.4 The 1980s: Education, terminology and scholarship In 1982 the ASTTS launched Prevodilac [The Translator], a journal on technical translation, translation as a profession and translator education. Members of its editorial board were translators (7) and university professors (4). Regarding the selection of topics and the general approach, it was complementary to Mostovi. The first special issue of Prevodilac (2/3, 1983) was devoted to the question of translator and interpreter education. 4.4.1 Education of translators and interpreters One of the striking examples of an engaging dialogue between translation scholars, translators and interpreters was the Conference on T&I education organized by the ASTTS in 1983 (Z. Jovanovic 2000, 82). Prevodilac (2/3, 1983) published recorded presentations and discussions from this conference, which was conceived as a form of counselling involving the profession, universities and state institutions. In the introductory text, Sibinovic (1983a, 5) states that the main motivations for the conference were the insufficient numbers of highly skilled translators that could support the economic development of the country, current “internationalization of the economy and culture” and the introduction of the first courses in translation in the secondary and higher education in Serbia. Sibinovic also refers to the UNESCO Recommendation on the legal protection of translators and the practical means to improve the status of translators (UNESCO1967), which required that the member states recognize that T&I education could not rely solely on language teaching, and therefore recommended cooperation between translator associations, universities and other educational institutions. As we have seen so far, Serbia followed these recommendations quite closely. The T&I education, however, was more difficult to implement, because in the early days all programs were still experimental. Analysing the curricula for secondary schools for translators in Yugoslav republics and provinces (which differed considerably one from another), Sibinovic notes that they reflect a belief that translation skills can emerge on the basis of a comprehensive linguistic knowledge in the areas of native and foreign languages and a range of humanistic or scientific courses, without any linking to the theory, history and practice of translation (1983a, 13). To partly fill this gap, Sibinovic published a textbook for students that covered theoretical, historical and practical aspects of translation (Sibinovic 1983b). It included sections on the history of translation in Europe and Yugoslavia, contemporary theoretical models of translation and chapters on translation practice. It was positively received, and in 1991 it was complemented by another textbook, with texts for translation, commentaries and practical instructions for various types of assignments by another translator, scholar and university professor, Mladen Jovanovic. One of the conclusions of the editorial board of Prevodilac was that T&Is should be educated at university level, and that the number of secondary schools which offered translation courses should be reduced. At the time7 7 From 1977 until 1987 (Prevodilac 8 (4) 1988, 66, 73). , third- and fourth-year students at language and literature departments (in Belgrade, Novi Sad and Priština) could opt for a translation orientation, which in practice meant that they had courses on translation theory, contrastive analysis and the translation of literary and general texts. Sibinovic also reports on the existing curriculum for a two-year postgraduate specialization in T&I, which was drawn by a team consisting of professors from the Philological Faculty (University of Belgrade) and members of the in-house translation services of the Federal Executive Council (i.e., Yugoslav government) and the Secretariat for Foreign Affairs (the so-called SIP). In the conclusions of the conference, the representatives of the ASTTS also expressed a belief that translation periodicals had an important educational role because they provided a venue for public debates on translational issues and theoretical analyses of translation practice (Prevodilac 2(3) 1983, 106). One of the innovative fields covered by Prevodilac was the application of computers in lexicography, translation, and translator education. An example is a program created by Mladen Jovanovic (on a ZX Spectrum computer), called Trans-1, which was designed as a tool for editing assignments (1985, 91). The program employed gaming elements which motivated students to memorize relevant segments of the source text, and thus also practice useful skills for consecutive interpreting. In his conceptualization of translator education, Jovanovic was working within the communicative approach to translation that was very close to the ideas of functionalism (Reiss and Vermeer 1984). He believed that translation should be studied and analysed as an instance of interlingual communication, and that its quality should be measured according to how successful the communication has been in a particular communicative situation, with its particular set of factors, from the sender of the message to the user of a translation (Jovanovic 1986, 23). Another significant contribution to T&I education was the book on decision-making in translation, Opšta nacela prevodenja [General Principles of Translating], published in 1989, by another university professor, Boris Hlebec. This book is also based on the communicative approach to translation, which draws on the work of Vladimir Ivir, Anton Popovic, Jiry Levý and Eugene Nida. The references section of the book includes 246 titles by Serbian, Croatian, English, Russian, German, French, Czech, Polish and Slovak authors, reflecting the general awareness of current approaches to Yugoslav and foreign translation theory. In the introductory section of the book, Hlebec states his interdisciplinary and integrated view of translation theory which, as he points out, cannot be approached solely from a linguistic or literary standpoint, but from the standpoint of the source text intentions and functions (1989, 17–18). 4.4.2 Technical translation and the study of terminology In the post-WWII period, the direction of translation often depended on the field concerned – texts related to various technological, economic, industrial issues were translated into Serbian, whereas texts on Yugoslav self-management socialism were translated from Serbian into a number of languages (Z. Jovanovic 1986, 87). As the ASTTS by this time had long-term contracts with the leading “work organizations” and regularly provided services for the high-level socio-political organizations8 8 Work organization was a socialist term for a company, sociopolitical organization was a general term for various governamental bodies and institutions. in the country, terminology was in the focus of the ASTTS since the foundation of their translation centre (Z. Jovanovic 1986, 86–89). By the 1980s the financially strong and self-reliant ASTTS had a membership of around 3,000 translators for some 40 languages (Z. Jovanovic 2000, 9), and provided translation in the range of 150,000- 200,000 pages and several thousand hours of interpretation annually (Prevodilac 1(3), 1982, 74). By 1986, it had representatives in the Council of the Faculty of Philology at the University of Belgrade, and in the main Serbian broadcaster, Radio-Television Belgrade (Z. Jovanovic 1986, 80). Jovanovic explains that the ASTTS financed and published Prevodilac because of the general “absence of periodicals dealing with technical translation”. It was intended “to satisfy the needs of philologists in many areas, linguists, terminologists and lexicographers, theorists and historians of translation, students of philological faculties and secondary schools with a translation orientation” (Z. Jovanovic 1986, 90). The ASTTS was very interested in terminological work from the start, so they formed a committee for terminology which cooperated with other institutions. Prior to the 1980s, they issued a number of technical glossaries (such as Tehnicki automobilski recnik na pet jezika [Technical Automobile Dictionary in Five Languages], compiled in cooperation with the workers from the automobile factory in Kragujevac), and organized or participated in state-level symposiums on the standardization of terminology (in 1977 and 1978). Finally, in 1988, the ASTTS, together with the Serbian Association of University Professors and Scientists, organized a symposium on terminology. In preparation for this they published the Terminological Review (Vinaver 1986), which presented the previous work on terminology by the Yugoslav Academy of Sciences and Arts, governmental and political bodies and companies. The Review also included the Bibliography on Yugoslav terminology, the Yugoslav terminological standard, a presentation of international terminological organizations, terminological schools and databases. The proceedings of the symposium (Vinaver 1988) included papers on theoretical considerations in terminological work, the history of terminological work in individual Yugoslav republics, and analyses of certain terminological issues in different fields. As in all previous cases, both volumes contained contributions by scholars and translators. 4.4.3 The nature of the discipline Serbian writings on translation theory generally reflected the development of the equivalence paradigm, unlike the general approach in Russia and Eastern Europe (cf. Baer 2011:10). Most translation scholars were university professors from language and literature departments: Sibinovic, Stojnic and Marojevic from Russian, Bugarski, Hlebec, M. Jovanovic and Ignjacevic from English, Babic from Hungarian, Rajic from Scandinavian, to name just a few. They drew on Western (Nida 1964, 1975a, 1975b; Catford 1965; Jakobson 1966; Nida/Taber 1974; Lefevere 1981, and also Koller 1979; Wilss 1982; Reiss/Vermeer 1984), Eastern European (Levý 1967; Popovic 1975) and Soviet (Fedorov 1958; Kommissarov 1972; Barkhudarov 19759 9 This is a selection of foreign authors cited in Sibinovic 1983 (Catford 1965; Newmark 1981; Nida 1964, Nida & Taber 1969; Steiner 1975; Mounin 1976; Meschonnic 1973; Koller 1983; Reiss 1971; Wilss 1977; Barkhudarov 1975; Komissarov 1973), Bugarski 1981a (Barkhudarov 1975; Catford 1965; Fjodorov 1958; Koller 1979; Ljudaskanov 1969; Mounin 1963; Nida 1964; Nida & Taber 1969; Steiner 1975; Wilss 1977) and Hlebec 1989 (all of the above). ) theories of translation. Some of these foreign publications on translation were integrally available in Serbian translation – Levý (1963) was translated in 1982, Popovic (1975) in 1980, a selection of articles from Jakobson in 1966. Mostovi and Prevodilac occasionally published translations of individual articles by foreign authors, and Babic edited a special volume of the periodical Rukoveti (1979) devoted to translation theory, containing translated articles by Jakobson, Balcerzan, Meschonnic, Wojtasievicz, Popovic, Mounin and Steiner. In other words, when writing about translation few Serbian scholars cited references only from the language of their major expertise. There have been examples of innovative contributions appearing concomitantly with scholarly work abroad and independently of it. In 1984, the editorial board of Mostovi launched two new regular sections, Iz prevodilacke radionice [From the translator’s workshop] and Razgovor u redakciji [Conversations in the editorial office]. While the first was devoted to the latest issues in literary translation, the second was reserved for the discussions about theoretical topics. One session of the “Conversations” was devoted to the discussion of what constitutes the field of the study of translation. It was pivoted around Ranko Bugarski’s Map of the Science of Translation, which he charted in 1981 (Bugarski 1981a/b) (Figure 1). The question of what constitutes translation theory was also one of the questions the ALTY proposed in the general program of the activities assigned for the so-called Yugoslav Section for Theory, History and Criticism of Translation (Mostovi 14 (55), 176). The programmatic activities of this section included proposals for further research, conference topics, defining the scope and limits of the field of translation theory and its methodology, development of terminologies, writing a survey of contemporary Yugoslav translatology10 10 The term translatology here follows the terminological choice in the cited text (translatologija). , and many others (Mostovi 14 (55), 172–177). Bugarski’s map (1981) is one example of an innovative contribution appearing simultaneously with the events in Western translation theory, considering that Holmes’ map of Translation Studies (1972, 1987, 1988) remained generally unavailable until 1988, when it was published by Rodopi (cf. Snell-Hornby 2006, 41; Toury 1995, 7–8). Figure 1. Bugarski’s Map of the Science of Translation (Translated from Bugarski 1986, 143). Bugarski here labels the discipline the ‘science of translation’, but traductology, translatology and translation theory were also in circulation at the time: the scope and nature of the field were up for debate. This can be seen, for example, in the “Conversations” from 1989, which involved some of the most prominent local translation theorists of the time (Ivir from Croatia, and Bugarski, Ignjacevic, Janicijevic, Sibinovic, Rajic, Stojnic, Hlebec from Serbia) and representatives of the translator associations (Z. Jovanovic, Janicijevic). Bugarski’s map was one of the two models discussed, with the other by Sibinovic, who saw the field as consisting of the theory, history and criticism of translation. When compared to Holmes’ map, it is noticeable that in Bugarski’s mapping the history of translation occupies a special branch, which is missing from the structural representations of the field of translation studies in the ‘West’ (Pym 1998, 1). Translation history has been one of the three foci of the journal Mostovi from the beginning, as well as in book-length publications (Sibinovic 1979; Babic 1985). In relation to methodological questions, moving toward the 1990s several authors advocated for an integrated approach, understood as a combination of linguistic, literary, cultural, and any other relevant analyses (Bugarski 1989, 9; Rajic 1989, 23; Hlebec 1989, 66; Marojevic 1988, 9). Another branch in both maps was translation criticism: analyses of published translations, studied as exemplary models, or analyses of errors or in search of the general translator’s strategy, were present in almost all publications throughout the 1980s. 5. The role of the state and the ideological underpinning Discussing the position of translation theory in Soviet Russia, Dmitrienko notes that there was a special reason for the promotion of translation – that it helped replace a nationalist identity with a cosmopolitan one and diminish the threat of nationalist movements, which “would jeopardize the creation and further development of a unified Socialist state” (Dmitrienko 2019, 210). In the Yugoslav context, translation was often seen as a means toward achieving a harmonious society of different nationalities and religions, as can be confirmed by several examples. In the foreword to the proceedings of the Fourth Belgrade Meeting of Translators (BEPS in 1978), translation is described as “an ever more important cultural activity for the development of the unity of the (Yugoslav) unique social system and equality of all of its peoples” (Spasic 1980, 7, our emphasis). Similarly, in the proceedings of the third Novi Sad conference Translational Connections (Prevodilacke Spone, 1983), translation is “a means to bring to life the policy of equality in a multicultural society” (Babic 1983, 5, our emphasis; cf. also Babic 1984, 203). Babic also states that the Novi Sad conferences were a “joint conscious effort to realize clearly formulated politics of our society to achieve unity, which is dependent on translation and knowing one another” (Babic 1983, 5). A confirmation that promoting mutual understanding between different ethnic groups in Yugoslavia was more than just a humanistic idea of a few individuals can also be seen in Mostovi from 1983. This number included the text of the already mentioned Agreement (Mostovi 14 (55), 172–177) and the list of events for 1983, which stated where the translation conferences were going to take place during the year and which topics would be discussed. Interestingly, one of the topics envisaged for the conferences in Novi Sad was “propaganda of the literatures of the nations and national minorities11 11 In Yugoslav political terminology, nations were Serbian, Croatian, Slovenian, Montenegrin, Macedonian, Muslim and Yugoslav, and national minorities were Albanian, Hungarian, Slovak, Ruthenian, Romanian and other. of Yugoslavia” (Mostovi 14(55), 176). The choice of word, propaganda, indicates that there was more than just literary value that recommended the choice of literary works. The state was also very interested in the way self-management socialism was presented to the world, so the terminological work in this area came as a result of the conferences organized under the auspices the Socialist Alliance of the Working People of Yugoslavia (Socijalistcki savez radnog naroda Jugoslavije) in 1977. The terminological work in the field of self-management was organized so that “the essence of the socio- political system of the country with all its specific features could be adequately and correctly presented to the foreign public” (Z. Jovanovic 1986, 92). Translator associations from all republics participated in this conference, which resulted in 1,000 terms translated into English, German, Russian, French, Italian, Arabian, Spanish and the languages of the peoples of Yugoslavia (Z. Jovanovic 1986). The state had its interests in promoting translation activity, which it did, until 1987, when the unprecedented financial and political crisis12 12 “By 1987, inflation was 150 percent per annum.” (Liotta 2001). expressed itself, among other things, in the withdrawal of financial support for separate translation programs, and consequently the related publications (Prevodilac 7 (4), 66, 73; Babic 1989, 140). This change was soon reflected in the significantly reduced number of publications on translation in Serbia, which remains low to this day. 6. Conclusion The motivation for translation related activities and the development of the discourse on translation in Serbia from 1960 until 1990 seems to have come from a variety of sources: the state and its needs for economic development and geopolitical positioning, the promotion of cosmopolitan ideology to the detriment of conflicting nationalisms, the translator associations’ need for highly skilled membership and the translators’ own interest in the nature of the phenomenon of translation. Due to space limitations, this overview could present only a fraction of the dialogues and texts that were published in Mostovi and Prevodilac between 1960 and 1990, and only the most prominent publications. The topics related to translation as a profession have been completely omitted, mostly because they were not reflected in the scholarly publications and because one of the goals of our analysis was to discover relations between the rich and diverse translation activities during this period and the developing discourse on translation in Serbia. The wealth of data contained in the portraits of translators, the descriptions of working conditions and translation processes in the industry, and institutions that had large teams of in-house translators, which is available in these periodicals, would therefore still need to be analysed. Moreover, since Serbia was only one of the six republics, this overview gives only a part of the picture which could be uncovered by further research elsewhere in former Yugoslavia. This analysis is based on the specific statements in the consulted publications, and when comparing the goals stated in conference proceedings by the various actors on the translation scene with the ensuing scholarly publications and the introduction of translator programs at universities, it becomes apparent that they were related. In other words, the most important discussions and recommendations that were initiated by the practitioners were translated into new policies and changed practices. The two most striking examples were in the areas of T&I education and the work on terminology, where such developments included the introduction of T&I training programs and new terminological publications. The initiatives of the translator associations show that they were highly interested in research into the work of distinguished translators (which was reflected in translation criticism), in establishing examples of best practice in all types of translation and interpreting (domestically and abroad), and in a wide range of other topics. It is also noticeable that the growth of translator associations parallels a growing number of publications on translation: while all the major publications from the 1960s have been presented in this overview, the 1970s and 1980s required making a considerable selection of what to present. Koskinen believes that Public TS needs to identify and create relevant publics by engaging them in dialogue, and she finds such a public in the translation-related professions (2010, 24). The nature of scholarly work today leaves little space for publications that are not considered scientific, but as Koskinen has pointed out, in the today’s climate of general marketization of higher education, translation scholars might want to consider “to include more dialogic and engaged forms” of communicating with the relevant publics (2020, 23). Understanding the relation between engaging translator associations and the creation of theoretical discourse on translation in the past might help us reinstate some of these mechanisms of cooperation today, in the neoliberal climate in which the humanities may need a more visible pragmatic outlet in order to survive (cf. Koskinen 2010, 15). Today such initiatives may not come from translator associations, but from social networks of translators on the internet – and it might be a good idea to respond to them. References Babic, Sava. 1979. "Argumentum". Rukoveti 49 (3-4): 105-107. Babic, Sava. 1983. “Prva kopca”. Prevodilacke spone. Kopca 1. Novi Sad: Institut za južnoslovenske jezike Filozofskog fakulteta. 5–7. Babic, Sava. 1984. “Dokumenti”. Prevodilacke spone. Kopca 4. Novi Sad: Institut za južnoslovenske jezike Filozofskog fakulteta. 203–205. Babic, Sava. 1985. Kako smo prevodili Petefija: istorija i poetika prevoda. Novi Sad: Matica srpska. Babic, Sava. 1986. Razabrati u pletivu. Novi Sad: Književna zajednica Novog Sada. Babic, Sava. 1989. Preveseji. Novi Sad: Institut za južnoslovenske jezike Filozofskog fakulteta. Badurina, Natka. 2015. “Translatology in Croatia and Serbia from the beginnings of the discipline to the theory of cultural translation”. Europa Orientalis 33: 181–194. Accessed March 19, 2021. http://www.europaorientalis.it/uploads/files/2014/14._badurina_( 181-194).pdf Baer, Brian James. 2011. “Introduction: Cultures of translation.” In Contexts, subtexts and pretexts: literary translation in Eastern Europe and Russia, edited by Brian James Baer, 1–15. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins Translation Library. Baer, Brian James. 2019. “The culture(s) of translation in Russia.” In A World Atlas of Translation, edited by Yves Gambier and Ubaldo Stecconi, 287–308. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Baer, Brian James. 2020. “On origins: the mythistory of translation studies and the geopolitics of knowledge.” The Translator 26 (3): 221–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2020.1843755 Baer, Brian James and Susanna Witt, eds. 2018. Translation in Russian Contexts: culture, politics, identity. New York, London: Routledge. Barkhudarov, Leonid. 1975. Yazyk i perevod (Voprosy obshchey i chastnoy teorii perevoda). Moscow: Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Bugarski, Ranko. 1981a. “Teorija prevodenja kao naucna disciplina”. In Teorija i poetika prevodenja, edited by Ljubiša Rajic, 7–26. Beograd: Prosveta. Bugarski, Ranko. 1981b. “O prirodi teorije prevodenja”. In Zbornik radova ISJK, edited by Pavica Mrazovic, 79–89. Novi Sad: Filozofski fakultet. Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “For public sociology.” American Sociological Review 70: 4–28. Catford, John Cunnison. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ceccherelli, Andrea, Lorenzo Constantino, and Cristiano Diddi, C, eds. 2015. Translation Theories in the Slavic Countries. Europa Orientalis 33. Dmitrienko, Gleb. 2019. “Redefining Translation Spaces in the Soviet Union: From Revisionist Policies to a Conformist Translation Theory.” TTR, 32 (1): 205–229. https://doi. org/10.7202/1068019ar. Ðuric, Miloš N. 1963. “O prevodenju uopšte i svom prevodenju posebice”. Zbornik radova o teoriji prevodenja. 75–83, Beograd: Savez književnih prevodilaca Jugoslavije. Fedorov, Andrey. 1958. Vvedenie v teoriyu perevoda. Moscow: Izdatelstvo literatury na inostrannikh yazykakh. Hlebec, Boris. 1989. Opšta nacela prevodenja. Beograd: Naucna knjiga. Holmes, James. 1972. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”. Unpublished manuscript. Amsterdam: Translation Department of General Studies. Holmes, James. 1987. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 13 (2): 9–24. Holmes, James. 1988. “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies”. In Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies, edited by James Holmes. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Jakobson, Roman. 1966. On Translation. New York: Oxford University Press. Janicijevic, Jovan. 1999. Književni prevod i prevodna književnost. Beograd: Idea. Jankovic, Vidosava. 1987. “Kratak pregled književnog prevodenja na jedan “mali” jezik i sa “malog” na strane jezike.” Mostovi 13 (72): 447–49. Jettmarová, Zuzana. 2008. “Czech and Slovak Translation Theories: the Lesser-known Tradition.” In Tradition versus Modernity: from the Classic Period of the Prague School to Translation Studies at the Beginning of the 21st Century, edited by Jana Kralova and Zuzana Jettmarová, 15–46. Prague: Charles University. Jovanovic, Mladen. 1983. “Školovanje prevodilaca na nivou postdiplomskih specijalistickih studija, jedno iskustvo”. Prevodilac 2 (3): 73–9. Jovanovic, Mladen. 1985. “Prevodenje i racunari – susret trece vrste”. Prevodilac 4 (3): 85–100. Jovanovic, Mladen. 1986. “Veština prevodenja i kako je steci”. Prevodilac 5 (4): 21–9. Jovanovic, Mladen, 1991. Tehnika prevodenja. Prakticni deo. Prirucnik za engleski jezik. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva. Jovanovic, Zoran R. 1986. “Udruženje naucnih i strucnih prevodilaca SR Srbije 1960- 1985.” Prevodilac 5 (3):70–101. Jovanovic, Zoran R. 2000. 40 godina Udruženja naucnih i strucnih prevodilaca Srbije 1960- 2000. Beograd: Prevodilac. Koljevic, Svetozar. 1980, “O nekim problemima prevodenja anglofonske africke književnosti.” Prevodna književnost, Zbornik radova IV BEPS (8-9 December 1978), 30–4. Beograd: Udruženje književnih prevodilaca Srbije. Koller, Werner. 1979. Einführung in die Übersetzunswissenschaft. Heidelberg: Quelle und Mayer. Komissarov, Vilen Naumovich. 1973. Slovo o Perevode. Moscow: Izdatelstvo Mezhdunarodnye Otnosheniya. Kordic. Mara. 1967. Uvod u konsekutivno prevodenje. Beograd: Institut za strane jezike. Koskinen, Kaisa. 2010. “What matters to Translation Studies? On the role of Public Translation Studies.” In Why Translation Studies Matters, edited by Daniel Gile, Gyde Hansen and Nike K. Pokorn, 15–8. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Lampe, John. 1996. Yugoslavia as History: Twice there was a country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lefèvre, André. 1981. “Beyond the process: Literary translation in literature and literary theory”. In Translation Spectrum, edited by Marilyn Gaddis Rose, 52–9. Albany: State University of New York Press. Levý, Jiri. 1967. “Translation as a decision process”. In To Honor Roman Jakobson. The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1171–182. Liotta, Peter H. 2001. “Paradigm lost: Yugoslav self-management and the economics of disaster.” Balkanologie 5 (1-2). https://doi.org/10.4000/balkanologie.681. Marojevic, Radmilo. 1988. Lingvistika i poetika prevodenja. Beograd: Naucna knjiga. Mounin, Georges. 1963. Les problèmes théoriques de la traduction. Paris: Gallimard, Bibliothèque des Idées. Mostovi 1 (1). 1970. “Na pocetku rada”, 3–4. Mostovi 14 (55). 1983. “Sporazum o osnivanju i radu jugoslovenske sekcije za teoriju, istoriju i krtiiku prevodenja.[Agreement on the foundation and operation of the Yugoslav section for translation theory, history and criticism]”, 172–77. Mostovi 15 (1). 1984. “Na pocetku petnaeste godine izlaženja”, 1–2. Nida, Eugene. 1945. “Linguistics and Ethnology in Translation-Problems.” Word 1 (2): 194–208. Nida, Eugene. 1964. Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Nida, Eugene. 1975a. Language Structure and Translation. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Nida, Eugene. 1975b. Componential Analysis of Meaning. The Hague, Paris and New York: Mouton. Nida, Eugene, and Charles R. Taber. 1974. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Ožbot, Martina. 2015. “Translation Studies in Slovenia: The profile of a translation-culture.” In Translation Theories in the Slavic Countries, edited by Andrea Ceccherelli, Lorenzo Constantino and Cristiano Diddi. Europa Orientalis 33: 195–206. Popovic, Anton. 1975. Teoria umeleckeho prekladu. Bratislava: Tatran. Prevodilac 2 (3). 1983. Integral presentations from the Counselling “Reforma obrazovanja – borba za kvalitet i racionalno korišcenje društvenih sredstava u obrazovanju prevodilaca” [Education reform – an endeavor for quality and rational use of the society resources in the education of translators]. Beograd: Udruženje naucnih i strucnih prevodilaca Srbije. Prevodilac 7 (4). 1988. “Diskusija”, 56–73. Pym, Anthony. 1998. A Method in Translation History. Manchester: St. Jerome. Pym, Anthony, and Nune Ayvazyan. 2015. “The Case of the Missing Russian Translation Theories.” Translation Studies 8 (3): 321–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2014.964300 Rajic, Ljubiša.1980. “Prva naša knjiga iz teorije prevodenja”. Mostovi 11 (3): 239–42. Rajic, Ljubiša. ed. 1981. Teorija i poetika prevodenja. Beograd: Prosveta. Rajic, Ljubiša. 1989. “Još jedanput o takozvanoj lingvistickoj teoriji književnog prevodenja.” In Književno prevodenje: teorija i istorija, zbornik radova, edited by Krinka Vidakovic Petrov, 17–23. Požarevac: Institut za književnost i umetnost, Novi Sad: Književna zajednica. Reiss, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Transaltionstheorie. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Savremeni književni prevodioci Jugoslavije 1970. Beograd: Kultura. Sibinovic, Miodrag. 1979. Original i prevod. Beograd: Privredna štampa. Sibinovic. Miodrag. 1983a. “Aktuelni problemi obrazovanja prevodilaca u SFRJ.” Prevodilac 2 (3):5–16. Sibinovic, Miodrag. 1983b. O prevodenju: prirucnik za prevodioce i inokorespondente. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva. SKPJ. 1963a. Bibliografija prevoda objavljenih u Jugoslaviji 1944-1959. Beograd: Savez književnih prevodilaca Jugoslavije. SKPJ. 1963b. Zbornik radova o teoriji prevodenja. Beograd: Naucna knjiga. SKPJ. 1967. Zbornik radova o prevodenju. Beograd: Naucna knjiga. Snell-Hornby, Mary. 2006. The Turns of Translation Studies: New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. Stojnic, Mila. 1980. O prevodenju književnog teksta. Sarajevo: Svjetlost. Šajkevic, Anatolij. 1992. “Bibliometric Analysis of Index Translationum.” Meta 37 (1): 67–96. https://doi.org/10.7202/004017ar. Špirk, Jaroslav. 2009. “Anton Popovic’s contribution to translation studies.” Target 21 (1): 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.21.1.01spi. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. UNESCO. 1976. “Recommendation on the Legal Protection of Translators and Translations and the Practical Means to Improve the Status of Translators.” 22 November, 1976. http:// portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13089&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION= 201.html Vinaver, Nadežda, ed. 1986. Terminološki pregled. Beograd: Prevodilac. Vinaver Nadežda.ed. 1988. Terminologija: nacela, normiranje, usaglašavanje rada: zbornik radova. Beograd: Prevodilac. Vinogradov, Viktor Vladimirovic. 1959. O jazyke chudežestvennoj literatury. Moskva: Goslitizdat. Vinay, Jean-Paul and Jean Darbelnet. 1958. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais: méthode de traduction. Paris: Didier. Vygotsky, Lev Semyonovich. 1934. Myslenije i rec. Moskva-Leningrad: Socekgiz. Wilss, Wolfram. 1982. The Science of Translation. Problems and Methods. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. About the author Dr. Borislava Erakovic is an Associate Professor at the English Department, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Novi Sad (Serbia), where she teaches courses on legal, technical, journalistic and literary translation, translation theory and career development. Most of her research is in the area of translation pedagogy based on constructivist epistemology and translation as a profession. She has published two monographs on translation in Serbian (On translation of urban American substandard variety in 2002 and Translator competences between theory and practice. Survey results of the Serbian job market for translators and interpreters 2005–2017 in 2018) and co-edited the volume Topics on translator and interpreter training (2014). Beyond the libretto: Searching for the source text of intersemiotic surtitles prepared for modernised opera productions Aleksandra Ozarowska University of Warsaw and National Academy of Dramatic Art in Warsaw, Poland ABSTRACT Nowadays both intra- and interlingual surtitles are an inherent element of almost all opera productions and, partly thanks to this technology, opera is now going through a renaissance. The trend of staging operas in a modernised fashion is especially popular these days, but it represents a particular challenge for surtitlers. It is argued in this article that while surtitles accompanying traditional opera productions are usually intrasemiotic, as their source text is just the libretto, modernised productions often have intersemiotic surtitles. The article analyses fragments of surtitles prepared for four different operas staged in the Metropolitan Opera House, Bayerische Staatsoper and Royal Opera House. The result show that while traditionally surtitles provide the viewers with the meaning of the libretto, the role of intersemiotic surtitles is much more extended, as they provide the audience with more comprehensive information about the whole opera production. Keywords: translation, opera, libretto, surtitles, subtitles, intersemiotic, signs, source, production Onkraj libreta: v iskanju izvirnika medznakovnih nadnapisov sodobnih opernih predstav IZVLECEK Dandanes so tako znotrajjezikovni kot medjezikovni nadnapisi nujni del skoraj vseh opernih predstav, hkrati pa prav zahvaljujoc tehnologiji, ki nadnapise omogoca, opera trenutno doživlja renesanso. V sedanjem casu so posebej priljubljene sodobne postavitve opernih predstav, a za nadnaslavljalca te predstavljajo poseben izziv. V clanku postavimo tezo, da so v tradicionalnih opernih predstavah nadnapisi navadno znotrajznakovni, saj je njihov izvirnik le libreto, sodobne operne predstave pa pogosto vsebujejo medznakovne nadnapise. V clanku so analizirani fragmenti nadnapisov štirih razlicnih opernih predstav, postavljenih na odrih Metropolitanske opere, Bavarske državne opere in Kraljeve operne hiše. Rezultati pokažejo, da tradicionalni operni nadnapisi obcinstvu sicer predstavijo vsebino libreta, medznakovni nadnapisi pa sežejo mnogo dlje in obcinstvu predstavijo bolj celostne informacije o operni predstavi. Kljucne besede: prevod, opera, libretto, nadnapisi, podnapisi, medznakovni, znak, izvirnik, predstava 1. Introduction Nowadays surtitling can hardly be named a new or even a budding area of Translation Studies, as the first surtitles were introduced in the early 1980s (Burton 2010, 180) and operatic surtitling, especially in the Western world, is “one of the best documented areas of research in in the field of music translation” (Desblache 2019, 225). Initially faced with great criticism from traditionalists (Holden, 2005), opera surtitles have since become a necessity, and audiences do not hesitate to express their dissatisfaction if opera houses do not provide them (Burton 2009, 62). Numerous opera houses are currently working on developing their accessibility – surtitling is one of the most important ‘tools’ to achieve this, while another is Audio Description, which, in the operatic context, is also popular among translation scholars (see Di Giovanni 2018). Long gone are the days when the translations of libretti were available only in printed programmes, or the vast majority of operas were sung in translations and audiences struggled to understand the singing, even if in their native language. However, the translations in the form of surtitles are not always tailored for each production, and often seem outdated. Providing different productions with the same translation in the form of surtitles becomes especially problematic in the case of modernised opera productions, i.e. in which the original action is moved in time and/or space. At the end of the 20th century many opera houses were criticised for being too old-fashioned and filled with “waddling prima donnas, woodenly semaphoric tenors, shambolic choruses, and far too much quite unmotivated warbling” (Savage 2001: 408), and currently the modernising trend is enjoying great popularity. The music, libretto and general outline of the story in modernised productions remain the same, and singers always sing the original libretti with no changes, but what the audience sees on the stage may very well have little in common with the composer’s original concept of the opera. There are a number of reasons for modernising operas, the first of which is attracting new and younger viewers; at the end of the 20th century opera did not enjoy much popularity (Ozarowska 2017a, 233), and as Mariusz Trelinski, one of the most popular Polish opera directors, observed, “People were blackmailed by the pomposity of opera, and its fossilised form was served as an obligatory canon” (in Janowska 2002, my translation). However, directors realised that “opera needs saving from itself” (Savage 2001, 408), and one of the solutions was bringing opera closer to the contemporary world. Opera directors also want to create unique performances, which would be “interestingly different” (Savage 2001, 403) from the ones that have already been staged. Traditionally, the source text of surtitles is just the libretto, but it seems that in many cases of modernised productions the source text is extended and includes not only the text itself, but also the stage design, costumes, props and acting. Subsequently, such a translation becomes intersemiotic. In this article I argue that while surtitles accompanying traditional opera productions are usually intrasemiotic, as their source text is just the libretto, modernised productions often have intersemiotic surtitles. I will analyse fragments of surtitles accompanying four modernised opera productions and attempt to define both the elements of the libretto and the additional elements, and the reason for extending the original libretto in translation. 2. Intersemiotic translation and opera The topic of intersemiotic translation in subtitling has never enjoyed much popularity in the area of translation studies, with one notable exception, Gottlieb’s 1994 article “Subtitling: Diagonal Translation”, in which he examines the semiotic nature of subtitles and their source text. He then further develops this idea in his later articles; in “Subtitling and International Anglification” (2004), where he claims that subtitling “constitutes a fundamental break with the semiotic structure of sound film”, and he acknowledges the semiotic complexity of media by defining subtitling as “diasemiotic translation in polysemiotic media (including films, TV, video and DVD), in the form of one or more lines of written text presented on the screen in sync with the original dialogue” (2004, 220–221). Gottlieb explains the term “polysemiotic” by stating that it “refers to the presence of two or more parallel channels of discourse constituting the text in question” (2004, 227) and, interestingly, he, unlike many other scholars (for example, Virkkunen 2004, 91; Mateo 2007, 135), uses the word “polysemiotic” and not “multisemiotic”. Gottlieb’s definition of translation became the basis (or a springboard) allowing him to propose a new translation taxonomy, which consists of four “translational dimensions”; he specifically focuses on potential alternations in the semiotic composition of translations, which can be “isosemiotic (using the same channel(s) of expression as the source text), diasemiotic (using different channels), ultrasemiotic (using more channels) or infrasemiotic (using fewer channels than the original text)” (2018, 50). In his early work Gottlieb referred to ultrasemiotic and infrasemiotic translation as, respectively, supersemiotic and hyposemiotic translation (2005, 4), (2008, 45), but later he used the new version of these terms (2018, 50). Irrespective of their changing names, all types of translation differ one from another according to the communicative channel they use1 1 A “communicative channel” is, according to Gottlieb, a “channel of expression” (2004, 219) or a “semiotic channel” (2018, 46). . Gottlieb also uses the concept of semiotic channels to define intersemiotic translation, as he claims that in intersemiotic translation “the one or more channels of communication used in the translated text differ(s) from the channel(s) used in the original text. In other words, the source and target text are semiotically non-equivalent” (2005, 3). Gottlieb’s typology can be used for the classification of surtitles, because opera as a genre also consists of different semiotic systems, and it “projects its sense via different modes of communication” (Minors 2020, 14). As has been already noted, research on operatic translation is not new in Translation Studies because, for example, in 1995 Kaindl wrote a book on translating libretti for singing with regard to individual staging. While he focused solely on singable translations, his work provides numerous invaluable insights which may be applied also to surtitles. Kaindl underlines the role of semiotics in operatic translation and argues that an operatic text consists of numerous signs, such as music, gestures, facial expression, and costumes, which should be treated as a whole (ibid, 27), because the dramatic effect in opera is not created solely by the words of libretti. Moreover, “the better the relations between symbols are recognised by the recipients, the better they will understand the text” (ibid, my translation) and the translator, as one of the original recipients of the text, needs to understand it well. Multimodality also plays a significant part in Kaindl’s research into operatic translations. He builds on Gambier’s statement, according to which no text is multimodal (2006, 6), and claims that multimodal texts are not only those texts – written or oral – that combine visual (images of graphics), acoustic (sounds and music) and linguistic elements, but also all those texts that are ostensibly purely linguistic as they have multimodal elements like typography and layout. (2013, 257) He also refers to Holz-Mänttäri’s and Van Leeuwen’s observations on the complexity of texts and states that “translation cannot be reduced to language transfer, but it designs texts across cultural barriers” (2013, 258); however, in order to produce such a text, translators need to cooperate with people specialising in other modes than verbal texts. Due to the complex character of such texts, Holz-Mänttäri calls them Botschaftsträger in Verbund, which Kaindl translates as “message conveyor compounds” (ibid). He argues that in operatic translations different media cannot be simply regarded as a group of additional elements, and that full examination of a libretto requires taking into consideration the relationships between the verbal and non-verbal signs used in opera, as they all influence the meaning of the source text (1995, 37). The translator needs to become a part of the production team, just like Holz-Mänttäri suggests – otherwise finding and preserving the skopos of the translation becomes just an empty formula (ibid, 260). Furthermore, according to Kaindl, the more the translation and performance are connected, the more relevant and relatable the meaning of the translation is (1994, 119). Kaindl’s views on operatic translation may be used alongside Gottlieb’s classification of opera translations. According to Gottlieb, isosemiotic translation, which uses the same semiotic channels as the original – and includes both monosemiotic texts and polysemiotic texts (2018, 51) – can be illustrated by printed translations (2005, 4), such as novels, which are typically isosemiotic, so in the operatic context an example of isosemiotic translation is a printed translated libretto (and included, for example, in programmes). Diasemiotic translation uses different semiotic channels than the source text, but the number of channels is not changed; for example, “the transfer from written into played music” (Gotlieb 2018, 51) is an instance of diasemiotic translation, so the music played by the orchestra looking at the opera score may also be called diasemiotic translation. In supersemiotic translation “the translated text displays more semiotic channels than the original” (ibid), and it can be illustrated by a whole operatic production, which is based on libretto and score, but in its final form includes music, singing, surtitles, stage design and acting. The last type, infrasemiotic translation, uses fewer communicative channels than the original, and it can be exemplified by operatic audio description providing verbal information about the visual aspects of an operatic production, namely stage design, acting and props. Traditional surtitles are of isosemiotic nature, as their source text consists solely of the original libretto. However, surtitles may also be infrasemiotic when they have a written form, but their source text comprises of a number of semiotic channels. The most common infrasemiotic surtitles are the surtitles accompanying modernised productions. Kaindl’s singable translations and Gottlieb’s intersemiotic texts promote the idea of establishing a new, specific source text for each translation. Kaindl noticed that “semiotic resources of the stage are seen as an interactive part of the translation analysis” (2013, 263); similar ideas were expressed by Virkkunen (2004) and Griesel (2005). Kaindl argues that all relevant semiotic elements should be part of the source text because “in opera, linguistic, musical and stage elements are not just mere additions … The translator’s task consists now in creating a textual world for a new cultural space with the use of specific operatic tools” (Kaindl 1994, 117, my translation). 3. Methodology In my research I used a number of surtitles, subtitles or seatback titles2 2 Instead of using surtitles, some opera houses provide their audiences with seatback titles – in such cases the translation is displayed on the small screens on the back of each seat; viewers may operate their screens and, if such an option is available, choose a translation in a different language or turn it off completely. (for the sake of clarity I shall be using the word “surtitles”) prepared for modernised operatic productions. The productions were staged by the Metropolitan Opera House in New York, Royal Opera House in London and Bayerische Staatsoper (Bavarian State Opera) in Munich; these institutions were chosen because of their worldwide recognition, high quality of staged productions and comprehensive approach to surtitles, which are tailored for each production, be it traditional or modernised. Their surtitlers are often a part of the production team and usually the translator and the surtitles operator (or the cue caller) are two different people. In addition, for example, in the Metropolitan Opera House the Met Titles are prepared by the Met Titles team. I analysed their translations, and, using Gottlieb’s taxonomy, checked which channels were used to convey the message of the source text. The analysis of the nature of the source text was used to outline the complexity of the source text for intersemiotic surtitles. 4. Examples of surtitles and discussion The source text of surtitles usually depends on each opera house. Some institutions treat surtitles mainly as an informative medium. In such cases, surtitles are regarded as a functional translation (Ozarowska 2017b, 181) and, using Vermeer’s term, they become an “offer of information” (Vermeer 1982, 97). However, some directors decide to extend surtitles’ source text, and thus integrate them into the whole production. In such instances it needs to be decided which communicative channels are to be included in the source text, as that decision shapes the specificity of the information provided by the surtitles. For example, sometimes certain specific elements of the libretto need to be appropriated with the production. Such changes are especially challenging in the case of historical operas. One example of such an opera translation is Lucia di Lammermoor by Gaetano Donizetti. This opera is set in the 17th century in the Lammermuir Hills of South-East Scotland, and at one point one of the characters mentions two British monarchs, Mary II and William III. Table 1 presents the original libretto, my gloss translation and two translations prepared for different productions. The first production was staged in 2016 by the Royal Opera House in London and second one premiered in 2015 in the Bayerische Staatsoper in Munich. The former was set in late 19th century, and the latter was modernised and transferred to the 1950s, which means that references to Mary II and William III would be problematic. The translations of this fragment are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Excerpt from Act II of Lucia di Lammermoor by G. Donizetti. Original libretto Gloss translation Translation provided by the Royal Opera House Translation provided by the Bayerische Staatsoper3 3 Bayersiche Staatsoper provides surtitles in both German and English. M’odi, Spento è Gulielmo, ascendere vedremo in trono Maria. Listen, William is dead, We will see Mary ascend the throne. Now that William is dead, Mary will be crowned queen. A change of government takes place. The Royal Opera House surtitles preserved the names of Mary and William and the translation by this opera house may be regarded as isosemiotic, as it communicates through the same channels as the original, while the source text is solely the original libretto. The Royal Opera House usually does not adjust surtitles to their productions and tries to remain faithful to the original wording. The translation provided by the Bayerische Staatsoper follows the stage design more closely and, subsequently, it is infrasemiotic as its source text is not just the original libretto, but also the stage concept: instead of Scottish nobles some of the main characters are politicians, the title character is modelled on Jackie Kennedy, and the inspiration for the character of her lover in this production is James Dean. The surtitles omit specific information, and this translation can be looked upon as a general summary of the original fragment. There are, however, a number of surtitles whose source text is more specific and includes costumes and set design; subsequently, certain concepts from the original libretti are changed in order to avoid a dissonance. For example, originally, Mozart’s Così fan tutte takes place in the 18th-century Naples, but in 2018 the Metropolitan Opera House staged a production of this opera set in the 1950s in New York. The surtitles (or, in fact, seatback titles called the Met Titles) were adjusted to the production and several items were changed so that the libretto could follow the action onstage. In Act I, two main characters talk about drawing a sword (in order to defend their beloveds’ honour), but sword fight becomes a problem in the 2018 production since the two characters are turned into naval officers dressed in contemporary uniforms without swords. The translation is presented in Table 2. Table 2. Excerpt from Act I of Così fan tutte by W. A. Mozart. Original Italian libretto Gloss translation Translation provided by the Metropolitan Opera House FERRANDO E GUGLIELMO Fuor la spada! Qual di noi più vi piace. Draw your sword! Choose which one of us you prefer. Put up your fists! Fight one of us! DON ALFONSO Io son uomo di pace, E duelli non fo, se non a mensa. I am a peaceful man. I do not fight, I find satisfaction at the dining table. I am a peaceful man. I duel only at the gambling table. In the translation “put up your fists” a sword or any other cold weapon is not mentioned, but it may be argued that the meaning of the original is preserved, as the men say they are ready for a duel. In this case the translation may also be considered as infrasemiotic – the surtitles show not only what was originally in the libretto but also what is visible (and invisible) on the stage; therefore, the information from various semiotic channels – the original libretto, costumes, and so on – became the source text in these surtitles. The line “I duel only at the gambling table” can be regarded as a modern version of the original joke and is well-adjusted to the general mood of the scene and the playful character of Don Alfonso. A similar case, where the surtitles’ source text is extended may be observed in the following example from the same production of Così fan tutte. Table 3. Excerpt from Act I of Così fan tutte by W. A. Mozart. Original Italian libretto My translation Translation provided by the Metropolitan Opera House Bella vita militar! Ogni dì si cangia loco Oggi molto, doman poco, Ora in terra ed or sul mar. Military life is beautiful! Every day brings something new. A lot today, little tomorrow, Now on land and now at sea. Hail the sailor’s life! Every day a change of scenery. Today plenty… tomorrow poverty. Sometimes on land, then at sea. In this scene a group of soldiers (with whom the above-mentioned characters are supposed to go to war) sing a song praising the military life. In this production the line bella vita militar! was not translated as, for example, “hail the soldier’s life!”, which would be closer to the original sung by the choir, but as “hail the sailor’s life!”. This phrase also accommodates to the production, since the two characters are naval officers and the scene takes place at a harbour. Here, just like in the previous example, the source text for this infrasemiotic translation consists of more semiotic channels than the original: the stage design, costumes and libretto. An example of concepts that are not present in the original libretto but appear in intersemiotic surtitles may be a fragment of Faust by Charles Gounod staged by the Metropolitan Opera House in 2011. Traditionally set in the 16th century, this opera was modernised and transferred to the 20th century, with Faust represented as a scientist working on an atomic bomb. In Act I, when Faust meets Méphistophélès for the first time, the devil talks (or rather sings) about his attire, but in this production both characters are dressed according to contemporary fashion and the viewers are presented with the description of the contemporary clothes. The original, gloss translation, and translation by the Metropolitan Opera House are included in Table 4. Table 4. Excerpt from Act I of Faust by Ch. Gounod. Original libretto My translation Translation provided by the Metropolitan Opera House Me voici! – D’où vient ta surprise? Ne suis-je pas mis à ta guise? L‘épée au côté, la plume au chapeau, L‘escarcelle pleine, un riche manteau sur l‘épaule. En somme, un vrai gentilhomme! Here I am! Are you surprised? You dislike my dress? My sword, a feather in my hat, Money in my pouch and my rich cloak. All in all, a true gentleman. Here I am! Why are you so surprised? I’m not what you expected? With the cane and Panama hat, Dressed to the nines… Altogether: a real gentleman. In this fragment the costume was given priority over the original words and there is no mention of a sword, feather, pouch or cloak. Moreover, this translation goes one step further and the fragment L’escarcelle pleine, un riche manteau is translated as “Dressed to the nines” – it is neither obvious nor direct, but it seems that the author( s) of the surtitles did not want to focus only on the clothing; this phrase reflects the general interpretation of this character, who is presented as a modern, elegant and self-confident man. Therefore, the source text for the surtitles consists of more channels, but in the translation the message is transmitted only through the written form. In all of the examples presented above the source text is, first of all, the original libretto, but there are (longer or shorter) fragments where the source text is extended and covers other aspects of the production. There also exist, however rare, examples of surtitles in which the production’s interpretation, stage design, acting, costumes and props become part of the source text for the whole translation. Such an example is the 2013 production of Rigoletto by Giuseppe Verdi, staged in the Metropolitan Opera House. In this production the action does not take place, as in the original, in 16th-century Italy, but in 1960s Las Vegas, and, consequently, its whole translation fits into this setting. As Michael Mayer, the director of this production, claimed: “in terms of the tone, we wanted to capture some of that ‘bada-bing,’ that sort of swinging, Rat pack ‘Fly Me to the Moon’ language” (Wakin 2013). Table 5 presents a dialogue between the Duke, who in this production is a casino owner (and a singer modelled on Frank Sinatra) and one of his lovers, who is modelled on Marilyn Monroe. Table 5. Excerpt from Act I of Rigoletto by G. Verdi. Original libretto My translation Translation provided by the Metropolitan Opera House DUCA Ma dee luminoso In corte tal astro qual sole brillare. Per voi qui ciascuno dovrà palpitare. Per voi già possente la fiamma d’amore Inebria, conquide, distrugge il mio core. DUKE But such a bright star Should be shining at my court like sun. Every heart beats here for you. The flame of love is already burning for you And it conquers and consumes my heart. Stay! Your movie-star looks really light up the place. Every heart in this club should be beating for you. You’re irresistible, baby! You make me burn with love! You send me to the moon! CONTESSA Calmatevi! COUNTESS Calm down! Take it easy, fella! DUCA Per voi già possente la fiamma d’amore Inebria, conquide, distrugge il mio core. DUKE The flame of love is already burning for you And it conquers and consumes my heart. My heart’s on fire. I’ll follow you anywhere. CONTESSA Calmatevi! COUNTESS Calm yourself! Play it cool! The meaning conveyed in both texts is the same, but the manner in which it is done is completely different. Firstly, the register in surtitles is much more informal because of slang like “baby” or “fella”; even the word calmatevi is translated in two very informal ways. In addition, the Duke’s original flowery style is also translated into the more concise and playful wording of the Duke from Las Vegas. Also, in the original the word “club” is absent and there is no mention of any movie stars. The source text for these fragments thus includes, besides the libretto, the costumes and stage design. In addition to that the translation is also shaped by specific cultural references (“You send me to the moon!” referring to the famous song “Fly Me to the Moon”). Thus, the source text for those infrasemiotic surtitles is particularly complex: as a result the surtitles reflect the specific reconfiguration of the original opera, by evoking the production’s atmosphere of the contemporary, licentious Las Vegas. All of the above-mentioned surtitles have their source-text extended, and, subsequently, their role altered. Traditionally, surtitles were only supposed to facilitate the audience’s reception of the opera and be as invisible as possible – as Burton states, “people have come to see the opera not to read your titles” (2010, 180). However, in the examples above the audience was expected to notice the surtitles, to appreciate them and see them as a part of the whole performance. In the cases of Lucia di Lammermoor or Così fan tutte, the source texts were extended so that the acting on stage did not clash with the text on the surtitling screen. Such surtitles preserved the coherence of the performances (Ozarowska 2017a, 181) and ensured the audience’s strong identification with the stage narrative. Moreover, if the audience is familiar with the original libretti, then there is also a clash between what is being sung and what is being read and seen on the stage. The directors often accept and even endorse such inconsistencies to either promote or legitimise the originality of their artistic vision – that is the reason why they use the surtitles and through them attempt to preserve the cohesion of the production. In Faust and Rigoletto, the surtitles do not only support the logic of the production, but amplify the interpretation. They either create certain characters or help the viewers to become immersed in the atmosphere of the production. In the case of Rigoletto, the surtitles became as much a part of this individual production as, for example, the costumes and setting. It also needs to be noted that unlike in the case of traditional productions, where the author of the source text, i.e. the libretto, is the librettist, the authorship of the source text in modernised productions is not so obvious anymore. Even if the main author is still the librettist, then the co-authors include the director, dramaturg or sometimes even the translator, as often they all discuss the form the surtitles will take. 5. Concluding remarks While Gottlieb’s typology is not designed specifically for Audiovisual Translation, it allows a complex and detailed analysis of surtitles, especially in the case of operatic surtitles of modernised productions. Sometimes such surtitles are perfect examples of intersemiotic translation, as their source text may be comprised of non-verbal sign system( s): it may include not only verbal libretti, but also stage design, acting, and props. This plethora of semiotic channels also relates to the multimodal character of opera, which, according to Kaindl, is characterised by the fact that all its media are not separate but rather interwoven (Kaindl 1995: 35). While with a singable translation the translator is heavily constrained, surtitles allow for greater creativity, but the degree to which this is used depends on the cooperation between the director and translator. Preparing surtitles for modernised productions also poses a challenge due to the technical constraints – the translation still needs to bear (some) resemblance to the original libretto, include all the other semiotic elements of the production, and adhere to the technical rules for surtitles. Moreover, in order to properly and creatively translate operatic surtitles, the surtitlers should have wide and versatile knowledge of translation, music and literature (Ozarowska 2017c, 78). However, the preference for infrasemiotic surtitles cannot be explained only by the need to avoid confusing the audience. Surtitles tend to be tailored for each individual production and are “put into context with all the semiotics of the production and their relevance is ever-changing, fluid and flexible” (Palmer 2020, 37). Modernising operas can be risky – the action may be, for example, characteristic for the 16th century and not for the 20th century, even if singers are dressed in modern clothes – and it is actually the surtitles that can prevent a disorientating clash; therefore, their function is not just informing the audience about the plot, but also saving the production’s coherence. Surtitles may also “help to comprehend music and acting” (Virkkunen 2004, 93), and recently opera directors have started to recognise their potential. Cases of using surtitles in support of modernised productions of an opera are still experimental and rare, but as the trend continues to spread it is very likely that there will be more such translations. The whole operatic production communicates its messages via numerous semiotic channels; surtitles use just one channel of expression, but they may include the full semiotic composition of their source text. The analysed fragments of libretti show that their source texts include many semiotic channels and, for example, the costumes and props of the modernised setting become an important element of the source text. Such intersemiotic surtitles save the coherence of the production and help to enhance the idea of Gesamkunstwerk – all the semiotic channels present onstage create meaning which is then synthesised in surtitles. As Virkkunen puts it, “surtitling opera is about seeing and hearing, reading and writing” (2004, 96) and only semantically annotated surtitles can complement, support and enrich the whole operatic production. References Burton, Jonathan. 2009. “The Art and Craft of Opera Surtitling.” In Audiovisual Translation: Language Transfer on Screen, edited by Jorge Díaz Cintas and Gunilla Andermann, 58–70. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Burton, Jonathan. 2010. “The Joy of Opera: The Art and Craft of Opera Subtitling and Surtitling” In Perspectives on Audiovisual Translation, edited by Lukasz Bogucki and Krzysztof Kredens, 179–88. Bern: Peter Lang. Desblache, Lucile. 2019. Music and Translation. New Mediations in the Digital Age, London: Palgrave Macmillan. Di Giovanni, Elena. 2018. “Audio Description for Live Performances and Audience Participation” JoSTrans. The Journal of Specialised Translation 29. http://www.jostrans.org/ issue29/art_digiovanni.pdf Gambier, Yves. 2006. “Multimodality and Audiovisual Translation.” In Audiovisual Translation Scenarios: proceedings of the Second MuTraConference in Copenhagen 1-5 May, 1–8. https:// www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2006_Proceedings/2006_Gambier_Yves.pdf. Gottlieb, Henrik. 1994. “Subtitling: Diagonal Translation.” Perspectives, 1 (2): 101–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.1994.9961227. Gottlieb, Henrik. 2004. “Subtitles and International Anglification.” Nordic Journal of English Studies 3 (1): 219–30. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.32. Gottlieb, Henrik. 2005. “Multidimensional Translation: Semantics turned Semiotics” In Proceedings of the Marie Curie Euroconferences MuTra: Challenges of Multidimensional Translation – Saarbrücken 2-6 May 2005, edited by Sandra Nauert and Heidrun Gerzymisch- Arbogast, https://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/ 2005_Gottlieb_Henrik.pdf. Gottlieb, Hernik. 2008. “Multidimensional Translation.” In Understanding Translation, edited by Anne Schjoldager, Henrik Gottlieb and Ida Klitgård, 39–65. Copenhagen: Academica. Gottlieb, Henrik 2018. “Semiotics and Translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics, edited by Kirsten Malmkjær, 45–63. London and New York: Routledge. Griesel, Yvonne. 2005. “Surtitles and Translation Towards an Integrative View of Theatre Translation.” MuTra 2005 – Challenge of Multidimensional Translation: Conference Proceedings. http://www.euroconferences.info/proceedings/2005_Proceedings/2005_ Griesel_Yvonne.pdf. Holden, Anthony. 2005. “Surtitles at Last – I Knew I was Right.” The Guardian, June 12, 2005. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2005/jun/12/classicalmusicandopera1. Janowska, Katarzyna. 2002. “Opowiesc o raju utraconym.” Interview with Mariusz Trelinski. Oniegin, Warszawa: Teatr Wielki – Opera Narodowa. Kaindl, Klaus. 1994. “Let’s have a party! – Übersetzungskritik ohne Original? Am Beispiel der Bühnenübersetzung.” In Translation Studies. An Interdiscipline, edited by Mary Snell Hornby, Franz Pöchhacker and Klaus Kaindl, 115–26. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kaindl, Klaus. 1995. Die Oper als Textgestalt. Perspektiven einer interdisziplinären Übersetzungswissenschaft. Tübingen: Stauffenburg-Verlag. Kaindl, Klaus. 2013. “Multimodality and Translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies, edited by Carmen Millán and Francesca Bartrina, 257–69. London and New York: Routledge. Mateo, Marta. 2007. “Surtitling Today: New Uses, Attitudes and Developments.” Linguistica Antverpiensia, New Series – Themes in Translation Studies 13: 135–54. https://doi. org/10.52034/lanstts.v0i6.184. Minors, Helen Julia. 2020. “Opera and Intercultural Musicology as Modes of Translation” In Opera in Translation. Unity and Diversity, edited by Adriana Serban and Kelly Kar Yue Chan, 13–33. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins Translation Library. Ozarowska, Aleksandra. 2017a. “O Flower of Scotland, when will we see your like again… modern Productions of Scottish-Themed Operas Based on Literary Work.” In Imaging Scottishness: European and Domestic Representations, edited by Aniela Korzeniowska and Izabela Szymanska, 232–44. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Semper. Ozarowska, Aleksandra. 2017b. “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell: On The Functional Approach to Translating Libretti for Modernised Opera Productions.” Anglica: An International Journal of English Studies, 26 (2): 171–83. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. http://www.anglica.ia.uw.edu.pl/images/pdf/26-2-articles/ Anglica_26-2_AOzarowska_171-183.pdf. Ozarowska, Aleksandra. 2017c. “Translating Operatic Libretti as an Interdisciplinary Area of Translation Studies.” In Transgresja – Interdyscyplinarnosc – Dyskurs. Paradygmaty wspólczesnej neofilologii 1, edited by Sylwia Ciekanska, Daria Dlugosz and Beata Wozniak, 69–80. Instytut Germanistyki Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego: Warszawa. Palmer, Judi. 2020. “Surtitles and the Multi-Semiotic Balance: Can Over-Information Kill Opera?” In Opera in Translation. Unity and Diversity, edited by Adriana Serban and Kelly Kar Yue Chan, 35–51. Amsterdam/Philaldephia: Benjamins Translation Library. Savage, Roger. 2001. “The Staging of Opera.” In The Oxford Illustrated History of Opera, edited by Roger Parker, 350–420. New York: Oxford University Press. Wakin, Daniel J. 2013. “Oh, Baby! That Duke Sure is a Dreamboat in the New Rigoletto.” New York Times, February 8, 2013. https://www.nytimes.com/ 2013/02/09/arts/music/ mets-titles-translate-rigoletto-into-1960-rat-pack-speak.html. Virkkunen, Rita. 2004. “The Source Text of Opera Surtitles.” Meta, 49 (1): 89–97. https:// doi.org/10.7202/009024ar. About the author Aleksandra Ozarowska is a translator and PhD candidate at the University of Warsaw, where she teaches translation. She is also a lecturer in English at the Aleksander Zelwerowicz National Academy of Dramatic Art in Warsaw. Her research focuses on audio-visual translation and contemporary approaches to translation studies. Translating from English, Polish, German and Italian, she cooperates with major Polish publishing houses and opera houses. She was awarded scholarships by the University of Tübingen, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz and University of Bonn, in 2020 she received a Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education Scholarship for Outstanding Young Researchers, and in 2021 was granted a Fulbright Scholarship. Translation of forms of address from Portuguese to Turkish through English: The case of José Saramago’s A Jangada de Pedra Imren Gökce Vaz de Carvalho NOVA University Lisbon and University of Aveiro, Portugal ABSTRACT The study of forms of address in translation is a type of register analysis that provides an interesting insight into the way specific linguistic patterns are transferred from one language to another. This article explores how the forms of address are rendered in the Turkish translation of A Jangada de Pedra (1986) by the Portuguese author José Saramago. Paratextual and textual analyses demonstrate that this work has been translated into Turkish through the English translation of the book, and that the English translation has influenced the choices of the Turkish translator. The findings of the study seem to support the hypothesis that using a mediating language/text that lacks similar forms of address as the ultimate source and the target languages/texts can cause shifts in tenor, which results in a different reading of interpersonal relationships between fictional characters in the target text. Keywords: register, indirect translation, José Saramago, discourse analysis, forms of address Oblike naslavljanja v prevodu iz portugalšcine v turšcino prek anglešcine na primeru A Jangada de Pedra Joséja Saramaga IZVLECEK Študija oblik naslavljanja predstavlja vrsto analize registra, ki omogoca zanimiv vpogled v to, kako se specificni jezikovni vzorci prenašajo iz enega jezika v drugega. Clanek se osredotoca na to, katere oblike naslavljanja najdemo v turškem prevodu A Jangada de Pedra (1986) portugalskega avtorja Joséja Saramaga. Iz analize paratekstov in besedilne analize je razvidno, da je bilo omenjeno delo prevedeno v turšcino posredno prek angleškega prevoda, hkrati pa se pokaže, da je angleški prevod vplival na prevajalske odlocitve turškega prevajalca. Izsledki študije pritrdijo hipotezi, da zaradi posrednega jezika/besedila, v katerem ni podobnih oblik naslavljanja, kot so tiste, ki se pojavljajo v primarnem izvirnem jeziku/besedilu in v ciljnem jeziku/besedilu, lahko pride do premikov v tonu, zaradi katerih se spremeni interpretacija medsebojnih odnosov med literarnimi liki v ciljnem jeziku. Kljucne besede: register, posredni prevod, José Saramago, analiza diskurza, oblike naslavljanja 1. Introduction The case study presented in this article aims to show how the use of English as a mediating language may influence the register of the target text. For this purpose, a Portuguese novel by José Saramago, A Jangada de Pedra, and its Turkish translation will be compared to its English translation, specifically looking at the forms of address used to express various levels of tenor in the source text and Turkish target text. Before going into the depths of this study, it is necessary to clarify some concepts related to indirect translation, forms of address and register. First of all, indirect translation, in this study, refers to a translation which has been done using a translation as a source text (Assis Rosa, Pieta, and Maia, 2017). In this article, the mediating source text is understood as a translation in its own right, that is, a translation that was translated for its own audience and was not produced for the purpose of further translations. Furthermore, “the ultimate ST/SL > mediating text/language > ultimate TT/TL” designation is used in this study while referring to the chain of texts and languages, following Assis Rosa, Pieta, and Maia’s (2017, 115; italics in the original) suggestion. Secondly, in order to understand how forms of address function and their importance for translation, their place in register analysis should be understood. Register refers to the differences in the use of linguistic choices such as use of vocabulary, grammatical structures, pronouns, and so on within different contexts and situations (Halliday, McIntosh, and Strevens 1964; Hatim and Mason 1990). Register analysis provides us with the linguistic patterns used in a given culture/society within its sociocultural context (Munday and Zhang 2017, 3). It is also one of the pivotal components of translator training as well as translation analysis and criticism, in that it allows us to access the necessary knowledge about ways of expression and possibilities within different sociocultural contexts. Munday and Zhang (2017, 3) emphasize the importance of register analysis for the translation process, stating that various registers “need to be identified, interpreted and translated in an appropriate way with due consideration given to language-specific differences and genre conventions”. According to the classification of register variables illustrated in Table 1, the term field refers to the “the field of activity”, the experience that the participants are involved in, or in other words, “the kind of language use which reflects […] the social function of the text” (Hatim and Mason 1990, 48). Examples of the field are medical or legal settings, literature and/or fictional settings, scientific or academic settings, educational settings, and so on, which means the field provides us with the situational context (Hatim and Mason 1990, 48). On the other hand, tenor refers to the way interlocutors interact, their backgrounds, social status in relation to each other, and their roles within the communicative action. Finally, with the term “mode” we describe the channel of communication, that is whether it is spoken or written, and permutations of this distinction, i.e. written to be spoken, written to be read, etc. (Hatim and Mason 1990, 49), as well as rhetorical concepts, i.e., if the discourse is persuasive, didactic, descriptive, and so on (ibid. 1990, 50). Table 1. Register variables (Munday and Zhang 2017, 2). Register variable Associated discourse semantic function Typical lexicogrammatical realizations Field (what the text is about and how the experience is represented) Ideational, enacts action Subject-specific terminology and transitivity structures Tenor (the relationship between participants and the expression of evaluation) Interpersonal, enacts affiliation Modality structures, pronoun choices, evaluative lexis Mode (the form of communication: written or spoken; formal or informal) Textual, distributes information Thematic (word order) and information structures, patterns of cohesion Among these register variables, translation of forms of address offers an interesting field to investigate due to the possible shifts in tenor resulting from the differences between languages and cultures. Forms of address or “address terms” are defined as pronominal, nominal, or verbal forms that are used to appeal directly to an addressee (Taavitsainen and Jucker 2003, 1). As suggested by Brown and Gilman (1960), the pronouns are used as indications of power and solidarity between participants of an interaction. Besides, forms of address used in an interaction between participants give clues about “the formality of the situation, the social relationship between the speaker and the addressee” and “the politeness or deference that the speaker wants to extend to the addressee” (Taavitsainen and Jucker, 2003, 2). Today, the abbreviations T and V, as introduced by Brown and Gilman (1960, 254), are used conventionally to refer to the second person singular pronoun, where T refers to the informal and familiar use and V refers to the more distant and polite use of address. The following table demonstrates the pronominal forms for the second person singular in some European languages: Table 2. T and V pronominal forms in some European languages, adapted from Taavitsainen and Jucker (2003, 4). Language T V Origin of V Spanish tu Usted Respectful title Italian tu Lei 3rd person singular Dutch jij U Respectful title Polish ty Pan/pani Respectful title German du Sie 3rd person plural French tu vous 2nd person plural Russian ty vy 2nd person plural Finnish sinã te 2nd person plural Turkish Sen Siz 2nd person plural Swedish du ni 2nd person plural Although I am not aware of any studies addressing the translation of forms of address in indirect translation or in translation between the Portuguese and Turkish language pair, there is research addressing this issue between English and other languages, including Portuguese and Turkish, that can inform this study. For example, Baubeta (1992) shows that the formal forms of address that exist in Portuguese are rendered as you into English, and adds that translators may have difficulties in that they “may not always know” (1992, 91) if the party using the formal or informal forms of address does it deliberately. Baubeta (1992, 97) demonstrates this problem with an example from Saramago’s Levantado do Chão, where the interrogator addresses the main character with second person singular verb forms possibly to “humiliate and intimidate him”. Other examples she gives also show that translators can benefit from the use of vocabulary when translating into languages that do not offer alternatives for formal address pronouns and grammatical structures, and that translators need to be informed about the cultural, social, and linguistic differences between the languages concerned (Baubeta 1992). Lucena (1997) also demonstrates how differences in the address system between Brazilian Portuguese and English cause shifts between the ST and TT through examples drawn from the comparison of George Orwell’s Animal Farm and its Portuguese translation. In another study, Assis Rosa (2000) investigates the translation of forms of address from English into Portuguese, analyzing a corpus of all versions of Robinson Crusoe, including direct and indirect translations, full text translations and adaptations. Although she does not investigate the influence of (in)directness of translation on translational choices, Assis Rosa (2000, 30) suggests that the shifts from English into Portuguese found in her study in general indicate a “tendency to bring the text closer to the implied reader and his social environment”. On the other hand, Dinçkan’s (2019) comparison of Little Women to its Turkish translation shows that the use of first name as an address form in English results in the use of the T form in the Turkish translation, while the use of formal titles such as Mr/Mrs/ Miss + last name in the original leads to the use of the V form in the Turkish translation. Apart from literature, translation of forms of address also seems to be a popular research area in audiovisual translation.1 1 See Mansor (2018) for Malay-English, Meister (2014) for Swedish-English, and Szarkowska (2013) for Polish-English subtitling. All these studies exemplify that literary translators not only need to decipher situational and power related dynamics coded through the use of certain forms of address within the source text, they also need to decide how to recreate them in the target language. In other words, they may choose to render the conversations in the source text using the available more or less comparable forms in the target language, preserving the dynamics of interpersonal relations of the foreign culture, or they may opt for adapting them to the sociolinguistic context of the target culture. Nevertheless, the lack of formal pronominal forms for the second person singular, as it is the case in modern English, can make the decision-making process more difficult for translators. Therefore, shifts in the formality of address between the ultimate ST and the ultimate TT can be expected in an indirect translation where English is involved as the mediating language, especially if shifts in tenor are present in the mediating text compared to the ultimate ST. As Hadley (2017, 3) suggests “translations produced from texts that are also translations, and with no direct reference to those translations’ sources, are inherently constrained by the stands and strategies taken by the first translations”. The case study presented in this article offers a comparison of A Jangada de Pedra written by the Portuguese author José Saramago and its Turkish translation. As the paratexts of the Turkish editions provide different information on the (in)directness of the translation in question, it seems important to use an independent method to verify the status of the translation, in this case. The article will therefore first argue that the status of the book as an indirect translation from the English translation can be confirmed through paratextual and textual analysis, and secondly, that the Turkish TT is heavily influenced by the English mediating translation. Afterwards, the article investigates the hypothesis that indirect translation between languages with various forms of address for the second person singular, such as Portuguese and Turkish through the mediation of a language that lacks these forms such as modern English causes shifts in tenor. It is further hypothesized that such shifts in tenor between the ultimate ST and ultimate TT result in differences in the established interpersonal relationships in literary texts, and hence lead to a different reading in source and target systems. Selected examples will be analyzed to demonstrate the shifts in tenor between the Portuguese original and English and Turkish translations. A brief explanation of how forms of address function in European Portuguese and Turkish is provided below before describing and analyzing the corpus of the study. 2. Forms of address in Portuguese and Turkish Both Portuguese and Turkish are quite rich languages in terms of the variety of forms used in formal and informal address between interlocutors. The use of nominal forms of address in various formal and informal contexts has been shown by previous research for Portuguese (see Carreira 1997, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2007; Cunha and Cintra 2014; Duarte 2011; Manole 2011; Lopes 2017; Nascimento, Mendes, and Duarte 2018; Pratas 2017; Allen 2019) and Turkish (See Imamova, 2010; Keser 2018; Y. Özezen 2019). This study, however, focuses on the use of verbal structures used in formal and informal contexts in Portuguese and Turkish. The Portuguese way of addressing people is known to be one of the most complicated systems among European languages: it is mainly based on three different types of hierarchical relationship between interlocutors – social and professional, familial, and age difference (Carreira 2001, 71). Carreira (2001, 72–73) demonstrates various forms of expressing social distance in Portuguese, from the most informal to the most formal in a horizontal line with two poles: on the one side the least distant and most familiar, and on the other side the least familiar and most distant. As also shown by Duarte (2011, 87), the third person singular verb conjugation is the most common form of address in Portuguese. However, the use of this verb conjugation alone may not automatically signal distance, politeness, and/or respect. Third person singular verb forms are used in three different combinations (Duarte 2011, 87): a) with nominal forms, names, titles that are used to address the other interlocutor within a dialogue, e.g. O Senhor / A senhora Professora / A Dona Alves, O menino João, etc.; b) with the pronoun você [you]; and c) without any pronominal or nominal structures to avoid the possible misunderstanding that may result from the inappropriate use of the pronoun você, especially in European Portuguese (Duarte 2011, 87). The latter, that is, addressing another person by using only third person singular verb conjugations, is called “zero degree of deference” (Carreira 2001, 55). Nevertheless, according to Carreira (2001, 49), this use may also be deemed disrespectful when there is an age difference between interlocutors who are not known to each other. In modern European Portuguese, the pronoun tu and the second person singular verb conjugations are reserved for family and close friends only. On the other hand, according to Göksel and Kerslake (2005, 231), in Turkish the second person plural siz and the related verb conjugation are used as a formal form of address in the following contexts: • When interlocutors do not know each other, and/or when they do not have a close relationship; • When there is a hierarchical relationship between the interlocutors (e.g., students use siz to address their teachers while teachers usually use sen, the second person singular pronoun. In professional settings, however, both parties usually use siz); • Younger people tend to address older people using siz. However, it is important to note that the use of siz largely depends on the interlocutors’ social / educational / cultural backgrounds (Göksel and Kerslake 2005). It is also worth mentioning here that contrary to what Göksel and Kerslake (2005) claim, addressing older people with siz is not so common in Turkey, instead, the second person singular pronoun sen and/or related verb conjugations together with nominal forms such as abla [elder sister], teyze [aunt], amca [uncle], dede [grandad], and so on is more common in informal settings, even though there is no or little familiarity between the interlocutors (Dinçkan 2019, 92; Kaya 2012, 301). Although the distance and deference are closely tied to the use of various nominal address forms or pronouns in European Portuguese, there is no such difference in Turkish. In other words, the use of siz and/or second person plural verbal form does always indicate distance between interlocutors. In a similar vein, Karabas and Yesilçay (1977 quoted in Lewis 2000, 277) also show that addressing someone with siz and/or second person plural verb conjugation creates a barrier in rural Turkey, meaning “you and your lot as distinct from us intellectuals”. On the other hand, deference and solidarity can be established with the use of the pronoun sen and/or related verb conjugation + the abovementioned nominal forms referring to kinship like abla [elder sister], teyze [aunt], yenge [aunt/sister-in-law], amca [uncle] and so on in informal settings, especially when an age difference is involved, even with complete strangers (Kaya 2012). On the other hand, insisting on addressing the other party as sen in Turkish or tu in Portuguese and/or related verbal forms may imply an effort to ignore the authority of the person they are talking to, and thus belittle or patronize them (Baubeta 1992), or to get closer to the addressee, especially from the part of male addressers in Turkish (Hatipoglu 2008). 3. A Jangada de Pedra and its translations in Turkish and English In A Jangada de Pedra (1986), the Iberian Peninsula begins to sail into the Atlantic Ocean with a risk of crashing into the Azores after separating from continental Europe and ends up staying between South America and Africa. We read about the journey of the Iberian Peninsula through the story of five people and a dog that come together after realizing that they are mysteriously linked to the separation of the peninsula. Although it looks like a dystopian novel at the first glance, A Jangada de Pedra is actually a utopia that was imagined by the 1998 Nobel Laureate Portuguese writer José Saramago as an alternative to the joining of Portugal to the European Union (then European Economic Community) (Pazos-Justo 2017; Santos 2019). Saramago thought that Iberia was never culturally connected to the rest of Europe, and that the Iberian people were culturally and emotionally closer to Ibero-American and Ibero- African peoples (Arnaut 2014). The peninsula’s drifting away from the continent and sailing across the ocean like the ships of great explorers in the past also revived the glorious memories of the time of the Discoveries, and of strong economic and cultural relations that started during that era (Arnaut 2014). A Jangada de Pedra was first published in Turkey with the title Yitik Adanin Öyküsü [The Story of The Lost Island] in 1999 by the publisher Gendas. The same translation was republished in 2006 by the publishing house Merkez, which later became known as Turkuvaz. The translation was republished in 2013, and continues to be reprinted by the final copyright holder of Saramago’s works in Turkey, the publishing house Kirmizi Kedi. This book was translated into Turkish by Dost Körpe, a writer and poet, and the translator of various works by Frank Herbert, Edgar Allan Poe, Ray Bradbury, H.P. Lovecraft, Henry James among many others. On the copyright page of Kirmizi Kedi’s edition of the novel he is introduced as a graduate of the department of English language and literature at Istanbul University. Since I was unable to interview him, I have searched for paratextual clues to verify my hypothesis that the book was translated from English. Although the translations published by the current publisher give no indication of the source text or language, the first publisher Gendas introduced the translation as “Ingilizceden çeviren” (translated from English by) on the title page, which would seem to confirm that the Turkish translation is an indirect translation done on the basis of the English version. Textual analysis was then carried out, the aim of which was to confirm the indirect status of the Turkish translation and see if the mediating text had any influence on the translation. For this purpose, I first identified the mediating text in English. I found only one English translation of A Jangada de Pedra translated by Giovanni Pontiero from Portuguese into English in 1995 with the title The Stone Raft. The following examples (Excerpts 1 and 2), among many others, seem to verify my hypothesis that the Turkish translator’s choices were significantly influenced by the mediating text in English. Excerpt 1 Portuguese original: “..., muito verdadeiro é o novo ditado que diz, Quem contou um conto, de não contar outro se dará desconto.” /…, the new saying is so true, The one telling a story would leave something out as long as they don’t tell another one./2 2 A gloss translation in English is provided by the author of this article for the texts in Portuguese and in Turkish. (Saramago 1991, 808) English translation: “..., all too true is the proverb that warns us, Don’t count your chickens before they’re hatched.” (Saramago 1995, 100) Turkish translation: “…, bizi uyaran su atasözü ne kadar dogru, Tavuklarinizi yumurtadan çikmadan saymayin.” /..., how correct that proverb that warns us is, Don’t count your chickens before they get out of the egg./ (Saramago 2017, 66) Excerpt 2 Portuguese original: “Pararam para almoçar numa pequena casa de pasto à beira da estrada, ...” /They stopped to have lunch at a small roadside eating house,…/ (Saramago 1991, 913) English translation: “They stopped to have lunch at a snack bar at the roadside,…” (Saramago 1995, 271) Turkish translation: “Yol kenarindaki bir snackbar’da ögle yemegi için durdular, …” /They stopped at a snack bar by the road for lunch, …/ (Saramago 2017, 172) Whether the translation of the original phrases into English and Turkish in the above examples is correct, adequate and/or acceptable or not is out of the scope of this paper, yet it can be observed that the proverb is translated literally from English into Turkish in Excerpt 1, and the word snackbar has been directly borrowed from the English text to render casa de pasto in Excerpt 2. It may be also necessary to mention here that none of these translation choices are normally used expressions in Turkish. There is a Turkish proverb, i.e., Dereyi görmeden paçalari sivamak (to roll up the cuffs before seeing the stream), having the same meaning as the English proverb in Excerpt 1. On the other hand, casa de pasto refers to a modest restaurant like an eating house or diner, and snackbar is not a commonly used expression to refer to this concept in Turkish. In the following part the tenor is analyzed, comparing the selected dialogues from the ultimate ST in Portuguese, the mediating text in English, and the ultimate TT in Turkish. When comparing the register variables in the ultimate ST and the translations analyzed here, two levels of field and mode need to be considered: on the one hand, we deal with a written narrative work in the field of literature, which means the dialogues between the characters and the writer’s address to the readers are non-natural but planned. On the other hand, the dialogues in the narrative occur between characters with their own personality features and socio-economic backgrounds in settings created by the author. Keeping this in mind, the shifts in tenor will be analyzed by comparing the forms of address used in a situational context where any age difference, familiarity, and hierarchy are the determining factor in the ultimate ST. 4. Textual Comparison and Analysis In order to be able to conduct register analysis through the identification of forms of address, it is important to understand the relationship between the main characters of the novel. As mentioned before, there are five main characters in Saramago’s novel that are somehow related to the separation of the Iberian Peninsula from the rest of Europe, and who come together as a result of a series of coincidences. To summarize briefly, everything starts with the line that Joana Carda draws on the floor with a stick of an oak tree. She is Portuguese, a young divorced woman who lives with her relatives in a small town in the midland of Portugal. At the same time when Joana Carda draws the line on the floor, Joaquim Sassa, an office worker living in Porto, lifts an absurdly heavy stone and throws it into the sea. Travelling to find answers to what happened to the peninsula, he meets José Anaiço, who is followed by a flock of starlings wherever he goes. José Anaiço is a young Portuguese man, teaching first graders at an elementary school in his little town. Another character is Pedro Orce, a pharmacist in Granada, who is sixty and thus the oldest in the group. The final character who joins to the group is Maria Guavaira, a widowed landowner in Galicia in her late thirties. Soon after the first female member joins the group, romantic relationships begin among the characters. The first couple to be formed is Joana Carda and José Anaiço, and the second is Maria Guavaira and Joaquim Sassa. However, feeling pity for Pedro Orce, the only single member of the group, Joana and Maria get involved with him on a single occasion only. Below the dialogues extracted from the novel and their translations are analyzed, considering these relations between the main characters and their given backgrounds, specifically based on age difference, familiarity, and hierarchy. Finally, examples from the translations of the parts where the author talks directly to the reader are analyzed. The first example demonstrates how the dialogues between different age groups are formed in the Portuguese source text, and how this is rendered into English, and ultimately into Turkish. The dialogue3 3 Note that Saramago does not use inverted commas or anything else to indicate dialogues in his novels. Starting a phrase with a capital simply signals a new speaker. below is exchanged between Joana Carda and Pedro Orce. This piece of dialogue has been chosen because it takes place between these characters towards the end of their journey after travelling, living, and even having sex together, once. Example 14 4 In all examples, the highlights in bold indicate the grammatical forms of address such as pronouns, verb conjugations in all three languages. PT: “Sente-se mal, perguntou Joana Carda, Não, é outra coisa. [...], Que tem, diga se tem alguma dor, ...” /Do you feel [3rd person singular verb conjugation] bad, asked Joana Carda, No, it’s something else, […], What do you have [3rd person singular verb conjugation], tell [3rd person singular verb conjugation] if you have [3rd person singular verb conjugation] any pain, …/ (Saramago 1991, 1057) EN: “Do you feel unwell, Joana Carda asked him. No, it’s something else. […]. What’s the matter, tell us what you feel,” (Saramago 1995, 501) TR: “Kendini kötü mü hissediyorsun, diye sordu Joana Carda. Hayir, baska bir sey bu. […] Sorun ne, bize ne hissettigini söyle, …” /Do you feel [2nd person singular verb conjugation] yourself [2nd person singular reflexive pronoun] bad, asked Joana Carda. No, this is something else. […] What is the problem, tell [2nd person singular verb conjugation] us what you feel [2nd person singular verb conjugation], …”/ (Saramago 2017, 315) In the ultimate ST, Saramago uses the zero degree of deference (only the third person singular verbal form) to create conversations between these characters, which signals a neither distant nor too close relationship between them. This form of address was most probably chosen by Saramago because of the age difference between them: Pedro Orce is much older than the rest of the group. In contrast, in Turkish the tenor is informal, and all verbs are conjugated in the second person singular. This change in the tenor may have been caused by the mediating text since seeing no clue in the English translation the translator might have assumed that the characters would not talk in a formal way after their long companionship during their trip. A similar pattern is also observed in the dialogues between the characters that have newly met or between people who do not know each other at all. In Example 2 the interlocutors are complete strangers to each other, however, in Turkish, the translator still prefers to render it in an informal tone. Example 2 PT: “..., Quanto quer para me levar à Europa, ..., Sabe, a Europa é longe como um raio,” /… How much do you want [3rd person singular verb conjugation] to take me to Europe, …, You know [3rd person singular verb conjugation], Europe is far like hell/ (Saramago 1991, 784) EN: “…, How much do you want to take me to Europe, …, You know, Europe is a hell of a long way from here,” (Saramago 1995, 73) TR: “…, Beni Avrupa’ya kaça götürürsün …, Biliyorsun, Avrupa buradan çok uzakta,” /…, For how much do you take [2nd person singular verb conjugation] me to Europe, You know [2nd person singular verb conjugation] Europe is very far from here/ (Saramago 2017, 40) When reading this dialogue, we do not have any background knowledge about the person who asks the price of the boat trip. Saramago just describes a scene where none of the main characters is involved. In this scene, people search for a way to get back to Europe, and Saramago includes their conversations with the person in charge of the boats in the novel. The captain asks for a high price, people refuse to pay it, and finally the captain tells them to cross to the other side swimming if they can. The interlocutors’ use of zero degree of deference in the Portuguese original reflects the tense atmosphere of the scene where politeness is the least of concerns to the interlocutors. Translating from the English mediating text where the distance between interlocutors is not visible, the Turkish translator might have assumed the speakers would not talk in a formal and/or polite way under the circumstances. Although the Turkish translator chooses to neutralize the informal and vulgar language of the boat captain found in the English translation (“hell of a long way from here”), he still uses the informal verb conjugation when addressing the client. In example 3, Pedro Orce meets an old man (Roque Lozano) on the mountain road. This dialogue occurs right after they see each other and exchange some words about the dog that is following Pedro. They still do not know each other’s names at this point. However, Saramago informs the readers that Lozano appears to be the same age as Pedro. Example 3 PT: “[R.L.] Vossemecê é andaluz, conheço-lhe a fala, Venho de Orce, que é na província de Granada, Eu sou de Zufre, que é na província de Huelva, Bons olhos o vejam, Bons olhos o vejam a vossemecê, ...” /You [2nd person singular formal pronoun] are [3rd person singular verb conjugation] Andalusian, I recognize you [3rd person singular object pronoun] from the speech, I come from Orce which is in the province of Granada, I am from Zufre which is in the province of Huelva, it is good to see you [3rd person singular object pronoun], it is good to see you [3rd person singular object pronoun + 3rd person singular formal pronoun], …/ (Saramago 1991, 1038) EN: “You’re from Andalusia, I can tell from your accent. I’m from Orce in the province of Granada. I hail from Zufre in the province of Huelva. Pleased to meet you, The pleasure’s mine.” (Saramago 1995, 583) TR: “Endelüslüsün, sivenden anlasiliyor. Orceliyim, Granadadan. Ben de Zufreliyim, Huelva’dan. Tanistigimiza memnun oldum. Asil ben memnun oldum.” / You’re [2nd person singular declension] from Andalusia, it is understood from your accent [2nd person singular possessive declension]. I’m from Orce, from Granada. And I am from Zufre, from Huelva. I am pleased that we met. In truth, I am pleased./ (Saramago 2017, 297) In the above excerpt, Lozano addresses Pedro with the pronoun vossemecê and third person singular verbal form. Vossemecê is an old form of address which is still in use, especially by older people in some parts of Portugal. Unlike você, it is used to express respect, gratitude, and amicability.5 5 https://ciberduvidas.iscte-iul.pt/consultorio/perguntas/voce-e-vossemece/14478 This title of respect, however, disappears in English, and as a result in the Turkish translation as well. Although the formal form of address in Turkish, that is siz and/or second person plural verb conjugation, would not be expected to be used within a rural context, if the translator had received some clue from the mediating source text, he might have combined the second person singular form conjugation with polite Turkish titles used for men, such as Efendi, or between men, such as Birader. Such a use would create a friendly tone between the two men, similar to the one found in the ultimate source text with the use of vossemecê. Example 4 also demonstrates the difference in tenor between the ultimate source text and the ultimate target text, in Portuguese and Turkish, respectively. Example 4 PT: “Agora vou-lhe contar o que me aconteceu.” /Now I will tell you [3rd person singular object pronoun] what happened to me./ (Saramago 1991, 861) EN: “Let me tell you what happened to me.” (Saramago 1995, 186) TR: “Sana basima geleni anlatayim.” /Let me tell you [2nd person singular object pronoun] what happened to me./ (Saramago 2017, 120) This utterance takes place a short while after José Anaiço and Joana Carda meet each other for the first time. In this part of the book, Joana goes to the hotel where three men are staying and meets only José, because the other two are outside. After introducing herself and saying that she wants to talk about what happened to the peninsula, they leave the hotel and go to a nearby park to talk, and there the above-quoted sentence is the last thing Joana says before starting her story. Here, although the Turkish translator’s choice may have been influenced by the lack of formality markers in English, it still sounds unnatural because of two issues. First of all, considering the socio-economic situation of the interlocutors, especially the fact that José is a young elementary school teacher, he would be expected to talk in a formal tone while addressing a person whom he has just met. Besides, even if we do not know the educational background of Joana, we would probably expect her to do the same. It is surprising that the characters of José and Joana use the formal tone in the Turkish translation until they go to the park and start talking again. Although they address each other formally in the ultimate source text throughout their whole conversation, José suddenly starts addressing Joana with the second person singular pronoun sen and related verb conjugations in Turkish when they get to the park, and she answers him back in the same tenor without having a prior mutual agreement to do so. Perhaps the translator assumed that they would adopt an informal tone because they suddenly got ‘closer’, being alone in a park. Another excerpt in Example 5 once more exemplifies the change in formality between the Portuguese and Turkish texts. The speech in this example is directed to Maria Guavaira by a man working in her field. In Portuguese, the man addresses Maria using formal nominal and verbal forms of address, while in Turkish the tenor is again informal. Example 5 PT: “..., A senhora devia era casar outra vez, precisa de um homem que lhe olhe pela casa, A senhora não encontrava, e não é por me gabar, um homem mais capaz do que eu, ...., A senhora acredite que gosto muito de si, A senhora, um dia destes, vê-me entrar pela porta dentro e olhe que será para ficar, A senhora faz-me perder a cabeça, a senhora julga que um homem é feito de pau, ...” /…, Madame should get [3rd person singular conjugation] married again, you need [3rd person singular conjugation] a man to look after the house, Madame would not find [3rd person singular conjugation], and I don’t brag, a man more capable than me, …, Madame believe [2nd person singular formal imperative] that I like you [3rd person singular object pronoun] very much, Madame, one of these days, will see [3rd person singular conjugation] me enter through the door, and look [2nd person singular formal imperative], it will be to stay, Madame is making [3rd person singular conjugation] me lose my head, madame thinks [3rd person singular conjugation] that a man is made of wood, …/ (Saramago 1991, 932) EN: “…, You should have remarried, you need a man to keep an eye on the house, no exaggeration, you couldn't have found a better man than me, …, Believe me when I say I'm very fond of you, One day you'll see me come through that door and you'd better believe I'll be here to stay. You're driving me out of my mind, You think men have no feelings, that we're made of wood, …” (Saramago 1995, 302) TR: “…, Tekrar evlenmelisin, eve bakacak bir erkege ihtiyacin var, kesinlikle abartmiyorum, benden iyisini bulamazsin, …, Inan bana senden hoslandigimi söylerken samimiyim, Bir gün bu kapidan girdigimi göreceksin ve burada kalacagim. Beni çildirtiyorsun, erkeklerin odundan yapildiklarini ve duygulari olmadigini saniyorsun, …” /…, You should get married [2nd person singular conjugation] again, you need [2nd person singular conjugation] a man to look after the house, I absolutely don’t exaggerate, you can’t find [2nd person singular conjugation] anyone better than me, …, Believe [2nd person singular conjugation] me I am sincere when I say I like you [2nd person singular object pronoun], One day you’ll see [2nd person singular conjugation] me entering through this door and I’ll stay here. You drive me crazy [2nd person singular conjugation], you think [2nd person singular conjugation] that men are made out of wood and they don’t have feelings, …/ (Saramago 2017, 191) We can clearly see the lack of formal nominal forms such as A senhora in both the English and Turkish translations. The similarity between the English and Turkish translations of the final sentence “a senhora julga que um homem é feito de pau”, where the addition of “You think men have no feelings” in the English translation is transferred literally to the Turkish target text, proves the mediating role of the English translation. The lack of the use of the title in English makes the entire speech sound rude, patronizing, and even threatening in some parts (e.g., “…you’d better believe I’ll be here to stay”), considering the hierarchical difference in status between two interlocutors. This of course can be a deliberate choice of the translator of the mediating text, however, it is clear that such a choice has influenced the Turkish TT. The same disappearance of respect and hierarchical difference between the characters is also visible in Turkish in the use of second person singular pronouns like senden and verbs conjugated in the second person singular forms such as evlenmelisin, inan, göreceksin. The following example also shows how the mediating text causes the shifts between the Turkish translation and the Portuguese ST. Example 6 PT: “Em desespero de causa e de ciência dizia o professor, Deixe lá, se a península der uma volta completa, o senhor verá o sol como via dantes, mas o aluno, desconfiado, respondeu, Então o senhor professor acha que tudo isto está acontecer para tudo ficar na mesma.” /In despair of cause and science the teacher said, Let it be, if the peninsula has a complete turn, sir will see the sun as he used to see before, but the student, distrustful, answered, Then sir teacher thinks that all these are happening for everything to stay the same./ (Saramago 1991, 1033) EN: “Seeing that he could not convince him with scientific arguments, the expert told him, Don’t worry, if the peninsula turns all the way around you will see the sun as before, but the suspicious pupil rejoined, In other words, Mr. Know-it-all, you think all this is happening so that things can go back to being the same as before.” (Saramago 1995, 464) TR: “Uzman onu bilimsel açiklamalarla ikna edemeyecegini anlayinca, Merak etme, dedi, eger Yarimada saga dönerse günesi eskisi gibi görebileceksin, ama süpheci ögrenci dedi ki, Demek bunun olduguna inaniyorsun, yoksa islerin eski haline dönmesinden bahsetmezdin Bay Çokbilmis.” /When the expert understood that he wouldn’t be able persuade him with scientific explanations, Don’t worry, he said, if the Peninsula turns right you will be able to see the sun like before, but the suspicious student said, So you believe, that this happened, otherwise you wouldn’t talk, about things’ turning to their old condition Mr. Know-it-all./ (Saramago 2017, 293) In the passage quoted above, a layperson asks a scholar to explain how the sun has started to set where it used to rise. The scholar tries to explain that this is just an appearance, and that the sun continues to follow its normal trajectory, but the person does not understand. As seen in the excerpt, in Portuguese both adopt a formal way of address talking to each other with titles o senhor and o senhor professor. In English, however, not only does this formality disappear, but also the translator renders o senhor professor with an ironic expression Mr. Know-it-all. This questionable choice of the translator, adding discourtesy to the original dialogue, has probably arisen from Saramago’s previous passages where he uses o sábio and o senhor doutor talking about the scholar in a sarcastic way. This English translation was transferred with a similar, also ironic, expression in Turkish as Bay Çokbilmis. In Turkey, professors’ addressing their students with second person singular informal pronoun sen is common and acceptable, while it is unacceptable for students to address professors in such a way. Although the setting of this conversation is not academic, a layperson would still talk to a scholar in a polite and respectful way in a culture such as Turkey, where teachers and professors are greatly respected, especially in rural areas. Even if an uneducated person would not be expected to use the formal form of address with siz and/or second person verb conjugations, they would still address the scholar with Hocam, a title of deference for the people of knowledge like teachers, professors, scholars, and so on. If this dialogue had been translated directly from Portuguese, the choice of the translator would probably have been different. The final examples, numbers 7 and 8, focus on the narrator’s addresses to the reader. Example 7 PT: “Já se disse que são acasos, e manipulações, ...” /It is already said [impersonal passive voice with the pronoun se], that they are coincidences and manipulations,…/ EN: “As we have already observed, these are coincidences and manipulations, …” (Saramago 1995, 68) TR: “Daha önce de söylemis oldugumuz gibi bunlar rastlanti ve manipülasyonlardir /As we said [1st person plural verb conjugation] before, these are coincidences and manipulations, …”/ (Saramago 2017, 46) Example 8 PT: “..., não se pode chamar paisagem ao que os olhos vêem aqui, ...” /…, what eyes see here cannot be called [impersonal passive voice with the pronoun se] as landscape, …/ (Saramago 1991, 820) EN: “…, you cannot refer to what one sees here as a landscape, …” (Saramago 1995, 119) TR: “…, burada görülen seyleri bir yöre olarak adlandiramazsiniz /you can’t name [2nd person plural verb conjugation] things that are seen here as a locality, …/ (Saramago 2017, 78) Example 7 demonstrates how the author’s choice of impersonal form of narration becomes more inclusive in the translations: in English with the use of the pronoun we, and in Turkish with the first-person plural verb conjugation form. A similar strategy in the Portuguese original in Example 8, on the other hand, turns into a direct address to the reader with the use of you and related verb conjugation in English, and with the second person plural verb conjugation in Turkish. In both cases, the original sentences in Portuguese could be translated into Turkish adopting a similar impersonal passive structure without losses in the meaning or style. 5. Conclusion This study has aimed to investigate the effect of an indirect translation from Portuguese to Turkish through a mediating translation in English, which lacks variety in the second person formal nominal, pronominal and verbal forms, on shifts in tenor in the target text, which can influence the interpersonal relations established within literary works, and thus cause different readings in source and target systems. The passages taken from the English and Turkish translation of Saramago’s novel A Jangada de Pedra analyzed in this article show that the Turkish translator’s choices have been influenced by the English mediating text. Without having access to the original text, the Turkish translator often changed the tenor of the text because he relied on the English translation where the formal forms have been omitted as in Example 5 or mistranslated as in Example 6. The study thus confirms Hadley’s (2017, 3) claim that “if the first translation fails to retain any features that are culturally specific to the source text, subsequent translations’ abilities to do so will be reduced”. Finally, these shifts in tenor create different interpersonal dynamics between the characters in the Turkish translation of Saramago’s novel, and between the narrator and the reader, as illustrated in Examples 7 and 8, which directly influence the reading experience. However, if the aim is to preserve the original reading in terms of register and interpersonal relations, it becomes apparent that the English translation might not be the most suitable mediating text for source languages that use different grammatical forms to express different degrees of familiarity in forms of address. Since other translations are frequently available, perhaps choosing one as a mediating text in a language that preserves such differences more clearly (such as German, Italian, French, or Spanish) could be much more useful – at least as a secondary mediating text. Acknowledgements This work is financed by the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) with the grant number 2021.05834.bd. References Primary Sources Saramago, José. 1986. A Jangada de Pedra. Lisboa: Editoria Caminho. Saramago, José. 1991. “A Jangada de Pedra”. In Obras de José Saramago, Volume III, Romances, 747–1061. Porto: Lello & Irmão Editores. Saramago, José. 1995. The Stone Raft. Translated by Giovanni Pontiero. New York: A Harvest Book. Harcourt, Inc. Saramago, José. 1999. Yitik Adanin Öyküsü. Translated by Dost Körpe. Istanbul: Gendas Kültür. Saramago, José. 2006. Yitik Adanin Öyküsü. Translated by Dost Körpe. Istanbul: Merkez / Turkuvaz. Saramago, José. (2013) 2017. Yitik Adanin Öyküsü. Fifth Edition. Translated by Dost Körpe. Istanbul: Kirmizi Kedi. Secondary Sources Allen, Ana Sofia Ferreira. 2019. “O sistema de formas de tratamento em português europeu: Contributos para a compreensão da sua reestruturação a partir de textos escritos do século XX”, MA Thesis. Lisboa: Universidade de Lisboa. Arnaut, Ana Paula. 2014. “José Saramago: da realidade à utopia. O Homem como lugar onde”. “O que transforma o mundo é a necessidade e não a utopia”: Estudos sobre utopia e ficção em José Saramago, edited by Burghard Baltrusch, 31–52. Berlin: Frank & Timme. Assis Rosa, Alexandra. 2000. “The Negotiation of Literary Dialogue (Translation). Forms of Address in Robinson Crusoe Translated into Portuguese.” Target 12 (1): 31–62. 10.1075/target.12.1.03ass. Assis Rosa Alexandra, Hanna Pieta, and Rita Bueno Maia. 2017. “Theoretical methodological and terminological issues regarding indirect translation: An overview.” Translation Studies 10 (2): 113–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2017.1285248. Baubeta, Patricia Anne Odber de. 1992. “Modes of Address: Translation Strategies or the Black Hole.” Ilha do Desterro 28: 87–107. Brown, Roger, and Albert Gilman. 1960. “The Pronouns of Power and Solidarity”. In Style in Language, edited by Thomas Albert Sebeok, 253–76. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Carreira, Maria Helena Araujo. 1997. Modalisation linguistique en situation d’interlocution: proxe´mique verbale et modalite´s en portugais. Louvain-Paris: Peeters. Carreira, Maria Helena Araujo. 2001. Sema^ntica e discurso, estudos de Lingui´stica Portuguesa e Compa- rativa (Portugue^s/France^s). Porto: Porto Editora. Carreira, Maria Helena Araujo. 2002. “La de´signation de l’autre en portugais europe´en: instabilite´s linguistiques et variations discursives”. In Instabilite´s linguistiques dans les langues romanes, Travaux et Documents, no 16. Paris, edited by Maria Helena Araujo Carreira, 173–84. Saint Denis: Universite´ Paris 8: Carreira, Maria Helena Araujo. 2004. “Les formes d’allocution du portugais europe´en: valeurs et fonctionnements discursifs.” Franco-British Studies, 35–45. Accessed February 9, 2021. http://cvc.cervantes.es/obref/coloquio_paris/ponencias/pdf/cvc_araujo.pdf. Carreira, Maria Helena Araujo. 2007. “Le pronom d’adresse portugais «voce^»: valeurs et e´volution”. In Studii de lingvistica~ oi filologie romanica~. Hommages offerts a` Sanda Reinheimer Ri^peanu, edited by Alexandra Cunit.a., Coman Lupu and Liliane Tasmowski, 15–9. Bucharest: Editura Universita.t¸ii din Bucuresti. Cunha, Celso, and Luís F. Lindley Cintra. 2014. Nova Gramática do Português Contemporâneo. Porto: Edições João Sá de Costa. Dinçkan, Yesim Sönmez. 2019. “A Linguistic Analysis of the Literary Translation of Address Forms from English into Turkish”. Çeviribilim ve Uygulamalari Dergisi, Journal of Translation Studies 27: 89–110. https://doi.org/10.37599/ceviri.583256. Duarte, Isabel Margarida. 2011. “Formas de tratamento em português: entre léxico e discurso”. Matraga 18 (28): 84–101. Accessed February 9, 2020. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/277476118_Formas_de_tratamento_em_portugues_entre_lexico_e_ discurso_in_Matraga_Vol_18_n_28_Rio_de_Janeiro_UERJ_2011_pp_84-101. Göksel, Asli, and Celia Kerslake. 2005. Turkish: Comprehensive Grammar. London and New York: Routledge. Hadley, James. 2017. “Indirect translation and discursive identity: Proposing the concatenation effect hypothesis.” Translation Studies 10 (2): 183–97. https://www.tandfonline. com/doi/full/10.1080/14781700.2016.1273794 Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood, Angus McIntosh, and Peter Strevens. 1964. The Linguistic Sciences and Language Teaching. London and New York: Longman. Hatim, Basil, and Mason, Ian. 1990. Discourse and the translator. London and New York: Longman. Hatipoglu, Çiler. 2008. “Analysis of the Social Meanings of the Second Person Pronoun SEN in Turkish.” Dilbilim Arastirmalari, 15–29. Accessed October 6, 2021. http://dad. boun.edu.tr/en/download/article-file/224703. Imamova, Holida. 2010. Türkiye Türkçesi ile Özbek Türkçesinde Nezaket Anlami Tasiyan Seslenmeler. A. Ü. Türkiyat Arastirmalari Enstitüsü Dergisi 42: 1–10. Accessed February 9, 2021. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/33486. Kaya, Emel Kökpinar. 2012. An analysis of the addressing terms used in Turkish society in the interface of alienation and intimacy. Studia Uralo-Altaica 49: 303–09. Accessed October 6, 2021. https://ojs.bibl.u-szeged.hu/index.php/stualtaica/article/view/13681. Keser, Burcu Meliha. 2018. “Nezaket, Nezaket Teorileri ve Türkçede Kullanilan Nezaket Kavramlari.” TÜRÜK, Uluslararasi Dil, Edebiyat ve Halkbilimi Arastirmalari Dergisi 15: 127–38. Accessed February 9, 2021. http://www.turukdergisi.com/Makaleler/ 935436085_18%20B.%20KESER%20127-138.pdf.pdf. Lewis, Geoffrey. 2000. Turkish Grammar: Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lopes, Sara Morgadinho. 2017. “Representações e usos das formas de tratamento por rececionistas de hotel.” Simpósio 51 – O ensino de língua portuguesa na formação profissional. 10.1285/i9788883051272p4121. Lucena, Maria Inêz Probst. 1997. “A Brief Analysis of Forms of Address in the Translation of Animal Farm.” Cadernos de tradução 1 (2): 188–96. Accessed October 6, 2021. https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4925588 Manole, Veronica. 2011. “Usos de formas de tratamento alocutivo do português e do romeno em contexto profissional.” XVI Congresso Internacional de la ALFAL – Alcalá 2011. Accessed February 9, 2021. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258512357_ Usos_de_formas_de_tratamento_alocutivo_do_portugues_e_do_romeno_em_contexto_ profissional. Mansor, Nor Shahila. 2018. “Understanding the translation of second person address form in the specific context.” Revista Internacional de Lenguas Extranjeras 8: 65–89. 10.17345/rile08.65-89. Meister, Lova. 2014. “The T/V dilemma: Forms of address as a stylistic resource in English- Swedish subtitling.” Perspectives 24 (4): 527–42. DOI Munday, Jeremy, and Meifang Zhang, eds. 2017. Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. Nascimento, Maria Fernanda Bacelar do, and Amália Mendes, and Maria Eugênia Lammoglia Duarte. 2018. “Sobre Formas de tratamento no português europeu e brasileiro.” Diadorim, Rio de Janeiro 20: 245–62. file:///Users/imrengokce/Downloads/23276- 70297-1-PB.pdf. Pazos-Justo, Carlos. 2017. “A Jangada de Pedra de José Saramago: repertório e sistema interliterário ibérico.” Revista De Estudos Saramaguianos 5 (janeiro): 12–23. https:// estudossaramaguianos.files.wordpress.com/2020/04/revista-de-estudos-saramaguianos- portugues-n-5-carlos-pazos-justo.pdf Pratas, Sara Alexandra Pinto. 2017. “As formas de tratamento e o ensino de português como língua não materna.” MA thesis, Coimbra: Universidade de Coimbra. Santos, Quênia Regina Matos dos. 2019. “José Saramago – Do Romance Historiográfico ai Alegórico: A Recepção de sua Ficção.” PhD diss., Porto Alegre: Universidade Federal Do Rio Grande Do Sul, Instituto De Letras. Szarkowska, Agnieszka. 2013. Forms of Address in Polish-English Subtitling. Berlin: Peter Lang. Taavitsainen, Irma, and Andreas H. Jucker, eds. 2003. Diachronic Perspectives on Address Term Systems. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. About the author Imren Gökce Vaz de Carvalho has MA and BA degrees in English-Turkish Translation and Interpreting Studies. She is currently pursuing a PhD in the inter-university doctoral program in Translation and Terminology coordinated by Universidade Nova de Lisboa and Universidade de Aveiro. She does literary, legal, and technical translations from English and Portuguese into Turkish. She is also a certified teacher of Turkish as a foreign language. Her research interests include literary translation, retranslation, reception of translation, indirect translation, legal translation, the role of the translator and interpreter, sign language interpreting and accessibility. Conceptualizing translation in Poland in 2018: Replication of Sandra Halverson’s survey from 1997 Anna Kuznik University of Wroclaw, Poland ABSTRACT This paper aims to provide an account of our survey on the semiotic nature of the concept of translation among young Polish native speakers. The methodological strategy adopted is a constructive replication of Sandra Halverson’s survey conducted in Norway in 1997. We claim, in our main hypothesis (stemming from a theoretical background of prototype semantics, which we used for measuring our object), that the concept of translation is not uniform and includes different semiotic types of translation, some of which are perceived as central (prototypical), and others as peripheral. According to our additional hypothesis, young Polish native speakers have a broad notion of translation (encompassing a wide range of intralingual and intersemiotic translations), even broader than their Norwegian counterparts, more than twenty years ago. Our data has been collected in 2018 using a seven-item questionnaire (seven different text pairs) with a seven-value scale from 103 subjects. While the main hypothesis has been confirmed, the additional hypothesis was rejected, with Polish respondents conceiving the concept of translation more narrowly. The methodological format of a replication produced an ambivalent effect: on the one hand, it yielded positive incentive, and on the other hand, it became our principal hindrance. Keywords: conceptualization of translation, semiotic nature of translation, Polish concept tlumaczenie, prototype semantics, replication of a survey Pojmovanje koncepta prevajanja na Poljskem leta 2018. Replikacija raziskave Sandre Halverson iz leta 1997 IZVLECEK Namen clanka je predstaviti rezultate ankete, ki je preverjala semioticno razumevanje koncepta prevajanja pri mladih rojenih govorcih poljskega jezika. Privzeti metodološki pristop je konstruktivna replikacija ankete, ki jo je Sandra Halverson izvedla na Norveškem leta 1997. Na podlagi teoreticnega ozadja prototipske semantike, ki smo jo uporabili za merjenje, je glavna hipoteza pricujoce raziskave, da koncept prevajanja ni enoten in da vsebuje razlicne semioticne vrste prevajanja, med katerimi so nekatere osrednje (prototipske), druge pa periferne. Druga hipoteza je, da mladi rojeni govorci poljskega jezika prevod pojmujejo široko in v ta pojem vkljucujejo tudi razlicne znotrajjezikovne in medznakovne vrste prevajanja, ter da je njihov pogled še širši, kot je bil pogled njihovih norveških kolegov pred vec kot dvajsetimi leti. Podatki so bili pridobljeni leta 2018 z anketnim vprašalnikom, na katerega so odgovorili 103 anketiranci. Vprašalnik je obsegal sedem vprašanj in se je nanašal na sedem razlicnih parov besedil. Glavna hipoteza je bila potrjena, druga hipoteza pa je bila zavrnjena, saj so poljski anketiranci koncept prevajanja razumeli ožje. Metodološki format replikacije je imel dvojni ucinek: po eni strani je predstavljal pozitivno spodbudo, po drugi pa je postal glavna ovira. Kljucne besede: pojmovanje koncepta prevajanja, semioticna narava prevajanja, poljski pojem tlumaczenie, prototipska semantika, replikacija ankete 1. Introduction: The seminal concept of translation under scrutiny A conceptualization of translation, thus “a preliminary opening to the concept” of translation (Pym 2007, 154), has been already much analysed and much discussed in the field of translation studies (TS). A collective volume entitled Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited by Dam, Brøgger and Zethsen (2019), building on the theme of the 5th Congress of the European Society for Translation Studies (EST) held in September 2016 at Aarhus University, illustrates this inexhaustible interest. However, we may never forget that our discipline does not ‘own’ this concept. As Zwischenberger rightly puts out, “Outside of [TS], the use of the translation concept is not bound to ‘translation proper’ (Jakobson 1959, 232) or to the way in which the concept is used and defined in [TS]” (2017, 388). Studies on the conceptualization of translation are still being designed, piloted and conducted simply because they are needed – needed by our discipline, by neighbouring disciplines (Zwishenberger 2019), by ourselves and by others. The concept of translation (its definitions and internal differentiations: classifications and typologies) is the core concept of our discipline, and has in our minds a cognitive, immaterial form, but is expressed and communicated to others in natural languages (or in other semiotic systems) in a fixed, at least for a short while, and material form. Our scientific and academic communication in the field of TS relies on a widely accepted assumption that the closest equivalents of the English concept of translation in other European languages (terms such as traduction, Übersetzung, oversettelse, tlumaczenie) denote – more or less – the same concept (Pym 2007, 154), and we have no intention to question this issue here. What we intend to explore in this study is how the semiotic nature of translation is conceptualized by translation-naïve Polish youth (our object of study and the population are described in section 2) using – as an operationalizing device – a theory of prototype (section 3) and a methodological strategy of constructive replication (section 4). The results are presented in section 6, followed by a discussion (section 7) and concluding remarks (section 8). In establishing the limits of the concept of translation we are executing a “boundary work” (Grbic, 2011), so characteristic for academic and scientific endeavours. This study is complementary to our previous studies aimed at analysing contemporary ways of conceptualizing the notion of translation in France and Poland formulated by translation practising, professional communities (Kuznik 2018a, 2018b, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c, submitted [a], submitted [b]). 2. Semiotic nature of translation perceived by translation-naïve Polish youth 2.1 Semiotic nature of translation: definitions and classifications In this study we focus on the semiotic nature of translation understood as a relationship between a source text and a target text (both with their inherent semiotic forms and contents). We are convinced that the semiotic approach to translation is one of the most complete approaches to studying different conceptualizations of the concept (Kuznik 2018, 494–499). Particularly useful for our purposes is Gottlieb’s exhaustive taxonomy of translation (2008, 2018). The author supports his typology with illustrative examples and uses the following basic distinctions: intersemiotic vs. intrasemiotic translation; isosemiotic vs. diasemiotic, supersemiotic and hyposemiotic translation; conventionalized vs. adaptational translation; and verbal vs. nonverbal translation (Gottlieb 2008, 2018). The definitions of text proposed by researchers within the semiotic perspective have always been very broad. Halverson defines a text as an “internally coherent semiotic entity” (2000, 5). For Gottlieb, a text is “any combination of sensory signs carrying communicative intention”, and consequently, translation is defined by him as “any process, or product hereof, in which a text is replaced by another text reflecting, or inspired by, the original entity” (Gottlieb 2008, 42; 2018, 47). The semiotic nature of the conceptualization of translation (definitions and classifications) has already been largely studied in TS, starting from Jakobson’s initial tripartite typology (1959) and its thorough revision by Toury (1986), passing through the hands of many other scholars, mostly those interested in interlingual translation (see e.g. Zethsen 2007, García-Izquierdo and Montalt 2013) and intersemiotic translation, generally associated with audiovisual translation (see e.g. Castro, Olaya and Orrego 2008, 59–62). For the aims of the present study, we follow Halverson’s proposal, based on the critique of Jakobson’s classification by Toury (see 4.2. below). 2.2 Polish youth in 2018: A multimodal, mobile and inclusive experience of life Representatives of the youth living in Poland (which became a member of the European Union in 2004) at the end of the first two decades of the twenty-first century may be considered a population which is very familiar with all “ever-increasing communicational output – from cell phone text messages to live multi-media presentations” (Gottlieb 2008, 39) and all types of text transfers included by Gottlieb in his highly comprehensive taxonomy of “multidimensional translations” (Gottlieb 2008, 2018). As Gottlieb states, this typology “provides conceptual tools for dealing systematically with any type of translation encountered in today’s media landscape” (Gottlieb 2008, 40, see also Kuznik 2018). The current “media landscape” – presented in detail and analysed by Gottlieb – provides young Poles with a very rich, diverse and multimodal experience of life in a globalized world. Furthermore, Polish young people use the Internet widely in their everyday lives, and as Salmons rightly points out (2015), the Internet operates using very semiotically complex means. By doing so, the Internet fosters our daily exposure to multimodal forms of communication and our experience of multimodal construction of meaning (Salmons 2015, 523). Alongside new forms of communication and the Internet, young Poles are experiencing an ever increasing mobility inside (and outside) the country, and in this way they acquire a first-hand knowledge of different geographical (dialectal) and social variations of the same language. The current trend of sharing information on social media also has an important added value: e.g., Facebook’s interface is nowadays available in the Silesian dialect, i.e. a West Slavic lect of the Lechitic group present in the south of Poland and spoken in Upper Silesia and, partly, in Czech Silesia, with a strong influence of the German language. This contributes to the young Poles’ awareness of internal linguistic, cultural and social diversity within the Polish borders. 2.3 Semiotically-oriented hypotheses of our study The three arguments outlined in the previous section (2.2) have made it possible for us to formulate the following two hypotheses: • our main hypothesis is that the Poles’ concept of translation is not uniform and includes different semiotic types of translation, of which some types are perceived as central (prototypical), and others as peripheral; this hypothesis has its theoretical background in prototype semantics discussed in the next section (see section 3); • and our additional hypothesis posits that in the Polish context the notion of translation is semiotically expanded far “beyond the one-dimensional transfer of a spoken or written message from language A to language B” (Gottlieb 2008, 39), including many objects of intersemiotic and intralingual translations, compared to the conceptualizations of the same notions by young Norwegians in 1997, mainly because of the difference in time between these two populations (21 years, almost a quarter of a century). Both hypotheses have been operationalized with a conceptual framework and with the methodological tools of cognitive semantics. 3. Linguistic and semantic bases of the study 3.1 Measuring the conceptualization of translation Measuring the conceptualization of translation has always been a challenge for TS scholars. Pym (2007) has distinguished deductive approaches to the definitional task (called by him “formal conceptualizations”, see for example a “stipulative, criterial definition of translation” proposed by Zethsen and Hill-Madsen 2016, 703–705, and Zethsen 2007, 297–300) and inductive ones. In the latter, he placed Halverson’s ‘prototype survey’, together with Akrich, Callon and Latour’s work (2006) on “intuitively collected historical terms, related in terms of networks” (Pym 2007, 153–154). Many other studies can be classified within the inductive paradigm: studies on metaphorical expressions used by subjects when referring to translation or translator (see e.g. Presas and Martín de León 2011, 2014; Skibinska and Blumczynski 2009), inquiries on etymology and the meaning of words referring to translation and translator described in lexicographical sources (Skibinska and Blumczynski 2009), or ethnography-oriented studies gathering professionals’ opinions on the delimitation and meanings of such terms as “translation”, “interpreting”, “transcreation, “localization”, “reviewing”, etc., as parts of their translation-based businesses in the environment of translation services (Kuznik 2019a, 2019b, 2019c; Dam and Zethsen 2019). It was in the field of cognitive linguistics, namely in cognitive semantics – and in our case thanks to Halverson’s publications (1998, 1999, 2000, 2002) – that we encountered an interesting and rigorous method for measuring the concept of translation, i.e. the core concept of our discipline. In this approach, the concept of translation is meant as a semantic category that can be studied and fruitfully defined using the prototype perspective. 3.2 Categorization theory and prototype semantics approach The theoretical background underlying our study (and that of Halverson) brings us to Lakoff’s work on categorization (1987), and to the categorization theory which intends to explain how people categorize things. This theory deals, on the one hand, with the distinction between ‘all-or-none’ classical categories (concepts), as they have been understood from the time of Aristotle till the late work by Wittgenstein (1958), and, on the other, with non-classical, prototype categories (concepts), proposed by Wittgenstein (1958) in the field of philosophy of language and by Rosch and her research team (see e.g. Rosch 1973, 1978; prototype theory) in the field of psychology (see also Halverson 1998, 12-14). Briefly defined, classical categories “[...] were assumed to be abstract containers, with things either inside or outside the category. Things were assumed to be in the same category if and only if they had certain properties in common. And the properties they had in common were taken as defining the category” (Lakoff 1987, 6, cited in Halverson 1998, 13). Traditionally, concepts have been explained against a checklist of necessary and sufficient conditions. According to a classical categorization, a list of these necessary and sufficient conditions determines if an object belongs to a category or not. In other words, objects belong to the category if they meet all the conditions and meet those conditions only; conversely, objects that lack one condition or that have additional features cannot belong to that category (L’Homme 2020, 24). Wittgenstein (1958) and Rosch (see e.g. 1978) presented several arguments against classical categorization. Wittgenstein (1958) demonstrated that not all category items share a set of common features, and that there may be no common characteristic for all of the items. In the prototype semantics approach, a category may be infinitely extended, may contain ‘better’ examples (more central) and ‘worse’ ones (more peripheral), and thus the task of specifying a fixed boundary for well-defined categories is impossible. Prototype theory and prototype-informed research have shown that “[...] virtually all natural language concepts show signs of having graded membership (not all members are equal), and fuzzy boundaries (where one concept stops and another starts is indeterminate)” (Halverson 2000, 4, see also Lakoff 1987, Langacker 1987). The prototype semantics approach can be applied satisfactorily to both concrete and abstract concepts: from the most physical concepts (e.g. the colour red) to the most abstract (e.g. the category of number or game), and has been intensively developed by Polish researchers, among many others (see e.g. Wierzbicka 1985, and Barminski’s works, e.g. Bartminski, Niebrzegowska-Bartminska, and Brzozowska 2016, Bartminski 2018). TS scholars have adopted both the categorization and prototype theories, directly from cognitive linguists or through Halverson’s works, and satisfactorily integrated them in their research (see e.g. Tymoczko 2005, 1083–1086 and the “open” or “cluster concept”; Zethsen and Hill-Madsen 2016, 695-697 for their theoretical discussion with Halverson’s “prototype argument”; also Dam and Zethsen 2019, 213–214). 3.3 The Polish words tlumaczenie versus przeklad The limited scope of this paper does not allow us to provide an extended contrastive analysis of the terms oversettelse and tlumaczenie, nor on the opposition between tlumaczenie and przeklad in Polish. In what follows, we briefly explain why we prioritized in our study the word tlumaczenie over the competing word przeklad. Skibinska and Blumczynski, using a lexicographical approach, thoroughly analyse the etymology and evolution of the meaning of the Polish words tlumaczyc, tlumaczenie, tlumacz and przekladac, przeklad, przekladacz (2009, 31–34). The authors conclude: “[…] the meaning of both tlumaczyc and przekladac as ‘to translate’ has become entrenched in contemporary Polish usage” (Skibinska and Blumczynski 2009, 34). Another Polish researcher, Lewicki, describes in detail both lexemes as general language words and as specialized terms. For Lewicki, in the field of Polish TS, the term tlumaczenie refers to the translation process, and przeklad, to the translation product (2017, 13–27), but we do not support his distinction. Another Polish TS scholar, Tomaszkiewicz, argues that “in the Polish tradition these terms [tlumaczenie and przeklad] are used in many contexts in an interchangeable way”, without considering their semantics (Tomaszkiewicz 2006, 64)1 1 Original quotation in Polish: “W polskiej tradycji terminy te [tlumaczenie i przeklad] uzywane sa zamiennie. [...] Faktem jest, ze w wielu kontekstach uzywamy ich zamiennie, nie zastanawiajac sie nad semantyka tych dwóch pojec” (Tomaszkiewicz 2006, 64), in this paper translated into English by Kuznik). , while Skibinska and Blumczynski contend: “It seems that the most unmarked term for translation in Polish is tlumaczenie” (Skibinska and Blumczynski 2009, 32). Furthermore, in Polish, the opposition between translation and interpreting does not exist because there is no specific word to refer to oral translation (‘interpreting’). In Polish, written translation is simply called tlumaczenie pisemne and interpreting, tlumaczenie ustne, i.e. oral translation. In our previous studies conducted among representatives of the translation industry (Kuznik forthcoming [a]), we argue that professionals do not use the term przeklad at all, since it is an academic word and refers exclusively to literary translation. Furthermore, the words tlumaczenie (and not przeklad), tlumacz, tlumaczyc, and tlumaczeniowy are generally used in Polish legal and economic regulations dealing with the activity of translators and interpreters, i.e. in the Polish Classification of economic Activity (Polska Klasyfikacja Dzialalnosci gospodarczej, PKD), the Polish Classification of professions and specializations for the labour market needs (Klasyfikacja zawodów i specjalnosci na potrzeby rynku pracy), the Polish Law of 25 November 2004 on the profession of sworn translator and interpreter (Ustawa z dnia 25 listopada 2004 r. o zawodzie tlumacza przysieglego), the Polish Law of 4 February 1994 on copyrighting and related rights (Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych); and finally, in the Polish version of the ISO 1700 norm “Translation services – Requirements for translations services” (Uslugi tlumaczeniowe - Wymagania dotyczace swiadczenia uslug tlumaczeniowych), and before, in the Polish version of the European norm EN 15038, i.e. PN-EN 15038:2006. Therefore we used the term tlumaczenie, and not przeklad, in our study. 4. Replication of Halverson’s survey 4.1 Methodological strategy of replication Inspired by Olalla-Soler’s enquiry into the practice of replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies (2020), we decided to run a survey which had originally been designed and conducted in 1997 by Sandra Halverson at the University of Bergen (Halverson 2000). To do so, we chose one paper by Halverson (2000) in which she presents her study in detail. The background for this paper is provided in other publications, where she discusses some of the philosophical, theoretical and empirical issues related to translation and interpreting from the viewpoint of cognitive linguistics (see e.g. Halverson 1998, 1999, 2002). This paper by Halverson (2000) guided us throughout all the replication process. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only paper containing the methodological details and results of her study. Halverson’s empirical study was based on two theoretical premises aiming to define the concept of translation from a semiotic perspective based on a categorization theory and prototype semantics approach towards categories (concepts) proposed in the field of cognitive linguistics. Due to the fact that an inductive strategy gives priority to the data gathered rather than to the prior consistency of theoretical statements, and that the empirical data depends on social, time and place factors, we found it interesting to contrast one set of results, which casts light on conceptualizations of translation from a semiotic point of view, with another set from later research. Broadly speaking, there are three main differences between Halverson’s study and ours: 1. Time: our survey was conducted almost 20 years later (the exact difference at the moment of data collection was 21 years), 2. Place: our data was collected in Poland, and not in Norway, but still in a European context, 3. Native language: we asked Polish-speaking subjects about their concept of tlumaczenie, and not of oversettelse, both being considered as the closest equivalent to the English concept of translation in Polish and Norwegian, respectively. This new set of circumstances – time, space and language – were operating in a joint, mixed, interdependent manner, and that is why our replication cannot be considered an exact one (Crandall and Sherman 2016, 93, cited in Olalla-Soler 2020, 6), but rather a constructive one, since it sought “[..] not ‘only’ to provide additional evidence for or against an existing finding but also to [...] extend findings” (Hüffmeier, Mazei, and Schultze 2016, 86, cited in Olalla-Soler 2020, 6). Due to the fact that three parameters differ from Halverson’s study simultaneously (time, place and language), we were not able to treat them separately and measure a particular impact for each of them. Our survey did not aim to discover a cause-effect chain, but rather to consider all three of them jointly as a set of different data. However, we consider the first parameter, i.e. time, as predominant over the other two. On the one hand, the time lag of 21 years seems long enough to make it possible to register qualitatively significant, discrete changes in society, produced by advances in technology, media and accessibility, since both Poland and Norway are immersed in a – more or less – shared, European and globalized context. Concerning the third difference, i.e. language, apart from the assumption, widely accepted by the translation scholars’ community, of the ‘closest equivalents of the concept of translation in different European languages’ (see section 1), we do not consider the etymology of words a valid indicator of their contemporary meaning and use (Pym 2007, 159–160). The fact of replication puts a study, and in particular, the publications communicating it to the wider scientific audience, subject to a serious test (Neunzig 2017, 49), because only studies reported in a rigorous way are able to generate comparable studies and results. According to a widely accepted definition, replication is “the repetition of the methods that led to a reported finding” (Schmidt 2009, cited in Olalla-Soler 2020, 3). When performing this replication, we tested the accuracy of all the methodological features of the previous survey. 4.2 Semiotic nature of the concept of translation in Halverson’s survey When trying to determine “which instances of an object may be included in the concept [of translation]” (Halverson 1998, 12), Halverson used Toury’s revision (1986) of Jakobson’s definitions of intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation (1959), and proposed the following three dimensions: (1) type relationship (i.e. intra- versus intersemiotic dimension), (2) token relationship (i.e. intra- versus intersystemic dimension), and (3) linguality dimension (presence or absence of natural language on at least one side of the translational process) (Halverson 2000, 5; see also Table 2 in this paper). Her main hypothesis is that the concept of translation (translation category in terms of prototype semantics; Norwegian oversettelse) demonstrates prototype effects, i.e. membership gradience and fuzzy, permeable boundaries (Halverson 2000, 4, 7; see also Halverson 1999). Halverson states that “none of [the three above mentioned dimensions] constitute necessary and sufficient conditions for membership in the ‘translation’ category, and that they play different roles, i.e. demonstrate varying salience, in informants’ evaluations” (Halverson 2000, 5). As a secondary hypothesis, she posits that the central instances for the translation category are constituted mostly by cases of intersystemic operations and, in particular, between two linguistic systems clearly differentiated by the Norwegian language users. The results obtained offer empirical evidence and support the main hypothesis (translation category shows prototype effects) and secondary hypothesis (central instances of translation are mostly intersystemic, lingual operations). 5. Methodology 5.1 Sample and main methodological characteristics of data collection We collected data using a seven-value scale questionnaire (see the Appendix) from 103 translation-naïve undergraduate students at the very beginning of the academic year 2018- 2019 (end of September and beginning of October 2018) at the University of Wroclaw, Institute of Romance Studies (French, Spanish and Italian studies), in the south-western region of Poland. Table 1 shows the main methodological characteristics of our survey (right-hand column), comparing them to those of Halverson’s (middle column). Table 1. Main methodological characteristics of Halverson’s study (Halverson 2000, 7) and our study (in italics: different aspects, specific to our study). S. Halverson’s study Our study Population translation-theoretically naïve, young native language users translation-theoretically naïve, young native language users Language native speakers of Norwegian native speakers of Polish Sample size 103 subjects 103 subjects Social group undergraduate students undergraduate students S. Halverson’s study Our study Place English Department at the University of Bergen (Norway) Institute of Romance Studies (French, Spanish, Italian) (Poland) Time during the spring and fall semesters of 1997 at the very beginning of the fall semester of 2018 Training received no training in translation theory: the students were all considered to be equally theoretically naive no training in translation theory: the students were all considered to be equally theoretically naive some training in practical translation: one third of the subjects were approximately half-way through the introductory course in practical translation no training in practical translation Experience of translation [data not provided] no experience of translation: the students were all considered to be equally practically (professionally) naïve Statistical representativeness sampling techniques not adopted, representativeness of the group not statistically guaranteed sampling techniques not adopted, representativeness of the group not statistically guaranteed 5.2 Questionnaire adapted to the Polish context Our instrument, a seven-value scale questionnaire (see Appendix), is based on Halverson’s questionnaire (Halverson 2000, 14–15), which is in turn a slightly adapted version of the Coleman-Kay methodology for studying the prototype effects of the English word “lie” (Coleman and Kay 1981). The seven-value scale corresponds to a degree of certainty on whether a type of translation is perceived by the respondents as a central or peripheral one. On this scale “[...] one through three were various degrees of ‘yes, it is a translation’ [1 = completely certain; 2 = quite certain; 3 = somewhat certain], while five through seven were the corresponding ‘no, it is not a translation’ responses [5 = somewhat certain; 6 = quite certain; 7 = completely certain]” (Halverson 2000, 5). 6. Results obtained In this section, we first present the results of our survey in order to check the main hypothesis of our study, and then we compare these results to the Halverson’s findings in order to check our additional hypothesis. Tables and figures already contain both sets of results. When performing the quantitative analysis, we calculated descriptive statistics (minimum, maximum, mean values and standard deviation). Our further statistical decisions were based on graphical representations of data obtained in the study. 6.1 Descriptive quantitative analysis of our study 6.1.1 Means and standard deviation Table 2 shows mean scores and standard deviations for each text pair. In general, the mean values in our survey are distributed among responses pertaining to the affirmative attitudes “yes, it is a translation” and the neutral ones “do not know” (minimum mean 1.301; maximum mean 5.135). Table 2. Mean scores and standard deviations (s) for each text pair in Halverson’s study (2000, 8, Table 2; for text pair 5, the systemic-level boundary was questioned by Halverson) and in our study (in italics: mean scores and presence of linguality). text pair text A (our study) text B (our study) Halverson’s study (1997, Norway) Our study (2018, Poland) mean score s mean score s 1 intrasystemic visual system (traffic signalization: traffic light) visual system (traffic signalization: traffic sign) 3.960 2.634 4.515 2.072 2 intersystemic (systemic-level boundary) numeric monetary system of USD currency (specific sum in USD) numeric monetary system of PLN currency (same sum in PLN) 3.099 2.027 4.155 2.009 3 intersemiotic (semiotic-level boundary, systemic-level boundary, linguality) visual system (traffic sign) language system (verbal content of the traffic sign) 1.752 1.615 2.184 1.872 4 interlingual (systemic-level boundary, linguality) language system (sentence in standard English) language system (sentence in standard Polish) 1.426 0.864 1.301 1.008 5 interlingual (?) (systemic-level boundary, linguality) language/ dialectal system (sentence in Silesian dialect) language system (sentence in standard Polish) 1.663 1.458 1.689 1.284 6 intralingual (linguality) language system (sentence in standard Polish) language system (reformulated sentence in standard Polish) 3.545 2.138 3.650 2.104 text pair text A (our study) text B (our study) Halverson’s study (1997, Norway) Our study (2018, Poland) mean score s mean score s 7 intersemiotic (semiotic-level boundary, systemic-level boundary) visual system (painting) aural system (music) 5.040 1.849 5.135 1.837 The neutral response “do not know” begins at point 3.500 and ends at point 4.499 (grey area in Figure 1), and it seems that text pairs 4, 5, and 3 are included in the affirmative responses, while text pairs 6 and 2 are included in the “do not know” area. Text pair 1 seems to be the only one placed slightly on the negative side (closer to “no, it is not a translation”, with a rather high standard deviation 2.072), and finally text pair 7 is likely to be excluded from the neutral area and put more convincingly on the negative side (with a lower standard deviation 1.837, than text pair 1), but still, not very strongly. No mean scores correspond to categories 6 or 7 on that scale (“no, it is not a translation, and I am quite or completely certain about that”). In summary, we may state that, taken all together, none of the text pairs evaluated by our subjects were clearly rejected as not being translations. Figure 1. Mean values for 7 text pairs in Halverson’s study and our study (for standard deviation, see Table 2). The order of the mean values (from the lowest mean value to the highest) can be registered as follows: 4, 5, 3, 6, 2, 1, 7. In addition to the order of the means obtained, the standard deviation of mean scores grows along with the mean scores, i.e. low mean scores present low standard deviation, and high mean scores present high standard deviation. If we consider the results in a more visual way, which highlights its radial, ripple-like structure (Figure 2), we may conclude that text pairs 4, 5, and 3 constitute the most central items.2 2 For the visual forms of representing central and peripheral positions of instances in the translation concept, see also Halverson 1998, 15, Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2. Radial structure of the concepts of oversettelse and tlumaczenie. The responses obtained in our survey do not show a normal distribution, as seen in Figure 3. Figure 3. Histograms with distributions of responses by text pair in our study. The responses for the text pairs 4, 5 and 3 are distributed asymmetrically with a strong left-side asymmetrical predominance, while text pairs 1 and 7 present a weak right- side dominance. The distribution of text pairs 6 and 2 tends to be uniform. Because of this non-normal distribution of the data, and mainly due to the fact that, in our study, we deal with dependent samples (the same subjects during the same data collection moment responded to the items from 1 to 7), it was not possible to carry out statistical tests such as the one-way ANOVA or Scheffé tests (Scheffé, 1999) that were performed by Halverson (2000, 8). The creation of sub-groups of closest text pairs (so-called “rings” in Halverson’s paper) was carried out, in our case, only on the basis of descriptive analysis. 6.1.2 Pattern of prototype effects: The “three rings” The 103 respondents in our study perceived as central instances (a “first ring”) text pairs 4, 5 (both interlingual translations, with language on both sides of the translational process), and 3 (intersemiotic translation, with language on one side of the translational process). These items were perceived as actual translations (affirmative answers), with different levels of certainty. Text pair 4 (interlingual translation between two well-differentiated linguistic systems, “translation proper”, as in Jakobson’s classification from 1959) was clearly the most central element, but the two remaining types of translations were also included in the tlumaczenie concept (text pair 5: interlingual translation between dialect and standard language, and text pair 3: intersemiotic translation between visual and language systems). Beyond the “central ring”, as a “second ring”, young Polish subjects placed text pair 6 (intralingual, with language on both sides of the translational process) and text pair 2 (intrasystemic translation). These pairs were characterized as indefinite, with no opinion from the respondents, neither affirmative or negative: in other words, a “do not know” response. We may consider the remaining text pairs, i.e. text pairs 1 (intrasystemic translation) and 7 (intersemiotic translation), which both lack language on both sides, as being excluded from the tlumaczenie concept, albeit weakly. They correspond to the “third ring” of the tlumaczenie concept established by our subjects. 6.2 Comparison with Halverson’s study 6.2.1 Means and standard deviation In general terms, the mean values obtained in our survey are surprisingly very similar to those obtained by Halverson (Table 2, Figures 1 and 2). However, three differences can be observed (Figure 1): differences in mean scores (and standard deviations) for three text pairs: text pair 2 (difference=1.056), text pair 1 (difference=0.555), and text pair 3 (difference=0.432), in descending order. The difference in text pair 2 seems to be the greatest, and we do not have any valid explanation for this. The Polish informants probably encountered some problems in understanding of this text pair, and saw it as an unclear item to evaluate. Furthermore, as Halverson affirms in her paper, this text pair relies on an intersystemic boundary between two different currencies expressed in a numerical form (in our study: 10 and 3.65), followed by a conventionalized currency symbol (in our study: $ for USD and zl. for PLN), but, in our opinion, the users’ perception of this text pair as a non-linguistic text can be questioned. It is quite possible that they saw in this text pair some traits of linguality anyway. The order of the mean values (from lowest to highest) is also quite close between our research and Halverson’s study (order: 4, 5, 3, 2, 6, 1, 7), with the exception of text pairs 2 and 6, which are interchanged. This probably corroborates the unclear status of text pair 2. The standard deviation of the mean scores we obtained shows the same tendency that was already identified by Halverson: “there is greatest intragroup certainty about the most central member, and that as average uncertainty grows, so does the range of responses (a finding which is intuitively appealing)” (Halverson 2000, 8). Interestingly, the subjects excluded text pair 7 from the translation concept and displayed a general intragroup unanimity about this exclusion in both studies (s = 1.849, and 1.837, respectively; Table 2). 6.2.2 Pattern of prototype effects: The “three rings” If we analyse Halverson’s mean scores according to the three areas of response (Figure 1), among the general affirmative response “yes, it is a translation” (with different degrees of certainty – scores going from 1.000 to 3.499), there are four text pairs: 4, 5, 3, and 2 (and not three text pairs, as in our survey); in the non-defined “do not know” area (going from 3.500 to 4.499), there are two text pairs: 6 and 1; and in the general negative “no, it is not a translation” area (with different degrees of certainty – going from 4.500 to 7.000), there is only one text pair: pair 7 (and not two text pairs, as in our survey). That means that, contrary to our hypothesis, young Norwegians had a wider conception of oversettelse at the end of twentieth century than young Poles had of the tlumaczenie concept at the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century. However, it should be pointed out that these differences are not very strong: text pairs 1 and 2 really behave as frontier items, because in Halverson’s study they gave different results in two different statistical tests (Halverson 2000, 9, 11). 7. Discussion 7.1 Completion of a constructive replication: Ambivalent effect The methodological strategy of a replication applied in our study had an ambivalent effect: on the one hand, the original survey by Halverson inspired ours in a positive way, but on the other hand it became our main structural constraint, as we had to follow, as close as possible, Halverson’s original conceptual assumptions, methodological design, data analysis techniques and forms of data representation. We appreciated all the methodological details reported in Halverson’s paper from 2000, and the fact that her original instrument (questionnaire) had been translated from Norwegian into English and reproduced in the appendix of her paper. However, we had no access to her complete dataset with numerical results, and thus could not execute any kind of comparative operations or graphs (e.g. to generate paired boxplots). 7.2 Confirmation of our main hypothesis and further research Returning to the hypotheses, our main hypothesis, claiming that the Polish concept of translation is not uniform and includes different semiotic types of translation, from which some types are perceived as central (prototypical), and others as peripheral, has been confirmed. In terms of prototype semantics, we demonstrated empirically that the tlumaczenie concept shows prototype effects (gradual membership and fuzzy boundaries), as does the oversettelse in Halverson’s survey: the seven text pairs are graded in the tlumaczenie concept, and none of the three dimensions (semiotic-level boundary, systemic-level boundary, presence of linguality) constituted necessary and sufficient conditions for inclusion into the concept. However, the recognition of fuzzy boundaries in our data seems to be less convincing, because the dimension of linguality is even more likely to stand for the necessary and sufficient condition for items to be included in the tlumaczenie concept. Taking as evidence our data collected in 2018 in Poland, if we considered text pair 1 as being excluded from this concept (Halverson did not), and if we interpreted simultaneously text pair 2 as featuring some linguistic traits in the language users’ perception, we could thus state that the presence of linguality plays a crucial role of necessary and sufficient condition in the case of the tlumaczenie concept. This tentative conclusion would suggest a stronger linguistically founded nature of the Polish tlumaczenie compared with the Norwegian oversettelse. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that further research should be carried out concerning the evaluation of differences in register in the Polish language as an intralingual boundary. The interaction between linguality and the system-level boundary merits deeper attention, as Halverson herself discovered a different salience of the involvement of language and of the system-level boundary in objects positioned in the central places and those placed in the peripheral ones (Halverson 2000, 10–12). If we could find better methodological instruments to measure this kind of perception in Polish language users, then the system-level boundary would probably be considered the necessary and sufficient condition, together with the linguality dimension. The key issue to be explored in future studies will be the question of what kind of boundary Polish native speakers perceive as system level (‘the lowest one’), and whether they need to perceive any boundary at all in order to call some activity tlumaczenie in their surrounding reality. 7.3 Rejection of our additional hypothesis and possible reasons As a second point, in conducting this research we wanted to establish to what extent the results obtained in our study were different from Halverson’s, i.e. to check whether the instances of the tlumaczenie concept already include firmer forms of intersemiotic and intralingual operations. Our additional hypothesis, which supposed a semiotically expanded notion of translation in the Polish context, encompassing more objects of intersemiotic and intralingual translations than that perceived by the young Norwegians in 1997, was not confirmed in our data. In fact, the results suggested the opposite. We may conclude that the young Poles’ conception of tlumaczenie at the end of the second decade of the twenty-first century is almost the same as the conception of oversettelse by young Norwegians at the end of twentieth century. Moreover, this is quite surprisingly to us, as the semiotic nature of translation, i.e. the pattern of effects for the tlumaczenie concept that has been revealed, is very close to the pattern identified for the oversettelse concept. It is likely that the difference in time between these two populations (21 years, almost a quarter of a century) was not a determinant factor, and other factors not considered would be crucial in this study, such as: • The parameter of space, i.e. huge differences in standards of living between the two countries; it is possible that, even if Poland and Norway share a similar European geopolitical context, the advances in technology, multimodal mass-media and accessibility in Poland in 2018 were actually similar to those seen in Norway 21 years ago; in that sense, the Polish youth had finally ‘caught up’ with their counterparts living in Norway more than two decades earlier; • The parameter of language, but not in the sense of differences between Polish and Norwegian, rather in the sense of the imported English cognitive structure of the word translation, adopted by young native, non-specialized, Polish and Norwegian speakers as a lingua franca word. Although the Polish word tlumaczenie has (probably) Turkish origins (Skibinska and Blumczynski 2009, 32), and the Norwegian word oversettelse comes from Latin through Middle Low German (15th century), young Poles and Norwegians are probably both strongly influenced by the English word translation and the cognitive structure underlying it. This explanation would be complementary (if not opposite) to the previous one: the mechanisms of globalization operate mostly through English (lingua franca), regardless of the possible huge differences in living conditions between European countries. This cross-linguistic and cross-cultural import from the cognitive structure of the English translation and related ‘translation’ concepts” in other, but still local European languages, even in the case of non-direct Latin etymologies, was already suggested by Halverson (2000, 13), and our findings are likely to go in the same direction. Furthermore, we should consider three methodological limitations that may have an impact on the measurement performed and thus would alter our results to some extent: (1) There was an absence of alternative concepts of translation; in both studies, only one concept was taken into account, without measuring other interrelated, neighbouring, competing concepts like “paraphrase”, “interpretation”, “rendering” (Halverson 2000, 5), so the limiting impact of the questionnaire (with its specific examples of wordings and images) used in both studies might be considerable. When these competing concepts are taken into account in a research design and in a particular instrument, the image of an underlying cognitive structure becomes richer and more complex; at least, this was the case of our exploratory study on the cognitive structure of the “translation service” concept (FR service de traduction), in which such terms as “adaptation” (FR adaptation; Kuznik submitted), “copywriting” and “transcreation” (FR rédaction, transcréation; Kuznik 2019b) were mentioned in 2015 by the interviewed representatives of five French translation enterprises (SME), and consequently included in our analysis; (2) Samples were small and statistically unrepresentative; in both studies, data were gathered in two samples of 103 subjects selected through the procedure of convenience sampling, quite often used in TS (see for example the studies reported in Risku, Rogl, and Milosevic 2019), and due to the limitations of this sampling procedure, the results obtained cannot be statistically generalized to the whole population of young Norwegians and Poles; (3) Samples were qualitatively and conceptually inadequate; even if we consider students starting their undergraduate training in English, French, Spanish or Italian studies a social group non-specialized in translation theory or in translation practice, they could have entered the university with some basic (imported?) notion of translation due to their interest in foreign languages. In that case, they could not be seen as translation-naive users of Norwegian and Polish, but rather as trainee translators; they would thus perceive the concept of translation not as part of general, non-specialized language, but rather as a (specialised) term pertaining to a specialized area of knowledge. 8. Concluding remarks Apart from these limitations and suppositions, one final conclusion seems to be clear: when talking about oversettelse or tlumaczenie, native-speaking European language users all refer not only to examples of interlingual translation (Jakobson’s “translation proper” from 1959) but also – although to a lesser extent – to objects of intralingual transfer between standard language and its dialectal variations (text pair 5) and to objects of intersemiotic transfer between visual and language system (text pair 3). In other words, the semiotic nature of the concept of translation is wide in the sense that it includes intralingual and intersemiotic translations, but at the same time, is narrow because intralingual and intersemiotic translations are peripheral compared to interlingual translation, which still remains central. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Agnieszka Libura (Principal Investigator), all the members of the Center for Cognitive Studies of Language and Communication, and all the members of the Unit of Translation Studies in the Institute of Romance Studies, both bodies established in the Faculty of Letters, University of Wroclaw, as well as all the participants of the 6th Translation Process Research Workshop held in Murcia in January 2019, where this study was presented for the first time, for their valuable comments; Dorota Kuznik for her help in our first steps in the quantitative analysis; and Kamil Dyba from the Institute of Mathematics, University of Wroclaw, for his contribution to our descriptive quantitative analysis and for all his methodological advices. References Akrich, Madelaine, Michel Callon, and Bruno Latour. 2006. Sociologie de la traduction. Textes fondateurs. Paris: Presses de l’École des Mines. Bartminski, Jerzy. 2018. Language in the Context of Culture. The Metaphor of “Europe as Home” in This Day and Age. Translated by Adam Glaz. Katowice: Slask. Bartminski, Jerzy, Stanislawa Niebrzegowska-Bartminska, and Malgorzata Brzozowska. 2016. Leksykon aksjologiczny Slowian i ich sasiadów. Tom 3 (PRACA). Lublin: Uniwersytet im. Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej. Castro Ortíz, Ana María, Olaya Marulanda, Claudia Lorena, and David Orrego Carmona. 2008. “Charlie and the chocolate factory: adaptación y traducción.” Mutatis Mutandis 1 (1): 58–80. Coleman, Linda, and Paul Kay. 1981. “Prototype Semantics: The English Word lie.” Language 57 (1): 26–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/414285. Crandall, Christian S., and Jeffrey W. Sherman. 2016. “On the Scientific Superiority of Conceptual Replications for Scientific Progress.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66: 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.002. Dam, Helle V., and Karen K. Zethsen. 2019. “Professionals’ views on the concepts of their trade: what is (not) translation?” In Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies, edited by Helle V. Dam, Matilde. N. Brøgger, and Karen K. Zethsen, 200–219, London/New York: Routledge. Dam, V. Helle, Brøgger, Matilde N., and Karen K. Zethsen, eds. 2019. Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge. García-Izquierdo, Isabel, and Vicent Montalt. 2013. “Equigeneric and Intergeneric Translation in Patient-Centred Care.” Hermes 51: 39–53. https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb. v26i51.97436. Gottlieb, Henrik. 2008. “Multidimensional Translation.” In Understanding Translation, edited by Anne Schjoldager, 39–65. Aarhus: Academica. Gottlieb, Henrik. 2018. “Semiotics and translation.” In The Routledge Handbook of Translation Studies and Linguistics, edited by Kirsten Malmkjær, 45–63. Abingdon: Routledge. Grbic, Nadja. 2011. “’Boundary work’ as a concept for studying professionalization processes in the interpreting field.” In Identity and Status in the Translational Professions, edited by Rakefet Sela-Sheffy and Miriam Shlesinger, 247–261. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Halverson, Sandra. 1998. “Translation Studies and Representative Corpora: Establishing Links between Translation Corpora, Theoretical/Descriptive Categories and a Conception of the Object of Study.” Meta 43 (4): 494–514. https://doi.org/10.7202/003000ar. Halverson, Sandra. 1999. “Conceptual Work and the ‘Translation’ Concept.” Target 11 (1): 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.11.1.02hal. Halverson, Sandra. 2000. “Prototype Effects in the ‘Translation’ Category.” In Translation in Context, edited by Andrew Chesterman, Natividad Gallardo San Salvador and Yves Gambier, 3–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Halverson, Sandra. 2002. “Cognitive models, prototype effects and ‘translation’: the role of cognition in translation (meta)theory.” Across Languages and Cultures 3 (1): 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.3.2002.1.2. Hüffmeier, Joachim, Jens Mazei, and Thomas Schultze. 2016. “Reconceptualizing Replication as a Sequence of Different Studies: A Replication Typology.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 66: 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.009. Jakobson, Roman. 1959. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In On Translation, edited by Reuben A. Brower. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kuznik, Anna. 2018a. “Uzycie terminów ‚przekladac, przeklad’ i ‚tlumaczyc, tlumaczenie’ w korespondencji handlowej polskich uslugodawców uslug tlumaczeniowych z klientami i podwykonawcami.” Oral communication presented at the conference Translation I, Uniwersytet Wroclawski, Poland, 27-28th September 2018. Kuznik, Anna. 2018b. “Cadre théorique sémiotique et brève étude exploratoire dans le secteur des services de traduction.” Des mots aux actes 7: 493–508. 10.15122/ isbn.978-2-406-08745-8.p.0493. Kuznik, Anna. 2019a. “Les conceptualisations contemporaines de l’activité de traduction élaborées par les responsables d’entreprises de traduction françaises.” Miedzy Oryginalem a Przekladem 25 (4): 25–40. https://doi.org/10.12797/MOaP.25.2019.46.02. Kuznik, Anna. 2019b. “L’organisation des services dans les PME de traduction françaises.” Des mots aux actes 8: 289–307. https://doi.org/10.15122/isbn.978-2-406-09779-2.p.0289. Kuznik, Anna. 2019c. “Entre la traduction intralinguale et intersémiotique. L’innovation dans les services de traduction vue par les responsables des entreprises de traduction françaises.” Meta 64 (1): 194–214. https://doi.org/10.7202/1065334ar. Kuznik, Anna. submitted [a]. “Comment les responsables de PME de traduction françaises parlent-elles de leurs services de traduction? Résultats d’une analyse quantitative exploratoire.” Kuznik, Anna. submitted [b]. “One Thousand and One Names of Polish Translation Enterprises in the Lower Silesia Region. A Cognitive Landscape.” Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume I, Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lewicki, Roman. 2017. Zagadnienia lingwistyki przekladu. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Marii Curie-Sklodowskiej. L’Homme, Marie-Claude. 2020. Lexical Semantics for Terminology. An introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Neunzig, Wilhelm. 2017. “Methodological Background.” In Researching Translation Competence by PACTE Group, edited by Amparo Hurtado Albir, 43–59. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Olalla-Soler, Christian. 2020. “Practices and attitudes toward replication in empirical translation and interpreting studies.” Target 32 (1): 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1075/target. 18159.ola. Presas Corbella, Marisa and Celia Martín de León. 2011. “Teorías implícitas de traductores principiantes. Una investigación cualitativa en traductología cognitiva.” Sendebar 22: 87–111. Presas Corbella, Marisa and Celia Martín de León. 2014. “The Role of Implicit Theories in the Non-expert Translation Process.” In Minding Translation / Con la traducción en la mente, edited by Ricardo Muñoz Martín, special issue of MonTI. Monografías de Traducción e Interpretación 1: 273–302. https://doi.org/10.6035/MonTI.2014.ne1.9. Pym, Anthony. 2007. “On History in Formal Conceptualizations of Translation.” Across Languages and Cultures 8 (2): 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1556/Acr.8.2007.2.1. Risku, Hanna, Regina Rogl, and Jelena Milosevic, eds. 2019. Translation Practice in the Field. Current research on socio-cognitive processes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. “Natural Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350. https://doi. org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0. Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. “Principles of Categorization.” In: Cognition and Categorization, edited by Eleanor Rosch and Barbara Lloyd, 27–48. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Salmons, Janet E. 2015. “Conducting Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Online.” In The Oxford Handbook of Multimethod and Mixed Methods Research Inquiry, edited by Sharlene N. Hesse-Biber and R. Burke Johnson, 522–547. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scheffé, Henry. 1999. The Analysis of Variance. Wiley-InterScience (Wiley Clasics Library). Schmidt, Stefan. 2009. “Shall We Really Do It Again? The Powerful Concept of Replication Is Neglected in the Social Sciences.” Review of General Psychology 13 (2): 90–100. Skibinska, Elzbieta, and Piotr Blumczynski. 2009. “Polish Metaphorical Perceptions of the Translator and Translation.” Target 21 (1): 30–57. https://doi.org/10.1075/ target.21.1.02ski. Tomaszkiewicz, Teresa. 2006. Przeklad audiowizualny. Warsaw: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Toury, Gideon. 1986. “Translation: A Cultural-Semiotic Perspective.” In Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics, edited by Thomas Sebeok, 1111–1124. Berlin: Mounton de Gruyter. Tymoczko, Maria. 2005. “Trajectories of Research in Translation Studies.” Meta 50 (4): 1082–1097. https://doi.org/10.7202/012062ar. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1985. Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis. Ann Arbor: Koroma. Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford: Blackwell. Zethsen, Karen K. 2007. “Beyond Translation Proper—Extending the Field of Translation Studies.” TTR: Traduction, Terminologie, Rédaction 20 (1): 281–308. https://doi. org/10.7202/018506ar. Zethsen, Karen K., and Aage Hill-Madsen. 2016. “Intralingual Translation and Its Place within Translation Studies – A Theoretical Discussion.” Meta 61 (3): 692–708. https:// doi.org/10.7202/1039225ar. Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2017. “Translation as a metaphoric traveller across disciplines. Wanted: Translaboration!” Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 3 (3): 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.3.3.07zwi. Zwischenberger, Cornelia. 2019 “From inward to outward: the need for translation studies to become outward-going.” The Translator 25 (1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2019.1654060. Appendix Questionnaire used in our survey (images in text pairs 1 and 3 retrieved on 20 September 2018 from Free Stock Photos PEXELS: www.pexels.com) A (material zródlowy) [source material] B (material docelowy) [target material] Tak, to jest tlumaczenie [yes, it is a translation] Nie, to nie jest tlumaczenie [no, it is not a translation] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jestem tego zupelnie pewna / pewien [completely certain] Jestem tego dosc pewna / pewien [quite certain] Jestem tego tylko troche pewna / pewien [somewhat certain] Nie wiem [do not know] Jestem tego tylko troche pewna / pewien [somewhat certain] Jestem tego dosc pewna / pewien [quite certain] Jestem tego zupelnie pewna / pewien [completely certain] 1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. $ 10 3,65 zl. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. Uwaga, roboty drogowe! [Warning: road works] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. What day is it? Jaki to dzien? [What day is it] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. Nie godej takich gupot, chopie! [Don’t say such nonsense, man!] Nie mów takich glupstw, czlowieku! [Don’t say such nonsense, man!] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A (material zródlowy) [source material] B (material docelowy) [target material] Tak, to jest tlumaczenie [yes, it is a translation] Nie, to nie jest tlumaczenie [no, it is not a translation] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Jestem tego zupelnie pewna / pewien [completely certain] Jestem tego dosc pewna / pewien [quite certain] Jestem tego tylko troche pewna / pewien [somewhat certain] Nie wiem [do not know] Jestem tego tylko troche pewna / pewien [somewhat certain] Jestem tego dosc pewna / pewien [quite certain] Jestem tego zupelnie pewna / pewien [completely certain] 6. Ona zawsze powtarza w kólko to samo. [She always repeats the same things over and over again.] Bardzo lubi sie powtarzac. [She likes to repeat herself.] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. [„Cztery Pory Roku” Vivaldiego] [“The Four Seasons” by Vivaldi] [obrazy przedstawiajace cztery pory roku, namalowane pod wplywem sluchania „Czterech Pór Roku” Vivaldiego] [pictures representing four seasons painted under the influence of listening to “The Four Seasons” of Vivaldi] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 About the author Anna Kuznik, PhD, is assistant professor at the Institute of Romance Studies of the University of Wroclaw (Poland). She is a member of the PACTE research group established at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, of the TREC/Thematic Network on Empirical Research in Translation and Cognition, of the CTER/Consortium for Translation Education Research, and of the Centre for Cognitive Research on Language and Communication established at the Faculty of Letters of the University of Wroclaw. She works as a vocational practice coordinator for French studies and Spanish studies, and is a certified translator and interpreter of French and Spanish, as well as an expert member of TEPIS/Polish Association of Sworn and Specialised Translators. Book Review Adriana Serban and Kelly Kar Yue Chan, eds. Opera in Translation: Unity and Diversity Amsterdam, John Benjamins, 2020, 369 pp. Print version: ISBN 9789027207500, electronic version: ISBN 9789027260789. Reviewed by Benjamin Virc University of Ljubljana, Slovenia The edited volume Opera in Translation: Unity and Diversity, published by John Benjamins in 2020, can be viewed—at least through the eyes of all opera aficionados and interdisciplinary scholars connected with musical theater—as a logical and much-awaited continuation of both theoretical and more pragmatically oriented research on the ever-growing topic of translating operas (and artworks within musical theater in general). This topic was already addressed by Klaus Kaindl’s seminal 1995 volume Die Oper als Textgestalt (Opera as a Text Form)—limited, however, to the German-speaking world—followed by Dinda L. Gorlée’s work Song and Significance: Virtues and Vices of Vocal Translation (2005) published a decade later, Helen Julia Minors’s Music, Text and Translation (Bloomsbury Academic, 2013), and most recently Lucile Desblache’s Music and Translation: New Mediations in the Digital Age (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019). As the editors Adriana Serban and Kelly Kar Yue Chan point out in the introduction, Opera in Translation tackles the complex and sometimes overwhelmingly multifaceted challenges of translating operas, which are essentially multimodal artworks in musical theater, encompassing various modes (i.e., semiotic systems), such as the literary text (de facto the libretto), music, visual imagery (set, costumes, and lighting), conceptual direction, and so on. Moreover, the plethora of interdisciplinary approaches presented in the book—ranging from comparative analysis, critical method, deconstruction, and intersemiotic approaches to translation and adaptation—reflect the truly intercultural and inherently intertextual position of opera as an artistic form that has been in (and at times also out of) favor among world-wide audiences for centuries and is still enjoying an internationally acknowledged elitist status as, to quote the poet, librettist, and libretto translator W. H. Auden, “the last refuge of the High style.” In an attempt to address various issues, either theoretical or entirely technical in nature, in the process of conveying meaning across linguistic and cultural borders as well as various artistic configurations, the book consists of five major topic sections. These are titled “Open Perspectives,” “Across Genres and Media,” “Text and Context,” “From Text to Stage,” and “Libretto Translation Revisited,” featuring sixteen articles by seventeen authors of various expertise and background in translation studies, exhibiting a professional provenance closely linked to opera production. The first section starts with the article “Opera and Intercultural Musicology as Modes of Translation” by Helen Julia Minors, examining the outcome of the interplay of various linguistic and musical factors in preparing an intercultural operatic production of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream for the 2013 Sfisterio Macerata Opera Festival under the new title Sogni d’una note di mezza estate. Despite somewhat inconsistent and sometimes confusing use of terminology (with unclear delineation between concepts like mode, media, genre, etc.), Minors’s contribution proves its relevance in focusing on the musicocentric perspective because music (to quote Nicholas Cook) “has become a metonym for social interaction” and also a shared medium (in the sensorial sense), in which the “pan-European” fairies find their natural habitat. Moreover, in the case of Sogni, music is utilized to speak across media and languages, whereas the role of intercultural musicology is to “embrace the cultural other” (Cook 2012). The second article in this section, by Judi Palmer, explores the reasons for the increase in the quantity of text displayed (in the form of surtitles), a trend of excessive verboseness that has somewhat overridden the multi-semiotic balance of opera performances. Palmer argues that surtitles need to be put into a pertinent perspective due to the inherent multimodality of musical theater works; therefore, primarily to avoid unnecessary multiplication of information, surtitlers should consider every aspect of the production when deciding how much information is required to optimize audience engagement with the action on stage. Palmer’s conclusion is thus in favor of “less surtitles, more experience,” opting for more active opera-going habits of contemporary audiences worldwide. In her article, Lucile Desblache focuses on W. H. Auden’s translation “poetics,” which has not been always aligned with the overall skopos of musical performance, often straying from the original idea endorsed by either the librettist or composer. Auden and Kallman’s collaborative work in libretto translation—or, more specifically, libretto cultural and poetic adaption, with their 1957 rendition of Mozart’s The Magic Flute as an exemplified case of a rewritten and recontextualized source text—raises questions even today: namely, how far can the translator or librettist go in transmuting, rewriting, or even, as Desblache puts it, counter-writing the source text, without sacrificing his or her own poetic stance? The second section, “Across Genres and Media,” also consists of three contributions, starting with Kenny K. K. Ng’s article on intersemiotic translation of Mei Lanfang’s operatic artistry into Fei Mu’s 1948 opera film A Wedding in the Dream (Shengsi hen), which was incidentally China’s first color film. The study examines specific modes of both the symbolism of the Beijing opera at the time (now elevated to the Chinese opera) and cinematic narrative. The synthesis of both media can thus be understood in terms of intermediality, as a specific type of intersemiotic translation, although the opera film fails to preserve the aura of Mei Lanfang’s performance due to technical deficiencies of early color film in spite of Fei Mu’s creative camerawork and his introduction of the moving camera. Furthermore, to achieve satisfying artistic results, the opera film would require consistent employment of editing techniques and advanced cinematography, and therefore a less loyal representation of theatricality. The next article, by María Carmen África Vidal Claramonte, takes on Matthew Bourne’s ballet The Car Man as an example of post-translation (Gentzler 2017), as a hermeneutic rewriting of Bizet’s opera Carmen that entails the use of a new epistemology that facilitates the dissolving binarisms and gives way to new questions of race, gender, and power. This new epistemology that favors “fluid borders” and “liquid definitions” over “true-false” binarisms is significantly transforming translation studies as well by redefining the relationship between the source text and translation. As the author argues, invoking Jorge Luis Borges, Bourne’s The Car Man completes the original (Bizet’s opera Carmen) through intertextuality and the iconoclasm of heteronormativity. In this sense, Carmen can be viewed as a late nineteenth-century negation of male sexual supremacy. As the author argues, Bourne’s choreographic reconfiguration can be seen from the new post-structuralist epistemology as a post-translation that can break down barriers and leads to new forms of creativity. Yet another challenge in intercultural translation is discussed in Yoshiko Takebe’s article, which investigates how the aesthetic similarity of different art forms, such as Western European drama (Shakespeare and Beckett) and the traditional Japanese operatic forms of Kabuki and Noh theater, determine the outcome of such a translation. Moreover, in these particular instances of intersemiotic translation of Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night and The Comedy of Errors and Beckett’s Footfalls into forms of Kabuki, Kyogen, and Noh, respectively, the reader is easily convinced of the enhanced sensorial potential of these configurations, which not only have the positive effect of making canonical works of Western theater more accessible to Japanese audiences, but also bear a transformative cognitive moment for the Western spectator in terms of “rediscovering” the essence of the work in question. The third part of the edited volume, “Text and Context,” provides valuable insights regarding translation through a diachronic, intercultural, and ideological perspective. Pierre Degott’s contribution on various English translations of Da Ponte’s libretto for Mozart’s opera Don Giovanni accentuates the conformist domestication strategy of cultural appropriation that is exhibited in all versions analyzed. Although the translations discussed reveal significant discrepancies in style and semantics, Degott points out the similarities between translation strategies that rely heavily on the expectations of the target audience (late Victorian society, London suburban audiences, the middle class, and the current language of contemporary listeners), the only exception being Auden-Kallman’s rewriting of the original entirely through an English cultural and poetic perspective. Despite Degott’s appreciation of the “richness and profundity of the original work” (pp. 155–156), which is reflected in the translations discussed, the causality between the poetic quality of the translations and their reception remains unclear. Another case study of various English translations, by Cindy S. B. Ngai, focuses on the voice of the translator in the case of the Chinese opera The Peony Pavilion. Following Venuti’s concept of the translator’s voice and Herman’s notion of the translator’s visibility, the author observes a number of differences between translations by Cyril Birch (1980), Guanqian Zhang (1994), and Rongpei Wang (2000). Although he is greatly admired for his cultural sensitivity, Birch’s predominant strategy relied on naturalizing and preserving the poetic quality (i.e., the rhyme and comedic effect of the original) while being oblivious to certain ideological features of the source text. Zhang’s translation also demonstrates a strong focus on the recreation of rhyme, which occasionally affects the accuracy of the meaning conveyed. Moreover, as pointed out by Ngai, “a number of allusions are euphemized, or over-translated” (p. 171). Although Wang’s intention in preserving all “the splendor and beauty” of the Chinese play in the English translation resembles Birch’s domestication strategy, it differs in style, which can be described as contemporary colloquial English. Nevertheless, Wang’s translation is stylistically inconsistent because he resorted to euphemisms to avoid the vulgar vocabulary of the source text. The last two articles in this section, by Klaus Kaindl and Danielle Thien, take a closer look at how ideology and cultural preconceptions influence the perception of imagery in the source text and, consequently, the translation practice in question. More specifically, Kaindl’s acute historical exegesis, drawing on Bourdieu’s field theory, points out various front lines of the so-called translation war during the Third Reich, whose sole purpose was to eradicate ideologically incompatible translations of Mozart operas by Jewish authors, Hermann Levi being the most prominent figure. According to Kaindl, much of Levi’s groundbreaking work was “smuggled” into Georg Schünemann’s later translations, which—unlike those by Siegfried Anheisser, a fervent voice of Nazi ideology— were popular among musicians, impresarios, and audiences alike. The most important finding of Kaindl’s study is that Schünemann’s translations were indeed made during the Nazi regime, although they cannot be considered Nazi texts in an ideological sense. The intense political context of that time, however, succeeded in excluding the name of Hermann Levi (in the Latin sense of damnatio memoriae) as the main source of Schünemann’s recombination of existing translations. In contrast to Kaindl’s focus on the habitus of translation practice in Nazi Germany, Danielle Thien’s contribution discusses the cultural migration of Puccini’s opera Madama Butterfly; namely, its libretto in translation. Her study challenges the idea that manipulation of the meaning of a libretto is acceptable as long as the word prosody fits the music. As noted by Thien, the genesis of the Madama Butterfly libretto itself has undergone severe transformations in relation to (rather poor and semantically inaccurate) Italian translations of Long’s short play and Belasco’s play. Moreover, the perception of the archetype of the Asian woman, embodied by Cio-Cio San, is altered in both early English and French translations by Rosette Helen Elkin and Paul Ferrier. Using Lance Hewson’s approach to literary translation criticism, Thien argues that both translators transmuted the portrayal of Butterfly according to the general perception of the Asian female archetype by English and French society at the time. As a consequence, the translations by Elkin and Ferrier also redefined the perception of the white Western male, as personified in the role of Benjamin F. Pinkerton, rendering him a more likeable figure. Both translations, Thien concludes, can thus be understood as ideological adaptations of the original Italian libretto. The next-to-last set of articles, titled “From Text to Stage,” addresses the complex nature and difficult task of intersemiotic translation, which ideally serves as an efficient vessel of musical performance without being bereft of its poetic value and intertextual associations. Gyöngyvér Bozsik’s contribution investigates a number of contextual and musical aspects in a case study of five English translations of Béla Bartók’s one-act opera Duke Bluebeard’s Castle. The libretto, written by the composer’s friend Béla Balázs, is an exemplified instance of artistic incorporation of Hungarian folk ballads with distinct prosodic features, which in itself poses a great translation challenge. Furthermore, Bartók’s rhythmic patterns accentuated the naturalness of Hungarian speech, thus “intensifying natural intonation into music” (quoting Zoltán Kodály, p. 222). The Hungarian recitative style has thus become a quintessence of Bartók’s opera that should be preserved in translation. Bozsik’s comparative analysis of five English translations reveals a number of discrepancies with regard to the original, either in style or meaning. To determine which translation strategy is best suited, the plethora of Bozsik’s choice criteria seems rather disadvantageous because it obscures the clarity of comparison, for example, of sung translations only. As a compromise between meaning, poetics, and performance, Bozsik concludes that Hassall’s translation—although it takes the greatest liberty in terms of text manipulation—seems to be the best option for reflecting the atmosphere of the original so far. An identical attempt at recreating the musical and poetic essence of Wagner’s music dramas Die Walküre and Götterdämmerung was taken by Karen Wilson-deRoze. She analyzed three English translations of both music dramas by Frederick Jameson, Andrew Porter, and Jeremy Sams. In addition, she provided her own translation (as the practical element of her dissertation), which relies heavily on the Gestalt principle of opera as multimodal totality, and especially on intersemiosis between Wagner’s poetry and music, as imbued in Versmelodie. Moreover, Wilson-deRoze argues that, in order to recreate the essence of Wagner’s multimodal artistry, the translator needs to focus on the prosodic foreground, in Wagner’s case the alliteration (Stabreim), which seems to be the most significant aesthetic feature, as well as on the interplay between words and music. And yet, despite the high percentage of recreated rhymes by Wilson- deRoze, the question of the artistic significance of such translation remains open in terms of its reception and the actual resonance of the sung text. The final contribution in the fourth section, by Özlem Sahin Soy and Merve Senol, examines Aydin Gün’s translation of Johann Strauss Jr.’s operetta Die Fledermaus into Turkish (under the title Yarasa), drawing on Peter Low’s pentathlon principle. As pointed out by the authors, operetta has found its place in the musical “polysystem” of Turkey and has become a symbol of Turkey’s Westernization process. In contrast to its “lighter character” in Europe and the West, operetta is still regarded as an elite genre in Turkey, “addressing an educated, cultivated, and more affluent audience” (p. 272). The analysis of Gün’s early translation and its later revision through the pentathlon principles shows that the early version lacks singability and naturalness because it is a more source text–oriented translation. Later revisions, the most recent by Murat Atak, however, reveal a greater focus on contemporary cultural trends, targeting a broader audience of operetta lovers. Patrick John Corness, the author of the first contribution in the last section of the book, “Libretto Translation Revisited,” discusses manifold discrepancies between two English translations of Jaroslav Kvapil’s libretto for Rusalka, the first translation being Daphne Rusbridge’s 1954 sung version in verse, and the second the 1998 prose rendition by Paula Kennedy. Taking into account semantic and stylistic shifts, Corness criticizes both translation approaches in terms of their skopos. According to the author, Kennedy’s prose translation renders the meaning closely with occasional “lapses” into explicitation, which has its semantic value in enabling listeners to simultaneously follow the sung performance in Czech. Although the prose translation by definition does not aspire to render the full stylistic and prosodic qualities of Kvapil’s source text, it does present the reader with “occasional poetic enhancements” (p. 311). In contrast, Daphne Rusbridge’s singing translation evinces various difficulties because some important semantic components and stylistic characteristics of Kvapil’s libretto are either omitted or distorted, compromising the reception of specific cultural features. Under such circumstances, the creation of a new singing version is to be expected; moreover, as the author suggests, the overall poetic quality of Kvapil’s text calls for a lyrical (but non-singing) English translation. Miquel Edo’s article provides the reader with a rare take on intertextuality in nineteenth- century Italian librettos, taking a closer look at two scenes from Francesco Cilea’s opera Adriana Lecouvreur. As is generally acknowledged, intertextuality can operate at two levels at least; that is, at the macro- and micro-levels, the latter commonly being understood as allusion. Edo’s question of whether such allusions and “ungrammaticalities” should be translated at all is soon replaced by the imperative of contemporary audiences and the ever-increasing need to understand and be informed. Edo proposes several techniques that may prove successful in terms of conveying the allusion or the unknown context from the source culture to the target audience: to avoid “strangeness” of the source text, the translator can resort to either naturalization or compensation of the source culture allusion with the most appropriate allusion from the target culture. Edo mentions other strategies that are also applicable to opera libretto translation, such as internal marking and recreation (“creative construction of a passage” by means of a mix of authentic and non-authentic material, p. 331). The third modality that is left out from the scope of the article is archaizing translation, which was often in use until the Second World War. Nevertheless, due to significant social and cultural changes, the translator’s choice regarding the most pertinent translation strategy is nowadays permeated by often conflicting views and binarisms (e.g., archaization/modernization or domestication/foreignization) that need to be reconciled in order to achieve the desired reception of the target audience. In this sense, intertextuality is always an agent of flexible temporality and cultural mobility, a cohesive force that can bring together literary tradition with new translation practices. In addition to intertextuality, the edited volume’s final article, by Marta Mateo, investigates the relationship between the multilingual condition (heteroglossia) in opera and translation; namely, which translation strategies turn out to be most effective in conveying the intended effect by the librettist and composer. Furthermore, the author also analyzes the translation strategies used in subtitling and CD booklets containing multilingual libretti. The analysis of a sample of five operas (Tchaikovsky’s Eugene Onegin, Vivaldi’s Orlando Furioso, Strauss’s Der Rosenkavalier, Stravinsky’s Oedipus Rex, and Janácek’s Vec Makropulos) revealed several relevant findings: in CD inserts, the translation strategies seem more diverse in comparison to DVD subtitles, which exhibit great similarity. As a result, the prevalent approach in subtitling shows a tendency toward domestication, and therefore toward dissolving multilingualism. In addition, the compensation technique was adopted in some cases. Mateo concludes that the degree of heteroglossia does not seem to be a determining factor, and the same is true for the specific language in its relation to the translation strategy. Finally, regarding the sung or spoken nature of the multilingual passages, a certain preference in preserving the heteroglossia in spoken parts and recitatives rather than in cases of arias has been found, although Mateo admits that one cannot draw a solid conclusion due to the small sample of texts analyzed. In an attempt to offer a comprehensive assessment of the volume Opera in Translation: Unity and Diversity, one can conclude that it is diversity that prevails in terms of the topics discussed and corresponding methods. The theoretical aim of unifying such diverse and at times disparate perspectives, however, remains to be fulfilled in terms of conceptual harmonization, especially in the clear delineation of translation and adaptation, which, according to the editors, is “a thread running through the volume” (p. 3). One might argue, however, that the real underpinning notion of the volume is in fact the intersemiotic translation (or transmutation, in Jakobson’s definition) in all its multimodal totality and complexity, which has thus far provided ample material for future editions. Yet another possible unifying moment emerges in the increasing intercultural accessibility of opera (and of musical theater works in general), which raises the question of new “glocalized” meanings, produced by contemporary international audiences that comprise individuals (i.e., prosumers) with various cultural provenances. If anything, the volume clearly shows that the translation strategies of the past have always reflected the cultural “framework” of that particular time, and that there always was (although not generally acknowledged) a certain public in question, which puts the skopos theory “back in the game” in the sense of either prioritizing a certain semiotic system (e.g., music over libretto) or optimizing the interplay of the meanings thus produced to achieve a holistic “performance” of the multimodal target text (or, better yet, configuration). The social changes occurring all over the world, amplified by digitalization, mass media, migration, and interculturality, might be future determinants of such a cultural convergence, which could loosen or even dispel certain cultural barriers, taboos, and preconceptions. However, both, the process of translation and its (in)finite outcome will retain their creative momentum between established tradition and innovation as long as there is individuality and authenticity in the translator’s voice and his or her understanding of the message conveyed. About the author Benjamin Virc is a doctoral student in musicology at the University of Ljubljana’s Faculty of Arts. He is currently working on his dissertation, Entanglement of Literature and Music within the Context of Translating Works for Musical Theater. His main research interest is the phenomenon of intersemiosis within multimodal artistic works. As a musical theater professional, he has translated librettos from German, Italian, and French into Slovenian. In addition, he has created Slovenian sung translations and adaptations of César Cui’s Puss in Boots and Carl Orff’s Carmina Burana. Most notably, he also produced the first Slovenian literary translation of Richard Wagner’s music drama Das Rheingold. Book review Kristiina Taivalkoski-Shilov and Bruno Poncharal, eds., Traduire les voix de la nature / Translating the Voices of Nature (= Vita Traductiva 11) Quebec: Éditions québécoises de l’oeuvre, 2020, 235 pp. Print version: ISBN 978-2-924337-15-8, electronic version ISBN 978-2-924337-16-5. Reviewed by Tamara Mikolic Južnic and Adriana Mezeg University of Ljubljana, Slovenia In response to increasing worldwide interest in eco-translation, or the ecology of translation—fed above all by the pressuring effects of climate change and increasing concern for the environment, as well as a new awareness of the role of translation in the fight for a better, more sustainable future— Kristiina Taivalkoski-Shilov and Bruno Poncharal have produced a valuable overview of some of the central themes in the field. The volume is certainly timely, considering the increased interest in eco-translation in recent years, at least since Cronin’s (2017) seminal work, and the number of conferences and panels dedicated to the topic (most recently at the IATIS 2021 conference in Barcelona). Taivalkoski-Shilov and Poncharal, with the collaboration of six other authors, have assembled a collection of articles with a broad scope. Drawing on Taivalkoski-Shilov’s considerable knowledge of the concept of voice and Poncharal’s interest in environmental policies, the edited volume spans a wide variety of topics and territories, all connected by the overarching theme of reconceptualizing translation studies (and translation as a practice) to include the relationship and especially communication between humans and non-humans—that is, nature in its various forms. The discourse necessarily culminates in the need to expand “the sphere of translation ethics to account for the non-human world as well as the human” (7). This is achieved in all the contributions, and primarily in Taivalkoski-Shilov’s introduction, through the concept of voice, as explained in Taivalkoski-Shilov (2013), which “has proven to be an effective tool with which to study a wide range of complex interactions in translation” (9). Because the concept of voice is understood as polysemous (ibid.), it lends itself well to being applied to a number of features of non-human nature or actors in the translation process, as shown through the contributions to the volume. Following Cronin’s (2017) appeal for a move toward a post-humanistic perspective, the authors of the articles build on existing concepts in the framework of eco-translation, expanding on them to encompass previously (virtually) unexplored phenomena. The fundamentally social and cultural approaches focus more or less overtly on the equality and interconnectedness of man and nature in all its forms, in a move away from the anthropocentrism and anthropomorphism that characterized several thinkers through history (see especially Wioleta Karwacka’s and Agnes Whitfield’s articles). In addition to the introductory article, the volume is composed of four sections, to which a note on the contributors is added at the end. In the introductory article, “Increasing Ecological Awareness in Translation Studies: A Voice-Based Perspective,” Kristiina Taivalkoski-Shilov sets the theoretical framework and reveals the motivations behind the conception of the volume. She embraces Cronin’s (2017) post-humanistic perspective in expanding the scope of translation studies to account for ethical concerns related to the non-human. The second part of her article introduces the contributions to the collection, offering a synthetic overview of the volume and extracting the most important common ideas in them. As Taivalkoski-Shilov (17) notes, one of the recurring conclusions of the articles collected in the work is that non-human voices are easily (and probably often) “misconstrued, misinterpreted or even erased in translation”. The second article, “Frictions of the Environmental Imaginary in Translation: The Minakata/ Dickins Collaborative Translation of Kamo no Chomei’s Hojoki” by Daniela Kato, presents the voices of two translators whose differing approaches to environmental imagery, summed up with the position of power appropriated by the English translator Frederick Dickins at the expense of the Japanese Minakata Kumagusu, result in two versions with a diverging eco-political agenda that reflects the translators’ agency. The article provides a detailed presentation of the lives and motivations of the two translators and the complications that arose due to Dickins’ changing social position. The third article, “Les voix de la nature dans la nouvelle de Gottfried Keller Romeo und Julia auf dem Dorfe et dans ses traductions” by Mathilde Fontanet, presents a comparative analysis of the short story Romeo und Julia auf dem Dorfe (Romeo and Juliet in the Village), written in 1856 by the Swiss author Gottfried Keller, and its five main translations into French, published between 1864 and 1949. In the source text, nature manifests itself at several levels in the form of voices associated with the narrative voice. The author of the article confines herself to three passages that focus on descriptions, narrative structure, and elements of characterization. By examining the extent to which the voices of nature from the source text are reproduced in the French translations, the author shows that all the translators paid attention to the voices of nature, but none of them succeeded in reproducing their intensity and preserving their complexity, which is the art of translation. The second section of the volume, devoted to animality and subjectivity, contains two articles. In the first, “Paroles de bêtes et critique de l’anthropocentrisme chez Angela Carter: de la traduction à la réécriture de La Belle et la Bête,” Martine Hennard Dutheil de la Rochère continues her earlier research on the dynamics of translation and rewriting of fairy tales. In this article on translation, ecocriticism, and ecopoetics, the author discusses Angela Carter’s English translation and two rewritings of the fairy tale La Belle et la Bête (Beauty and the Beast) for adults, which reveal Carter’s critique of anthropocentrism. Focusing on the representation of nature and the verbal exchanges between the two protagonists, Hennard Dutheil de la Rochère presents Carter’s feminist and ecocritical approach to the translation and rewriting of La Belle et la Bête, which changes our perspective on the work. In the second article, “De Being a Beast (Charles Foster) à Dans la peau d’une bête: traduire l’expérience animale?,” Bruno Poncharal first discusses the difference between the original (sub)title of Foster’s Being a Beast and its French translation (literally, ‘In the Skin of a Beast’), which leads to an inevitable distortion of the animal experience in the translated text. The author then focuses on the linguistic changes at the epistemological level and attempts to define the changed perspective on human–animal relations in the source and target texts. He concludes that the morphosyntactic malleability of English is better suited to capture the diversity of animal subjectivities and remove the boundary between animals and humans. The third section of the volume is dedicated to editorial, pedagogical, and translational challenges and starts with the sixth article, by Kristiina Taivalkoski-Shilov: “Introducing Silent Spring in Finland in 1963 and 1970,” which stresses the influence of two paratextual voices on the reception and success of a translated book. The accompanying texts of the two versions analyzed, written by two prominent figures with different views on the value of Silent Spring for Finnish society, appear to determine the success (in the earlier journalistic translation) and the failure (in the book edition, reprinted in 1970) of the work. While Taivalkoski-Shilov shows how the two translations differ in handling certain important passages, with the first translation following the original (or its intentions) more closely, she highlights how is through the paratexts and peritexts surrounding the translations that the real agenda of the publishers can be revealed. Agnès Whitfield’s article, “Translating Animal Voices in a Changing Pedagogical and Environmental Context: Thompson Seton’s Wild Animals I Have Known in French,” focuses on two animal stories by Ernest Thompson Seton and compares how the voices of animals are represented in the original by Seton, who assumes a multiple role as author, protagonist, and narrator, and by the French translator. Whitfield shows how Seton’s intersemiotic translation of the animals’ voices is manipulated in the translation for them to adhere to the changes in the social context of the target text. In the next article, “Assessing Shifts in Animal Intentionality and Anthropomorphism in the Translation of Popular Science Texts from English into Polish,” Wioleta Karawacka departs from the majority of the other contributions to the volume both in the choice to analyze popular science texts instead of literary texts and in the design of the research, for which she analyzed student translations, concentrating on their treatment of anthropomorphic elements in the source texts. Again, the results show how the translated texts tend to misconstrue the animals’ voices, amplifying their anthropomorphism and intentionality. Despite the small scale of the study, the results are significant in that they expand the scope of the volume outside literature. Similarly, the last article, “Translation, Natural History and Music: Thinking Communication beyond the Verbal” by Lucile Desblache, is also a step beyond the more traditional understandings of the concept of translation toward the inclusion of nonverbal translation as represented in natural history and music. These concepts, which seem to be unrelated at first glance, are brought together by Desblache to open new horizons for future research in eco-translation. In conclusion, whereas Cronin (2017) focuses more on intralingual and intersemiotic translation (Jakobson 1989), the articles in this volume explore interlingual aspects, shedding light on the way the voices of nature are treated by translators in translations and by other actors present through paratexts and peritexts. One of the most valuable aspects of the edited volume is the inclusion of research contrasting a range of different languages (most frequently, but not exclusively, English in combination with another language, such as Japanese, French, Polish, or Finnish) in different historical periods and in different text types, as well as other semiotic systems, showing how ecological concerns in translation can be found anywhere. Although the scope of the individual articles may be limited by a (perhaps necessarily) small number of texts analyzed or by the number of available subjects for study, each of them represents a part in the collective character of the volume. References Cronin, Michael. 2017. Eco-Translation: Translation and Ecology in the Age of the Anthropocene. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Jakobson, Roman. 1989. “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” In Readings in Translation Theory, edited by Andrew Chesterman, 53–60. Helsinki: Finn Lectura. Taivalkoski-Shilov, Kristiina. 2013. “Voice in the Field of Translation Studies.” In La Traduction des voix intra-textuelles / Intertextual Voices in Translation, edited by Kristiina Taivalkoski-Shilov and Myriam Suchet, 1–9. Montreal: Éditions québécoises de l’oeuvre. About the authors Dr Tamara Mikolic Južnic is Assistant Professor at the Department of Translation Studies of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). She was the lead researcher in two EP projects and published two volumes as well as articles in several journals and edited volumes. Her research interests include translation studies, translator and interpreter training, community interpreting, contrastive linguistics, corpus linguistics, Italian linguistics. Dr Adriana Mezeg is Assistant Professor at the Department of Translation Studies of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana (Slovenia). Her research interests include literary translation, translation flows between Slovenian and French, power relations in the translation market, analysis of translations and translation strategies from French into Slovenian and vice versa in various text types using a corpus-based approach. She is a co-author of two university textbooks on French grammar, an author of a scientific monograph and an editor of several books on translation studies. In memoriam Irena Kovacic (1951–2021) It is with deep sadness that we announce the passing of our colleague, Professor Irena Kovacic, the first head of the Department of Translation Studies at the University of Ljubljana, who helped establish translation studies as a research field in Slovenia. She was best known for her work on audiovisual translation, and made important contributions to research into subtitling norms and the didactics of subtitling. Irena Kovacic had the rare ability to apply her research findings to both teaching and practice, leaving behind a rich legacy of scholarly accomplishments as well as subtitled audiovisual materials. Irena Kovacic was an inspiring colleague, respected researcher, and a dedicated teacher and mentor. We will fondly remember her for her enthusiasm and open-mindedness. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to work with her and learn from her. Agnes Pisanski Peterlin Department of Translation Studies, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia