Holmes, James S 1988 (11975). "The Name and Nature of Translation Studies". In:
James S Holmes 1988. Translated!: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 66-80.
© All rights reserved.
Text scanned for educational use, Unit for Culture Research, Tel Aviv University
( http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut).

[pg. 66]

"The Name and Nature of Translation Studies" is an expanded version of
a paper presented in the Translation Section of the Third International
Congress of Applied Linguistics, held in Copenhagen, 21-26 August 1972.
First issued in the APPTS series of the Translation Studies Section,
Department of General Literary Studies, University of Amsterdam, 1972,
presented here in its second pre-publication form (1975). A slightly
different version appeared in Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13
(1987), pp. 9-24. A Dutch translation was published under the title "Wat is
vertaalwetenschap?" in Bernard T. Tervoort (ed.), Wetenschap & Taal: Het
verschijnsel taal van verschillende zijden benaderd
(Muiderberg: Coutinho,
1977), pp. 148-165.

[pg. 67]

The Name and Nature of Translation Studies1

James S Holmes


"Science", Michael Mulkay points out, "tends to proceed by means of
discovery of new areas of ignorance."2 The process by which this takes
place has been fairly well defined by the sociologists of science and
research.3 As a new problem or set of problems comes into view in the
world of learning, there is an influx of researchers from adjacent areas,
bringing with them the paradigms and models that have proved fruitful in
their own fields. These paradigms and models are then brought to bear on
the new problem, with one of two results. In some situations the problem
proves amenable to explicitation, analysis, explication, and at least partial
solution within the bounds of one of the paradigms or models, and in that
case it is annexed as a legitimate branch of an established field of study. In
other situations the paradigms or models fail to produce sufficient results,
and researchers become aware that new methods are needed to approach
the problem.

In this second type of situation, the result is a tension between
researchers investigating the new problem and colleagues in their former
fields, and this tension can gradually lead to the establishment of new
channels of communication and the development of what has been called a
new disciplinary utopia, that is, a new sense of a shared interest in a
common set of problems, approaches, and objectives on the part of a new
grouping of researchers. As W.O. Hagstrom has indicated, these two steps,
the establishment of communication channels and the development of a
disciplinary utopia, "make it possible for scientists to identify with the
emerging discipline and to claim legitimacy for their point of view when
appealing to university bodies or groups in the larger society."4

Though there are no doubt a few scholars who would object, particularly
among the linguists, it would seem to me clear that in regard to the complex
of problems clustered round the phenomenon of translating and
translations,5 the second situation now applies. After centuries of
incidental and desultory attention from a scattering of authors,
philologians, and literary scholars, plus here and there a theologian or an
idiosyncratic linguist, the subject of translation has enjoyed a marked and

pg. 68

constant increase in interest on the part of scholars in recent years, with the
Second World War as a kind of turning point. As this interest has solidified
and expanded, more and more scholars have moved into the field,
particularly from the adjacent fields of linguistics, linguistic philosophy,
and literary studies, but also from such seemingly more remote disciplines
as information theory, logic, and mathematics, each of them carrying with
him paradigms, quasi-paradigms, models, and methodologies that he felt
could be brought to bear on this new problem.

At first glance, the resulting situation today would appear to be one of
great confusion, with no consensus regarding the types of models to be
tested, the kinds of methods to be applied, the varieties of terminology to
be used. More than that, there is not even likemindedness about the
contours of the field, the problem set, the discipline as such. Indeed,
scholars are not so much as agreed on the very name for the new field.

Nevertheless, beneath the superficial level, there are a number of
indications that for the field of research focusing on the problems of
translating and translations Hagstrom's disciplinary utopia is taking
shape. If this is a salutary development (and I believe that it is), it follows
that it is worth our while to further the development by consciously turning
our attention to matters that are serving to impede it.

One of these impediments is the lack of appropriate channels of
communication. For scholars and researchers in the field, the channels
that do exist still tend to run via the older disciplines (with their attendant
norms in regard to models, methods, and terminology), so that papers on
the subject of translation are dispersed over periodicals in a wide variety of
scholarly fields and journals for practising translators. It is clear that there
is a need for other communication channels, cutting across the traditional
disciplines to reach all scholars working in the field, from whatever

But I should like to focus our attention on two other impediments to the
development of a disciplinary utopia. The first of these, the lesser of the
two in importance, is the seemingly trivial matter of the name for this field
of research. It would not be wise to continue referring to the discipline by
its subject matter as has been done at this conference, for the map, as the
General Semanticists constantly remind us, is not the territory, and failure
to distinguish the two can only further confusion.

Through the years, diverse terms have been used in writings dealing with
translating and translations, and one can find references in English to "the

pg. 69

art" or "the craft" of translation, but also to the "principles" of
translation, the "fundamentals" or the "philosophy". Similar terms recur
in French and German. In some cases the choice of term reflects the
attitude, point of approach, or background of the writer; in others it has
been determined by the fashion of the moment in scholarly terminology.

There have been a few attempts to create more "learned" terms, most of
them with the highly active disciplinary suffix -ology. Roger Goffin, for
instance, has suggested the designation "translatology" in English, and
either its cognate or traductologie in French.6 But since the -ology suffix
derives from Greek purists reject a contamination of this kind, all the
more so when the otter element is not even from Classical Latin, but from
Late Latin in the case of translatio or Renaissance French in that of
traduction. Yet Greek alone offers no way out, for "metaphorology",
"metaphraseology", or "metaphrastics" would hardly be of aid to us in
making our subject clear even to university bodies, let alone to other
"groups in the larger society."7 Such other terms as "translatistics" or
"translistics", both of which have been suggested, would be more readily
understood, but hardly more acceptable.

Two further, less classically constructed terms have come to the fore in
recent years. One of these began its life in a longer form, "the theory of
translating" or "the theory of translation" (and its corresponding forms:
"Theorie des Übersetzens", "theorie de la traduction"). In English (and in
German) it has since gone the way of many such terms, and is now usually
compressed into "translation theory" (Übersetzungstheorie). It has been a
productive designation, and can be even more so in future, but only if it is
restricted to its proper meaning. For, as I hope to make clear in the course
of this paper, there is much valuable study and research being done in the
discipline, and a need for much more to be done, that does not, strictly
speaking, fall within the scope of theory formation.

The second term is one that has, to all intents and purposes, won the field in
German as a designation for the entire discipline.8 This is the term
Übersetzungswissenschaft, constructed to form a parallel to Sprach-
wissenschaft, Literaturwissenschaft
, and many other Wissenschaften. In
French, the comparable designation, "science de la traduction", has also
gained ground, as have parallel terms in various other languages.

One of the first to use a parallel-sounding term in English was Eugene
Nida, who in 1964 chose to entitle his theoretical handbook Towards a
Science of Translating
.9 It should be noted, though, that Nida did not

pg. 70

intend the phrase as a name for the entire field of study, but only for one
aspect of the process of translating as such.10 Others, most of them not
native speakers of English, have been more bold, advocating the term
"science of translation" (or "translation science") as the appropriate
designation for this emerging discipline as a whole. Two years ago this
recurrent suggestion was followed by something like canonization of the
term when Bausch, Klegraf, and Wilss took the decision to make it the
main title to their analytical bibliography of the entire field.11

It was a decision that I, for one, regret. It is not that I object to the term
Übersetzungswissenschaft, for there are few if any valid arguments against
that designation for the subject in German. The problem is not that the
discipline is not a Wissenschaft, but that not all Wissenschaften can
properly be called sciences. Just as no one today would take issue with the
terms Sprachwissenschaft and Literaturwissenschaft, while more than a few
would question whether linguistics has yet reached a stage of precision,
formalization, and paradigm formation such that it can properly be de-
scribed as a science, and while practically everyone would agree that
literary studies are not, and in the foreseeable future will not be, a science in
any true sense of the English word, in the same way I question whether we
can with any justification use a designation for the study of translating and
translations that places it in the company of mathematics, physics, and
chemistry, or even biology, rather than that of sociology, history, and
philosophy -- or for that matter of literary studies.

There is, however, another term that is active in English in the naming of
new disciplines. This is the word "studies". Indeed, for disciplines that
within the old distinction of the universities tend to fall under the
humanities or arts rather than the sciences as fields of learning, the word
would seem to be almost as active in English as the word Wissenschaft in
German. One need only think of Russian studies, American studies,
Commonwealth studies, population studies, communication studies.
True, the word raises a few new complications, among them the fact that it
is difficult to derive an adjectival form. Nevertheless, the designation
"translation studies" would seem to be the most appropriate of all those
available in English, and its adoption as the standard term for the
discipline as a whole would remove a fair amount of confusion and
misunderstanding. I shall set the example by making use of it in the rest of
this paper.

pg. 71

A greater impediment than the lack of a generally accepted name in the
way of the development of translation studies is the lack of any general
consensus as to the scope and structure of the discipline. What constitutes
the field of translation studies? A few would say it coincides with
comparative (or contrastive) terminological and lexicographical studies;
several look upon it as practically identical with comparative or
contrastive linguistics; many would consider it largely synonymous with
translation theory. But surely it is different, if not always distinct, from the
first two of these, and more than the third. As is usually to be found in the
case of emerging disciplines, there has as yet been little meta-reflection on
the nature of translation studies as such -- at least that has made its way
into print and to my attention. One of the few cases that I have found is that
of Werner Koller, who has given the following delineation of the subject:
"Übersetzungswissenschaft ist zu verstehen als Zusammenfassung und
Uberbegriff fur alle Forschungsbemuhungen, die von den Phanomenen
'Übersetzen' und 'Übersetzung' ausgehen oder auf diese Phanomene
zielen." (Translation studies is to be understood as a collective and
inclusive designation for all research activities taking the phenomena of
translating and translation as their basis or focus12).

From this delineation it follows that translation studies is, as no one I
suppose would deny, an empirical discipline. Such disciplines, it has often
been pointed out, have two major objectives, which Carl G. Hempel has
phrased as "to describe particular phenomena in the world of our
experience and to establish general principles by means of which they can
be explained and predicted."13 As a field of pure research -- that is to say,
research pursued for its own sake, quite apart from any direct practical
application outside its own terrain -- translation studies thus has two main
objectives: (1) to describe the phenomena of translating and translation(s)
as they manifest themselves in the world of our experience, and (2) to
establish general principles by means of which these phenomena can be
explained and predicted. The two branches of pure translation studies
concerning themselves with these objectives can be designated descriptive
translation studies
(DTS) or translation description (TD) and theoretical
translation studies
(ThTS) or translation theory (TTh).

Of these two, it is perhaps appropriate to give first consideration to
descriptive translation studies, as the branch of the discipline which
constantly maintains the closest contact with the empirical phenomena

pg. 72

under study. There would seem to be three major kinds of research in DTS,
which may be distinguished by their focus as product-oriented, function-
oriented, and process-oriented.

Product-oriented DTS, that area of research which describes existing
translations, has traditionally been an important area of academic
research in translation studies. The starting point for this type of study is
the description of individual translations, or text-focused translation
description. A second phase is that of comparative translation description,
in which comparative analyses are made of various translations of the
same text, either in a single language or in various languages. Such
individual and comparative descriptions provide the materials for surveys
of larger corpuses of translations, for instance those made within a specific
period, language, and/or text or discourse type. In practice the corpus has
usually been restricted in all three ways: seventeenth-century literary
translations into French, or medieval English Bible translations. But such
descriptive surveys can also be larger in scope, diachronic as well as
(approximately) synchronic, and one of the eventual goals of product-
oriented DTS might possibly be a general history of translations --
however ambitious such a goal may sound at this time.

Function-oriented DTS is not interested in the description of translations in
themselves, but in the description of their function in the recipient socio-
cultural situation: it is a study of contexts rather than texts. Pursuing such
questions as which texts were (and, often as important, were not)
translated at a certain time in a certain place, and what influences were
exerted in consequence, this area of research is one that has attracted less
concentrated attention than the area just mentioned, though it is often
introduced as a kind of sub-theme or counter-theme in histories of
translations and in literary histories. Greater emphasis on it could lead to
the development of a field of translation sociology (or -- less felicitous but
more accurate, since it is a legitimate area of translation studies as well as
of sociology -- socio-translation studies).

Process-oriented DTS concerns itself with the process or act of translation
itself. The problem of what exactly takes place in the "little black box" of
the translator's "mind" as he creates a new, more or less matching text in
another language has been the subject of much speculation on the part of
translation's theorists, but there has been very little attempt at systematic

pg. 73

investigation of this process under laboratory conditions. Admittedly, the
process is an unusually complex one, one which, if I.A. Richards is correct,
"may very probably be the most complex type of event yet produced in the
evolution of the cosmos."14 But psychologists have developed and are
developing highly sophisticated methods for analysing and describing
other complex mental processes, and it is to be hoped that in future this
problem, too, will be given closer attention, leading to an area of study that
might be called translation psychology or psycho-translation studies.

The other main branch of pure translation studies, theoretical translation
or translation theory, is, as its name implies, not interested in
describing existing translations, observed translation functions, or
experimentally determined translating processes, but in using the results of
descriptive translation studies, in combination with the information
available from related fields and disciplines, to evolve principles, theories,
and models which will serve to explain and predict what translating and
translations are and will be.

The ultimate goal of the translation theorist in the broad sense must
undoubtedly be to develop a full, inclusive theory accommodating so
many elements that it can serve to explain and predict all phenomena
falling within the terrain of translating and translation, to the exclusion of
all phenomena falling outside it. It hardly needs to be pointed out that a
general translation theory in such a true sense of the term, if indeed it is
achievable, will necessarily be highly formalized and, however the scholar
may strive after economy, also highly complex.

Most of the theories that have been produced to date are in reality little
more than prolegomena to such a general translation theory. A good share
of them, in fact, are not actually theories at all, in any scholarly sense of the
term, but an array of axioms, postulates, and hypotheses that are so
formulated as to be both too inclusive (covering also non-translatory acts
and non-translations) and too exclusive (shutting out some translatory
acts and some works generally recognized as translations).

Others, though they too may bear the designation of "general" translation
theories (frequently preceded by the scholar's protectively cautious
"towards") are in fact not general theories, but partial or specific in their
scope, dealing with only one or a few of the various aspects of translation
theory as a whole. It is in this area of partial theories that the most

pg. 74

significant advances have been made in recent years, and in fact it will
probably be necessary for a great deal of further research to be conducted
in them before we can even begin to think about arriving at a true general
theory in the sense I have just outlined. Partial translation theories are
specified in a number of ways. I would suggest, though, that they can be
grouped together into six main kinds.

First of all, there are translation theories that I have called, with a
somewhat unorthodox extension of the term, medium-restricted translation
, according to the medium that is used. Medium-restricted theories
can be further subdivided into theories of translation as performed by
humans (human translation), as performed by computers (machine
translation), and as performed by the two in conjunction (mixed or
machine-aided translation). Human translation breaks down into (and
restricted theories or "theories" have been developed for) oral translation
or interpreting (with the further distinction between consecutive and
simultaneous) and written translation. Numerous examples of valuable
research into machine and machine-aided translation are no doubt
familiar to us all, and perhaps also several into oral human translation.
That examples of medium-restricted theories of written translation do not
come to mind so easily is largely owing to the fact that their authors have
the tendency to present them in the guise of unmarked or general theories.

Second, there are theories that are area-restricted. Area-restricted theories
can be of two closely related kinds; restricted as to the languages involved
or, which is usually not quite the same, and occasionally hardly at all, as to
the cultures involved. In both cases, language restriction and culture
restriction, the degree of actual limitation can vary. Theories are feasible
for translation between, say, French and German (language-pair restricted
theories) as opposed to translation within Slavic languages (language-
group restricted theories) or from Romance languages to Germanic
languages (language-group pair restricted theories). Similarly, theories
might at least hypothetically be developed for translation within Swiss
culture (one-culture restricted), or for translation between Swiss and
Belgian cultures (cultural-pair restricted), as opposed to translation within
western Europe (cultural-group restricted) or between languages reflecting
a pre-technological culture and the languages of contemporary Western
culture (cultural-group pair restricted). Language-restricted theories have
close affinities with the work being done in comparative linguistics and
stylistics (though it must always be remembered that a language-pair

pg. 75

translation grammar must be a different thing from a contrastive grammar
developed for the purpose of language acquisition). In the field of culture-
restricted theories there has been little detailed research, though culture
restrictions, by being confused with language restrictions, sometimes get
introduced into language-restricted theories, where they are out of place in
all but those rare cases where culture and language boundaries coincide in
both the source and target situations. It is moreover no doubt true that
some aspects of theories that are presented as general in reality pertain only
to the Western cultural area.

Third, there are rank-restricted theories, that is to say, theories that deal
with discourses or texts as wholes, but concern themselves with lower
linguistic ranks or levels. Traditionally, a great deal of writing on
translation was concerned almost entirely with the rank of the word, and
the word and the word group are still the ranks at which much
terminologically-oriented thinking about scientific and technological
translation takes place. Most linguistically-oriented research, on the other
hand, has until very recently taken the sentence as its upper rank limit,
largely ignoring the macro-structural aspects of entire texts as translation
problems. The clearly discernible trend away from sentential linguistics in
the direction of textual linguistics will, it is to be hoped, encourage
linguistically-oriented theorists to move beyond sentence-restricted
translation theories to the more complex task of developing text-rank (or
"rank-free") theories.

Fourth, there are text-type (or discourse-type) restricted theories, dealing
with the problem of translating specific types or genres of lingual messages.
Authors and literary scholars have long concerned themselves with the
problems intrinsic to translating literary texts or specific genres of literary
texts; theologians, similarly, have devoted much attention to questions of
how to translate the Bible and other sacred works. In recent years some
effort has been made to develop a specific theory for the translation of
scientific texts. All these studies break down, however, because we still lack
anything like a formal theory of message, text, or discourse types. Both
Buhler's theory of types of communication, as further developed by the
Prague structuralists, and the definitions of language varieties arrived at by
linguists particularly of the British school provide material for criteria in
defining text types that would lend themselves to operationalization more
aptly than the inconsistent and mutually contradictory definitions or
traditional genre theories. On the other hand, the traditional theories

pg. 76

cannot be ignored, for they continue to play a large part in creating the
expectation criteria of translation readers. Also requiring study is the
important question of text-type skewing or shifting in translation.

Fifth, there are time-restricted theories, which fall into two types: theories
regarding the translation of contemporary texts, and theories having to do
with the translation of texts from an older period. Again there would seem
to be a tendency to present one of the theories, that having to do with
contemporary texts, in the guise of a general theory; the other, the theory
of what can perhaps best be called cross-temporal translation, is a matter
that has led to much disagreement, particularly among literarily oriented
theorists, but to few generally valid conclusions.

Finally, there are problem-restricted theories, theories which confine
themselves to one or more specific problems within the entire area of
general translation theory, problems that can range from such broad and
basic questions as the limits of variance and invariance in translation or the
nature of translation equivalence (or, as I should prefer to call it,
translation matching) to such more specific matters as the translation of
metaphors or of proper names.

It should be noted that theories can frequently be restricted in more than
one way. Contrastive linguists interested in translation, for instance, will
probably produce theories that are not only language-restricted but rank-
and time-restricted, having to do with translations between specific pairs
of contemporary temporal dialects at sentence rank. The theories of
literary scholars, similarly, usually are restricted as to medium and text
type, and generally also as to culture group; they normally have to do with
written texts within the (extended) Western literary tradition. This does
not necessarily reduce the worth of such partial theories, for even a
theoretical study restricted in every way -- say a theory of the manner in
which subordinate clauses in contemporary German novels should be
translated into written English -- can have implications for the more
general theory towards which scholars must surely work. It would be wise,
though, not to lose sight of such a truly general theory, and wiser still not to
succumb to the delusion that a body of restricted theories -- for instance, a
complex of language-restricted theories of how to translate sentences --
can be an adequate substitute for it.

pg. 77

After this rapid overview of the two main branches of pure research in
translation studies, I should like to turn to that branch of the discipline
which is, in Bacon's words, "of use" rather than "of light": applied
translation studies.15

In this discipline, as in so many others, the first thing that comes to mind
when one considers the applications that extend beyond the limits of the
discipline itself is that of teaching. Actually, the teaching of translating is of
two types which need to be carefully distinguished. In the one case,
translating has been used for centuries as a technique in foreign-language
teaching and a test of foreign-language acquisition. I shall return to this
type in a moment. In the second case, a more recent phenomenon,
translating is taught in schools and courses to train professional
translators. This second situation, that of translator training, has raised a
number of questions that fairly cry for answers: questions that have to do
primarily with teaching methods, testing techniques, and curriculum
planning. It is obvious that the search for well-founded, reliable answers to
these questions constitutes a major area (and for the time being, at least,
the major area) of research in applied translation studies.

A second, closely related area has to do with the needs for translation aids,
both for use in translator training and to meet the requirements of the
practising translator. The needs are many and various, but fall largely into
two classes: (1) lexicographical and terminological aids and (2) grammars.
Both these classes of aids have traditionally been provided by scholars in
other, related disciplines, and it could hardly be argued that work on them
should be taken over in toto as areas of applied translation studies. But
lexicographical aids often fall far short of translation needs, and
contrastive grammars developed for language-acquisition purposes are
not really an adequate subsitute for variety-marked translation-matching
grammars. There would seem to be a need for scholars in applied
translation studies to clarify and define the specific requirements that aids
of these kinds should fulfil if they are to meet the needs of practising and
prospective translators, and to work together with lexicologists and
contrastive linguists in developing them.

A third area of applied translation studies is that of translation policy. The
task of the translation scholar in this area is to render informed advice to

pg. 78

others in defining the place and role of translators, translating, and
translations in society at large: such questions, for instance, as determining
what works need to be translated in a given socio-cultural situation, what
the social and economic position of the translator is and should be, or (and
here I return to the point raised above) what part translating should play in
the teaching and learning of foreign languages. In regard to that last policy
question, since it should hardly be the task of translation studies to abet the
use of translating in places where it is dysfunctional, it would seem to me
that priority should be given to extensive and rigorous research to assess
the efficacy of translating as a technique and testing method in language
learning. The chance that it is not efficacious would appear to be so great
that in this case it would seem imperative for program research to be
preceded by policy research.

A fourth, quite different area of applied translation studies is that of
translation criticism. The level of such criticism is today still frequently very
low, and in many countries still quite uninfluenced by developments within
the field of translation studies. Doubtless the activities of translation
interpretation and evaluation will always elude the grasp of objective
analysis to some extent, and so continue to reflect the intuitive,
impressionist attitudes and stances of the critic. But closer contact between
translation scholars and translation critics could do a great deal to reduce
the intuitive element to a more acceptable level.

After this brief survey of the main branches of translation studies, there are
two further points that I should like to make. The first is this: in what has
preceded, descriptive, theoretical, and applied translation studies have
been presented as three fairly distinct branches of the entire discipline, and
the order of presentation might be taken to suggest that their import for
one another is unidirectional, translation description supplying the basic
data upon which translation theory is to be built, and the two of them
providing the scholarly findings which are to be put to use in applied
translation studies. In reality, of course, the relation is a dialectical one,
with each of the three branches supplying materials for the other two, and
making use of the findings which they in turn provide it. Translation
theory, for instance, cannot do without the solid, specific data yielded by
research in descriptive and applied translation studies, while on the other
hand one cannot even begin to work in one of the other two fields without
having at least an intuitive theoretical hypothesis as one's starting point. In
view of this dialectical relationship, it follows that, though the needs of a

pg. 79

given moment may vary, attention to all three brunches is required if the
discipline is to grow and flourish.


The second point is that, in each of the three branches of translation
studies, there are two further dimensions that I have not mentioned,
dimensions having to do with the study, not of translating and
translations, but of translation studies itself. One of these dimensions is
historical: there is a field of the history of translation theory, in which some
valuable work has been done, but also one of the history of translation
description and of applied translation studies (largely a history of
translation teaching and translator training) both of which are fairly well
virgin territory. Likewise there is a dimension that might be called the
methodological or meta-theoretical, concerning itself with problems of
what methods and models can best be used in research in the various
branches of the discipline (how translation theories, for instance, can be
formed for greatest validity, or what analytic methods can best be used to
achieve the most objective and meaningful descriptive results), but also
devoting its attention to such basic issues as what the discipline itself

This paper has made a few excursions into the first of these two
dimensions, but all in all it is meant to be a contribution to the second. It
does not ask above all for agreement. Translation studies has reached a
stage where it is time to examine the subject itself. Let the meta-discussion


1. Written in August 1972, this paper is presented in its second pre-publication form
with only a few stylistic revisions. Despite the intervening years, most of my remarks
can, I believe, stand as they were formulated, though in one or two places I would phrase
matters somewhat differently if I were writing today. In section 3.1224, for instance,
subsequent developments in textual linguistics, particularly in Germany, are
noteworthy. More directly relevant, the dearth of meta-reflection on the nature of
translation studies, referred to at the beginning of section 3, is somewhat less striking
today that in 1972, again thanks largely to German scholars. Particularly relevant is
Wolfram Wilss' as yet unpublished paper "Methodische Probleme der allgemeinen und
angewandten Übersetzungswissenschaft", read at a collloquium on translation studies
held in Germersheim, West Gemany, 3-4 May 1975.

2. Michael Mulkay, "Cultural Growth in Science", in Barry Barnes (ed.), Sociology
of Science: Selected Readings
(Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin; Modern
Sociology Readings), pp. 126-141 (abridged reprint of "Some Aspects of Cultural
Growth in the Natural Sciences", Social Research, 36 [1969], No. 1), quotation p. 136.

3. See e.g. W.O. Hagstrom, "The Differentiation of Disciplines", in Barnes, pp.

pg. 80

121- 125 (reprinted from Hagstrom, The Scientific Community [New York: Basic Books,
1965], pp. 222-226).

4. Hagstrom, p. 123.

5. Here and throughout, these terms are used only in the strict sense of interlingual
translating and translation. On the three types of translation in the broader sense of the
word, intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic, see Roman Jakobson, "On
Linguistic Aspects of Translation", in Reuben A. Brower (ed.), On Translation
(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1959), pp. 232-239.

6. Roger Goffin, "Pour une formation universitaire 'sui generis' du traducteur:
Reflexions sur certain aspects methodologiques et sur la recherche scientifique dans le
domaine de la traduction", Meta, 16 (1971), 57-68, see esp. p. 59.

7. See the Hagstrom quotation in section 1.1. above.

8. Though, given the lack of a general paradigm, scholars frequently tend to restrict
the meaning of the term to only a part of the discipline. Often, in fact, it would seem to be
more or less synonymous with "translation theory".

9. Eugene Nida, Towards a Theory of Translating, with Special Reference to Principles
and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating
(Leiden: Brill, 1964).

10. Cf. Nida's later enlightening remark on his use of the term: "the science of
translation (or, perhaps more accurately stated, the scientific description of the processes
involved in translating)", Eugene A. Nida, "Science of Translation", Language, 45
[1969], 483-498, quotation p. 483 n. 1; my italics).

11. K.-Richard Bausch, Josef Klegraf, and Wolfram Wilss, The Science of
Translation: An Analytical Bibliography
(Tubingen: Tubinger Beitrage zur Linguistik).
Vol. I (1970; TBL, No. 21) covers the years 1962-1969; Vol. II (1972; TBL, No. 33) the
years 1970-1971 plus a supplement over the years covered by the first volume.

12. Werner Koller, "Übersetzen, Übersetzung und Übersetzer. Zu schwedischen
Symposien Uber Probleme der Übersetzung", Babel, 17 (1971), 3-11, quotation p. 4. See
further in this article (also p. 4) the summary of a paper "Übersetzungspraxis,
Übersetzungstheorie und Übersetzungswissenschaft" presented by Koller at the Second
Swedish-German Translators' Symposium, held in Stockholm, 23-24 October 1969.

13. Carl G. Hempel, Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967; International Encyclopedia of Social
Science, Foundations of the Unity of Sciences, II, Fasc. 7), p. 1.

14. I.A. Richards, "Toward a Theory of Translating", in Arthur F. Wright (ed.),
Studies in Chinese Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953; also published
as Memoirs of the American Anthropological Association, 55 [1953], Memoir 75), pp.

15. Bacon's distinction was actually not between two types of research in the broader
sense, but of experiments: "Experiments of Use" as against "Experiments of Light". See
S. Pit Corder, "Problems and Solutions in Applied Linguistics", paper presented in a
plenary session of the 1972 Copenhagen Congress of Applied Linguistics.