Search

Responds to two papers on translation and norms, noting conceptual problems that arise when using norms in translation studies. Focuses on several issues that were examined in the original two papers, including equivalence, explanation, values, effects, strategies, and translation theory. (SM)

An analysis of human conversation can reveal not only how people talk to one another but also why they do. Pinter's plays and sketches show the power dynamics involved in human dialogue. A partial discourse analysis of Pinter's dialogue reveals the need for human communication and the power exercised by the person who responds to the need.

This context brings together three disciplines: Adaptation Studies, Translation Studies, and Semiotics. The question to be considered is the extent to which these disciplines are really 'saying almost the same thing'. The present paper examines this question from three angles. First, I summarize some ideas concerning the nature of categories in general, and the function of categorization, from which I infer that we can regard a discipline as a kind of category. Second, I outline some examples of research which overlaps the boundaries between our three fields and thus questions the usefulness of holding such boundaries as permanent and universal. And third, I report a small investigation into rhythm, and in particular, the rhythm of a painting and its title, an investigation which merges such categorial boundaries. I present it in illustration of the view that conceptual categories and their boundaries are only tools, to be used or not, as the purpose requires. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Six cases or case types are briefly presented, illustrating a number of loose ends in translation ethics. These cases are related to reactions by different agents or voices to a clear error, and the ethical implications of these reactions. Case 1 is invented; it raises questions of accountability. Case 2 concerns reactions to errors in the source text, and official guidelines in this respect. Case 3 problematizes a literary translator's refusal to correct certain errors. Case 4 discusses the descriptivist scholar's problem of how to deal with clear errors. Case 5 is about a creative reaction to a serious problem in court interpreting. And case 6 analyses the ethical dilemma of trying to change traditional interpretations of passages in a sacred text, for good utilitarian reasons. Loose ends include: the need to revise codes of ethics; the clash between contractual and utilitarian ethics; clashes between voices; and the relation between personal and professional ethics (e.g. in interventionist translation). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]