Article published In: Twenty Years EST: Same place, different times
Edited by Michael Boyden
[Target 26:2] 2014
► pp. 185–205
Translation Studies in Europe—reasons for it, and problems to work on
Published online: 10 June 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.2.02pym
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.26.2.02pym
As a social and political context for research on translation, the European Union offers pertinent commitments to multilingualism, inclusive territorial democracy, transparent governance and the welfare state, with enough public funding to pursue these aims seriously. All these features concern translation, not only to the extent that they create social demands for translations but more importantly in that they give our research an ethical and political dimension, in addition to the demands of various markets. However, when the consequences of these commitments are compared with actual European research and public policies concerning translation, several shortcomings become apparent. The comparison suggests that future tasks for Translation Studies in Europe should include: (1) serious attention to far more than the large territorial languages; (2) enhanced exchange with neighboring disciplines, especially with scholars working on language acquisition; (3) an acceptance that translated communication should concern involvement and interaction, in addition to public information; (4) a questioning of the Western translation form as the model best suited to interactive cross-lingual governance; and (5) experimentation with technologies that stimulate citizen involvement.
Article outline
- 1.Five reasons for studying translation in Europe
- 1.Europe invests financially in the model of a multicultural and multilingual society
- 2.Europe has developed a workable model of territorial democracy
- 3.Europe has relatively transparent public administrations
- 4.Europe has developed a workable model of the welfare state
- 5.Europe is relatively rich, still
- 2.Five reasons why Translation Studies has to be improved in Europe
- 1.A multilingualism for whom?
- 2.Whose territory?
- 3.Transparent to whom?
- 4.Information or action?
- 5.Technology to look backwards or forwards?
- 3.En guise de conclusion
- Notes
References
References (40)
Coulmas, Florian. 1991. “European Integration and the Idea of a National Language.” In A Language Policy for the European Community. Prospects and Quandaries, ed. by Florian Coulmas, 1–37. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Council of Europe. 2001. Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Cambridge University Press. Accessed January 2013. [URL]
Edelenbos, Peter, Richard Johnstone, and Angelika Kubanek. 2006. The Main Pedagogical Principles Underlying the Teaching of Languages to Very Young Learners. Languages for the Children of Europe. Published Research, Good Practice and Main Principles. Final Report of the EAC 89/04, Lot 1 study. European Commission.
Eurobarometer. 2006. Special Eurobarometer 243. Europeans and Their Languages. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
2012. Special Eurobarometer 386. Europeans and Their Languages. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
European Commission. 2003. Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006. COM(2003)449. Accessed January 2013. [URL]
2005a. A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism. Accessed January 2013. [URL]
2005b. Action Plan to Improve Communicating Europe by the Commission. Directorate General for Communication. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
2007a. Key Competences for Lifelong Learning – A European Framework. Accessed January 2013. [URL]
2007b. Report of the High Level Group on Multilingualism. Accessed January 2013. [URL]
2008. Multilingualism: An Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment. Accessed January 2013. [URL]
2009a. Study on the Contribution of Multilingualism to Creativity. Final Report. Public Services Contract n° EACEA/2007/3995/2. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
2009b. Web Translation as a Genre. Brussels: Directorate General for Translation, European Commission.
2010. Étude portant sur la contribution de la traduction à la société multilingue dans l’Union européenne. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
2011a. First European Survey on Language Competences: Final Report. Accessed January 2013. [URL]
2011b. Lingua Franca. Chimera or Reality? Directorate General for Translation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
2012a. Crowdsourcing Translation. Directorate General for Translation. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
2012b. Intercomprehension. Directorate General for Translation. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
2012c. The Status of the Translation Profession in the European Union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurydice. 2005. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2005. Directorate-General for Education and Culture. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
2008. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2008. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency. Accessed January 2013. [URL]
2012. Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe – 2012. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA P9 Eurydice and Policy Support). Accessed January 2013. [URL]
Habermas, Jürgen. 1995. “Multiculturalism and the Liberal State.” Stanford Law Review 47 (5): 849–853. [URL]
Harris, Brian. 1976. “The Importance of Natural Translation.” Working Papers in Bilingualism (Toronto) 121: 96–114. [URL]
1977. “Zu einigen Grundpositionen bei der theoretischen Erklärung der Sprachmittlung als menschlicher Tätigkeit.” In Vermittelte Kommunikation, Sprachmittlung, Translation, ed. by Otto Kade, 27–43. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Knapp, Karlfried, and Annelie Knapp-Potthoff. 1985. “Sprachmittlertätigkeit in der interkulturellen Kommunikation.” In Interkulturelle Kommunikation, ed. by Jochen Rehbein, 450–463. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Pöchhacker, Franz. 2006. “‘Going Social’? On Pathways and Paradigms in Interpreting Studies.” In Sociocultural Aspects of Translating and Interpreting, ed. by Anthony Pym, Miriam Shlesinger, and Zuzana Jettmarová, 215–232. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Podkalicka, Aneta Monika. 2007. Lost in Translation? Language Policy, Media and Community in the EU and Australia: Some Lessons from the SBS. PhD diss. Queensland University of Technology. [URL]
2008. “Translation vs. Language Learning in International Institutions. Explaining the Diversity Paradox.” Cultus 1 (1): 70–83.
2012. “Translation as an Instrument for Multilingual Democracy.” Paper Presented to the Multilingual 2.0? Symposium, University of Arizona, April 13-15, 2012. [URL]
2014. Review of “Étude portant sur la contribution de la traduction à la société multilingue dans l’Union européenne.” Target 26 (1): 163–167.
Salevsky, Heidemarie. 1998. Über die Sprache hinaus. Beiträge zur Translationswissenschaft. Heidelberg: TextConText Verlag.
Strubell, Miquel, Sergi Vilaró, Glyn Williams, and Gruffudd Owain Williams. 2007. The Diversity of Language Teaching in the European Union. Report to the European Commission, DG EAC. Accessed January 2013. [URL]
Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights. 1998. Accessed February 2013. [URL]
Wilss, Wolfram. 1999. Translation and Interpreting in the 20th Century: Focus on German. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Zarate, Geneviève, Aline Gohard-Radenkovic, Denise Lussier, and Hermine Penz, eds. 2004. Cultural Mediation and the Teaching and Learning of Languages. Strasbourg: European Centre for Modern Languages. [URL]
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan & Honghua Wang
Yan, Jackie Xiu, Jun Pan & Honghua Wang
Brunelière, Jean-François
Katan, David
2013. Intercultural Mediation. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 4], ► pp. 84 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
