Entry | Linguistics

NOR Lingvistikk SPA Lingüística

Introduction

Describing interdisciplinary relationships and aiming at a certain level of historical comprehensiveness requires careful reflection on the demarcation of the field(s) in question in time and space. Academic disciplines do not emerge fully formed from anyone’s head; antecedents are not always easily identifiable as such; and telling a story involves selection and foregrounding (and their opposites, omission and backgrounding).

In this chapter, we focus on the interdisciplinary relationship between translation and interpreting studies (TIS) and linguistics, expanding on existing surveys of this relationship (e.g., Malmkjær 2018, 2021). The history and historiography of both TIS and linguistics as disciplines have been critically assessed in numerous publications, for example D’Hulst and Gambier (2018) for TIS and Allen (2013) for linguistics. For the purposes of this article, a narrowing of focus is required, which means that a few critical reflections regarding our selection are in order.

There are not only multiple ways of demarcating the disciplines themselves, but also multiple ways of analysing the relationships between them. The analysis can be done from the vantage point of TIS or of linguistics. In the first case, the question is how studies of language can (or cannot) inform studies of translation. In the second, the relevant question is the reverse: how studies of translation can inform studies of language. Furthermore, both subject fields (and the relation between them) can be viewed from different levels of granularity or scope and can be subdivided along a range of distinguishing criteria, for example levels of language (e.g., phonetics, phonology, syntax, morphology, semantics, pragmatics), areas of specific interest (e.g., language history, language contact, psycholinguistics, translation, interpreting, semiotics, multimodality), theoretical approaches (e.g., structuralist theory, relevance theory, generative theory), or research methodologies (e.g., observational methods, experimental methods). Establishing links across fields requires decisions regarding these questions as well.

The vantage point, level of granularity, and scope are important, as the decisions made on these issues will necessarily bring some features of the relationship between the disciplines directly into view while obscuring others. Since this volume is aimed at TIS scholars and has a didactic objective, we have opted to start out from the perspective of TIS. Our objective is to provide a critical and comprehensive account of the different ways in which concepts, theories, and methodologies from various areas of modern linguistics have figured in TIS in the post-World War II era. Our selection in this article focusses on this post-war period simply for reasons of space, not because we believe that this period constitutes the discipline. With regard to global coverage, we aim at inclusivity to the best of our ability, though we are unfortunately limited to work available in English.

The discussion is structured around three main foci of TIS. These three foci represent the most salient elements of translational acts and events: textual relationships in translation, translational contexts, and human actors (translators and readers). We critically assess how perspectives from linguistics have been engaged (or not) in research on these key elements (text, context, people). Across all three areas, we also include reflection on methodological development in TIS and its relationship to similar or parallel developments in linguistics. In the concluding remarks, we return to the question of how these relationships impact the trajectory, or trajectories, of TIS at large.

Translational relationships - Languages and texts

The relationship between TIS and linguistics in the post-World War II period departs from a textual (rather than primarily contextual or sociological) focus. However, the nature of this textual focus has undergone considerable shifts over time, in terms of particularly two aspects: (1) the granularity of the unit of analysis and theorisation; (2) the construal of the relevant relational networks within which translated texts are to be understood (i.e., in relation to their source text; in relation to the language systems involved; in relation to other similar texts circulating in the target-language system).

The earliest linguistics-oriented approaches to translation (within the timeframe discussed here) are preoccupied with the concept of equivalence, and their views on translational relationships are refracted predominantly through this construct. The construct of equivalence traverses a tension between languages viewed as systems, and texts viewed as communicative events. Roman Jakobson’s paper ‘On linguistic aspects of translation’ (Jakobson 1959), embedded in structuralist semiotics, emphasises that while, in interlingual translation, “there is ordinarily no full equivalence between code units” (i.e., there are discrepancies of various kinds between two linguistic systems), “translation from one language to another substitutes messages in one language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language” (Jakobson 1959: 157). Yet, despite this awareness, Jakobson’s focus is trained on the code units; demarcating the similarities between such code units, lexical or grammatical, is in his view the foundation of the symbiotic relation between translation and “linguistic science” (Jakobson 1959: 157):

Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics [...] No linguistic specimen may be interpreted by the science of language without a translation of its signs into other signs of the same system or into signs of another system. Any comparison of two languages implies an examination of their mutual translatability; widespread practice of interlingual communication, particularly translating activities, must be kept under constant scrutiny by linguistic science.

Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) and Catford (1965), two foundational books in the structuralist perspective on translation

This framing of the translational relationship as one that is defined primarily by the way in which similarities and differences between language systems shape and constrain translational choices, is taken up in the influential work of, for example, Catford (1965) and Vinay and Darbelnet (1958). Despite differences, these frameworks have in common a conceptualisation of translational relationships as playing out within the communicative decision-making space that is created and demarcated by contrastive relations between languages. They are broadly informed by a structuralist and specifically Saussurean notion of language (with an underlying, social system, langue, and individual cases of use, parole). Notions like shifts, procedures and strategies are defined in this tension between languages as systems, and texts as communicative events, already signalled by Jakobson – but with a strong awareness of the constraining effects of languages viewed as systems.

The approach of Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) is prototypical. The basic linguistic framework that informs their “comparative stylistics” of French and English is a structuralist one, within which they aim to describe how translators can negotiate the differences between French and English viewed as language systems, in individual translation events. They systematise the stylistic differences between the two languages at three levels: lexis, syntax and “the message”, and argue that,

a confrontation of the two stylistic systems of French and English permits us to sketch rough guidelines and sometimes to draw up quite precise ones. This contrastive analysis and the translation methods identified here are not simply clever inventions. It is a matter of leading translators to identify the difficulties which they encounter, to classify them into ad hoc categories, and to find systematic solutions to translation problems (Vinay & Darbelnet 1958: 11).

Catford (1965), too, proceeds from the assumption that a theory of translation is largely a matter of theorising ways of dealing with differences between language systems: “Translation is an operation performed on languages: a process of substituting a text in one language for a text in another. Clearly, then, any theory of translation must draw upon a theory of language – a general linguistic theory.” (Catford 1965: 1) Unlike the structuralist-semiotic frameworks of Jakobson, and Vinay and Darbelnet, Catford frames his approach from within early Hallidayan systemic functionalist grammar (see also below); however, while context, situation and culture are acknowledged as important, the focus remains very much on language systems, rather than the functional uses of language in communication. In this, Catford is similar to Vinay and Darbelnet. Unlike Vinay and Darbelnet, though, Catford has no prescriptive intention; his approach prefigures the shift to description rather than prescription in TIS.

Catford’s point of departure is the relation between the ‘inventories’ available in two language systems, which he describes with the term formal correspondent: any target-language category (units or structures of all kinds and levels) that “can be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the ‘same’ place in the ‘economy’ of the TL [target language] as the given SL [source language] category occupies in the SL” (Catford 1965: 27). A distinction is made between this underlying systemic structure, and the actual realisations in texts, which are termed textual equivalents. A textual equivalent is any unit of the target text that is assumed to be equivalent to a source text unit. There are thus two relationships at play: a systemic relationship (the relation between language systems) and a textual instantiation relationship (the relation between the source text and target text). When the latter relationship diverges from the former, a shift has occurred, where shifts are thus understood as “departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL” (Catford 1965: 73).

Characteristic of these linguistic approaches is thus their shared conceptualisation of translation as a particular communicative instantiation or ‘utterance’ (parole), constituted by a process of choice-making among different procedures, strategies, or shifts, some of which are obligatory and some which are optional, as a way of negotiating the differences between two language systems (langue). In the work of Nida (1964) and Nida and Taber (1969) distinctions between the underlying linguistic system, and the individual communication event also exist; however, here the shift is decidedly away from an analysis of underlying linguistic systems, and towards a functionalist, text-based understanding of meaning:

The tendency to think of the meaning of a word [...] as apart from an actual communication event is fundamentally a mistake, for once we have isolated a word from its living context, we no longer possess the insight necessary to appreciate fully its real function. (Nida 1964: 40).

Nida, then, turns the attention away from the relation between the translated text and the language systems involved, and focuses on the relation between the source and target text – and introduces a new relation, that between texts and their receivers, in the functionalist definition of dynamic equivalence, functional equivalence or equivalent effect. In this, the work of Nida signals a move into the functionalist domain discussed in the next section, and also (if implicitly) lays the foundation for reader-response approaches, discussed subsequently.

Eugene A. Nida (1914-2011)

Despite this, however, much of Nida’s thinking in respect of the practice of translation relies on structuralist assumptions, and he draws on ideas from generative-transformational grammar as exemplified in the work of Noam Chomsky in the 1950s and 1960s. In his case, then (unlike Vinay and Darbelnet, and Catford), the underlying system of interest is not the contrastive relation between two language systems; rather it is the extraction of the underlying deep structure (or meaning) of an utterance (“fundamental kernel sentences”, Nida 1964: 60), which can be transformed in a variety of ways into surface structures (in the same or other languages):

For the translator especially, the view of language as a generative device is important, since it provides him first with a technique for analyzing the process of decoding the source text, and secondly with a procedure for describing the generation of the appropriate corresponding expressions in the receptor language. (Nida 1964: 60).

In this respect, the work of Nida may be seen as building ideas from structuralist-generativist grammar into a more functionalist, text-oriented approach to translation (though, as Malmkjær 2021: 208 observes, his application of Chomskyan ideas is little more than a “flirtation” and is not a systematic integration of the theory).

A significant methodological limitation of most of the linguistic work up to this point is the non-systematic use of largely anecdotal evidence, and the mix of description and prescription. Moreover, much of the work done in this period had more explicitly theoretical or pedagogical aims, rather than empirical ones. Nida (1964) clearly demonstrated theoretical aims, while Nida and Taber (1969) intended to inform translation practice. Vinay and Darbelnet (1958) were clearly in the latter category as well. For these reasons, there are relatively few methodological developments of note in this particular body of work.

A major shift in linguistic approaches to translation focused on the textual dimension occurs from the 1990s onwards, as functionalist perspectives start to supplant structuralist ones. This shift has three dimensions. First, prescription is supplanted with an overtly descriptive aim for TIS, prompted in large part by Toury’s (1995) programme for Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS). Second, the introduction of corpus-linguistic methods to TIS opened up possibilities for the systematic study of large amounts of textual data and laid the foundation for what is now known as Corpus-based Translation Studies (CBTS). The way in which corpus methods were introduced to TIS, in a series of influential papers by Mona Baker in the 1990s (e.g. Baker 1993), against the background of DTS and its emphasis on the function of the translated text in the target system, shaped the third shift: a move away from seeing translational relationships in the first instance as obtaining either between two different language systems, or between a source and target text. For the first time, the linguistic perspective on translation focused on characterising the linguistic make-up of translations as textual instantiations in themselves, seen primarily in relation to other similar textual instantiations in the target language, both fulfilling certain functions within a particular sociocultural context.

Translational contexts

These new developments in TIS reflect the growing shift towards functionalism evident in linguistics and other areas of the human and social sciences at the time. The precise chronology need not concern us here: of primary interest is the observation that theory development within TIS reflected this shift in two ways, one that was relatively independent of linguistic theory and one that relied on or explicitly incorporated functionalist linguistic theories. In these two developments, functionalism impacted the way in which translational products and actions were conceptualised (as having functions in their own right) and the ways in which specific translational options or choices were theorised (as representing various linguistic functions which the translator may or may not heed or prioritise). The ramifications of this evolution were far-reaching, as we shall see.

In non-technical terms, the basic premise of functionalism is that important characteristics of key elements in an ontological domain (e.g., linguistic, social, mental) are the result of the dynamic and evolving functions that these elements serve (Bigelow 1998). For functionalists, variations and alternations in linguistic structure, for example, are considered to have different functions, and indeed to be functionally motivated, as are various social structures (norms, customs, institutions) or mental states. Two approaches to translation theorising, skopos theory (Reiss & Vermeer 1984) and Toury’s DTS (1980, 1995), posited that translations have functions that may be different from those of other kinds of texts, and that these functions determine the choices that translators make. If one accepts this premise, then this assumption necessitates the broader investigation of translated texts as part of the cultures and local contexts for which they are intended, as well as the specific relationships between linguistic choices and contextual configurations. Furthermore, this premise also entails a sort of ‘emancipation’ of the translation from the source text. Rather than conceptualising translation as a process of reproduction within systemic constraints (as in the linguistic approaches outlined in the previous section), functionalist approaches view translation as a process of text creation, and the role of the source text is recalibrated to situate it as one of many factors impacting translator choice.

From this functionalist starting point, the two programmes proceeded in two somewhat different directions: the German scholars working under the skopos banner articulated functionalist text typologies (Reiss 1971) with associated translation methods and text analytical tools. Reiss’ text typology (1989) is a good example. In its original form, the typology distinguished between three types of translated texts: informative, expressive and operative. The three functional text types are described as calling for three different translation methods, each foregrounding the functional priorities of the text type in question. Nord (2018) further elaborated on the functionalist programme through a more detailed account of the potential multifunctionality of translations in given contexts and the need to devise approaches to translational choice to capture the complex relationship between translation functions, translation contexts, and translator choice.

Reiss’s (1971) text-type classification

Several DTS scholars, on the other hand, adopted a more sociologically oriented approach in their attempt to articulate the functions that translations might play in varying cultural contexts. A central element of DTS is Toury’s (1980) concept of translation norms, which claims that the choices made by translators are a product of the cultural context in which they work and that they are subject to social mechanisms of reward, sanction, socialisation and the like. Linguistic choices and patterns in translated text (however they are identified and described) are the textual evidence of the workings of these forces.

Both of the programmes sketched briefly here developed through taking a functionalist approach to theorising the phenomenon of translation, without adopting a specific theory of language or language use. Both programmes rely on analysis of linguistic material in order to discuss translator choice, or the potential for choice, though the primary concern is less with the specific characteristics of the choices themselves and more with the contextual constraints on choice or the relationships between sets of options and their relationships to contextual elements, from the local level of communicative situations to the global level of cultural relationships (e.g., Toury’s (1995) claim that source texts from a culturally powerful nation are less likely to be oriented toward the receiving culture and vice versa).

At the same time, a somewhat different group of scholars was making direct use of functionalist linguistic theories in their approach to translation. A body of work that emerged from the 1990s onward represents a range of different linguistic questions and theories applied directly to translational phenomena and translator training, predominantly building on Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004) and discourse analysis and pragmatics (Angermuller, Maingueneau & Wodak 2014). Conceptually, all of this work shares the foundational commitment to explicating the relationship between translators’ linguistic choices and their communicative aims, as situated within local and global cultural contexts. The linguistic theories of choice lent themselves to somewhat different questions and analyses.

Broadly speaking, SFL is a detailed linguistic theory aiming to account for the relationship between morphosyntactic and lexical structures and patterns and their functions in expressing three fundamental types of meaning (metafunctions): ideational, interpersonal, and textual (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004). These functions are mapped onto the clause, where specific linguistic choices (e.g., tense, mood, polarity) play out. The textual function also captures clause connectors or other linguistic elements used to manage the flow of discourse and various aspects of discourse coherence. The theoretical apparatus allows for the careful description of mappings between linguistic structures and functions, which in the next instance can be used for crosslinguistic comparisons, for example. This potential has been widely exploited within TIS, both within the early more pedagogically motivated work such as House’s work on assessing translation quality (2015) and in more recent empirically motivated work aiming to describe and explain patterns found in translated text. The framework has proven quite useful in this regard, as demonstrated by the body of work produced by the Saarbrücken scholars (e.g., Erich Steiner, Elke Teich, Stella Neumann, Silvia Hansen-Schirra) and also in the large volume of work produced in the Chinese context (for an overview see Wang & Ma 2021). Indeed, a recent publication (Kim, Munday, Wang et al. 2021) demonstrates the geographical spread and continued attraction of this framework for the analysis of translated text.

A very good example of this approach is Neumann (2013), who uses corpus data to analyse register variation across German and English and the impact this variation has on translation between the two languages. Register variation is described using the SFL framework, and the corpus analysis makes use of a set of linguistic indicators including lexical choice, modality, and selected morphosyntactic patterns, among others. The study demonstrates specific patterns of register variation within and between German and English, and the impact of this variation in translated text. The study also illustrates that translated text shows patterns that are independent of the demonstrated crosslinguistic differences, i.e., patterns that are specific to translational communication. The study demonstrates the potential of this framework for detailed empirical studies of translated text, including those using corpus methodologies (see discussion of methodology below).

Some of the work done using the SFL framework is also classified as discourse analytical work, probably due to underlying conceptual similarities between this theory and the broader field referred to as discourse analysis (for examples see the special issue of Target (2015) edited by Munday and Zhang entitled Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies).

Special issue of Target on Discourse Analysis in Translation Studies

This broader field also encompasses other theoretical frameworks that share the same concerns, that is: the structuring and functions of texts and their relationships with one another (genre, intertextuality) and the relationship between linguistic choice and communicative functions and contexts. Thus work such as Hatim and Mason (1990, 1997) incorporates elements from pragmatics and semiotics, as does Baker’s widely used (1992) textbook, In Other Words. Topics within these volumes range from the text-internal analysis of cohesive ties and coherence patterns to thematic structure, as well as pragmatic issues such as the relationship between linguistic structures and power relationships. Work on ideology and power relationships in translation has demonstrated the utility of these frameworks, for instance in the analysis of translation in the media (Bielsa & Bassnett 2009) or in various political arenas (e.g., Baumgarten & Gagnon 2016; Schaeffner 2004). This area has continued to grow through the expansion to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Ieţcu-Fairclough 2008) and Narrative Theory (Baker 2006, 2014). It is important to note that, while all of these theories share certain underlying epistemological assumptions, there are also important differences in the types of theoretical concepts they encompass, the types of analyses they foster, and the types of objectives they set themselves. They are mentioned here as examples of TIS work that explicitly engage in textual analyses using concepts and tools derived from functionalist approaches to situated language use.

As outlined in the previous section, the transition to functionalist approaches to language and translation involved an increasing emphasis on empirically investigating instances of situated language use. Thus this development supported the rapid adoption of corpus-based methods, as did the contemporary explosion in technologies for the analysis of linguistic data. The adoption of corpus-linguistic methods in CBTS was comparatively ‘theory-free’ – until recently. While corpus linguistics is best seen as a method, rather than a theoretical orientation, it does carry a set of theoretical assumptions (as all methods do). Principally important is the assumption (contra generative approaches) that the object of linguistic study should be authentic instances of language-in-use, embedded in social contexts where language is used with functional purposes – rather than invented examples that are meant to both reflect and test the underlying deep structures postulated. This underlying assumption informs all of CBTS, even when it is not made explicit.

In the early phases of CBTS, the main theoretical impetus was derived from the notion of the translation universal, a term introduced by Mona Baker in the 1990s, and subsequently much contested, refined, and redefined (e.g., Mauranen & Kujamäki 2004). The notion of a translation universal is derived from the concept of language universals: the idea that there are some linguistic features or patterns that are shared by all languages, and that exist as a consequence of universal constraints on linguistic processing or universal human cognitive faculties or experience. In importing the idea into TIS, Baker proposed that universals of translation are linguistic features that set translated texts apart from non-translated texts in the same language, that are independent of the language pairs involved, and that are the consequence of the unique cognitive and social constraints that play a role in translational production (Baker 1993: 243). Baker tentatively outlined some of these features (increased explicitness, an avoidance of complexity, a tendency towards linguistic conservatism) and proposed a method for studying them: comparing corpora of translated texts with corpora of non-translated texts in the same language.


De Sutter, Lefer & Delaere (2017), Vandevoorde, Daems & Defrancq (2020), and Granger & Lefer (2022)

Despite criticisms of the method from the outset (particularly in respect of the notion of comparability of corpora), research on the ‘universals’ or recurrent features of translated language has flourished. Characteristic of this research, particularly in its earlier phases, is a focus on particular isolated linguistic features (e.g., finite complement clauses, conjunctions); a focus on linguistic structures rather than meanings; and comparatively limited consideration of either the influence of the source text/language, or the contrastive differences between the languages involved. Much of this research, while certainly taking a linguistic approach, is not clearly embedded in particular linguistic-theoretical paradigms. However, there are exceptions. For example, the German tradition of functionally oriented CBTS (see above) has always taken account of source language influence and has consistently taken a comprehensive text-based view of corpus analysis, informed by the Hallidayan functionalist framework (see e.g., Teich 2003; Hansen-Schirra, Neumann & Steiner 2013; Neumann 2013). Halverson (2003) has set out a cognitive linguistic perspective on the notion of translation universals, principally based on Ronald Langacker’s cognitive grammar.

Three decades on from the original proposals by Baker, there has both been substantial consolidation of CBTS, as well as a questioning of some its fundamental assumptions, which has led to various refinements (see De Sutter & Lefer 2020; Kotze 2020 for detailed discussion). Methodological advances have been radical and have raised questions about early findings in CBTS. There has been a move from simple frequency comparisons of a particular feature in translated texts, towards more complex statistical modelling of how translators’ choice-making in the selection of (sets of) features are similar to or different from other language producers. Methods from other areas of linguistics have been increasingly influential, particularly from computational linguistics and variationist linguistics, where methods like mixed-effects logistic regression, conditional inference trees, and random forests analyses are becoming prominent (e.g., De Sutter & Lefer 2020; Kotze 2022). Collected volumes like De Sutter, Lefer and Delaere (2017), Vandevoorde, Daems and Defrancq (2020), and Granger and Lefer (2022) exemplify this trend.

In this, more comprehensive account is also taken of the source text/language, and of the differences between the two language systems involved. In a way, this reflects a return to the early linguistic construal of translation as a textual production process constrained by the available options in language systems – but now mediated by a far more functionalist, embedded perspective, and facilitated by more sophisticated analytical methods. This has led to a revaluation of the relationship between contrastive linguistics and TIS (Halverson 2015), to the explicit consideration of contrastive differences between languages, and to the development of sophisticated bidirectional comparable and parallel corpus designs and statistical methods enabling the analysis of both comparable and parallel data.

There has also been a move towards more overt linguistic-theoretical embedding of CBTS, beyond the SFL framework of the German CBTS scholars and the cognitive-linguistic framework of Halverson. More recently, proposals have been set out for more explicit theorisation from the perspective of comparative variationist linguistics (Kotze 2022) and usage-based linguistics (Halverson & Kotze 2022; Serbina 2015; Szymor 2017); in different ways, these proposals integrate a more overt awareness of (the) translator(s), as outlined in the following section. Lastly, there is also a developing area of TIS research that makes use of corpus-assisted discourse studies, combining corpus-linguistic methods with the methods from (C)DA, following a trend in linguistic research more generally (e.g., P Baker 2006).

Translation and people

Translators

For a variety of reasons (epistemological and theoretical, internal and external to the field), current research in TIS shows an increasing concern with the translators themselves, sometimes in the service of theorising the language(s) they use or the texts they produce. The epistemological and theoretical impetus may lie in the near total dominance of functionalist frameworks in our field; these are frameworks which in crucial ways centre the human communicator in settings that involve fundamentally human goals, objectives, and relationships. Within the field, the introduction of translation technologies may, in some respects paradoxically, be leading scholars to investigate the differences between human and machine translation and the rapidly changing ways in which translators and technologies interact. In developments outside and within the field, the rise of usage-based linguistic theory and of cognitive science also entails a more central position for the translator.

A fruitful exchange with linguistic theory is evident in cognitive translation and interpreting studies (CTIS), though not all work within this subdiscipline acknowledges a specific theory of language or prioritises the linguistic nature of translational action. The difference is not a theoretical one: scholars who make use of linguistic theory may not agree at all on which linguistic theory to adopt. The difference here is an ontological and epistemological one: it is the difference between conceptualising translation/interpreting as a linguistic activity or as a cognitive one. Of course, the two need not be mutually exclusive; however, taking one position or the other as the starting point for theorising means that different constructs and research traditions become relevant. This is clear in the body of work sketched out below.

A central and representative collection of work integrating cognitive linguistic theory with TIS is the anthology edited by Rojo and Ibarretxe-Antuñano (2013). In the studies presented there, frameworks and concepts such as conceptual metaphor, conceptual metonymy, frame semantics, cognitive grammar, and construction grammar are put to a range of uses. Some of this work follows on that of early pioneers in this endeavour, such as Snell-Hornby’s use of prototype theory (1988), Kussmaul’s use of scenes-and-frames semantics (1994), Tabakowska’s work on poetics and cognitive linguistics (1993) and Schaeffner’s work on cognitive theory of metaphor (2004). In many of these studies, a textual focus is still discernible, in that the new theoretical tools are used in the analysis of translation choices and of source-target relationships. Similarly, the dissertations by Krüger (2015), Serbina (2015) and Szymor (2017) represent full-length investigations of translation choices and relationships using cognitive theoretical tools. Collectively, this body of work illustrates how cognitive linguistic theory provides a new conceptualisation of translational relationships, moving away from systemic descriptions of linguistic correspondence to active acts of construal that motivate a range of non-deterministic (but constrained) encodings (see also Halverson 2007).

It is perhaps not immediately obvious why this work is described under the heading of translator-oriented work, rather than work centred on textual characteristics or linguistic systems, given the interest in textual characteristics and relationships. The motivation for this characterisation lies in the foundational premises of cognitive linguistic theories, as one member of the broader family of ‘usage-based’ language theories. A central assumption of these theories is that language is a sociocognitive phenomenon, dynamically formed during usage events involving the individual in communicative interactions, constituted by the twin and interlocking processes of entrenchment (in the individual) and conventionalisation (in the community) (Schmid 2017, 2020). This means that both theoretical and empirical work centres on the individual in important ways, for example in recognising the role of personal linguistic experience in shaping individual grammars (e.g., Barlow 2013; Dabrowska 2012; Verhagen, Mos, Backus et al. 2018) and incorporating this fact into statistical modelling (as a random effect in regression models, for instance).

The theoretical development of usage-based approaches has led to two additional methodological developments that have impacted TIS: (1) the increasing use of multimethod studies, and (2) the growing recognition of the need for enhanced metadata in the construction of corpora. Multimethod approaches often aim at combining data types and analytical frameworks that supplement one another, or that allow for the mitigation of the shortcomings of a single method (Halverson 2017a). This rationale is visible in several studies that combine corpus data with either experimental or other forms of observational data (e.g., Halverson 2017b; Hansen-Schirra 2003; Kajzer-Wiertzny 2012; Szymor 2017). As regards metadata, an example here is the ongoing construction of the Multilingual Student Translation (MUST) corpus, which incorporates a rich set of metadata to profile the linguistic backgrounds of the student translators as well as the constraints associated with the translation task performance.

A different trend is demonstrated by the integration of psycholinguistic theories into TIS. In Interpreting Studies, psycholinguistics constituted one of the cornerstones of the field (see Pöchhacker 2016 for review). This subfield of linguistics also informs a range of recent studies on both translation and interpreting, including, for example, work presented in the anthologies edited by Schwieter and Ferreira (2014; Ferreira & Schwieter 2015). The surveys by Alves (2015) and Ferreira, Schwieter and Gile (2015) outline real and potential points of intersection between CTIS and psycholinguistic theory and method. Key are a shared interest in language processing in different tasks, modalities, and contexts, and in the particulars of language representation and processing in bi- and multilingual speakers. Moreover, there is a shared interest in investigating the impacts of selected task parameters (stress, time pressure, external support) on various performance indicators. Methodologically speaking, experimental research design has become more common, both alone and in combination with other methods and data types.

As mentioned above, not all work within CTIS has been, or wishes to be, affiliated with a particular theory of language or to model translation/interpreting tasks as specifically linguistic. Indeed, the introduction of constructs from cognitive psychology and cognitive science, for example, competence, expertise, attention, situated cognition or the study of affective or personality-related cognitive traits in translation has sometimes downplayed and sometimes recalibrated the specifically linguistic nature of the task. An example of the latter is Muñoz’s expertise construct, which incorporates “five situated dimensions”, i.e., “adaptive psycholinguistic traits, problem-solving skills, knowledge, self-concept and regulatory skills” (2014: 18). The construct outlines a “set of perspectives onto a complex mental behavior”, and within this set of perspectives, “language skills play a lesser role in the construct, where they merely feature as an aspect of the knowledge dimension” (Muñoz 2014: 35).

Readers

The empirical study of readers’ reception of translated texts is comparably recent – despite, as Kruger and Kruger (2017) point out, the ubiquity of theoretical concepts that rely on notions of reader (or receiver) effect in TIS. Reader reception studies are far more established for audiovisual translation than for written translation. In both these areas, methods from areas of linguistics like psycholinguistics and reading studies have had a significant impact, in particular eye-tracking and, to a lesser degree, neuroimaging. Research in this area is largely (quasi-)experimental and relies on the collection of behavioural and attitudinal data. These methodological advances have proved indispensable to the study of readers’ processing of translated texts (for an overview, see Kruger & Kruger 2017).

On the theoretical side, however, there has been limited overt engagement with linguistic theorisations, specifically. Reception studies in audiovisual translation focus largely on language processing in the reading of subtitles, and in doing so, draw on concepts from psycholinguistics, and particularly the psycholinguistics of reading (see Kruger 2016). However, often such studies use psycholinguistics as a broader framework for situating essentially applied research on how varying different parameters of subtitling (line breaks, speed, chunking) influences processing; how attention is distributed between subtitles and images; how subtitles may support language learning; how first and second languages influence subtitle reading; or how subtitles influence immersion in the audiovisual experience. Detailed engagement with core areas of psycholinguistics, like lexical and syntactic processing in reading, while common in research on translation production (see discussion above; also Chmiel 2021), are less common in studies of (audiovisual) translation reception; as Kruger (2016: 281) points out: “Very few of the studies go beyond the mere quantification of attention to a study of the processing of specific elements in the language of subtitles.” One of the most influential concepts in audiovisual translation reception studies is that of cognitive load, a concept derived from cognitive psychology – a concept that has hardly been related to notions of, for example, linguistic complexity and its processing, despite the fact that this is a topic of substantive research in a range of areas in linguistics, from Natural Language Processing, to typology, to language acquisition.

In studies of the reception of written translation, the same types of methods are used, but here theoretical frameworks tend to be even less strongly embedded in linguistic theorisation or models of receptive language processing. Kruger (2016) draws tentative links with usage-based approaches in respect of translation reception, reframing concepts like Venuti’s (2018) fluency and resistancy through the lens of linguistic concepts; by and large, however, such studies have theoretically based themselves in stylistics and cognitive narratology (e.g., Walker 2021). Other studies of written translation have set themselves explicitly against the types of experimental methods outlined here, arguing that the reception of translated texts, whether audiovisual or written, cannot be understood in decontextualised settings, and that the behavioural operationalisations of reading, understanding, and attitudes (e.g., in eye-tracking data, neuroimaging, comprehension tests, or attitudinal surveys) in experimental settings that often rely on shorter pieces of text presented in highly artificial and controlled conditions are disconnected from the highly contextualised, holistic experiential basis of reading and understanding.

Conclusion

The account given in this article is by necessity limited in scope to a time frame that the authors considered manageable for the purpose at hand. It is also very selective for the same reason. References to specific studies or theories under the three main headings of translational relationships, translational contexts, and translation and people are meant to exemplify certain ideas or developments, and it is not possible to be exhaustive or even sufficiently inclusive in these references. It has been our objective to tell a particular story about the relationship between linguistics and TIS as it has evolved over 60 or so years. Over that period, within TIS, linguistic theory has assumed various roles, first as a primary source of theory for the description of translational relationships and the development of pedagogical tools, and later as the source of theoretical/analytical tools for the ‘new’ empirical TIS or, sometimes, as a more implicit tool in the DTS toolkit. Linguistic theory assumes a rather different role in the emerging emphasis on people, i.e., the translators themselves or the readers of translated texts. In this case, broader linguistic theories are sometimes less obvious than psycholinguistic theory or broader cognitive psychological theories. It might be suggested that while linguistic theory (and linguistic methods) once constituted a centre of gravity for TIS, they are now less central, not only because new approaches have become relevant as the field expands in scope, but also because the field in general shows a certain resistance to allow linguistic theory the central position it once had. This may be due to a lack of understanding of contemporary linguistic theory (see Halverson & Kotze 2022), to reasons related to academic sociology or to real epistemological differences. We would welcome an engaged debate on this question.

Research potential

The scope for research based on the various theoretical and methodological approaches outlined in this chapter is broad. As far as textual relationships are concerned, corpus-linguistic designs and methods that allow for the simultaneous exploration of the relationship between the source text/language, and the textual ‘fit’ of translated texts with texts in the target language are particularly promising. An integrative perspective, combining an understanding of the different relational levels in translation (the contrastive relationships of languages; the cross-linguistic comparison of registers or genres; and the relation between a particular source and target text) appears the most productive way forward. This involves a profoundly synthetic view of the multiplicity of linguistic and textual relations in translation, mirrored in a methodology that allows for modelling these complexities.

Discourse analytic approaches have great potential to enrich our understanding of the relationships between translated texts of all kinds and the contexts in and for which they are created. We know that translation activity is changing and evolving along with technologies and forms of symbolic expression. As global interaction increases, we must find the theoretical tools to understand translational activity manifested in multiple mediated forms, in settings as diverse as health care, crisis management or online media platforms, as carried out by individuals with exceedingly varied backgrounds, roles and agendas. Discourse analytic theories that can capture the complexity of contextualised translation should be a rich source of insight, regardless of which of the many specific approaches one might choose to explore.

Within TIS, cognitive studies continue to attract research attention. Up until now, broad linguistic theories have held less attraction for scholars within this field than have, for example, concepts and frameworks from cognitive psychology, cognitive science, or psycholinguistics. It seems fair to say that linguistics-oriented work in this area has barely begun to explore the potential of the various theories available. Cognitive linguistic theories allow for the re-examination of questions about textual relationships, translator choice, and other concerns that have been central to TIS for decades. Moreover, these theories are rich enough to foster new ideas and questions, and the growing use of mixed-methods approaches is clearly linked to the implications of cognitive theories. As such, work within this area should continue to foster both theoretical and empirical development.

The field of linguistically informed reader reception studies is wide open, both theoretically and empirically. With little research done in this area, both studies making use of naturalistic data, and studies using experimental methods are much needed – and this area of research is still, in many ways, in search of a theoretical frame. A usage-based theory of receptive language processing certainly has a role to play in this.

Ultimately, however, our view is that the overarching research challenge lies in (re)integrating linguistic theorisation in the mainstream of TIS. In many ways, TIS has become fixated on a reified notion of ‘linguistics’ – in which the discipline has come to define itself against a notion of translation as ‘mere linguistic transfer’. In our view, what is needed is a return to conceptual foundations: an acknowledgement that translation is (in its prototypical and most common form) a fundamentally linguistic activity. What concept and theory of ‘language’ informs our thinking about translation? Contemporary theories of language emphasise the deeply embodied, fundamentally sociocognitive nature of language. Reconnecting TIS with such contemporary theories of language seems to us the most urgent task of research in this area.