Volume 31, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0924-1884
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9986
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



In this study, we propose a meta-theoretical model for translation. In doing so, we start from a critique of bivalent thinking – rooted in classical logic – exposing unidimensionality as its fundamental weakness. We then consider how this problem has traditionally been addressed by proposing continua. While recognising their cognitive, heuristic and didactic values, we argue that despite the promise of alleviating strict polarisation symptomatic of binarisms, continua are still unidimensional and thus counterproductive to theorising that seeks to capture translational complexity. As a way out of this impasse, building on the premises of fuzzy logic and the understanding that translation is a non-zero-sum concept, we suggest that theoretical concepts be couched in terms of multidimensionality (that is, contrasted with numerous oppositions, rather than a single one, as is the case with polar thinking). Finally, we suggest how our proposed approach can be translated into a practice of theorising.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abbott, Edwin A.
    (1884) 1992 Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Appiah, Kwame Anthony
    1993 “Thick Translation.” Callaloo16 (4): 808–819. 10.2307/2932211
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2932211 [Google Scholar]
  3. Arduini, Stefano, and Siri Nergaard
    2011 “Translation: A New Paradigm.” Translation1 (inaugural issue): 8–15.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, Mona
    2009 “Resisting State Terror: Theorizing Communities of Activist Translators and Interpreters.” InGlobalization, Political Violence and Translation, edited byEsperanca Bielsa and Christopher W. Hughes, 222–242. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230235410_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230235410_12 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2010 “Reframing Conflict in Translation.” InCritical Readings in Translation Studies, edited byMona Baker, 115–129. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barańczak, Stanisław
    1990 “Mały, lecz maksymalistyczny manifest translatologiczny.” Teksty Drugie3: 7–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bennett, Bo
    2012Logically Fallacious: The Ultimate Collection of Over 300 Logical Fallacies. Sudbury, MA: eBookIt.com.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Blumczyński, Piotr
    2010 “Pilnikiem, kluczem, czy siekierą? O tłumaczeniu Lema na angielski.” InLem in tłumacze, edited byElżbieta Skibińska and Jacek Rzeszotnik, 79–92. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Blumczynski, Piotr
    2016Ubiquitous Translation. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315646480
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315646480 [Google Scholar]
  10. Catford, John C.
    1965A Linguistic Theory of Translation: An Essay on Applied Linguistics. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Chaume, Frederic
    2012Audiovisual Translation: Dubbing. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Chesterman, Andrew
    1991On Definiteness, with Special Reference to English and Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519710
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519710 [Google Scholar]
  13. 1998Contrastive Functional Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.47
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.47 [Google Scholar]
  14. Colina, Sonia
    2008 “Translation Quality Evaluation: Empirical Evidence for a Functionalist Approach.” The Translator. 14 (1): 97–134. 10.1080/13556509.2008.10799251
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2008.10799251 [Google Scholar]
  15. Corcoran, John
    1995 “Laws of Thought.” InCambridge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited byRobert Audi, 423–424. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Cronin, Michael
    2009 “Response to Translation Studies Forum: Cultural Translation.” Translation Studies2 (2): 216–219.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Danaher, James
    2004 “The Laws of Thought.” The PhilosopherLXXXXII (1). www.the-philosopher.co.uk/lawsofthought.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Delabastita, Dirk
    2010 “Histories and Utopias. On Venuti’s The Translator’s Invisibility.” The Translator16 (1): 125–134. 10.1080/13556509.2010.10799296
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2010.10799296 [Google Scholar]
  19. Deleuze, Gilles, and Félix Guattari
    (1987) 2004 A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated byBrian Massumi. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. de Vries, Lourens
    2015 “Views of Orality and the Translation of the Bible.” Translation Studies8 (2): 141–155. 10.1080/14781700.2014.992463
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2014.992463 [Google Scholar]
  21. Dryden, John
    (1680) 1992 “On Translation.” InTheories of Translation. An Anthology of Essays from Dryden to Derrida, edited byReiner Schulte and John Biguenet, 17–31. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Ellis, John M.
    1993Language, Thought, and Logic. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Evans, Vyvyan
    2009How Words Mean. Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models and Meaning Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199234660.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Farahmand, Mehrdad
    2014 “Sholokhov and Iranian Translators’ Error” [شولوخوف و خطای مترجمان ایرانی]. www.bbc.co.uk/persian/arts/2014/02/140221_mf_sholokhov.shtml
  25. Flood, Alison
    2011 “First Ever Direct English Translation of Solaris Published.” Guardian, June15 2011 https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jun/15/first-direct-translation-solaris
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Geertz, Clifford
    1973The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gentzler, Edwin
    2012Translation and Identity in the Americas: New Directions in Translation Theory. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Godayol, Pilar
    2002Spazi di frontiera. Genere e traduzione. Translated byAnnarita Taronna. Bari: Palomar.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2013 “Metaphors, Women and Translation: from les belles infidèles to la frontera.” Gender and Language7 (1): 97–116. 10.1558/genl.v7i1.97
    https://doi.org/10.1558/genl.v7i1.97 [Google Scholar]
  30. Halverson, Sandra
    1997 “The Concept of Equivalence in Translation Studies: Much Ado about Something.” Target9 (2): 207–233. 10.1075/target.9.2.02hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.9.2.02hal [Google Scholar]
  31. Henitiuk, Valerie
    2008 “‘Easyfree Translation?’ How the Modern West Knows Sei Shônagon’s Pillow Book.” Translation Studies1 (1): 2–17. 10.1080/14781700701706377
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700701706377 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hermans, Theo
    1999Translation in Systems. Descriptive and System-Oriented Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. House, Juliane
    1997Translation Quality Assessment: A Model Revisited. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ibsch, Elrud
    2010 “Why We Need Binarism to Go beyond It.” Neohelicon37 (2): 463–468. 10.1007/s11059‑010‑0067‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11059-010-0067-4 [Google Scholar]
  35. The Inclusive New Testament 1994 Brentwood, MD: Priests for Equality.
  36. Israel, Hephzibah
    2010 “Translating the Bible in Nineteenth-Century India: Protestant Missionary Translation and the Standard Tamil Version.” InCritical Readings in Translation Studies, edited byMona Baker, 176–190. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Jakobson, Roman
    1959 “On Linguistic Aspects of Translation.” InOn Translation, edited byReuben Brower, 232–239. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18
    https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674731615.c18 [Google Scholar]
  38. Koller, Werner
    1995 “The Concept of Equivalence and the Object of Translation Studies.” Target7 (2): 191–222. 10.1075/target.7.2.02kol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.2.02kol [Google Scholar]
  39. Koskinen, Kaisa
    2000Beyond Ambivalence. Postmodernity and the Ethics of Translation. Tampere: University of Tampere.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kosko, Bart
    1993Fuzzy Thinking: The New Science of Fuzzy Logic. New York: Hyperion.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Latour, Bruno
    2005Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Lem, Stanisław
    1970Solaris. Translated (from the French) byJoanna Kilmartin and Steve Cox. New York: Walker.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Marais, Kobus
    2014Translation Theory and Development Studies: A Complexity Theory Approach. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203768280
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203768280 [Google Scholar]
  44. Meylaerts, Reine, and Maud Gonne
    2014 “Transferring the City – Transgressing Borders: Cultural Mediators in Antwerp (1850–1930).” Translation Studies7 (2): 133–151. 10.1080/14781700.2013.869184
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.869184 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mossop, Brian
    2017 “Invariance Orientation: Identifying an Object for Translation Studies.” Translation Studies10 (3): 329–338. 10.1080/14781700.2016.1170629
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2016.1170629 [Google Scholar]
  46. Newmark, Peter
    1988Approaches to Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Nida, Eugene A.
    1964Toward a Science of Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Nida, Eugene A., and Charles Taber
    1982The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Pirie, Madsen
    2006How to Win Every Argument. The Use and Abuse of Logic. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Perec, Georges
    1969La Disparition. Paris: Denoël.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 1994A Void (orig. La Disparition). Translated into English byGilbert Adair. New York: HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Pym, Anthony
    1995 “Schleiermacher and the Problem of Blendlinge.” Translation and Literature4 (1): 5–30. usuaris.tinet.cat/apym/on-line/intercultures/blendlinge.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 2014Exploring Translation Theories. Second edition. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Robinson, Douglas
    2016 “Editor’s Introduction: Pushing Hands with Martha Cheung.” InThe Pushing Hands of Translation and Its Theory, edited byDouglas Robinson, 1–15. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315697680
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315697680 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schleiermacher, Friedrich
    (1813) 2012 “On the Different Methods of Translating.” Translated bySusan Bernofsky. InThe Translation Studies Reader. Third edition. Edited byLawrence Venuti, 43–63. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Schopenhauer, Arthur
    (1864) 2008 The Art of Controversy. Translated byThomas Bailey Saunders, edited byAxel Wendelberger. Megaphone eBooks. www.wendelberger.com/downloads/Schopenhauer_EN.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Snell-Hornby, Mary
    2006The Turns of Translation Studies. New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints?Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.66
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.66 [Google Scholar]
  58. Tannen, Deborah
    1998The Argument Culture. Stopping America’s War on Words. New York: Ballantine Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Torresi, Ira
    2013 “The Polysystem and the Postcolonial: The Wondrous Adventures of James Joyce and His Ulysses across Book Markets.” Translation Studies6 (2): 217–231. 10.1080/14781700.2013.774531
    https://doi.org/10.1080/14781700.2013.774531 [Google Scholar]
  60. Toury, Gideon
    (1995) 2012 Descriptive Translation Studies – and Beyond. Revised edition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tymoczko, Maria
    (1999) 2014 Translation in a Postcolonial Context. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 2010 “Ideology and the Position of the Translator: In What Sense Is a Translator ‘in between’?” InCritical Readings in Translation Studies, edited byMona Baker, 215–228. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Venuti, Lawrence
    (1995) 2008 The Translator’s Invisibility. A History of Translation. Second edition. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203360064
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203360064 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2013Translation Changes Everything. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Zadeh, Lotfi
    1965 “Fuzzy Sets.” Information and Control8: 338–353. 10.1016/S0019‑9958(65)90241‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X [Google Scholar]
  66. 2010 “Second Foreword.” InLinguistic Fuzzy Logic Methods in Social Sciences, edited byBadredine Arfi, ix–x. Berlin: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error