Volume 8, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2352-1805
  • E-ISSN: 2352-1813
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article summarizes the argument that James Stratton Holmes made fifty years ago for an independent discipline that would deal with translational matters, and which, he suggested, should be named Translation Studies. The article, further, outlines the structure that Holmes proposed for the discipline of Translation Studies before presenting a number of the most significant developments that have occurred and investigations undertaken in the fifty years since Holmes made his prophetic intervention, within sub-disciplinary areas that very closely remain those that he outlined.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Abdullatief, Muhammad J. H.
    2018 “Cultural Satirical Features in Translation: The Pessoptimist as a case study.” InKey Cultural Texts in Translation, ed. byKirsten Malmkjær, Adriana Serban, and Fransiska Louwagie, 275–297. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.140.16abd
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.140.16abd [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, Mona
    1993 “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies: Implications and Applications.” InText and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair, ed. byMona Baker, Gill Francis, and Elena Tognini-Bonelli, 233–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.15bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.15bak [Google Scholar]
  3. 1996 “Corpus-based Translation Studies: The Challenges that lie Ahead”. InTerminology, LSP and Translation. Studies in Language Engineering in Honour of Juan C. Sager, ed. byHarold Sommers, 175–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.18.17bak
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.18.17bak [Google Scholar]
  4. Bernardini, Silvia, and Dorothy Kenny
    2020 “Corpora”. InRoutledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, ed. byMona Baker, 110–115. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blum-Kulka, Shoshanna
    1986 “Shifts of Cohesion and Coherence in Translation.” InInterlingual and Intercultural Communication: Discourse and Cognition in Translation and Second Language Acquisition Studies, ed. byJuliana House, and Shoshanna Blum-Kulka, 17–35. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Boase-Beier, Jean
    2004 “Translation and Style.” Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics13(1): 9–11. 10.1177/0963947004039483
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947004039483 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2006Stylistic Approaches to Translation. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2020Translation and Style. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Boase-Beier, Jean, and Marian de Vooght
    eds. 2019Poetry of the Holocaust: An Anthology. Todmorden: Arc Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Boase-Beier, Jean, and Michael Holman
    eds. 1998The Practices of Literary Translation: Constraints and Creativity. Manchester: St. Jerome.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Boase-Beier, Jean, Peter Davies, Andrea Hammel, and Marion Winters
    eds. 2017Translating Holocaust Lives. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Boria, Monica, Ángeles Carreres, María Norriega-Sánchez, and Marcus Tomalin
    eds. 2020Translation and Multimodality: Beyond Words. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bundgaard, Kristine, and Tina Paulsen Christensen
    2019 “Is the Concordance Feature the New Black? A Workplace Study of Translators’ Interaction with Translation Resources while Post-editing TM and MT Matches.” The Journal of Specialised Translation31: 14–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Carl, Michael, Silke Gutermuth, and Silvia Hansen-Schirra
    2015 “Post-editing Machine Translation: Efficiency, Strategies, and Revision Processes in Professional Translation Settings.” InPost-editing Machine Translation: A Usability Test for Professional Translation Settings, ed. byAline Ferreira, and John W. Schwieter, 145–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.115.07car
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.115.07car [Google Scholar]
  15. Charlston, David
    2014 “Translatorial Hexis: The Politics of Pinkard’s Translation of Hegel’s Phenomenology.” Radical Philosophy186(Jul/Aug): 11–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. 2018 “Hegel’s Phenomenology: A Comparative Analysis of Translatorial Hexis.” InKey Cultural Texts in Translation, ed. byKirsten Malmkjær, Adriana Serban, and Fransiska Louwagie, 221–233. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.140.13cha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.140.13cha [Google Scholar]
  17. Choi, Jinsil
    2022Government Translation in South Korea: A Corpus Based Study. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429433504
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429433504 [Google Scholar]
  18. Dagut, Menachem B.
    1976 “Can Metaphor Be Translated?.” Babel22 (1): 21–33. 10.1075/babel.22.1.05dag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/babel.22.1.05dag [Google Scholar]
  19. Dickins, James
    2005 “Two Models for Metaphor Translation.” Target17 (2): 227–273. 10.1075/target.17.2.03dic
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.17.2.03dic [Google Scholar]
  20. Ericsson, K. Anders, and Herbert A. Simon
    1980 “Verbal Reports as Data.” Psychological Review87: 215–251. 10.1037/0033‑295X.87.3.215
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.87.3.215 [Google Scholar]
  21. 1984Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data. Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. González Núñez, Gabriel
    2022 “Translation Studies and Public Policy.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Translation, ed. byKirsten Malmkjær, 181–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108616119.010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616119.010 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grice, Paul
    1957 “Meaning.” The Philosophical Review66: 377–88. 10.2307/2182440
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2182440 [Google Scholar]
  24. Gutt, Ernst-August
    1990 “A Theoretical Account of Translation – without a Translation Theory.” Target2(2): 135–164. 10.1075/target.2.2.02gut
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.2.2.02gut [Google Scholar]
  25. 1991Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hagström, Warren O.
    1965The Scientific Community. New York: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hempel, Carl G.
    1967Fundamentals of Concept Formation in Empirical Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hermans, Theo
    1996 “The Translator’s Voice in Translated Narrative.” Target8(1): 23–84. 10.1075/target.8.1.03her
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.8.1.03her [Google Scholar]
  29. Holmes, James S.
    1972/1988 “The Name and Nature of Translation Studies.” Expanded version of a paper presented at the Third International Congress of Applied Linguistics, Copenhagen, 1972. InTranslated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies with an Introduction by Raymond van den Broeck. Amsterdam: Rodopi 1988, pp.67–80.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Holmes, James
    1988Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies with an Introduction by Raymond van den Broeck. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 10.1163/9789004486669
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004486669 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hubscher-Davidson, Séverine, and Michael Borodo
    eds. 2012Global Trends in Translator and Interpreter Training: Mediation and Culture. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke
    1998 “Logging Time Delay in Translation.” InLSP Texts and the Process of Translation, ed. byGyde Hansen, 73–101. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Working Papers in Translation.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 1999 “Logging Target Text Production with Translog.” InProbing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. byGyde Hansen, 9–20. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2006 “Research Methods in Translation – Translog.” InComputer Keystroke Logging and Writing: Methods and Applications, ed. byKirk P. H. Sullivan, and Eva Lindgren, 95–105. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2017 “Translation Process Research.” InThe Handbook of Translation and Cognition, ed. byJohn W. Schwieter, and Aline Ferreira, 21–49. Malden: John Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781119241485.ch2
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241485.ch2 [Google Scholar]
  36. Jakobsen, Arnt Lykke, and Lasse Schou
    1999 “Translog Documentation.” InProbing the Process in Translation: Methods and Results, ed. byGyde Hansen, 151–186. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson
    1980Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Lowrie, Walter
    translator 1946Kierkegard’s The Concept of Dread. Oxford: Geoffrey Cumberledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Malmkjær, Kirsten
    2003 “What Happened to God and the Angels? An Exercise in Translational Stylistics.” Target15(1): 39–62. 10.1075/target.15.1.03mal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.15.1.03mal [Google Scholar]
  40. 2004 “Translational Stylistics.” Language and Literature13(1): 13–24. 10.1177/0963947004039484
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947004039484 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2018 “Angst and Repetition in Danish Literature and its Translation: From Kierkegaard to Kristensen and Høeg.” InPalgrave Handbook of Literary Translationed. byJean Boase-Beier, 251–268. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑75753‑7_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75753-7_13 [Google Scholar]
  42. Meylaerts, Reine
    2017 “Studying Language and Translation Policies in Belgium: What Can we Learn from a Complexity Theory Approach?.” Parallèles29(1): 45–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Mossop, Brian
    2007 “Empirical Studies of Revision: What we Know and Need to Know.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation8: 5–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Munday, Jeremy S.
    2007Style and Ideology in Translation: Latin American writing in English. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Newmark, Peter
    1990A Textbook of Translation. New York: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Nida, Eugene
    1964Toward a Science of Translating: With Special Reference to Principles and Procedures Involved in Bible Translating. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 10.1163/9789004495746
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004495746 [Google Scholar]
  47. Nietzke, Jean, Silvia Hansen-Schirra and Carmen Canfora
    (2019) “Risk management and post-editing competence.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation31, 239–259.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. O’Hagan, Minako, and David Ashworth
    2002Translation-mediated Communication in a Digital World: Facing the Challenges of Globalization and Localization. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853595820
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595820 [Google Scholar]
  49. Olohan, Maeve
    2017 “Technology, Translation and Society: A Constructivist, Critical Theory Approach.” Target29(2): 264–283. 10.1075/target.29.2.04olo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.29.2.04olo [Google Scholar]
  50. Pym, Anthony
    1994 “Twelfth-century Toledo and Strategies of the Literalist Trojan Horse.” Target6(1): 43–66. 10.1075/target.6.1.04pym
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.6.1.04pym [Google Scholar]
  51. 2011 “What Technology Does to Translating.” Translation & Interpreting3(1): 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Reiss, Katharina
    1971Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich: Max Hueber.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Sakamoto, Akiko
    2022 “Translation and Technology.” InThe Cambridge Handbook of Translation, ed. byKirsten Malmkjær, 55–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108616119.004
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108616119.004 [Google Scholar]
  54. Schaeffer, Moritz, and Michael Carl
    2017 “Language Processing and Translation.” InEmpirical Modelling of Translation and Interpreting, ed. bySilvia Hansen Schirra, Oliver Czulo, and Sascha Hofmann, 117–154. Berlin: Language Sciences Press. 10.4324/9781315692845‑19
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315692845-19 [Google Scholar]
  55. Schäffner, Christina
    2004 “Metaphor and translation: Some Implications of a Cognitive Approach.” Journal of Pragmatics36(7): 1253–1269. 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.012 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2012 “Finding Space under the Umbrella: The Euro Crisis, Metaphors, and Translation.” JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation17b: 250–270.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Schäffner, Christina, and Mark Shuttleworth
    2013 “Metaphor in Translation: Possibilities for Process Research.” Target25(1): 93–106. 10.1075/target.25.1.08shu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.25.1.08shu [Google Scholar]
  58. Shuttleworth, Mark
    2011 “Translational Behaviour at the Frontiers of Scientific Knowledge: A Multilingual Investigation into Popular Science Metaphor in Translation.” The Translator17(2): 301–323. 10.1080/13556509.2011.10799491
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2011.10799491 [Google Scholar]
  59. Schleiermacher, Friedrich
    1813 “Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens” Lecture delivered to the Royal Academy of Sciences, Berlin, June 24 1813.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson
    1986Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Taibi, Mustapha, and Uldis Ozolins
    2016Community Translation. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Toury, Gideon
    1980 “Translated Literature: System, Norm, Performance: Toward a TT-oriented Approach to Literary Translation.” InSearch of a Theory of Translation, 51–62. Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv University: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Reprinted in: Poetics Today (1981), 2(4): 9–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. 1995Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.4 [Google Scholar]
  64. Van den Broeck, Raymond
    1988 “Introduction.” InHolmes, James S.Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies with an Introduction by Raymond van den Broeck, 1–5. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Venuti, Lawrence
    1995The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. ed. 2017Teaching Translation: Programs, Courses, Pedagogies. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Vermeer, Hans Josef
    1978 “Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie.” Lebende Sprachen23(3): 99–102. 10.1515/les.1978.23.3.99
    https://doi.org/10.1515/les.1978.23.3.99 [Google Scholar]
  68. Vienne, Jean
    1994 “Toward a Pedagogy of ‘Translation in Situation’.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology2(1): 51–59. 10.1080/0907676X.1994.9961222
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.1994.9961222 [Google Scholar]
  69. Vinay, Jean-Paul, and Jean Darbelnet
    1958/2000Comparative Stylistics of French and English: A Methodology for Translation. Translated and edited byJuan C. Sager and M.-J. Hamel. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.11
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.11 [Google Scholar]
  70. Wilson, Deirdre, and Dan Sperber
    1990 “Outline of Relevance Theory.” Hermes: Journal of Linguistics5: 40–56.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Øverås, Linn
    1998 “In Search of the Third Code: An Investigation of Norms in Literary Translation.” Meta43(4): 571–588. 10.7202/003775ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/003775ar [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

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