Katan David (2016) Translation at the cross-roads: Time for the transcreational turn?

,
Perspectives, 24:3, 365-381, DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2015.101604

Translation at the cross-roads: time for the transcreational turn?

Translation Studies is a young discipline, with its “name and nature” still the object of

discussion in the 1970’s (Holmes, 1988). As to the “nature” of the discipline, ‘interpreting

studies’ has generally been seen as a sub-discipline of the generic term ‘translation’, and

this paper will follow suit. Clearly, though, literary translators, technical translators, court

and community interpreters require very different skills and are rewarded different status.

Yet, these translators and interpreters (T/Is) are all very much at the same crossroads for

exactly the same reasons: to what extent can or should these professionals mediate?

The idea that translation should be considered a form of ‘intercultural

mediation’ (IM) (Katan, 2013) has been popularised in academic circles ever since the

‘cultural turn’ of the 1980s. As a result, academics have been calling T/Is "experts in

intercultural communication” (Holz-Mäntäri, 1984); "mediators" (Hatim & Mason,

1990); "cross-cultural specialists" (Snell-Hornby, 1992); "cultural mediators" (Katan,

1999/2004) and “cultural interpreters” (Gonzalez & Tolron, 2006; Harris, 2000; Mesa,

2000). This ontological change of perception of T/Is as cultural mediators, however,

remains very much more of an academic rather than professional understanding of the

role and habitus (Katan, 2011; 2012). Moreover, the T/I’s traditional language mediation

role is itself under threat. The focus of this paper is, hence, first to clarify the difference

between language and IM, then to analyse who is actually doing IM in practice, and

finally to suggest a way forward for the translator at the crossroads.

9

 Intercultural Mediation in theory

The term 'intercultural', suggests (e.g. Liddicoat, 2004, p. 17) that we are dealing not only

with language difference but with different contexts; and, indeed it would seem that it is a

shared understanding of the context - what is implicit, unspoken - that ensures

communication. Spencer-Oatey & Franklin (2009, p. 3) suggest that there is a “cultural

situation” when the cultural context is not fully shared, or rather when the “cultural

distance between the participants is significant enough to have an effect on the

interaction/communication”.

To what extent, and even whether, the translatorial professions should be involved

in reducing the cultural distance is one of the principal unresolved issues preventing

translators in practice from taking the role of 'mediator'. To complicate matters, the ideas

explicitly or implicitly related to ‘mediation’ have been understood in two entirely

different ways (see Katan, 2013). The first way, we may associate with the ‘relay’, or

‘conduit theory’ of mediation. The conduit metaphor (Reddy, 1979, p. 297, emphasis in

the original) is based on the belief that "language transfers human thoughts and feelings".

This type of translation mediation is proposed, for example, by Wilss (1999, p.

149). He defines mediation as (emphasis added): “the reproduction of a source-language

text in the medium of the target language and culture”. Baker (2008, p. 5) clarifies this

meaning as follows: “mediation would be the same as reporting what someone else has

said or written, in the same or another language, in speech or in writing". An example of

this understanding is to be found in The Common European Framework of Reference for

 Languages (CEFR, 2001, p. 87) under section 4.4.4, “Mediating activities and strategies”

- one of the set of abilities to be mastered by language learners: "exact translation (e.g. of

contracts, legal and scientific texts, etc.)". This idea of exactness can also be found in the

EU's classification of professions, which (until 2007) had translation and interpretation in

the same conduit class as "copying, envelope addressing, stuffing, sealing and mailing,

mailing list compilation, etc." (as cited in Katan 2004, p. 2). Since then the profession is

the only group to be categorized as “other professional, scientific and technical

activities”.

In a global on-line questionnaire survey of nearly 1000 translators and interpreters

(T/Is) focusing on status (Katan, 2011), the overwhelming description the T/Is gave of

themselves was ‘mediator’, followed closely by ‘linguist’ and ‘wordsmith’, which

together suggest a conduit sense of mediation. The conduit sense of their profession was

even more clearly marked when asked how they were perceived. Along with ‘mediator’,

terms such as ‘technician’, ‘copier’ and ‘scribe’ came to the fore.

Much of the history of translation theory and practice in the West has revolved

around issues of transfer, exactness, replication and hence fidelity to the source text. The

‘faithful/free’ debate has invariably found favour with fidelity, due clearly to the negative

connotations of the way in which ‘free’ is primed by ‘faithful’, i.e. in terms of non-

faithfulness and non-fidelity; hence also Les Belles Infidèles are attractive translations

personified as women who cannot be both beautiful and faithful. A further popular

Western notion is “translator/traditore”, which along with “lost in translation”, fosters the

 general sense that translations are untrustworthy, and at best derivative. Faithful

mediation is always in comparison to the source text; so by its very nature it fosters a low

context communication orientation (LCC) (c.f. Katan, 2004) and hence is clearly not

designed to consider, let alone deal effectively with, the ‘context’.

The second, and more recent belief in the West about mediation takes the

importance of the situation, the context and of what is meant (rather than said) in the

communication, into account. The translator in this case can no longer be thought of as a

'relayer', but must account for the communication in the context and reconcile two

different lingua-culture realities. Seen from this point of view, the problems of a one-to-

one 'faithful' transfer are no longer an issue. This change in direction was heralded by

Nida’s (1964) influential ‘dynamic equivalence’ theory, which focussed on reader

response and on his continued affirmation (2012) that: "You can't translate without

cultural context”.

The cultural turn and Vermeer's (e.g. 2000) ensuing ‘skopos’ theory continued to

take the focus away from the words of the source text towards the importance of reader

response. This clearly is a very different form of mediation, and requires what Maier

(2007) calls an ‘intervient being’ able to gauge the cultural distance and the effect this

would have on the new receivers. Liddicoat and Scarino (2013, p. 54) call this an “active

engagement in diversity”.

This engagement is at the basis of Hatim & Mason's (1997, p.122) definition of

mediation for translators. They, in fact, have borrowed their definition directly from

Beaugrande and Dressler’s definition (1981, p. 163): "the extent to which one feeds one's

own beliefs and goals into one's model of the current communicative situation". As

Beaugrande and Dressler make clear, the less clear or visible, and contextually shared the

communication (i.e. the more high-context), the more the reader/translator will need to

intervene on the text using his/her own beliefs about the intended meaning(s).

However 'engagement' or 'intervention' is not always understood as a form of

'mediation'. Indeed, there is a completely different Cultural Studies strand of translation

studies, originating in post-colonial and literary studies, which though also calling for the

translator to be an intervenient being does not believe in mediation or in reconciliation

but in activism (see Katan, 2013). Venuti (e.g. 1995), for example, sees translators as

agents in either acquiescing to or resisting the hegemonic presence of the Anglo-

American language and culture in the world. Leanza (2007: 29) applies the same belief to

community interpreting, and states that an interpreter or cultural mediator must a priori

either be an agent (or advocate) for the ‘community’ or for the ‘system'. As Sandra Hale

(personal communication, November 15, 2013) herself said: “you can’t be an advocate

for both”. Indeed, for many, intervention is the antithesis of mediation.

Here, translation has become a battle-ground, and always between sides who are

unequally matched. Venuti, in fact, talks of translation (and in particular literary

translation) as "the forcible replacement of the linguistic and cultural difference of the

foreign text" (1995: 25), and his main thesis is that the translator's role should be "to

restrain the ethnocentric violence of translation" (1995, p. 20). This loss/gain, winner/

 loser orientation to translation is an example of a zero-sum game, whereby "a gain for

one side entails a corresponding loss for the other side" (Merriam-Webster). 'Mediation'

seen in this post-colonial light is clearly not an option, and "the ‘bridge building’

metaphor [is] particularly naive" (Baker, 2008, p. 15). This zero-sum game belief is

firmly rooted in a Western oriented LCC conduit model (Tannen, 1998, pp. 215-243).

Recently, activist translators, such as Tymoczko (2010, p. vii) have accepted that

Venuti's ideas are too limited, and that translators should move on from a binary polarized

reaction to the complexities of hegemony, and towards accountability and responsibility.

Importantly, here we can see a move towards a non-zero sum game, where both sides

involved can gain, and is much more akin to the complexities of most human social

interaction. Katan (2009, p. 89-91) has suggested that mediation and activism in the post-

colonial sense are at different Logical Levels, and that while mediation is concerned with

improving understanding within the (capitalist/post-colonial) system, activist translators

focus on the inequities of the system itself. Hence one does not necessarily preclude the

other. In a similar vein, Chesterman suggests (in Baker 2008, p. 31-32) that the

immediate context, which would include IM, is the skopos, while the more long term, and

deeper, motivations, which would include working within or against the system, is the

telos.

Well before translation studies began to take an interest in mediation, dialectics

and the appeal to reason has, of course, been valued in the west. It is at the heart of

counselling, legal settlements, and international diplomacy - often known as 'alternative

 dispute resolution', 'arbitration', ‘facilitation’ or 'reconciliation'. All these terms "denote

the interaction of two parties gathered together with the assistance of a neutral party

(mediator) to assist both parties resolve their dispute in a mutually satisfactory

manner" (Bullen: 2012, p. 3).

The theory of mediation is also well-established in intercultural communication

theory. Taft's 1981 definition of cultural mediator (e.g., as cited in Katan 1999/2004, p.

17) is often used in the translation literature to support the call for the translation as

mediator:

"a person who facilitates communication, understanding, and action between

persons or groups who differ with respect to language and culture. The role of the

mediator is performed by interpreting the expressions, intentions, perceptions, and

expectations of each cultural group to the other, that is, by establishing and balancing the

communication between them".

More recently, Katan (2013, p. 84) defines IM for translators in terms of the

following: “a form of translatorial intervention which takes account of the impact of

cultural distance when translating”. For this to happen, the translator has to take a meta-

perceptual position (Katan, 2001, pp. 301-302; 2009, p. 89; see also Tymoczko 2010, pp.

vii-viii), one which neither acquiesces nor resists the system a priori. The T/I is then in a

position to decide at what level to intervene: as an activist or as a mediator. What is a

priori, from the translator's privileged meta-position, is to account for reader response

according to the skopos.

 This conscious change in perceptual position means that the translator is no longer

responsible for faithfulness to the source text or culture, but becomes responsible for the

relationship between texts, contexts and their readers, accommodating the text into its

new context. This, Kuhnian change in thinking spawned the 1980’s "Manipulation

school" (Snell-Hornby 2006, pp. 48-50), which attempted to de-demonise translator

intervention. As a result, according to Gentzler (2001, p. 71) translation studies was able

to “break[s] the two thousand year old chain of theory revolving around the faithful vs.

free axis”.

As part of this change, IM is now beginning to be understood as a core

competence to be taught (e.g. Kelly, 2005, pp. 33-34; Gambier 2009; PICT 2012).

However, the core of T/I training has traditionally been of the conduit type, due mainly to

the way in which the institutions were set up. Though the translation profession is one of

the world's oldest, as mentioned earlier, the discipline itself began to develop in the 20th

century. Formal training only began as a result of the rise of international organisations in

the wake of WWI; and the first School for Interpreting, the Ecole d’interprètes de Genève

(n.d.) only opened its doors in 1941 (and only in 1971 did it add ‘traduction’ to the

School name). The trainers themselves were practicing professional simultaneous

interpreters with experience in LCC legal and technical areas of the international

institutions, and their approach was also necessarily influenced by the prevailing LCC

view of translation.

There was then an exponential rise in language-based simultaneous interpretation

courses in the 1960s, staffed still by non-university trained trainers, which consequently

led to an "academicization" of T/I training (Baker: 2009, p. xiv). Latest figures available

go back to 2006 (Kelly & Martin. 2009, p. 296), but already indicated over 380

institutions. What should be underlined is that it is only within the last 25 years that T/I

university teachers have themselves had some form of theoretical training, and hence it is

only now with this generational change, influenced by the Manipulation school, that IM

is beginning to make a hesitant appearance on T/I course curricula.

Intercultural Mediation in practice

Today, a number of professional bodies are endorsing the importance of IM. The

International Federation of Translators (FIT, 2012), the foremost promoter of translation

as a profession, for example has recently promoted their International Translation Day

(2012) with the following theme: “Translation as intercultural communication. The

International Federation of Translators salutes all translators, interpreters and

terminologists for their contribution to bridging the communication divide".

Once again, though, there are very different interpretations of this agreed

component of translator training and practice. For, if we look at the FIT Charter (FIT

n.d.), we can see that the fundamental principles are grounded in the conduit, zero-sum-

game view of translation: “Every translation shall be faithful and render exactly the idea

and form of the original – this fidelity constituting both a moral and legal obligation for

the translator”. However, to be fair, the Charter continues, albeit with a confusing,

maladroit, and certainly grammatically lacking, let-out clause:

 "A faithful translation, however, should not be confused with a literal translation,

the fidelity of a translation not excluding an adaptation to make the form, the atmosphere

and deeper meaning of the work felt in another language and country”.

It would seem here that 'faithful', which for the academics has always been related

to the syntax and semantics of the text, can now be related to "the deeper meaning".

There is nevertheless still a fairly strong undercurrent of zero-sum equivalence. Another

influential professional translator organisation worldwide is the American Translator

Association (ATA). Their Code of Ethics and Professional Practice (ATA, n.d.) has an

even more strict charter:

"Linguistic integrity is at the core of what translators and interpreters do. Faithful,

accurate and impartial translation or interpretation conveys the message as the author or

speaker intended with the same emotional impact on the audience. Linguistic integrity is

not achieved when the target language is rendered word for-word from the source

language. Linguistic integrity implies that nothing is added or omitted in the target

message"

Wadensjö (1998, p. 8) notes that worldwide, the normative role of interpreter “is

deeply influenced by the conduit model of communication". Indeed, an analysis of 40

professional T/I organizations worldwide (Moscara, 2013) reveals that every single one

closely follows these two organisation guidelines, at times word-for-word: 27 follow

FIT's faithful-plus-adaptation and 13 ATA's faithful only. Even a very recent revision,

such as that offered by the Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators (AUSIT

2012), and endorsed by the Australian National Accreditation Authority for Translators

and Interpreters, is totally 'text' oriented: “Interpreters and translators do not alter, add to,

or omit anything from the content and intent of the source message”.

This attachment to the source text appears to pervade the workplace itself. In the

previously mentioned global survey on T/I status, respondents were asked to prioritise

their choice regarding the following question: “In your experience where is the main

focus/loyalty when you interpret/translate?” Of the 4 choices offered, "It is the traditional

tie to the source text which really prevails" (Katan 2011, p. 75).

Similarly, there was a general feeling that a T/I should remain invisible whenever

possible. In an ongoing follow-up survey focusing on transcreation, 388 T/Is were asked

what professionality involves most. They were given 6 example statements, ranging

from non-intervention to Venuti style intervention, and were asked to what extent they

agreed with each statement:

- The T/I should remain faithful to the ST;

- the TT should read like an ST;

- there should be no addition or explicitation;

- there should be mediation for the reader,

- the T/I should mediate for cultural differences;

- the T/I should actively intervene to foreignise the text.

The results were very much in line with the previous responses. Greatest

agreement, almost 60% ‘absolutely’ agree with minimum intervention: fidelity to the TT

 followed by stylistic adherence to TT style, i.e. the translation reads like a source text.

Only a maximum of 30% agree that it would be ‘usual’ to consider and actively mediate

the reader or to actively account for cultural differences. Logically, at this point,

agreement on ‘rarely’ (34%) and ‘never’ (31%) was directed to even stronger

intervention, that of foreignising the text:

Returning to the survey on status, respondents (including teachers and T/I

students) were also asked to prioritise the importance of modules in an ideal university T/

I training course. Hardly surprisingly, perhaps, for the professional T/Is, the top five

‘most important’ modules were "all practical, technically based skills, all focussing on

finding the right word in the other language: practice, strategies, e-tools, subject

knowledge and contrastive grammar" (Katan 2011, p. 80). The specific module on

intercultural theory and practice came a low 7th “most important module” in the list of the

12 modules offered. For students and teachers, on the other hand, intercultural theory and

practice comes 3rd or 4th, as important as contrastive grammar (students) or strategies

(teachers):

 Figure 1: Most important modules for a T/I training course

Given that overall there was no significant difference in response between the

university and non-university trained T/Is, it is just possible that Gentzler's prediction

regarding translator freedom is premature rather than wrong. That said, the proportion of

T/Is regarding intercultural communication as essential changes little with years of

experience and is actually slightly higher after 15 years (30%) than it is in the first 5

(26%) (Katan 2011, p. 82).

Translators at a dead end?

It is with this text-based conduit view of translation in mind that a French

economics-business magazine such as Capital1 (August 2013) was able to baldly state

The French business magazine Capital has a larger circulation than the British
The Economist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_magazines_by_circulation)

that two out of three translating jobs will disappear by the year 2025. The reason given

was as follows: "De plus en plus fiables, les logiciels de traduction automatique ècrits et

oraux rendront leurs services inutiles". Now if we actually use a 'traduction automatique',

such as Google Translate to translate what is written, we have (as of January 2014) the

following ungrammatical translation: "More reliable the automatic translation software

written and oral make their unnecessary services".

The resulting machine translated text is clearly not yet a professional translation

of the original, and - for the moment at least - is only useful at a personal or informal

level. The meaning however is clear: automatic translation software quality will improve

and will replace the need for human T/Is. Indeed, already back in 2012 Bertolucci (2012)

tells us that “what all the professional human translators in the world produce in a year,

Google’s system translates in roughly a single day. By this estimate, most of the

translation on the planet is now done by Google Translate”. So, already Google Translate

is, in a sense working. It also learns very quickly, using its own unimaginably vast data

bank of text in 80 languages, and counting (Maori is one of the latest languages so far to

be added). Google's translator does not think, but uses statistical probability strings to

link up most likely word groupings in the foreign language according to previous

translations. This can only improve as users worldwide are encouraged to choose either

an alternative, improve on the translation, or even upload entire personal translations

(Google Translate n.d.). By the year 2025, Google Translate will certainly be able to

produce much more reliable written and oral translations to make many present-day

translation services unnecessary. And, just to add to the IT onslaught, new Computer

 Aided Translation (CAT) Tools, such as "Matecat" (www.matecat.com) are now offering

(rudimentary) "context-aware translation", designed not only to eliminate the need for a

human translator for the first phase, but "to minimize the translator's post-edit effort". The

aim is to further use online user corrections to automatise quality estimation, which for

the moment at least is in the hands of the human translator.

The competition

T/Is in the global survey carried out in 2008/09 referred to earlier, were not so worried

about the progress of technology (and nor were they in the second survey on

transcreation). They already had other more pressing competition to deal with. By far and

away the greatest threat came from "non professional T/I bilinguals (students, doctors,

‘laymen’, etc.)" (Katan 2011, p. 72). And, more recently, thanks to globalisation and the

internet, a new sub-group of amateurs has come to the fore. Global social media

organisations have latched onto the ever increasingly important world of

“crowdsourcing”: "the practice of obtaining needed services, ideas, or content by

soliciting contributions from a large group of people and especially from the online

community rather than from traditional employees or suppliers" (Merriam Webster).

It is not only Google Translator which is making use of crowdsourcing. All the

major social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook, and the more business oriented

Evernote, now appear to depend more and more on volunteers to translate their websites

and mobile apps. Facebook (Constine, 2011), for example, allows users to decide whether

to have their pages translated by machine or to allow other Facebook users to volunteer

their own translations.

Not only are literally millions of volunteers worldwide translating for these

multinational concerns, but there are similar sized armies busily "fansubbing". We could

take just one example: "Ted Talks: Ideas Worth Spreading" (www.ted.com). These 15

minute talks available on the internet from experts in ideas are also actively being

subtitled into an ever increasing array of languages. As of October 2012 Ted Talks has

over 10,000 volunteer translators. There is full publicity for the most active translators,

and the top translators have their photographs predominantly displayed, along with a

running record of the number of subtitled talks, and into which languages. There is also a

very strong peer quality control.

But what is of most interest here, is not the numbers of volunteers sidelining the

professionals, but the guidelines that they are expected to work to. Below is the preamble

to "Becoming a TED translator: Style Guidelines for translators":

"Personal over Generic. Translators should strive to match the tone and flow of the speaker's

original talk as closely as possible. Rather than produce a hyper-formal, word-for-word

translators should aim to find the color, energy and 'poetry' in the speaker's organic style and to

emulate it in the target language, using words and phrases that match the gist of the speaker's

points" (www.ted.com/pages/295)

The first 2 Golden Rules (on another page) are:

"1. Preserve the meaning but don't translate word for word.

2. Know your audience (social, cultural profile of the people who speak the language). This helps

 you to better communicate the talk's meaning to those who use the

subtitles" (www.translations.ted.com/forums/discussion/comment/258).

What is clear is that Ted Talks translators, and all the crowdsourced volunteer

translators and subtitlers are not bound to the words in the way their professional

counterparts are. And, yet, it is also equally clear from the various forums, advice pages

and mentoring from other volunteers within the community, that they take their role as

seriously as any professional, and are evaluated for quality (by the community) much

more than their counterparts. These volunteers, unlike their professional counterparts are

actively encouraged to account for cultural distance and to intervene on the text, and are

fostering communication across language and cultural divides - to the detriment, clearly,

of trained professional translators and subtitlers.

Semi Professionals

Globalisation has not only fuelled the need to communicate virtually across lingua-

cultural divides but it has also facilitated actual movement. One result is the increase in

economic migration, which creates the need for language and cultural mediation at

essential points of contact (ports, hospitals, schools, and so on). Historically, and ever

since the advent of human migration, those who had already learnt some of the host

language and culture would intervene on behalf of the new arrivals.

Slowly, these ad-hoc cultural mediators are now becoming institutionalised,

though status and pay is still extremely low, and training is either non-existent, or at best,

itself ad hoc. Hence, there is a reliance, if not total acceptance, on what Harris (2000), in

 1973, called "natural translation". Paradoxically perhaps, this lack of status has allowed

these public service cultural mediators to be involved in "a range of duties that goes far

beyond the functions of language mediation or almost completely disregards

them" (Transkom 2007: 51). In Italy, according to the Italian Ministry website (trans.

Merlini, 2009: 58), the cultural mediator is not "a mere translation professional who is

not necessarily trained for cultural empathy". Instead (ibid, p. 60), the mediator should

have both "a disposition for social work" (hence an advocacy role) and "a capacity for

empathy" (mediational skills).

The downside to this freedom to act, and enact, is that there is no real training,

and the mediators themselves are just one step away from being the friends and family ad

hoc natural translators. So, they are often regarded as amateurs, and as community agents

only. The general lack of institutional acceptance and understanding of the role of the

cultural mediator in public health settings (in southern Europe, and probably elsewhere)

has created the cultural mediator's "zone of uncertainty" (Inghilleri 2005; Merlini 2009)

with regard to opportunities and constraints in mediating.

Professionals

A number of relatively new and emerging professions have taken the skopos functionalist

theory to heart. The most firmly established of these professions is the 'localiser', whose

raison d'être it is to 'localise', and to fully take account of the new culture and the ability

of the new text to be appreciated by the new target reader. Localisers grew originally

from the need to allow users worldwide to use new software, to understand the

instructions, or be attracted to what IT product the text is promoting. Localisers

traditionally are not professional translators and tend to be recruited from within the field

of IT or from marketing. Their core business is to intervene to take account of the impact

of cultural distance when translating. Unlike the cultural mediators, they have status, do

not work in a zone of uncertainty, and even more so than the volunteer translators and

subtitlers cited earlier, are expected to adapt the source text.

Another group of IM specialists go by the name of ‘interculturalists’ or

‘intercultural consultants’. They generally work in business, have consultancy status, and

will be hired on the basis of their general intercultural rather than language skills. Their

job may vary between helping international teams with their communication issues to

intervening on translated material.

With regard intervention on translated work we can take two examples. The first

comes from a paper entitled: "The Writing Consultant as Cultural Interpreter: Bridging

Cultural Perspectives on the Genre of the Periodic Engineering Report" (Artemeva 1998).

Artemeva, the writing consultant, discusses how she produced the reports in collaboration

with a Russian translator. But, importantly, it was she who intervened on the text after

‘the translation’ to mediate between the Russian and American readerships. Though she

also found herself coaching the Russian translator in IM “the translator expressed surprise

at, and then rejected, my explanations about differences in the structure of English and

Russian texts, different rhetorical patterns, and different emphasis on reader awareness”

(p. 291). Here, the rigid adherence to the source-text is compounded by the fact that the

translator is translating into her second language, which suggests a lack of biculturality,

and certainly also an increased subservience to her source-text commissioner who wishes

to see the conduit model in action.

The next example comes from a group of medical researchers and professors

(Simmons et al) who do not call themselves intercultural mediators or consultants but do

talk about how they 'transcreated' an American health booklet into Spanish for the local

Hispanic population. They explain that "A certified bilingual translator began by

completing the direct text translation from English to Spanish". Here we have a direct

reference to the professionalism which, in this case, specifically requires a faithful

translation of the text. The authors continue, noting first, that "a literal translation of the

'Forever Free' booklets would not suffice". So, they began with a study of the Hispanic

linguistic and cultural reality, and made some fundamental changes to the booklet,

beginning with lowering the register and tone to take account of the literacy levels of the

new readership. They noted that the health problems and statistics were different for the

Hispanics, and then began to work on what would actually encourage Hispanic reader

access to the text (and what would persuade them) not in terms of what was in the

original text, but in terms of what was an important part of the Hispanic context. This

included organising focus groups and interviews with key health providers in the

community. The authors noted, for example, the importance of familismo in the Hispanic

community, and so the original vignettes were adapted to reflect more family values as

were the photographs. Smoking stressors and behaviours to alleviate the stress were also

changed; praying, cooking and time with the family for example was added.

 This strategy, whereby “translation proper is but a preliminary stage” while the

creative function is performed by others, is also well described in Zanetti (in press). She

analyses the dubbing process for films to be released in Italy, noting that after the script

has been translated, it is not the translator but the subsequent “dialogue writer, who is in

fact the owner of copyright in the translation”.

Transcreation

So far we have seen how the translator has been marginalised through

strict adherence to fidelity norms, and through the emergence of numerous ‘others’, non-

translators, who are creating the new texts to be read or heard - and are hence the real

intercultural mediators. How then can T/Is move on from this impasse? It may well,

actually only be a question of how we classify who we are and what we do.

The authors of the translated health guide for the Hispanic community explain

that they did not translate, but instead: "employed methods of transcreation, in which the

text is reconstructed to meet the health literacy and informational needs of the group, as

well as being translated and culturally adapted". This term, ‘transcreation’, is very

interesting; and is worth investigating. Oddly (as a noun), it is not to be found in the

Merriam Webster or the OED (as of October 2013), nor in the 450 million word Corpus

of contemporary American English (http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/).

The term, however, has been used sporadically ever since Leibniz (in McCaffery

2001, fn. 24, p. 241), in 1676, outlined his theory of change: “the body E is somehow

extinguished and annihilated in [place] B and actually created anew and resuscitated in

[place] D, which can be called, in new and most happy terminology, transcreation”.

Over a century later, Coleridge (in Coleridge 1839) wrote "it is not the Scripture that I am

reading. Not the qualities merely, but the root of the qualities is transcreated. How else

could it be a birth, a creation?" Transcreation has also been employed to describe "a

version of translation" (Mohapatra 2010, p. 126), albeit at the freer end. To date it has

been used in two very different areas, literary and commercial (see Katan: in press, b).

According to Mohapatra (2010), Lal, a well-known academic, poet and translator,

is credited with introducing the term into the Indian tradition of translation. Lal’s

(1957/1964: 5) commentary on his own translation of Sanskrit plays into English includes

the following: "faced with such a variety of material, the translator must edit, reconcile,

and transmute; his job in many ways becomes largely a matter of transcreation".

More recently, Else Vieira (1994, 1999) in discussing de Campos' translational

project uses the same term to highlight the idea of the literary translator as operating "a

radical operation of transcreation" which gave de Campos the freedom to translate

Goethe into Brazilian-Portughese with full autonomy. With this freedom from the

fidelity norm, De Campos, was able to make use of the Brazilian context of culture to

help the reader more fully enter the German. As he says (in Viera 1994: 70) "To

transcreate is not to try to reproduce the original's form [...] but to appropriate the

translator's contemporarys’ best poetry, to use the local existing tradition". Consequently,

Viera suggests that "to transcreate means also nourishment from the local sources" (ibid).

For example, Goethe’s original title "Faust" is transcreated into "Deus e o Diabo no

Fausto de Goethe" (God and the Devil in Goethe's Faust"), with a clear intertextual

reference to the 1964 Brazilian film ("Deus e o Diabo na Terra do Sol"). Dr Faustus'

battle between God and the Devil is a central theme which the Brazilian audience can

more readily enter into through their own culture and what it is that the target readers can

make manifest. The foreign is understood in relation to the familiar, which is at the heart

of not just mediation, but understanding itself (c.f Katan in press, a).

Transcreation is also to be found in commercial translation. Gene Schriver (2011),

CEO of Globo Language Solutions, defines transcreation as follows: “In transcreation,

translators aim to produce a conversion that stays close [to the original], while also

evoking the desired reaction from those who receive the message in the target language.

Transcreation involves neither a strict translation nor creation of a message from scratch"

Here we have exponents of the localization industry, who, to date have tended to

ignore translators, suddenly talking of them in terms of professionals who ‘convert’ rather

than ‘faithfully transmit’. There is certainly much evidence of T/Is going beyond their

imposed role-boundaries, and recent literature on the subject clearly points to the fact that

"the neutral model is often more of a myth than reality" (Davies, 2012: 382).

It is community interpreters (e.g. in Wadensjö 1998; Angelelli 2012) who are particularly

aware of role boundaries, as they are often working in the same zones of uncertainty as

the cultural mediator. The California Healthcare Interpreters Association (CHIA, 2002, p.

11, emphasis in the original) is an extremely rare case of a guideline that specifically

allows the interpreter to account for cultural distance (emphasis added):

“Interpreters transmit the content, spirit and cultural context of the original message into the

target language […] understand how diversity and cultural similarities and differences have a

fundamental impact on the healthcare encounter [identify] cultural issues and consider […] how

and when to move to a cultural clarifier role”.

Just how controversial this approach is clear from the Canadian "National Standard

Guide for Community Interpreting Services" (2007), which specifically states that

"Unlike the CHIA, NCIHC, and IMIA standards, [our] Standards of Practice do not

endorse cultural brokering and advocacy". The reason given (p.21) highlights the

interpreter’s lack of autonomy: "Given the complexity of factors that impact and

influence an individual’s culture, acting as a ‘cultural broker/bridge’ goes beyond the

scope of an interpreter’s duty […]”

This stance clearly shows the profound difficulties the profession is in. There is a

realisation that cultural distance causes misunderstanding, but equally there is an

unwillingness to allow the T/I to account for this distance. This view is echoed by Crystal

(2013, p. 41), who says “I don’t expect my translator to be a mind-reader”. This issue, as

Mikkelson (2008, p. 87) states “lies at the crux of the interpreter’s dilemma”.

Could transcreation be a way out of this impasse? In theory, changing the name

would widen the T/Is’ role, and allow them the freedom to ‘translate’ while at the same

time considering the context. Transcreation, also, as the Schriver’s (2011) further

discussion on the subject points out, would nullify Capital’s previously discussed

apocalyptic predictions for the year 2025: “Since [transcreation] is an inherently creative

process, a machine cannot touch it. Nor can anyone argue that it is a commodity or that

anyone else could do the same job”.

 Yet, only around a quarter of the (ongoing transcreation survey) replies suggested

that translation was, or should be, transcreation. There was, understandably, some

resentment at the idea of “re-branding”. But more importantly were the reasons why

transcreation was not translation. These point to what is perhaps the basic issue

preventing T/Is from accounting for cultural distance:

"I'm a translator. It's not my responsibility to provide creative input".

"I rather keep to the original, modifying just phrases that could not definitely be

understood by the target audience".

"I might transcreate on occasion, but I'll feel a little guilty about it, and I'll try to ensure

it's absolutely justified".

In all these cases, the T/Is aversion to risk is palpable. I have suggested elsewhere

(2009) that the relative security of working with a text attracts those who have a

relatively high uncertainty avoidance orientation. Pym (2008) also talks of T/Is in terms

of “risk aversion” or “non-risk-taking disposition”, though he suggests that this is due to

the lack of reward for taking risks. Both authors agree on the fundamental point that

“risk-takers will go into other cross cultural professions" ( Pym, p. 326).

Conclusion

If we move to the year 2025 (or thereabouts), the Google Translator apps will

have improved to the extent that technical, low-risk, low ambiguity, translating and

interpreting can be safely delivered with minimal human intervention – especially

between similar language families. Crowdsourcing will have increased in both quantity

and quality so that most Social Media and much audiovisual translation will by-pass the

professional T/Is.

 At the same time, however, globalization is increasing the need for the very

human ability to mediate, to account for the implicit, the cultural distance, and all the

other factors that are involved in communication. This requires intervention and hence

risk-taking.

To meet this need, two opposing patterns appear to be emerging. First, we have

the rise of non-translation (or language oriented) intercultural mediators, who may avail

themselves of language-only ‘drafts’ created by automatic or human translators. Second,

we have the realization within academia and within some areas of the translational

professions (in particular in community interpreting) that ‘translation’ is not only a

linguistic exercise, that translators have always intervened on the text – and that

translation is, in fact, intercultural communication. And given that this is the case, it is

the (professionally-trained) translator who is uniquely placed to intervene and mediate

between contexts to ensure optimum communication. The option of using this relatively

new term, the ‘transcreator’, would allow both the professional T/Is and their associations

to separate the roles, rather than anguish over them.

So, at the cross-roads, individual professionals could continue taking the

traditional turn to specialise as low-risk ‘faithful’ T/Is, but with the need to compete

keenly with the onslaught from machines or from cheaper if not volunteer others. Or they

could ‘simply’ step into the role of transcreator, which would allow them to take

advantage of an already assigned professional recognition of their creative role, and

which would authorize them to take account of the impact of cultural distance when

 translating. There really is no question about it, if T/Is are to survive then they must

make the transcreational turn.

REFERENCES

Angelilli, C. (2012). Intercultural discourse and communication in a specific interactional

domain: Medicine. In C. B. Paulston, S. F. Kiesling, & E. S. Rangel (Eds.), The Handbook of

intercultural discourse and communication (pp. 430-448). Malden (MA): Willey-Blackwell.

Artemeva, N. (1998). The writing consultant as cultural interpreter: Bridging cultural perspectives

on the genre of the periodic engineering report. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7, 285-299.

DOI: 10.1080/10572259809364632

ATA (n.d.). American translators association code of ethics and professional practice:

Commentary. Retrieved from http://www.atanet.org/membership/code_of_ethics_commentary.pdf

AUSIT (2012). AUSIT code of ethics and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://

gallery.mailchimp.com/8fde6cb815b413ec21bb2071a/files/

AUSIT_Code_of_Ethics_update_final_draft.pdf

Baker, M. (2008). Ethics of renarration: Mona Baker is interviewed by Andrew Chesterman.

Cultus, 1, 10-33. Retrieved from http:www.cultusjournal.com

Baker, M. (2009). Introduction to the first edition. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha, Routledge

encyclopedia of translation studies (2nd ed.) (pp. xiv-xix). Oxford: Routledge.

Beaugrande, de R-A., & W. U. Dressler. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London:

Longman.

Bertolucci, J. (2012). Google Translate has more than 200 million active users. PC World, April

26. Retrieved from http://www.pcworld.com/article/254568/

google_translate_has_more_than_200_million_active_users.html

 Bullen, B. A. (2012). Mediation: A training & resource guide for the mediator. Bloomington

(IN): Trafford.

CHIA, California Healthcare Interpreters Association (2002). California standards for healthcare

interpreters: Ethical principles, protocols, and guidance on roles & intervention. Retrieved from

http://www.chia.ws/standards.htm

Coleridge, H. N. (Ed.). (1839). The literary remains of Samuel Taylor Coleridge 1836-39 IV (1st

ed.). Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/10801/pg10801.txt

CEFR. (2001), Common European framework of reference for languages: Learning, teaching,

assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/

linguistic/source/framework_en.pdf

Constine, J. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.insidefacebook.com/2011/10/05/bing-translate-

pages.

Crystal, D. (2013). Language and the question of culture. Cultus 6, pp. 21-46. Retrieved from

http://www.cultusjournal.com

Davies, E. E. (2012). Translation and intercultural communication: Bridges and barriers. In C.

B. Paulston, S. F. Kiesling, & E. S. Rangel (Eds.), The Handbook of intercultural discourse and

communication (pp. 367-38). Oxford: Wiley & Blackwell.

Ecole d’interprètes de Genève. Retrieved from http://www.unige.ch/traduction-interpretation/

faculte_en.html

FIT. (2012). International Translation Day 2012. Retrieved from http://fit-

ift.org.dedi303.nur4.host-h.net/index.php?

frontend_action=display_compound_text_content&item_id=4687

FIT (n.d.) The International Federation of Translators. Retrieved from http://www.tradulex.com/

Regles/FITCharter.htm

 Gambier, Y. (2009). Competences for professional translators, experts in multilingual and

multimedia communication. EU Publication. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/translation/

programmes/emt/key_documents/emt_competences_translators_en.pdf

Gentzler , E. (2001). Contemporary translation theories. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Gonzalez, M., & Tolron, F. (Eds.). (2006). Translating identity and the identity of translation.

Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.

Google translate (n. d.). Find out how our translations are created. Retrieved from http://

translate.google.it/about/intl/en_ALL/

Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1990). Discourse and the translator. Harlow: Longman.

Hatim, B., & Mason, I. (1997). The translator as communicator. London: Routledge.

Harris, B. (2000). Foreword: community interpreting – Stage two. In P. Roberts, S. E. Carr, D.

Abraham, & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical link 2: Interpreters in the community: Selected papers

(pp. 1-8). Amsterdam/Philadelphia (PA): Benjamins.

Holmes, J. (1988/2004). The name and nature of translation studies. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The

translation studies reader. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Holz-Mäntäri, J. (1984), Translatorisches handeln: Theorie und methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen

Tiedeakatemia.

Inghilleri, M. (2005). “Mediating zones of uncertainty. Interpreter agency, the interpreting

habitus and political asylum adjudication”. The Translator. 11(1), 69-85.

Katan, D. (1999/2004). Translating cultures: An introduction for translators, interpreters and

mediators, (2nd ed.). Manchester: St. Jerome.

Katan, D. (2001). When Difference is not dangerous: Modelling intercultural competence for

business. In G. Cortese & D. Hymes (Eds.), Textus XIV, 287-306.

Katan, D. (2009). Translator training and intercultural competence. In S. Cavagnoli, E. Di

Giovanni, & R. Merlini (Eds), La ricerca nella comunicazione interlinguistica. Modelli teorici e

metodologici [Research in interlinguistic communication. Theoretical models and methodologies]

(pp. 282-301). Milan: Franco Angeli.

Katan, D. (2009). Translation as intercultural communication. In J. Munday (Ed.), Routledge

companion to translation studies (pp. 74-92). Oxford: Routledge.

Katan, D. (2011). Occupation or profession: A survey of the translators’ world. In R. Sela-Sheffy

& M. Shlesinger (Eds.), Profession, identity and status: Translators and interpreters as an

occupational group (pp. 65-88). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Katan, D. (2012). The Status of the translator. In Y. Gambier & D. Van Doorslaer (Eds.),

Handbook of translation studies, 2 (pp.146 – 152). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Katan, D. (2013) Cultural mediation. In Y. Gambier, Y & D. Van Doorslaer (Eds.). Handbook of

translation studies, 4 (pp. 84–91). Amsterdam/Philadelphia (PA): Benjamins.

Katan, D. (in press, a). Intercultural communication, mindful translation and squeezing 'culture'

onto the screen. In: C. Buffagni & B. Garzelli (Eds), Interlinguistica. Studi contrastivi tra lingue

e culture [Interlinguistics. Constrastive studies in language and culture]. Pisa: ETS.

Katan, D. (in press b), Uncertainty in the Translation professions: time to transcreate? Cultus 7

Kelly, D. (2005). A Handbook for Translator Trainers. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing,

Kelly, D., & Martin, A. (2009). Training and education. In M. Baker & G. Saldanha, Routledge

encyclopedia of translation studies (2nd ed.) (pp. 294-299). Oxford: Routledge.

Lal, P. (1957/1964). Great Sanskrit plays in modern translation. New York: New Directions.

Leanza, Y. (2007). Roles of community interpreters in pediatrics as seen by interpreters,

physicians and researchers. In F. Pöchhacker & M. Shlesinger (Eds), Healthcare interpreting:

Discourse and interaction (pp. 11-34). Amsterdam/Philadelphia (PA): Benjamins.

Liddicoat, A. J. (2004). Language planning for literacy. Current Issues in Language Planning,

5(1),1-17. DOI: 10.1080/14664200408669076

 Liddicoat, A. J., & Scarino, A. (2013). Intercultural language teaching and learning. New York

(NY): Wiley .

Maier, C. (2007). The Translator as an intervenient being. In J. Munday (Ed.), Translation as

intervention (pp. 1-17). London: Continuum.

McCaffery, S. (2001). Prior to Meaning: The Protosemantic and Poetics, Evanston (IL):

Northwestern University Press,

Merlini, R. (2009). Seeking asylum and seeking identity in a mediated encounter. The projection

of selves through discursive practices. Interpreting, 11(1) pp. 57-93. doi: 10.1075/intp.11.1.05mer

Mesa, A.-M. (2000). The cultural interpreter: An appreciated professional. Results of a study on

interpreting services: client, health care work and interpreter points of view. In R. P. Roberts, S.

E. Carr, D. Abraham, & A. Dufour (Eds.), The Critical link 2: Interpreters in the community:

Selected papers (pp. 67-79). Amsterdam/Philadelphia (PA): Benjamins.

Mikkelson, H. (2008). Evolving views of the court interpreter’s role: Between Scylla and

Charybdis. In C. Valero-Garcés & A. Martin (Eds.), Crossing borders in community interpreting:

Definitions and dilemmas (pp. 81-97). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Mohapatra, H. S. (2010). English against Englishing: The case of an early English translation of

an Oriya novel. TTR: traduction, terminologie, rédaction, 23(1) , pp. 123-149. Retrieved from

http://www.erudit.org/revue/ttr/2010/v23/n1/044931ar.html?vue=resume. DOI: 10.7202/044931ar

Moscara, M. (2013). Unpublished thesis deposited at University of Salento.

National standard guide for community interpreting services (2007). Toronto: Healthcare

Interpretation Network. Retrieved from http://www.ailia.ca/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=34

Nida, E. A. (1964) Towards a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and
Procedures Involved in Bible Translating, Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Nida, E. A. (2012). Obituary: Eugene Nida / Scholar helped translate Bible into hundreds of

languages. In T. R. Shapiro, Washington Post, 30 March. Retrieved from http://www.post-

gazette.com/stories/local/obituaries/obituary-eugene-nida-scholar-helped-translate-bible-into-

 hundreds-of-languages-313311/

PICT. (2012). Intercultural competence curriculum. EC Publication. Retrieved from

www.pictllp.eu/download/PICT_Curriculum_Framework.pd

Pym, A. (2008). On Toury’s laws of how translators translate. In A. Pym, M. Shlesinger, & D.

Simeoni (Eds.), Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies: Investigations in homage to Gideon

Toury (pp. 311-329). Amsterdam/Philadelphia (PA): John Benjamins.

Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about

language. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought (pp. 284–310). Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Schriver, G. (2011). “Linking language to the technology and communication process”, Galaxy

Newsletter, Q1. Retrieved from http://www.gala-global.org/GALAxy/Q1-2011/5635

Simmons, V. N. G., Quinn, E. B. , Litvin, A., Rojas, J., Jimenez, E., Castro, C., ... Brandon,

T.H. (2011). Transcreation of validated smoking relapse-prevention booklets for use with

Hispanic populations. J Health Care Poor Underserved, 22, 886-893. doi: 10.1353/

hpu.2011.0091

Snell-Hornby, M. (1992). Specialist or all-round expert? In C. Dollerup & A. Loddegaard (Eds.),

Teaching translation and interpreting: training, talent & experience (pp. 9-22). Amsterdam/

Philadelphia (PA): Benjamins.

Snell-Hornby, M. (2006). The turns of translation studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints?

Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Spencer-Oatey, H. , & Franklin, P. (2009). Intercultural interaction: A multidisciplinary

approach to intercultural communication. Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan.

f‎

 Tannen, D. (1998). The Argument culture: Stopping America’s war of words. New York (NY):

Ballantine.

TransKom. (2007). Comparative study on language and culture mediation in different European

countries. Retrieved from http:// www.transkom.info/pdf/transkom_en.pdf, 2007

Tymoczko, M. (2010). Forward. In M. Tymoczko (Ed.), Translation, resistance, activism (pp. vii-

ix). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Venuti, L. (1995). The translator's invisibility: A history of translation. London/New York (NY):

Routledge.

Vermeer, H. (2000). Skopos and commission in translational action. In L. Venuti (Ed.), The

translation studies reader (pp. 220–232). London/New York (NY): Routledge.

Vieira, E. R. P. (1994). A postmodern translational aesthetics in Brazil. In M. Snell-Hornby, F.

Pöchhacker, & K. Kaindl (Eds), Translation studies: An interdiscipline selected papers from the

translation studies congress, Vienna, 1992 (pp. 65-72). Amsterdam/Philadelphia (PA): Benjamins.

Vieira, E. (1999). Liberating Calibans: Readings of antropofagia and Haroldo de Campos’ poetics

of transcreation. In Post-colonial translation: Theory and practice (95–113). In S. Bassnett & H.

Trivedi (Eds). London/New York (NY): Routledge

Wadensjö, C. (1998). Interpreting as interaction. London/New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Wilss, W. (1999). Translation and interpreting in the 20th century: Focus on German.

Amsterdam/Philadelphia (PA): Benjamins.