Perspectives: Studies in Translatology

ISSN: 0907-676X (Print) 1747-6623 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20

Translation as a cultural world system

Johan Heilbron

To cite this article: Johan Heilbron (2000) Translation as a cultural world system, Perspectives:
Studies in Translatology, 8:1, 9-26, DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2000.9961369

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2000.9961369

Published online: 28 Apr 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 826

View related articles

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rmps20
 9

TRANSLATION AS A CULTURAL WORLD SYSTEM

Johan Heilbron, University of Lille, France

Abstract
The translation of books and the international flows which result from it, can be
viewed a cultural world system. The working of this system, based on a core-periphery
structure, accounts for the uneven flows of translations between language groups as well
as for the varying role of translations within language groups. The article outlines some
of the consequences of this sociological model and suggests directions for further
research.

Introduction
Languages have their own rules and regulations, they are marked by peculiari-
ties of different kinds and vary greatly in the number of speakers. But no matter
whether linguistic communities are large or small, whether their languages have
common features or not, they are all interconnected by multilingual speakers, thus
constituting an emerging world language system (de Swaan 1993 a, b). Polyglots
ensure the communication between speakers of various languages, either by com-
municating directly in a foreign language or by translating from one language into
the other.1
Although a growing number of people learn a foreign language, and although
English is becoming the international lingua franca, much communication between
language groups still depends on translation and translators. Processes of transla-
tion, here meant in the literal sense of the word, represent an intriguing object of
study for the social sciences, although there is strikingly little social scientific
literature on the subject. In sociolinguistics, translations are commonly ignored
(Coulmas 1997), in economics there is little more than the occasional paper (Melitz
1998), and other relevant fields, such as the new book history, do not have much
more to offer.2
Translations have traditionally, at least since Cicero, been commented upon by
translators themselves. While reflecting on their craft they have discussed transla-
tion strategies, stages in the translation process and the respective merits of literal
versus free translation.3 At the end of the eighteenth century, German philosophers
and literary scholars started to discuss questions of translatability, more broadly as
a matter of cultural difference, often related to national identity. Schleiermacher's
essay, 'On the Different Methods of Translating' ("Uber die verschiedenen
Methoden des Ubersetzens") (1813) became the seminal text for the hermeneutic
10 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1

view of translation (Berman 1984). Linguistic theories of translation, which were

developed after the Second World War, were concerned with translatability, often
in terms of the linguistic 'equivalence' of languages.
Leading scholars in the field of Descriptive Translation Studies like Gideon
Toury and Itamar Even-Zohar have argued that the traditional discourses on trans-
lation were all oriented towards the source-text and the source-language, and that
the underlying concern was a normative one: what is the 'proper' translation of a
given text? (Toury 1980; Even-Zohar 1990). Translation theory was thus trad-
itionally more concerned with 'potential' than with actual translations. This
problematic approach which often serves as the basis for translator training pro-
grammes, is not a sound starting point for an empirically based understanding of
translation.
Accordingly, Itamar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury have called for 'descriptive'
approaches, based on analyses of actual translations. Following the lead of Russian
formalists, 'polysystem theorists' argue that translations need to be understood in
relation to the system in which they function, for example, in relation to a particular
set of translation norms or, in the case of literary texts, in relation to the target-cul-
ture's literary system (Even-Zohar 1990; Toury 1995). In Toury's words: 'Transla-
tions are facts of target-cultures; on occasion facts of a special status, sometimes
even constituting identifiable (sub)systems of their own, but of the target culture in
any event.' (Toury 1995: 29) For the sociological approach to translation which is
my concern, the conceptual shift from source-text to target-context offers a fruitful,
but, as I will argue, insufficient point of departure.

Transnational cultural exchange

From a sociological perspective, translations are a function of the social rela-
tions between language groups and their transformation over time. They are there-
fore by no means self-evident. This fact is reflected in the terminology: Greek has
no proper word for translation, only 'hermeneuein' which also means 'to interpret'
and 'to explain'. Latin 'translatio'1 is closer to the present-day meaning, but is a
similarly broad term, referring to the various forms of transfer, including transfer of
power, as in translatio imperii. The specific, modem sense of the word 'trans-
lation' emerged only in the Renaissance, when Italian humanists started to
distinguish between 'translatio' and 'traductio'. The latter term, and the
corresponding verbs in Italian and French, traducere and traduire, referred
 Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 11

specifically to translation of texts from one language into another, especially into
the vernacular.
Translations into the vernacular had existed well before the Renaissance, but the
invention of printing promoted the vernaculars, and gave translations in the verna-
cular an entirely new significance. With the formation of national states, standard
languages were codified and much translation activity in (early) modem Europe
was connected with the evolving relations of cooperation and conflict between na-
tional states.
Translation in the broadest sense is, of course, practised in a great variety of
forms and contexts: interpreting is found in political and diplomatic settings, sub-
titling and dubbing abovmd in the media, and written translation dominates literary
translation, as well as a range of more standardized, technical and professional
translations in law, technology and commerce. If, as the pragmatist adage says,
meaning is determined by use, translation practice must be analysed specifically
within the field or the subfield in which it actually functions.
In this article I shall focus on one form of translation: the translation of books.
Book translations represent an identifiable and broad category: they are published
and distributed in a similar manner, they are registered, counted and classified as a
particular category of cultural goods and they are destined for a wide variety of
audiences.
Sociologically, book translations can be studied from various angles. Analyses
of book translations can raise questions about the ways in which cultural goods
circulate outside the context of their production (Bourdieu 1990); they can help un-
ravel the relationship between different countries and cultures (Schoneveld 1983);
they can serve to study the role of intermediary centres (Dirkx 1995) and to deci-
pher the complexities of cross-cultural (mis)understanding (Oz-Salzberger 1995).
One can also consider translators as a professional group (Heinich 1984) or analyse
the evolution of the system of transnational communication, for example, by
studying the social organization of the market for translation rights, the role of lit-
erary agents or the functioning of international book fairs (Sora 1998).
In this article I shall present a structural analysis of the international flows of
translated books. I will argue that such an analysis is indispensable for under-
standing how translation works. Two questions are central in this respect: how can
one account for the uneven flows of book translations between various language
groups? And, similarly, how can one explain the varying role of translations within
language groups? In proposing to answer these questions, I presuppose that the ac-
12 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1

tivities involved in translation are interdependent and are therefore best understood
as constituting an international system or a 'world system'. The analysis of this
world system, and the position which language groups occupy within it, is a pre-
condition for understanding the role of translations in specific local or national
contexts. The significance of translations within a language group, for example,
depends primarily on its position within the international system.
This world system of translation, however, does not correspond entirely with the
predominant view in world systems theory. Transnational cultural exchange is not
a simple reflection of the structural contradictions in the world economy. Unlike
what has been claimed by proponents of world systems theory (for example Wal-
lerstein 1991), cultural exchanges have a dynamic of their own, based on a certain
autonomy vis-a-vis the constraints of the world market. Instead of conceiving the
cultural realm as merely derivative of global economic structures, it is more fruitful
to view transnational cultural exchange as a relatively autonomous sphere, as an
international arena with its own economic, political and symbolic dimensions. This
configuration, which, in turn, is part of broader structures, is best conceived as a
transnational cultural field in Pierre Bourdieu's sense, or as an emerging cultural
world system as in Abram de Swaan's characteristic (de Swaan 1995). Such a view
of transnational exchange eschews both the economism of certain world system
theories and the culturalism which tends to prevail in cultural studies.
Within this general orientation, I will argue that the dynamics of the inter-
national translation system is based on a core-periphery structure and I will outline
some of the main consequences of this model for the understanding of translation
practices. At the end of the article I will briefly discuss the limits of the general
model proposed and suggest how it may be further refined.

The international system of translation

As language groups are the basic units of the world system of translation, the
structure of the translation flows between language groups forms the object of
analysis. Language groups do not always coincide with national states: some of the
more central languages - English, German, French, Spanish - have a supra-national
character. The flow of book translations between these language groups can be
analyzed by means of book statistics, which include figures for translations. These
figures, however, must be handled with caution and the statistical material itself
has to be critically examined before it can be used.
 Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 13

International translation statistics have been produced since the 1930s. During
the inter-war years, the Institute for Intellectual Collaboration under the League of
Nations started an annual publication which listed translated books, the Index
translationum (1932-1940). This was part of the post-First World War initiatives to
promote international collaboration and mutual understanding between nations.
After the Second World War, the UNESCO resumed publication of these transla-
tion statistics in the UNESCO series of Statistical Yearbooks. These statistics are
not always reliable. The most obvious problem is definition, for instance, of what
consitutes a 'book' or a 'title'. Publications which qualify as a 'title' or a 'book' in
one country, are considered 'grey' literature in other nations and are consequently
excluded in their national book statistics: this often applies to doctoral disser-
tations, textbooks, governmental, parliamentary and administrative documents, as
well as annual reports from enterprises and the like. Therefore the information that
twenty per cent of the books published in Spain in 1982 are translations, is not
easily comparable with information from other countries. Precise comparisons
between translation ratios cannot be based on the UNESCO figures.
One might believe that such problems of definition could be avoided by
analysing the UNESCO statistics for one country alone. This, however, reveals that
they fluctuate. According to the UNESCO figures, 14% of the books published in
the Netherlands in 1979 were translations; five years later this proportion had risen
to 34%. Such fluctuations are not only improbable, but in addition, they do not cor-
respond with the data provided by the Stichting Speurwerk which produces the na-
tional book statistics for the Netherlands. Their figures show that the percentage of
translations in the Dutch book production is more regular, varying only between 22
and 25% between 1979 and 1984 (Heilbron 1995b). The UNESCO data are thus
unreliable: since they do not match official figures in specific countries it is unclear
to what extent they are comparable internationally. Unfortunately, these figures are
the only international data which are available. I will therefore use them, but
merely as indicative of structural patterns. I shall refrain entirely from giving tables
and breakdowns in tables, since such tables would have to be based on the
UNESCO figures which are, in fact, quite misleading.
However, by combining international translation statistics with more reliable
national data and case studies, one can set up a coherent model of the structural
dynamics of the international translation system. In the following pages, I will
sketch its main properties and illustrate its significance for our understanding of
translation practices.
14 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1

1. The international translation system is, first and foremost, hierarchical and it
comprises central, semi-peripheral and peripheral languages. Using a simple defi-
nition of centrality, one could posit that the more central in the world system of
translation a language is, the larger its share in the total number of translated books
worldwide. The international figures available unambiguously indicate that English
is by far the most central language in the international translation system. More
than 40% of all the translated books worldwide around 1980 were translated from
English (Curwen 1986: 21; Venuti 1995: 14). Over the years, from 1960 to about
1987, this percentage seems to have gone up, despite the fact that the percentage of
English books in the total number of books worldwide has decreased (Melitz 1998:
36-37). On the European continent the position of English is even more
predominant, with 50 to about 70% of the translations published being from
English.4
Following a downward ranking, three other languages have a central role,
although their share is significantly smaller than that of English, namely French,
German and Russian. Around 1980, each of these languages accounted for between
10 and 12% of the international market for translations. Li other words, three
quarters of all books translated worldwide, were translated from these four lan-
guages only. The international translation system is thus marked by a very uneven
distribution and is dominated by English which is 'hyper-central'.
Approximately six other languages have, in Immanuel Wallerstein's termin-
ology, a semi-peripheral role, each with a proportion between 1 and 3% of the total
number of translated books. In 1978 these languages were: Spanish, Italian, Dan-
ish, Swedish, Polish and Czech.5 These semi-peripheral languages, however, can-
not be distinguished clearly from the peripheral ones. Contrary to the distinctions
between hyper-central, central and semi-peripheral which are relatively clear-cut,
the dividing line between semi-peripheral and peripheral languages is fuzzy. Provi-
sionally and for analytical purposes, one might argue that all languages with a share
of less than one per cent of the world market occupy a peripheral position in the
international translation system. Among these peripheral languages are Chinese,
Japanese, Arabic, and Portuguese, all of which represents a large number of
speakers, and yet occupy a peripheral position only in the translation system. The
total number of speakers of a language group is clearly not decisive for its degree
of centrality in the translation system.
2. The structure of the international translation system, demonstrated only for
one particular moment around 1980, is obviously not static but dynamic. The posi-
 Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 15

tion of language groups changes over time: central languages may lose some of
their share, and peripheral languages can improve their position in the international
ranking. The translation system is historical, it has a sociogenesis and there are
minor as well as major transformations over time. Major changes are long-term
processes. In the relations between English, French and German, for example, both
the present-day hegemony of English and the relative decline of French have a long
history. French was the central language in early modern Europe, above English
and German. The first major change in the constellation occurred at the end of the
eighteenth century. For geo-political and geo-cultural reasons, French lost some of
its centrality, a fact which can be inferred from the translation statistics for the
Netherlands: the proportion of books translated from French declined fairly rapidly
in the course of the last decades of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nine-
teenth century (Korpel 1992). Especially German profited from the French decline;
English also gained ground in a much slower process. The real breakthrough of
English did not occur until after the Second World War, when the hegemony of the
US gave English a decisive advantage over its main rivals.6
Since they presuppose a cultural reorientation requiring at least one generation
and often more, changes in the international position of languages rarely occur
abruptly. Sudden changes in the position of languages and language groups take
place only when the position of a language is directly dependent on the political
power of a regime. Until the 1980s Russian had a relatively high position, but since
then it must have suffered a rapid decline: Its dominant role in translation was
based on the political domination of the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe which
implied obligatory and quasi-obligatory translations in nearly all fields, including
those not bound to the marxist-leninist orthodoxy. Since the fall of the Soviet
Empire, the use of Russian has therefore declined sharply in Central Asia and
Eastern Europe, as has, undoubtedly, the number of translations from Russian.
3. Distinguishing languages according to the degree of their centrality does not
only imply that translations flow more from the core to the periphery than the other
way round, but also that the communication between peripheral groups often
passes via a centre. What is translated from one peripheral language into another,
depends on what is translated into the central languages from these peripheral lan-
guages. In other words: the more central a language is in the translation system, the
more it has the capacity to function as an intermediary or vehicular language, that
is, as a means of communication between language groups which are themselves
peripheral or semi-peripheral.7
16 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1

French in early modern Europe is a case in point. Given the central position of
French in European culture, not only French books but also translations into French
attracted special attention with authors, translators and publishers. French transla-
tions were often retranslated into other languages. While known as the 'belles in-
fideles', as 'unfaithful' adaptations to indigenous norms of elegance and clarity,
French translations were nevertheless commonly used for translation into other
languages. The most widely translated Spanish authors, Miguel Cervantes and
Baltasar Gracian, were translated into German from French translations. English
philosophers were translated into Italian from French rather than directly from
English, and, similarly, English literature in German was most often translated
from French (Blassneck 1934; Von Stackelberg 1984; Graeber 1991). Such trans-
lation of French translations, which was common practice during the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, fell into disrepute when nationalism became a political
and cultural force. German and English literature gained wider recognition at the
end of the eighteenth century and translations into French lost their central role.
Translation of translations, often termed indirect or second-hand translation, has
become much less common, at least in literary translation. In some ways, however,
the phenomenon remains. Even though actual translations are made directly from
the original source language, the decision to publish a translation of a book from a
peripheral language still usually depends on the existence of a translation into a
central language. Literary translations from Spanish into Dutch after the Second
World War, for example, were nearly always preceded by translations into one of
the central languages. Particularly so with the most prominent authors. Borges,
Cortazar, Garcia Marquez and Vargas Llosa were all translated into French or
English before they were published in Dutch (Steenmeijer 1989). Many features in
the Dutch translation (from Spanish) indicated that the English or French transla-
tion had served as a model. This applies to the choice of the title, the blurb, and the
praise quoted from reviews.
In a few cases Dutch publishers issued a translation prior to the English or
French ones. But this, paradoxically, confirms the dominant role of central lan-
guages. Not only were these the work of 'minor' writers, who were discovered by
Dutch specialists, but, in addition, the Dutch translations did not meet with a posi-
tive reception from critics and the public. They illustrate the opposite, namely that
peripheral and semi-peripheral language groups tend to follow the example of the
international centres, including as to what is to be imported.
 Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 17

In this manner much international communication about books depends on the

centres in the international system. Once a book is translated into a central lan-
guage by an authoritative publisher, it catches the attention of publishers all over
the globe. The very fact that an American or English publisher will publish a book
by an author from a (semi)peripheral language, is used extensively for publicity by
the original publisher, because it functions as an excellent recommendation for
publishers elsewhere. The international recognition of Dutch literature offers a fine
history of the importance of literary centres in the translation business.
Although a few Dutch and Flemish authors in the sixteenth and seventeenth
century acquired some international renown, none entered the canon of world lit-
erature (Schenkeveld 1991). In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries very few
books were translated from Dutch. Following the European recognition of Russian
and Scandinavian literatures, translations from Dutch started to increase in number
at the end of the nineteenth century. It grew more or less regularly and has been
represented by approximately five or six hundred titles per year since the late
1960s.8
Despite the relatively steady increase in the number of translations during the
twentieth century, Dutch literature remained largely unknown and until recently no
Dutch writer was an internationally recognised literary figure. Financial support
and sustained translation efforts proving insufficient, the low esteem of Dutch
literature outside the Netherlands seemed inevitable to many observers (Vander-
auwera 1985; Paul 1990; van Noesel and Janssen 1985). The failure of Dutch
authors was attributed to the poor quality of translations, to the fact that they were
published by small, marginal publishing houses, and to the scarcity of good trans-
lators, who should, incidentally, not only produce quality translations but also
advice and information to publishers, write reviews and train future translators.
Retrospectively, it is clear that there was a change during the 1980s when a few
Dutch authors were published by well-established foreign literary publishers and
even garnered literary prizes.9 Although the emerging interest was not confined to
one country, the breakthrough occurred in Germany, and from there Dutch litera-
ture spread to other central as well as peripheral language groups. Compared to
other centres in the international translation system, German publishers were best
prepared for the reception of Dutch authors. Germany was the only country with a
central position which had a tradition of translating Dutch literature and incorpo-
rating it into a national cultural tradition. Since the end of the Napoleonic wars,
germanists considered the Low Countries part of Germanic culture, and as a minor
18 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1

but not insignificant ally against French civilisation (Kloos 1992). Dutch and
Flemish were perceived as a kind of Plattdeutsch and above all popular novels
were translated into German to meet the rising demand for books in the 19th
century.
Apart from popular writers, some of the more established literary figures were
also translated, but they played a minor role. It was only in the 1980s that leading
German publishers started to issue translations of major Dutch writers: Suhrkamp
published Cees Nooteboom, Klett-Cotta Hugo Claus and Hanser Harry Mulisch.
Their books were favourably received by critics and some sold relatively well.
More translations followed and German critics acknowledged Cees Nooteboom as
an outstanding European writer. So in 1993, when the Netherlands was the Schwer-
punkt of the international book fair in Frankfurt, conditions favoured a snowball
effect from German recognition. Since then the number of translated Dutch authors
has increased substantially, as has the number of languages into which their work is
translated.
The Dutch case thus illustrates the essential role of cultural centres or 'bridge-
heads' (Dollerup 1997) in the international diffusion of literatures from the (semi-)-
periphery. International cultural centres are not only interested in the diffusion of
their own produce, they also have a vested interest in transit trade and its benefits.
Symbolic and economic transit profits are an essential component of the way the
international cultural system works.
Further, however, the Dutch scene also highlights the dependency on the inter-
national centres in yet another way. Once a peripheral literature has been interna-
tionally recognised, the recognition abroad will contribute to, and may even inter-
fere with indigenous reputations. In the Netherlands it was common to refer to
Willem Frederik Hermans, Gerard Reve and Harry Mulisch as the 'big three' of
post-war Dutch literature. Some would add a forth name, Hugo Claus. For decades
their reputation was not seriously challenged. But Hugo Claus, Hella Haasse and
Cees Nooteboom have begun to enjoy growing international fame, whereas Her-
mans and Reve do not. The national Dutch canon is thus undermined, illustrating
the fact that especially in small countries, the process of canonization is increas-
ingly affected by the international market place.
4. The more central a language is in the international translation system, the
more types of different books are translated from it. Dutch book statistics distin-
guish between thirty-three categories of books, from 'religion' and 'law' to 'prose'
and 'history'. Only translations from the most central language, English are
 Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 19

represented in all 33 categories. Translations from German are found in 28

categories, from French in 22 categories, from Italian in ten categories, et cetera.
Centrality, in other words, leads to variety. Since the small number of books trans-
lated from peripheral languages is generally concentrated in very few categories,
the opposite also holds true: book translations from peripheral languages lack the
variety that increases with the degree of centrality.
5. Since the international translation system is so firmly dominated by one
hyper-central language, one might presume that translations from other languages
will decrease, leading to a virtual monopoly for translations from English. Jacques
Me"litz has explicitly suggested such a possibility in his economic model of the
world book market: "If the market in one particular language is sufficiently larger
than any other, the total lack of technical barriers to diffusion can lead to the exclu-
sive translation of imaginative works from that particular language into the rest."
(Melitz 1998)
The available statistics for the Netherlands do not confirm Melitz's hypothesis.
In fact they suggest a different pattern, which needs to be checked for other
countries. As far as the Netherlands is concerned, the enormous growth of trans-
lations from English has not led to a diminished number of translations from other
languages; it has diminished the role of indigenous books. In order to see this
effect, we need to revise the usual mode of calculating proportions: the proportion
of translations from a certain language is commonly calculated only as a percentage
of the total number of translations. It is more accurate, however, to calculate the
percentage of translations from a certain language as a proportion of the total
number of books published in a given country. In this way the book production in
the indigenous language becomes part of the linguistic competition. And then it can
be seen that translations from English have not replaced translations from other
foreign languages but rather replaced books written by native speakers. That, at
least, has been the case for the Netherlands, where translations from English
increased from 2 to 17% of the total book production from 1946 to 1990. In the
same period translations from German increased from 1.4 to 4.3 %, translations
from French from 0.6 to 2.2%, and translations from 'other languages' from 1.2 to
2.7% (Heilbron 1995a). Although English has profited far more from the increased
number of translations than any other foreign language, these other languages have
also increased their share in the national book production in the Netherlands.
20 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1

6. The structure of the world system of translation also corresponds to regulari-

ties of importation. The more central a language is in the international translation
system, the smaller the role of translations into this language. The most central lan-
guages tend to have the lowest proportion of translated works in their book
production. In England and the United Stated less than five percent of all published
books are translations, a percentage which has remained stable since 1945. Fluc-
tuating between ten and twelve per cent of the national book production, the pro-
portion of translations is consistently higher in France and Germany. In Italy and
Spain translations are again more important, representing between twelve and
twenty per cent of the published books. Li countries with even more peripheral
languages like Sweden and the Netherlands, a quarter of all books published are
translations, and in present-day Greece the proportion is more than forty per cent.
Although they are open to some doubt and only indicative, these figures strongly
suggest an inverse relationship between the centrality of a language in the
international translation system and the importance of translations in the national
book production. The more central the language of a country, the more it serves as
a model to others, and the less it is concerned with the cultural production of other
countries. Instead of claiming that translations 'normally' occupy a marginal
position (Even-Zohar 1990: 50), it is far more accurate to say that the role of trans-
lations varies significantly, depending primarily on the degree of centrality in the
international translation system. The core of an international cultural system has the
highest status, it is carefully observed, followed and emulated, and at the same time
it is much less oriented towards products and producers from outside the centre.
This feature is also found in the international exchanges in the natural sciences.
Citation patterns show that scientific research in the United States is the most
central and most prestigious part of the scientific world system. However, the US
scientific production also has the lowest percentage of foreign co-authors,
publications abroad, and foreign references. The proportion of foreign references
and foreign publications is for the US about 25%. In Japan and Europe the propor-
tion lies somewhere between 40 and 71%; and in the developing countries it varies
between 70 and 92% (Schott 1991).
Instead of assuming an equilibrium between import and export, the reality of
transnational exchange is best described as a process of uneven exchange. For
every book that is translated from Dutch, for example, there are six books trans-
lated into Dutch. Imbalances of this kind characterize the very structure of transna-
tional cultural exchange.
 Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 21

There is no need to invoke the peculiarities of national cultural traditions in

order to understand the primary structure of the international flows. When one
compares the 10 to 12% translations in France with the significantly higher
percentage in Sweden, one might attribute this to the relatively closed and isolated
attitude often considered peculiar to French culture. Wasn't Chauvin a Frenchman?
Comparing the French figures with the lower proportion of translations in the
United Kingdom, one may be equally tempted to cite this as evidence of the very
richness of French culture. In this last instance, traditional high esteem for cultural
practices appears to be reflected in a high number of translations.
However, neither of these two last arguments is necessary to explain the general
level of cultural import. The proportion of translations into French matches the
international position of French in the world system of translation, and easily com-
pares to the role of German and to the proportion of translations in Germany. As
was argued above, it is the international position of national cultures which deter-
mines the general level of cultural importation rather than national cultural
tradition.

Towards a sociology of translation

The sociology of translation may well become a new branch of the sociology of
culture and a promising domain for the study of the cultural world system. It is a
research field which can draw on social science research concerning culture, inter-
national exchange and globalization, as well as on a variety of publications in
Translation Studies. Some of the most interesting work in Translation Studies has
been inspired by 'polysystems theory'. Polysystem theorists have rightly shifted the
analytical focus from an exclusive concern with the source-text to the more broadly
conceived target-culture. But in order to understand the role of translations in a
target-culture, it is by no means sufficient to analyse them as part of the target-
culture's (literary) system. It is essential, as I have tried to show, to consider target-
cultures as part of an international system, of a global constellation of language
groups and of national or supra-national cultures.
To develop and refine the outlined approach, two directions seem appropriate.
On the one hand, numerous questions may be raised about the international cultural
system, its genesis and its way of functioning. The analysis of the international
translation system can benefit from comparisons with other transnational cultural
systems and from the ongoing debate about globalization.10 Pascale Casanova's
22 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1

recent study on the international republic of letters demonstrates the fruitfulness of

this perspective for the dynamics of literary renewal (Casanova 1999).
On the other hand, there are questions to be raised about the significance of such
an international system for the understanding of specific translation practices.
There is obviously no simple and immediate transition from a world system ana-
lysis to the level of a national publishing field or the understanding of particular
translation strategies. The world system is concerned with the most general set of
conditions. For a comprehensive account, it is necessary to link these general
conditions to the social dynamics of the publishing business and various segments
in it.
It is telling, for example, that there are virtually no translations in certain catego-
ries of books, whereas in others they have a major role. In the large category of
school books translations are hardly represented at all. The market for educational
publishing is 'protected', not so much by economic barriers but by national regula-
tions, and is controlled by national authorities. Other market segments are more
open: in the categories 'prose' and 'children's books' translations have a major and
sometimes even dominant role. In these cases there are typically no national and
official institutions and few institutional arrangements which regulate or control the
market. The social organization of the market is thus a crucial dimension for
assessing the role of translations; the sociology of markets is of immediate
relevance (Swedberg 1994).
One may similarly consider the role of translations in the editorial programmes
and policies of publishing houses. The selection of translations and their place
within editorial programmes generally correspond to the position of the publisher
in the editorial field (Bourdieu 1999). A more complete sociological analysis may
thus seek to connect the dynamics of the international translation system with the
workings of editorial fields and the book market.

Notes
1. For comments on an earlier draft of this paper I am indebted to Abram de Swaan,
Jacques Mélitz and Nico Wilterdink. The present article is based on Heilbron (1999).
2. In the otherwise outstanding project directed by Roger Chartier and Henri-Jean Martin
(1982-86) on the French book trade, which contains more than three thousand pages, there
is not a single chapter on translations or translators. Literary history also tends to ignore
translations since 'literary history' is commonly conceived as 'national history'. The only
literary domains in which translations are a regular part of research agendas are reception
 Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 23

studies and comparative literature. In both fields, however, the scope of the work is
generally restricted to canonical literary works.
3. For historical texts on translation, see the anthologies by Lefevere (1992; and Robinson
(1997). Historical overviews are presented in Ballard (1992); Delisle and Woodsworth
(1995); Kelly (1979); Rener (1989); Steiner (1975); and Van Hoof (1991).
4. Besides the figures reproduced in Curwen (1986); Venuti (1995) and Mé1itz (1998), I
have consulted the UNESCO Statistical Yearbooks from 1965 to 1985.
5. Based on the UNESCO figures for 1978, this list is somewhat different from the
grouping of Venuti (1995), who has combined the Scandinavian languages, as well as
Greek and Latin.
6. Book translations from English have an ever-growing share in the number of books
published in the Netherlands. In 1946, 39% of all translated books were translations from
English, in 1990 the proportion was up to 65% (Heilbron 1995a).
7. The term 'vehicular language' is adapted from the French expression 'langue
vehiculaire' which captures the social function of such languages quite well. It is similar
to the term 'gateway languages'.
8. These approximate figures are based on the bibliography of translations from Dutch
which is produced by the Royal Libraries of The Hague and Brussels. The absolute
numbers are less significant than the trend they indicate (see Heilbron 1995 a and b).
9. Important translation prizes were awarded to Philippe Noble for his French translation
of E. Du Perron's Le pays d'origine (Gallimard 1980) and to Adrienne Dixon for her
translation of Rituals (1983) by Cees Nooteboom.
10. In the literature on cultural globalization the work of Ulf Hannerz is particularly
suggestive (Hannerz 1992; 1996). For an illuminating comparison see the analysis of the
international system of modern sports (van Bottenburg 1994).

Works cited
Ballard, Michel. 1992. De Cicéron à Benjamin: traducteurs, traduction, réflexions. Lille:
Presses Universitaires de Lille.
Berman, Antoine. 1984. L'épreuve de l'étranger: Culture et traduction dans l'Allemagne
romantique. Paris: Gallimard
Blassneck, M. 1934. Frankreich als Vermittler Englisch-Deutscher Einflüsse im 17. und
18. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Verlag von Bemhard Tauchnitz.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des idées,
Romanische Zeitschrift für Literaturgeschichte nr. 1/2: 1-10.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1999. Une révolution conservatrice dans l'édition. Actes de la recherche
en sciences sociales. 126-127. 3-28.
Casanova, Pascale. 1999. La république mondiale des lettres. Paris: Seuil.
Chartier, Roger and Martin, Henri-Jean (Eds). 1982-1986. Histoire de l'édition française.
Paris: Promodis.
Coulmas, Florian (Ed). 1997. The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Curwen, Peter. 1986. The World Book Industry. London: Euromonitor Publications.
Delisle, Jean and Woodsworth, Judith (Eds). 1995. Translators Through History. Amster-
dam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
24 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1

de Swaan, Abram. 1993a. The Emergent World Language System: An Introduction. In: de
Swaan, Abram (1993c). 219-226.
de Swaan, Abram. 1993b. The Evolving European Language System: A Theory of Com-
munication Potential and Language Competition. In: de Swaan, Abram (1993c). 241-
255.
de Swaan, Abram (Ed). 1993c. The Emergent World Language System. International Po-
litical Science Review. 14, 3.
de Swaan, Abram. 1995. The Sociological Study of the Transnational Society. Amsterdam
School for Social Science Research: Papers in Progress no 46.
de Swaan, Abram. 1998. A Political Sociology of the World Language System 1: The Dy-
namics of Language Spread. Language Problems and Language Planning 22 # 1. 63-
75.
de Swaan, Abram. 1998. A Political Sociology of the World Language System 2: The
Unequal Exchange of Texts. Language Problems and Language Planning 22 # 2.109-
128.
Dirkx, Paul. 1995. Paris and Amsterdam as Translational Go-Betweens: The Evolution of
Literary Translation in Belgium after World War II. In: Jansen, Peter & Clem Robyns
(Eds). Selected Papers of the CERA Research Seminars in Translation Studies.
Leuven: CETRA.
Dollerup, Cay. 1997. Translation a Imposition vs. Translation as Requisistion. In: Snell-
Hornby, Mary & Zuzana Jettmarova & Klaus Kaindl (Eds). Translation as Inter-
cultural Communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45-56.
Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 11 # 1.
Gentzler, Edwin. 1993. Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge.
Graeber, Wilhelm. 1991. German Translators of English Fiction and Their French
Mediators. In: Kittel, H. & A.P. Frank (Eds). Interculturality and the Historical Study
of Literary Translators. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. 5-15.
Hannerz, Ulf. 1992. Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Hannerz, Ulf. 1996. Transnational Connections. London: Routledge.
Heilbron, Johan. 1995a. Nederlandse vertalingen wereldwijd. In: Heilbron, Johan &
Wouter de Nooy & Wilma Tichelaar (Eds). Waarin een klein land. Amsterdam: Pro-
metheus. 206-252.
Heilbron, Johan. 1995b. Mondialisering en transnationaal cultureel verkeer. In: Heilbron,
Johan & Nico Wilterdink (Eds). Mondialisering: de wording van de wereldsamen-
leving. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff. 162-180.
Heilbron, Johan. 1999. Towards a Sociology of Translation: Book Translations as a Cul-
tural World System. European Journal of Social Theory. 2. 429-444.
Heinich, Nathalie. 1984. Les traducteurs littéraires: l'art et la profession. Revue française
de sociologie. 25. 264-280.
Kelly, Louis. 1979. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and Practice in
the West. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Kloos, Ulrike. 1992. Niederlandbild und deutsche Germanistik 1800-1933. Amsterdam:
Rodopi.
Korpel, L.G. 1992. Over het nut en de wijze der vertalingen. Nederlandse vertaalreflectie
in een Westeuropees kader (1750-1920). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
 Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 25

Lefevere, Andre. 1992. Translation, History, Culture: A Sourceboot London: Routledge.

Mélitz, Jacques. 1998. English-Language Dominance, Literature and Welfare. Paris:
CREST, Document de Travail no. 9832. Also published as Discussion Paper No. 2055.
1999. London: The Centre for Economic Policy Research.
Oz-Salzberger, Fania. 1995. Translating the Enlightenment: Scottish Civic Discourse in
Eighteenth-Century Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press & Clarendon Press.
Paul, Anthony. 1990. Dutch Literature and the Translation Barrier. In: Westerweel, B. &
T. D'Haen (Eds). Something Understood: Studies in Anglo-Dutch Translation. Amster-
dam: Rodopi.
Rener, Frederick M. 1989. Interpretatio: Language and Translation From Cicero to Tyler.
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Robinson, Douglas (Ed). 1997. Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to
Nietzsche. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Schenkeveld, Maria A. 1991. Dutch Literature in the Age of Rembrandt. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1992 (orig. 1813), [From] On the Different Methods of
Translating. In: Schulte, Rainer & John Biguenet.(Eds). Theories of Translation: An
anthology of essays from Dryden to Derrida. University of Chicago Press.
Schoneveld, W. 1983. Intertraffic of the Mind: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Anglo-
Dutch Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Schott, Thomas. 1991. The World Scientific Community: Globality and Globalisation.
Minerva 29. 440-462.
Sorá, Gustavo. 1998. Francfort: la foire d'empoigne. Liber 34. 2-3.
Steenmeijer, Maarten. 1989. De Spaanse en Spaans-Amerikaanse literatuur in Nederland
1946-1985. Muiderberg: Coutinho.
Steiner, George. 1975. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Swedberg, Richard. 1994. Markets as Social Structures. In: Smelser, Neil & Richard
Swedberg (Eds). The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton University Press &
Russell Sage Foundation. 255-282.
Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Translation Theory. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for
Poetics and Semiotics.
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
UNESCO. 1965-1985. Statistical Yearbook. Paris: UNESCO.
Vanderauwera, Ria. 1985. Dutch Novels Translated into English. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
van Bottenburg, Maarten. 1994. Verborgen competitie: over de uiteenlopende populariteit
van sporten. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker.
van Hoof, Henri. 1991. Histoire de la traduction en Occident. Paris: Duculot.
van Noesel, Marion & Ans Janssen. 1985. De Nederlandse literatuur in Frame vertaling
Utrecht: Frans en Occitaans Instituut.
Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London:
Routledge.
Von Stackelberg, Jürgen. 1984. Übersetzungen aus zweiter Hand: Rezeptionsvorgänge in
der europäischen Literatur von 14. bis 18. Jahrhundert. Berlin/New York: Walter de
Gruyter.
26 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1

Wallerstein Immanuel. 1991. Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World
System. Cambridge & Paris: Cambridge University Press & Editions de la Maison des
Sciences de l'Homme.