Process model in cognitive perspective

-in later developments process models have also guided research on the translator's cognitive decision making. TS borrowed from psychology the basic black box model if the mind :Input -Black box-Output

-This model implied that the only way to gain access to what goes on inside the mind is to look at input and output under various conditions and then infer what must be taking place in the black box in between.

Later a number of techniques were borrowed into TS in order to gain more direct access to the translator's cognition including think-aloud protocols TAPs and eye-tracking.

GENETIC TRANSLATION STUDIES

-analyses practices of the working translator and the evolution of genesis of the translated text by studying translators ‘ manuscripts , drafts and other working documents ( avant –texts)

- genetic translation studies focuses therefore on he transformation of the translated text during the process of its composition.

- It may like cognitive tr studies also attempt to deduce the strategies and mental operations of the working translator. Yet its methodology differs from the cognitive approach because its object is the textual evidence of the activity of translation rather than the translating subject.

- it maintains that the published text is but one phase in the text’s evolution, and that this process of textual transformation continues , well after the work’s publication through its re-editions, its retranslation and its different reception by heterogeneous communities of readers.

Critique Genetique

Critique Genetique was born in France in the mid 1960s on the cusp of the shift from structuralist to post-structuralist conceptions of text and in intellectual climate where the authority of the author as well as the stability of both the published ceuvre and the written word were bought into question (Barthes 1971)

While post -structuralist critiques of text confronted assumptions of the text's stability with the evolving synchronic and intertextual networks upon which it depends,genetic critics sought to challenge the sacrosanct authority of the published text by showing how it is but one phase in a continuum of textual creation.

NEXUS MODEL

-because there are many kinds of causes that affects translations and often and often many people are involved in producing a translation some scholars have proposed network nexus models. ( Pym 1998 Koskien 2008)

- unlike simple process models nexus models are not linear. In these a translation is represented as the product of complex process involving a network of actors and agents, some of which may be collective or non-human (institutions, computers). TSscholars developing nexus-type models have drawn eg on Actor Network Theory in order to represent the relations and interactions between all the agents involved in a translation situation. This has been one way to develop a sociological approach to translation focusing on the people involved rather just the texts.

- Nexus models are no not explicitly causal but they do have some explanatory power, in that they strongly contextualize a translation process, showing the relations that surround and compose it.

What do models actually model?

- There are two more distinctions that affect a typology of translation models. Both derive from Gideon Toury's work. The first is the difference between models of the translation act and those of the translation event.

What do models Do?

- Other models are built retrospectively from existing translations : given a feature in the translaton ( such as an unusual solution or an error of some kind) the scholar aims to reconstruct the probable problem-solving process and thus explain the solution. These models are reverse-engineered , then. They might indeed represent what really happened but not necessarily.

ETHICS AND TRANSLATION

-Dictionary entries tell us that the word ethics refers to systems of values that guide and help determine the rightness and wrongness of our actions.

-An ethics of translation then necessarily addresses what is considered the morally correct manner in which one should practice the task of rewriting a text to another language.

-Although every conception of translation implies a certain notion of the, ethical duties of translators for much of the history of translation discourse, the word ethics is absent because a certain ethical position for translators has generally been taken for granted.

-since translation has been understood as a task in which one strives to reproduce the original as closely as possible , ethical behavior has been simply posited as fidelity towards the original and its author.

A tradition of sameness

Etienne Dolet writes in 1540 that a translator first and foremost must “have perfect knowledge: of the 2 lgs involved and “understand perfectly the sense and the matter of the author he is translating”

Vladimir Nabokov – 1955, insists that the tr-r “ has only one duty to perform and this is to reproduce with absolute exactitude the whole text, and nothing but the text”. In addition to this traditional view, ethical translators must accept their position of subservience and recognize that the texts they translate are not their own.

They must see their work as John Dryden describes in 1967 when discussing his relationship to the authors he translates : “ he who invents is master of his thoughts and words” but the “wretched” translators he says of himself” slaves we are, and labour on another man’s plantation”

Ethics “turn”

Throughout the 20^th century some theorists began to posit the ethics of tr-n in a way that differs from the one that was implied by much of the Western tradition

It is fair to say that mainstream TS is beginning to critically examine many of the demands historically places upon translators

One example can be found in the skopos theory of tr-n by H.Vermeer , 1970s

Instead of trying to recreate what the original supposedly is, Vermeer suggests that translators focus on what the tr-n will be used for , and guide their actions based on its skopos or purpose. Considering that the TS and TT may have different purposes they may end up being very different from each other, something that may sound unethical acc to the traditional view discussed earlier.

Probably the most radical reworking of the ethics of translation has come from postmodern philosophy, most notably from Jasques Derrida’s deconstruction.

Acc to postmodern thought, meaning does not reside inside the text and is not uncovered or extracted but is attributed to them via the act of interpretation

These traditional requirements of fidelity are unattainable as is the notion of complete reproduction of original because tr-n will always transform it.

If tr-rs accept the fact that the original will always be transformed by the intervention of their work, they will also have to accepts the fact that contrary to the prevalent requirements that they do otherwise, they will always be visible as they leave marks of the decisions they have made

In this sense they break one of the taboos associated with tr-rs and take on a certain authorial role

This implies a complete reversal of the ethics placed on tr-rs by tradition and in fact it has been argued that striving for invisibility can be seen as unethical