Toward a so-called narrow redefinition of translation in Translation Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With this paper, I aim to show that the central concept of Translation Studies (TS), i.e., “translation”, should be (re)defined “narrowly” as “the process or result of transferring a text interlinguistically”. First, I examine three noteworthy conceptualizations of translation found in TS literature (i.e., Jakobson’s, Toury’s, and Meylaerts & Marais’s). Second, I problematize the notion of “intrasemiotic translation” together with other relevant concepts and thereby highlight terminological as well as conceptual issues surrounding the idea of “translation” in TS. Third, invoking various arguments, I build a case for a so-called narrow and a priori definition of “translation”. Fourth, I give an example of such a definition and further develop my position. Fifth, broadening the scope of the study, I propose that we should keep looking for an overarching concept and discipline that would encompass “translation” as well as other similar objects and phenomena. Last, before wrapping up with concluding remarks, I indicate possible avenues to explore in future studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".