While in-between knowledge has proved to be vital for the growth of translation studies, the actual and potential influence of translation theory on other disciplines has received little attention. Its contribution to digital humanities, for example, has been considered mostly in relation to the use of translation as a tool to disseminate knowledge at research events. Although in recent years digital humanities has shown increased interest in languages and linguistic diversity, its techno- linguistic foundations remain limited to English.
Translation supplies digital humanities with an interesting epistemo-methodological problem that challenges monocultural epistemologies in text computing. While distant reading in one language is relatively straightforward, computation across languages faces many challenges, including Anglophone bias, economies of scale, blackboxes, and lack of phenomenological depth. If we can solve these problems, disrupting monolingual practices in knowledge production would be one of many benefits of cross-linguistic computation.
In this paper, I will discuss the affordances of translation by drawing on my ongoing research, including the DRaL (Distant Reading across Languages) project which began with the concerns of how to make digital research epistemologies more inclusive of and more open to languages other than English.
Abstract
While in-between knowledge has proved to be vital for the growth of translation studies, the actual and potential influence of translation theory on other disciplines has received little attention. Its contribution to digital humanities, for example, has been considered mostly in relation to the use of translation as a tool to disseminate knowledge at research events. Although in recent years digital humanities has shown increased interest in languages and linguistic diversity, its techno- linguistic foundations remain limited to English.
Translation supplies digital humanities with an interesting epistemo-methodological problem that challenges monocultural epistemologies in text computing. While distant reading in one language is relatively straightforward, computation across languages faces many challenges, including Anglophone bias, economies of scale, blackboxes, and lack of phenomenological depth. If we can solve these problems, disrupting monolingual practices in knowledge production would be one of many benefits of cross-linguistic computation.
In this paper, I will discuss the affordances of translation by drawing on my ongoing research, including the DRaL (Distant Reading across Languages) project which began with the concerns of how to make digital research epistemologies more inclusive of and more open to languages other than English.
关键词
distant reading across languages /
cross-linguistic epistemologies /
monoculturalism /
repetition strings /
thick computing
Key words
distant reading across languages /
cross-linguistic epistemologies /
monoculturalism /
repetition strings /
thick computing
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
Baer, Brian J. (2018). “The Translator’s Biography and the Politics of Representation.” In The Fictions of Translation, ed. by Judith Woodsworth, 50–66. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Baker, Mona (1995). “Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and Suggestions for Future Research.” Target 7 (2): 223-243. https://doi.org/10.1075/target.7.2.03bak.
Bassnett, Susan (2016). “The Figure of the Translator.” Journal of World Literature 1 (3): 299-315. https://doi.org/10.1163/24056480-00103002.
Besky, Sarah (2020). “Monoculture.” In Anthropocene Unseen: A Lexicon, ed. by Cymene Howe, and Anand Pandian, 277-280. Punctum Books.
Churchill Jr., Christian J. (2005). “Ethnography as Translation.” Qualitative Sociology 28 (1): 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-005-2628-9.
Clement, Tanya E. (2008). “A Thing Not Beginning and Not Ending: Using Digital Tools to Distant-Read Gertrude Stein’s The Making of Americans.” Literary and Linguistic Computing 23 (3): 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn020.
— (2016). “Where is Methodology in Digital Humanities?” Debates in the Digital Humanities 2016. https://dhdebates.gc.cuny.edu/read/untitled/section/cfa5a92d-0d35-4e3d-b632-85644039cb1c.
Cronin, Michael (2009). “The Advent of Micro-Modernity.”Irish Journal of French Studies 9: 137-155.
de Swaan, Abram (2002). Words of the World: The Global Language System. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fiormonte, Domenico (2015). “Towards Monocultural (Digital) Humanities.” Infolet: Cultura e Critica Dei Media Digitali 7. https://infolet.it/2015/07/12/monocultural-humanities/.
Gambier, Yves,Luc van Doorslaer (2016). “Disciplinary Dialogues with Translation Studies: The Background Chapter.” In Border Crossings: Translation Studies and Other Disciplines, ed. by Yves Gambier, and Luc van Doorslaer, 1-21. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Geertz, Clifford (1973). “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” In The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, 3-30. New York: Basic Books.
— (1975). “On the Nature of Anthropological Understanding.”American Scientist 63(1): 47-53.
Gentzler, Edwin (2014). “Translation Studies: Pre-Discipline, Discipline, Interdiscipline, and Post-Discipline.”International Journal of Society, Culture and Language 2(2): 13-24.
Gingras, Yves (2014). Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation: Uses and Abuses. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Hermans, Theo (2003). “Cross-Cultural Translation Studies as Thick Translation.”Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 66(3): 380-389.
— (2019). “Untranslatability, Entanglement and Understanding.” In Untranslatability: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by Duncan Large, Motoko Akashi, Wanda Józwikowska, and Emily Rose, 27-41. London: Routledge.
Kockelman, Pail (2014). “Linguistic Anthropology in the Age of Language Automata.” In The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology, ed. by N. J. Enfield, Paul Kockelman, and Jack Sidnell, 708-733. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krauskopf, Erwin, Fernanda Garcia,Robert Funk (2017). “Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-language Veterinary Journals.” Transinformação 29 (3): 343-353. https://doi.org/10.1590/2318-08892017000300011.
Latour, Bruno (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor- Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey (2013). Language in Literature: Style and Foregrounding. London: Routledge.
Leech, Geoffrey,Mick Short (2007). Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Routledge.
Lefevere, Andre (1992). Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. London: Routledge.
Mahony, Simon,Jin Gao (2019). “Linguistic and Cultural Hegemony in the Digital Humanities.” In Proceedings of the Digital Humanities Congress 2018, ed. by Lana Pitcher, and Michael Pidd. Studies in the Digital Humanities. Sheffield: The Digital Humanities Institute, 2019. https://www.dhi.ac.uk/openbook/chapter/dhc2018-mahony.
Miller, Joseph Hillis (1976). “Ariadne’s Thread: Repetition and the Narrative Line.” Critical Inquiry 3 (1): 57-77. https://doi.org/10.1086/447874.
— (1992). Ariadne’s Thread: Story Lines. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mullally, Siobhán (2013). “Retreat from Multiculturalism: Community Cohesion, Civic Integration and the Disciplinary Politics of Gender.”International Journal of Law in Context 9(3): 411-428.
Mullaney, Tom (2017). Call for Proposals: Digital Humanities Asia: Harnessing Digital Technologies to Advance the Study of the Non-Western World, 26-29 April 2018, Stanford University. https://carnetcase.hypotheses. org/3165.
Politzer-Ahles, Stephen, Jeffrey J. Holliday, Teresa Girolamo,Maria Spychalska, and Kelly Harper Berkson (2016). “Is Linguistic Injustice a Myth? A Response to Hyland (2016).” Journal of Second Language Writing 34: 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.09.003.
Riggs, Damien W. (2011). “Challenging the Monoculturalism of Psychology: Towards a More Socially Accountable Pedagogy and Practice.” Australian Psychologist 39 (2): 118-126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060410001701834.
Salciute Civiliene, Gabriele (2016). “Relative and Dynamic Aspects of Variation in Response to Lexical Repetition: A Corpus-Based Case Study of the Translations of Faulkner’s The Sound and The Fury into Lithuanian, Polish and Russian.” Doctoral Theses, King’s College London. https://kclpure.kcl. ac.uk/portal/files/61485099/2016_Salciute_Civiliene_Gabrielle_0975961_ethesis.pdf.
— (2020). “Between Surface and Depth: Towards Embodied Ontologies of Text Computing Across Languages.” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 45 (2): 117-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2020.1764800.
Schwan, Hannah, Janina Jacke, Rabea Kleymann, Jan-Erik Stange,Marian Dörk (2019). “Narrelations—Visualizing Narrative Levels and their Correlations with Temporal Phenomena.” Digital Humanities Quarterly 13 (3). http://www.digitalhumanities.org/dhq/vol/13/3/000414/000414.html.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (2003). Death of a Discipline. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sturge, Kate (2014). Representing Others: Translation, Ethnography and Museums. London: Routledge.
Taylor, Jennifer F. (2006). “Ethnocentric Monoculturalism.” In Encyclopedia of Multicultural Psychology, ed. by Yo Jackson, 203. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Underwood, Ted (2013). Why Literary Periods Mattered: Historical Contrast and The Prestige of English Studies. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
— (2019). Distant Horizons: Digital Evidence and Literary Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Van Peer, Willie (1986). Stylistics and Psychology: Investigations into Foregrounding. London: Croom Helm.
Venuti, Lawrence (2009). “Translation, Intertextuality,Interpretation.” Romance Studies 27 (3): 157-173. https://doi.org/10.1179/174581509X455169.
White, James B. (1992). “Translation as a Mode of Thought.”Cornell Law Review 77(6): 1388-1397.
PDF(4697 KB)
