Towards a methodology for translation activity: an activity theory approach

ABSTRACT

The question of “How translation is done” is crucial in the field of translation studies as it serves as the foundation for both teaching and criticism. To address this question, one must theoretically explain the methodology behind translation activities, including how translators select methods, strategies, and techniques to achieve meaningful translations. Despite the existence of various cross-disciplinary paradigms in translation studies, a consensus has not yet been reached on this issue. According to Activity Theorists, a socio-cultural activity is realized through goal-directed actions that are ultimately carried out by conditioned operations. Based on this perspective, we propose an explanatory framework for understanding the methodology of translation activity. This framework may also be useful for revising and evaluating the output of automatic translation operations conducted by AI language models.

KEYWORDS:

• Methodology
• translation activity
• activity theory

1. Introduction

Methodology is the systematic study of methods and how they are applied, providing a rationale for selecting strategies and techniques in problem-solving processes. Generally, methodology outlines the problems or tasks in practice, projects the met hods, strategies, techniques, instruments or tools to be adopted, and justifies the quality management of practice (Robson 1997, 10). According to Judin (2009, 87), a methodology is a hierarchical structure comprising philosophical, disciplinary, and practical levels. The practical level refers to the system of procedures and techniques employed in practice; the disciplinary level provides theoretical guidelines and principles for their application; and at the top, the philosophical level, which concerns ontology and epistemology, serves as a prerequisite for the former two levels. Holfler (1983) also divides methodology into three levels: “approach,” “method,” and ‘technique. The “approach” provides reasons for the philosophy of practice, the “method” elaborates an overall plan for practice in line with the approach, and the “technique” refers to the procedures used to implement the method (1983, 71–72).

Translation is a social activity that spans across languages and cultures, which needs to be explored from a methodological perspective. Nowadays, despite the wide range of cross-disciplinary approaches in the field of translation studies, the question remains unanswered as to how translators appropriately choose methods, strategies, techniques or procedures to carry out translation activities. Activity Theory develops from a theory of cultural-historical psychology, which was founded by Lev Vygotsky in the 1920s. It has now evolved into a philosophical framework for investigating social practices (Kuutti 1995, 25). Since translation is a unique form of social activity, Activity Theory can be utilized as an approach to examine the methodology of translation.

2. Actualization of language use activity: an activity theory perspective

From a philosophical perspective, Activity Theorists maintain that objective reality is primary and consciousness is secondary. They emphasize the inseparable unity of reality and consciousness: specifically, consciousness and reflected reality are united during the process of a subject transforming the object (Rückriem 2014, 314). Activity Theorists highlight the mobility and agency of human beings, opposing the understanding of human practice as a fixed structure determined by multiple contextual factors (Rückriem 2014, 322–323). They argue that an activity serves as a fundamental unit for analyzing human life (Leontyev 1978, 10). When needs are directed towards an object, a subject becomes motivated to initiate an activity. An activity is a process in which a motivated subject utilizes acquired artifacts to transform an object into a meaningful outcome with the participation of other individuals whose roles are determined by division of labor. The subject consciously engages in meaningful interaction with both natural and social worlds during this transformative process. Simultaneously, their psychological function and personality undergo extensive development (Wertsch 1979, 46). The outcome of an activity maintains meaning or functionality only if it satisfies not only the needs and expectations of the subject but also those of other participants who form part of a community governed by social rules. These social rules enable subjects and participants with different needs, motives, interests, or perspectives to collaboratively work towards achieving the same goal – transforming the object into a meaningful outcome.

According to Activity Theory, social rule-governed activity is actualized by goal-directed actions which are eventually realized by routinized operations. An action is individual, situational, and goal-directed. It means that it is either taken by the subject or other individual participant with a certain purpose or intentions in a specific situation. Actions can be classified into producing, consuming, mediating, distributing, etc. Producing action is taken by the subject to realize their goal objectified in a specific situation by transforming the object into an intended outcome. Consuming and distributing are auxiliary actions taken by the participants other than the subject. An operation refers to a series of automatic or habitual routinized procedures for the subject to use their acquired artifact to transform an object into an outcome. Operations are conditioned by the nature of the object as well as the property and function of the artifact. When the subject’s intention or purpose is objectified in a situation and combined into a routinized operation, the operation will turn into action.

Language use can be termed as a social activity that is realized by a series of goal-directed actions, while actions are actualized by. In a written text-based language use activity, the writer uses acquired language tools to transform their ideas, thoughts, attitudes, or feelings into a meaningful textual outcome. The activity is meaningful or functional if and only if the textual outcome meets the needs and expectations of all the participants including the writer, publisher, readers, etc. If it does not meet the demands of the publisher or the expectations of the readers, the textual outcome will merely make sense to the writer but will not be meaningful to the other participants, and the activity will be reduced to an individual writing action.

Diplomatic negotiation is a type of language use activity. The negotiating parties, the host of the negotiation, interpreters, mediators, etc., constitute the community involved in this activity. The rules governing this activity include not only mandatory ones (e.g. international laws) but also conventional ones (e.g. diplomatic protocols and genre conventions of diplomatic discourse). Motivated by their needs to reach an agreement or settle a dispute, both negotiating parties employ rhetorical and tactical strategies to articulate their standpoints and intentions through utterances. With the assistance of interpreters and mediators, they can engage in multiple rounds of language use actions. Once they come to terms with each other, their language use actions along with those of the interpreter and mediator will culminate into a meaningful or functional language use activity that satisfies not only the needs or expectations of the negotiating parties but also those of other participants. Of course, there are cases where negotiating parties are solely motivated to demonstrate their willingness to resolve disputes through talks without much concern about reaching an agreement. At this stage, even if no textual outcome is produced, the language use activity remains significant for both parties.

3. Actualization of translation activity: an activity theory perspective

Based on Activity Theory, Kiraly (2000) proposes a social constructivist approach to translator education that highlights the empowerment of student translators through project-based collaborative learning. Sang (2011, 2018) explains the mechanism of actualizing translation activity. He argues that translation activity can be considered as a social practice in which motivated translators utilize their acquired methods, strategies, techniques, and tools to transform the source text into a meaningful target text in cooperation with other participants including the commissioner, publisher, and target language readers who are assigned different tasks (Sang 2018, 129). Translation activity is realized through goal-directed situational translation actions while these actions are ultimately actualized by conditioned translation operations. Translation action refers to a translator’s goal-directed individual behavior in a specific situation. Translation operation is the routinized process of linguistic decision-making and problem-solving employed by translators to construct the textual properties of the target text (Sang 2011, 291–306). The actualization of translation activity is governed by a hierarchy of rules. A translator performs an operation/action not only in compliance with the “rule” at their respective level but also with any “rules” at higher levels; if there is disagreement between stratified rules, priority should be given to those at higher levels over those at lower ones (Sang 2018, 129–130).

Due to the diversity of their motives, needs, and perspectives, the translator and other participants have to negotiate the social rules they are required to follow. These social rules include not only conventional ones such as translation norms, professionalism, ideology, and other social norms but also mandatory ones like translation laws and institutional regulations of translation and publishing companies. The social rules are embodied by a conventionalized function of translation which refers to the legitimate cognitive effects produced by congeneric translations. These effects are considered legitimate only if they are intended by the translator, client or commissioner and accepted by the target readers while complying with professional ethics, laws, and other social rules that govern translation communities. The conventionalized function of translation encompasses most super-individual factors involved in a translation activity. It serves as guidance for translators in projecting an overall plan for their activities (Sang 2018, 130).

Translation actions are directed by the translator’s situational goal which is crystallized into the intended situational function of translation. i.e. the contextual effects that the target text is intended to produce on the part of the target readers in a specific situation (Sang 2011, 298–299). Translation operations are conditioned by objective factors such as source text function, translation problems, and the translator’s habitual preferences in linguistic choice-making. Among them, the source text function, if it agrees with the conventionalized or situational translation functions, is the guideline to resolve translation problems and select linguistic means to construct the target text.

Together with the source text function, the situational and conventionalized functions of translation constitute the hierarchical “rules” that govern a translation activity. When there are contradictions among these contextualized text functions, priority is given to the one at the higher stratum. As Sang (2018) points out, the actualization of a translation activity is no other than a process of contextualization during which a translator strategically utilizes multiple constraining contextual factors as resources to transform the source text into a meaningful or functional target text that meets their needs and those of other participants in a translation activity (Sang 2018, 126–128). In other words, stratified hierarchical rules crystallize social-cultural, situational, and conditional contextual factors respectively to regulate, direct goals for, and finalize a translation activity (Sang 2018, 126–128).

It should be pointed out that while Sang (2018) emphasizes the importance of contextualized text functions in solving translation problems, he fails to address translation methodology. Specifically, he does not explain how translators decide on translation methods, strategies, and procedures in their work. Additionally, he does not clarify the relationships among translation methods, strategies, and procedures.

4. Conceptualizing ‘translation method,’ ‘strategy,’ and ‘procedure’ from an activity theory perspective

Although the terms “translation method,” “strategy,” and “procedure” are used in different ways nowadays (Fang 2013, 1; Qassem, 2021: 30; Superceanu 2004, 206; Xiong 2014, 82–88), one may find something in common among the definitions. According to Hurtado Albir (2001), a translation method is of a supra-individual and conscious nature (2001, 249–250). It refers to a translator’s overall choice that influences the entire translation process and the organization of the entire text (Molina and Hurtado Albir 2002, 508). Superceanu (2004, 197) also argues that a translation method is designed for the overall structure of the target text, and the chosen method by translators is intentionally aimed at achieving their higher-level goal. From these discussions, it can be concluded that a translation method is a global plan to achieve supra-individual goals in translation.

Krings (1986, 18) believes that translation strategy is a translator’s potentially conscious plan to settle translation problems in a given translation task. Lörscher (1991, 8, 17) claims that a translation strategy, mainly featured as being goal-oriented, is a solution to a translation problem that emerges in a text or text segment. Scott-Tennent et al. (2000, 108) suggest that translation strategy be defined as appropriate potential procedures that a translator selects to deal with consciously-detected translation problems. Similarly, Chesterman (1997, 89), Bell (1998, 188), Hurtado Albir (2001, 249–250) and Zabalbeascoa (2000, 120) also propose that translation strategy be termed as the total procedures used to solve translation problems. Translation strategy, as discussed above, is a solution that a translator consciously devises and implements to deal with translation problems.

“Translation procedure” and “translation technique,” as Superceanu (2004) points out, are interchangeably used in the linguistic approach and in translation pedagogy (Superceanu 2004, 196). As for translation procedures, Vinay and Darbelnet (1995, 30–31) define them as the shifting at the lexical, morpho-syntactic, and semantic levels of bilingual texts. Newmark (1988, 81) claims that they are used to transfer sentences and smaller units of language from the source text into the target one. According to Nida (1964, 23), they are the techniques to adjust the source language text to seek equivalence in terms of semantics, styles, textual structure, and communicative function. Hurtado Albir (2001, 268) holds that translation techniques or procedures are aimed at the micro-units of the translated text. Superceanu (2004, 196) proposes that translation techniques are the procedures to reconstruct the textual units of the source text, including making changes grammatically, semantically, and pragmatically both in the form and the content of the source language text. It is clear that what underlies these definitions is that translation techniques or procedures are the linguistic means that a translator chooses to build the textual properties of the target text.

From the perspective of Activity Theory, translation is social (super-individual) rule-governed activity actualized by goal-directed individual actions, which are realized by automatic operations conditioned by objective factors such as source text function, translation problems, and translator’s linguistic style. This gives a unified account of translation methods, strategies, and procedures. Translation method refers to the overall plan to actualize a translation activity and in deciding the plan, a translator takes into account the social rules governing the activity. The social rules, either conventional or mandatory ones, are of super-individual nature as they embody social-cultural factors such as translation norms, ideology, and laws. Translation strategy can be defined as the procedures or techniques that a translator consciously selects to resolve translation problems, namely the major objective factors conditioning translation operations. Translation procedures are the linguistic means or techniques that a translator chooses to construct the target text in a translation operation.

5. Translator’s choice of the method, strategies, and procedures in a translation activity

5.1. Choice of method in a translation activity

As for the classification of translation method, the overall layout for a translation activity, there have been a series of dichotomies such as direct translation and oblique translation (Vinay and Darbelnet 1958, 84–93), covet translation and overt translation (House 2015, 54–57), pragmatic and semantic translation (Newmark 1988, 45), direct translation and indirect translation (Gutt 2000, 132, 169–190), etc. Although these dichotomies are derived from different approaches, they mirror the bidirectional nature of translation method pointed out by Schleiermacher (1977, 74): that is, either moving the target language readers to the author of the source language text as close as possible or moving the author of the source language text to the target language readers as close as possible.

As House (2015) suggests, text function is the primary guidance for a language user to construct the textual properties in the actual use of language (2015, 127). Generally, there is a trichotomy of language functions: referential, expressive, and persuasive (Bühler 1990, 28). As a rule, a text or an utterance usually has more than one function and one of them always plays a leading role. A language user would keep their linguistic choice-making in line with the hierarchical text functions: namely, they would focus on the content of a referential or informative text and highlight the form of an expressive text, and they would prioritize the effect of appealingness in producing a persuasive text. To be specific, when dealing with a text whose major function is referential or informative, a translator aims at the intelligibility of the source text content and selects the method by means of which they could move the author of the source language text to the target language readers. In translating an expressive text, a translator aims at preserving the completeness of both the form and content of the source language text as well as the effects it produces, that is, choosing the method which is helpful to move the target language readers to the author of the source language text. However, in dealing with a persuasive text, they have to move away from the binary options proposed by Schleiermacher and choose a method that can make the target language text as appealing as the source text. In fact, there are many a case where the function of the source text is contradictory to that of the target text and the translator would have to weigh the two text functions before making decisions. In this sense, a translator’s choice of translation method is not based on a model of dichotomy, but on a multi-dimensional and multi-layered mechanism.

According to the Activity Theoretic framework of translation, the conventionalized translation function crystalizes the social rules governing a translation activity and it macro-regulates the translator’s decision-making. As translation method is the overall layout of translation activity, the conventionalized translation function is also the decision-basis for a translator to select the method. For example, in the late Qing Dynasty, when China was semi-colonized by the western powers, the methods that the famous translators such as Lin Shu (嚴複) and Yan Fu (林紓) chose to translate literary works into Chinese were largely based on the conventionalized function of translation, namely to produce the contextual effects helpful to awaken the people of their awareness to protect and strengthen the nation (Luo, 2022: 4). The function of translation was not only in line with the social rules governing the activities but also met the needs or expectations of the participants such as the commissioner, publisher, and the readers at that time. It is noteworthy that conventionalization is a time-consuming process during which ideas, values, or social practices are gradually accepted or tabooed and then turn into a cultural fact in a social community, so it is appropriate to use “social” instead of “conventionalized” to modify the translation function.

5.2. Choice of problem-solving strategies in a translation activity

Translation strategy refers to the total procedures used to deal with translation problems. Translation problems are objective or inter-subjective tasks that every translator is confronted with (Nord 2006, 167). During the actualization process of translation activity, a translator may encounter four types of translation problems: professional, situational, conventional, and textual. Professional problems result from the disagreement between the social function and situational function of translation (Sang 2018, 133). For instance, if the source language text involves a piece of confidential information, a translator may infringe the copyright law when translating and releasing the information to the target language reader. At this point, there will be a professional problem and any professional translator would have to negotiate with the commissioner or the publisher beforehand to keep their linguistic choice-making in compliance with the social rules of the community. In other words, they would strategize their solution to the professional problem in light of the social translation function.

A situational translation problem arises when the source text function is contradictory with the situational function of translation (Sang 2018, 134). For instance, Chang hen ge (長恨歌) is a much-celebrated poem eulogizing the love affair of Li Longji’s (李隆基), one of the Chinese emperors of the Tang Dynasty. If an Italian historian expects to be informed about the Chinese emperor by studying the poem, he will ask a translator to transform it into Italian. At that moment, there arises a situational translation problem as the function of the source text is not in line with that of the target text in this situation – the former is mainly expressive while the latter is informative to a large extent. In this case, the translator would prioritize the informative function to get the problem solved. For another example, when a translator is commissioned to translate the lyrics of a Japanese folk song into an English advertising slogan, they will be confronted with a situational problem as the expressive function of the folk song is incongruous with the appealing and persuasive function of the English advertisement. They would primarily strategize their solution in accordance with the appealing effect of the advertisement, namely, the situational function of the target text.

The majority of translation problems are conventional ones, caused by linguistic and cultural differences between the source text and the envisaged target text. Conventional translation problems of this kind may be caused by genre conventions, rhetorical devices, idioms, proverbs, dialects, and cultural terms unique in the source language. Textual problems result from the salient stylistic features of the source text, which cannot be adequately rendered in the target text. When translating Anthony Burgess’ A Clockwork Orange into Chinese, for instance, a translator will have to deal with many a textual problem for the source text is rich with “Nadsat”, an invented language that is almost unlikely to be reconstructed in the target language. It is important to note that both conventional and textual translation problems are major conditioning factors of translation operations. The function of the source text, when it agrees with that of the target text, is the translator’s decision basis to manage these two types of translation problems.

In brief, translation problems can be classified into professional, situational, conventional, and textual ones. Source text function, situational function, and social function of translation are the basis of a translator’s decision-making to solve these problems in translation activity. When there are contradictions among the hierarchical contextualized text functions, a translator would prioritize the one at a higher stratum. This is the problem-solving mechanism in a translation activity (Sang 2018, 134–135).

5.3. Choice of translation procedures or techniques in a translation activity

According to Vinay and Darbelnet (1958, 84–93), Newmark (1988, 81–91), and Molina and Hurtado Albir (2002, 509–510), there are more than 20 translation procedures including addition, deletion, substitution, imitation, modulation and changing at the phonetic, semantic, syntactic and textual level of the source text. Translation procedures are the linguistic means or techniques selected to build the target text. On one hand, both translation method and strategy are to be realized through translation procedures. On the other hand, translation procedures need to be kept in compliance with the translation strategy of problem-solving and translation method, namely, the overall plan for a translation activity. Of course, translation competence and habitual linguistic style are the subjective factors conditioning a translator’s choice of translation procedures or techniques.

5.4. Correlations between translation activity, contextualized text functions, and translation method

In light of Activity Theory, the correlations between hierarchically actualized translation activity, contextualized text functions, and the translator’s choice of method, strategy, and procedure can be illustrated as follows.

As shown in Figure 1, a translation activity is hierarchically actualized by goal-directed situational actions, which are eventually realized by conditioned operations. During the process, the translator utilizes the constraining context factors (i.e. the social, situational, and conditioning factors) as a strategic resource by externalizing their intention, motive, or need into the contextualized text functions as the basis for them to choose translation methods, strategies, and procedures. What underlies the correlations between translation activity, social translation function, and translation method is that a translator’s choice of method (i.e. the overall plan for a translation activity) is dependent on the envisaged social translation function and they are all hierarchically actualized: the higher stratum is realized through the lower ones while the lower stratum needs to be consistent with the higher one.

Figure 1. Correlations between translation activity, contextualized text functions and translation.

6. Mechanism of methodological decision-making in a translation activity

Based on the aforementioned analysis, an Activity Theoretic-account of translation methodology can be provided: a translator adheres to the hierarchical contextualized text functions in order to select appropriate translation methods, strategies, and procedures for accomplishing a translation activity. In case of any discrepancies among them, priority should be given to the text function at the higher stratum.

To be more specific, a translator determines the translation method based on the social function of translation, which encompasses contextual effects that not only align with the social norms governing the translation community but also fulfill the needs and expectations of all participants involved in the translation activity. The translator ensures that their chosen strategies and procedures for translation are consistent with this method. However, when there is a contradiction between the social function of translation and its situational function or when the latter does not correspond to the source text’s intended function, professional and situational translation problems may arise. In such cases, translators strategize to resolve these problems by prioritizing higher-level text functions. If there are no contradictions among contextualized text functions, then any problems faced by translators are limited to conventional and textual matters alone, with the source text function serving as their decision-making basis.

Generally speaking, there are always multiple conventional and textual problems scattered throughout various sections of the source text. A translator would employ a wide range of procedures at different textual levels, such as addition, deletion, substitution, imitation, modulation, and alteration to effectively implement their chosen translation method and strategy. In fact, each textual component plays a distinct role in structuring a meaningful or functional text within a specific context. The importance or relevance of individual textual components is often variable. All these components contribute to the meaning and functionality of the final outcome with varying degrees of significance assigned to them (Van Dijk 1979, 113–115). In this sense, “relevance” serves as the decision-making basis for language users to construct the properties of a text.

“Textual relevance” refers to the structural importance to the topic or the holistic meaning of a text. “Contextual relevance” means the importance to the contextualized functions of a text. According to Activity Theory, a cohesively organized text is the meaningful and functional outcome of a language use activity. In the actual use of language, the multiple constraining contextual factors are operationalized into the contextualized functions of the outcome (Sang 2019, 542–547). As for a translator dealing with the conventional or textual problems and selecting the linguistic procedures to restructure the properties of the target text, they need to take into consideration the “textual and contextual relevance.” In summary, the basis of a translator’s methodological decision-making includes both contextualized text functions and “textual and contextual relevance.” The decision-making mechanism can be illustrated as follows.

As shown in Figure 2, contextualized text functions serve as the primary guideline for translators to project the overall method and problem-solving strategies in translation activities. If any professional or situational problems arise, translators will strategize solutions based on the social function and situational function of the target text. They will then follow textual and contextual relevance to solve conventional and textual problems, selecting linguistic procedures to construct the properties of textual components. If encountered problems are merely conventional or textual ones, the function of both source text and target text will be identical, with structural and contextual relevance to the source text serving as a basis for decision-making. This mechanism represents methodological decision-making in translation activities, which can be exemplified by David Hawkes’ translation of Hong lou meng (紅樓夢), one of the Chinese literary classics.

Figure 2. Mechanism of methodological decision-making in a translation activity.

Generally, proper nouns unique to the source language may present conventional challenges. In Hong Lou Meng, there are approximately 300 female characters, most of whom are named after flowers, birds, daily necessities, or nouns describing personal traits. This naming convention was prevalent in ancient China and naturally gives rise to conventional translation problems.

Admittedly, Hong Lou Meng records the vicissitudes of a great Manchu household in the early eighteenth century (Cao 1973, 17). It is not only a novel but also a classic text rich in Chinese cultural information. Its primary function is expressive, while its secondary function is to provide cultural information. In 1973, David Hawkes, a sinologist translator, translated this classic text into English as The Story of the Stone. As the functions of the source text align with those of its translation, the textual and contextual relevance to the source text became a guideline for the translator to address conventional problems arising from female characters’ names in Hong Lou Meng.

As a general rule, when translating an expressive text, a translator would strive to preserve the formal features of the source text and focus more on ensuring the content is understandable in the case of an informative text. When dealing with names of female protagonists such as “林黛玉”(Lin Daiyu), “薛寶钗” (Xue Baochai), and “王熙鳳” (Wang Xifeng), which hold higher textual relevance, the translator adopted transliteration as a strategy to retain their phonetic features in line with the primary function (i.e. expressiveness) of the source text. For translating names of maidservants including “雪雁” (Snowgoose), “司棋” (Chess), “入畫” (Picture), “焙茗” (Tealeaf), “晴雯” (Skybright) and “平兒”(Patience)，which have lower textual relevance, he based his decision-making on their secondary function(i.e. informativeness) in the source text and transformed them into corresponding English names representing flowers, birds or daily necessities or replaced them with nouns defining personal character traits. This not only helps highlight cultural information related to naming conventions in the source language but also matches the textual relevance of characters’ names. The selected strategies for addressing this conventional problem help fulfill hierarchical functions within texts upon which translation methods are chosen.

Taking Arthur Waley’ s translation of Shunzi bian (舜子變) as another example, the translator dealt with the characters’ names in a similar manner. Shunzi bian is also a classic literary text whose manuscript was unearthed in the grottos of Dunhuang, a city in northwest China. It narrates the story of Shun, a sage renowned for his filial piety in prehistoric China. During Shun’s childhood, his father Ku-sou and stepmother Lo-teng mistreated and tortured him occasionally, yet he remained devoted to them throughout his life. The translator employed transliteration to convey the names of major characters such as Shun (舜), Ku-sou (瞽叟), Lo-teng (樂登), and E-huang (娥皇). However, he translated the name of the minor character “象儿” (i.e. Shun’s stepbrother) as “Little elephant” (Waley 1960, 64–73). This aligns with Chinese convention where boys are often named after large animals like “dragon” (龍), “tiger” (虎), “bear”(熊), “leopard” (豹), and “elephant”(象). It is evident that both strategies employed by the translator correspond to textual relevance regarding conventional translation problems and hierarchical text functions – where literarily expressive function takes precedence over culturally informative function. Since there is no discernible difference between the function of the target text and that of its source counterpart, it can be concluded that these strategies adhere to contextualized text functions upon which choice of translation method is based.

7. From methodology of translation to methodology of translation studies

According to Chesterman (2002), one of the important tasks in translation studies is to explain the causality involved in a translation activity (2002, 145–158). Currently, there are diverse cross-disciplinary paradigms coexisting within the field of translation studies. The proponents of these paradigms focus on investigating the interrelationship between contextual factors and the decision-making process of translators. For instance, culturalists prefer analyzing social-cultural factors such as ideology, power relations, or ethics related to equality, fairness, and justice. Those who adopt Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological approach not only emphasize the role played by social-cultural factors like “field” and “cultural capital” in shaping a translator’s choices but also highlight the importance of “habitus”, which refers to an idiosyncratic factor conditioning translation operations. Skopos theorists argue that situational factors like interpersonal relationships and intended translation function direct a translation action. Linguistic approach advocates primarily focus on source text function and its textual properties as factors conditioning translation operations.

While these cross-disciplinary approaches are helpful in shedding light on the understanding of translation activity, a translation activity is not a static structure constrained by individual factors but rather a dynamic process during which a motivated translator internalizes social-cultural, situational, and conditioning contextual factors and externalizes them into contextualized textual functions. These functions form the basis for methodological decision-making to select translation methods, problem-solving strategies, and linguistic procedures in order to construct a meaningful target text. The hierarchical contextual functions not only embody the translator’s intention, need, or motive but also crystallize the multiple interactive contextual factors that dynamically contribute to the textual outcome of the translation activity. In this sense, an Activity Theory account of translation methodology provides a perspective for causal analysis of translation activity.

Generally, in the field of Humanities and Social Sciences, there exist two main theoretical frameworks: interpretivism and positivism. Positivist investigations can be further categorized into experimental/manipulatory approaches and descriptive/naturalistic approaches. Toury (1995, 2012) advocates for the use of descriptive translation inquiries, which involve assessing the acceptability of translations and extracting observable textual evidence through contrastive text analysis. These inquiries culminate in the reconstruction of translation norms and the formulation of general explanations for the causal relationships between translation’s “process”, “product”, and “function”. However, it is important to note that translation norms are merely one aspect among various socio-cultural factors that influence translation practices. In addition to these norms, contextual factors such as situational constraints also play a significant role. Therefore, when developing probabilistic explanations, descriptivist translation researchers must consider how translators make decisions while navigating multiple contextual constraints. Otherwise, the researchers must resort to subjective interpretation and transition from positivism to interpretivism. To avoid this, it is advisable to refer to the Activity Theoretic framework of translation methodology, which can assist in formulating an explanation for the interrelationships between the “process”, “product”, and “function” of translation. Importantly, this explanation remains probabilistic as translation operations are influenced not only by objective factors such as translation problems and source text properties but also by subjective ones including the translator’s mental state and physical condition. These subjective factors cannot be defined solely through post hoc analysis of translation activity.

8. Conclusion

Translation is a social activity constrained by multiple contextual factors, including socio-cultural, situational, and conditioning ones. During the process of actualizing translation activities, hierarchical text functions that embody these contextual factors serve as the basis for a translator’s methodological decision-making. In other words, translation is a process in which translators follow contextualized text functions to choose appropriate translation methods, problem-solving strategies, and linguistic procedures to construct the target text with varying degrees of textual and contextual relevance.

Admittedly, the question of how translation is done underlies the rationale for translator education and translation criticism. A methodology for translating that accounts for the causal relations between contextualized text functions and a translator’s decision-making mechanisms provides an answer to this question. Generally, competence development goes through three stages: acquiring operational tools, techniques, and skills; internalizing cognitive models of problem-solving, and building theorized methodology (Engeström 1987, 188–192). The same applies to the trajectory of translation competence development, which begins with acquiring bilingual skills, translation procedures, and tools. It then progresses by internalizing mental models of translation problem-solving and matures through constructing a theorized methodology for translation activity.

Translator education can also be divided into three stages corresponding to the trajectory of translation competence development. Generally speaking, the approaches to translation teaching at all stages are based on theories of “what to teach” and “how to teach.” As previously discussed, Activity Theory provides an account of translation methodology in response to the question of “what to teach.” Based on the theory, Kiraly (2000) proposes a social constructivist approach to translation pedagogy that addresses the question of “how to teach” in a translation classroom. Therefore, Activity Theory can be utilized for designing course syllabi and providing mediating guidance for student translators in the classroom.

Translation criticism is based on how the linguistic and non-linguistic factors interactively contribute to the textual outcome of translation activity and how these factors are dealt with by the translator (Reiss 2000, 51). From the perspective of Activity Theory, translation can be considered a social-cultural activity in which a translator utilizes multiple contextual factors to make methodological decisions and strategize about solutions to translation problems based on the contextualized text functions. Therefore, translation criticism aims to evaluate how appropriately translators select their methods, strategies, and procedures during the translation process. The Activity Theoretic framework of translation methodology, in this sense, may shed light on translation criticism. In the age of AI, a translation activity is actualized through chains of goal-directed commanding actions by human translators, which are ultimately realized through a series of automatic translation operations performed by AI language models. This framework can be helpful for assessing and revising AI-powered translations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the National Planning Office of Philosophy and Social Science [20AZD129].

Notes on contributors

Zhonggang Sang

Zhonggang Sang is a professor of Translation Studies and Pragmatics at Xi'an Jiaotong University. His research has been published in journals such as Lingua, Language Assessment Quarterly, Perspectives: Studies in Translation Theory and Practice, Social Semiotics, Pragmatics and Society, and Journal of Translation. He is currently working on the project “A Translation History of Dunhuang Narrative Manuscripts in the 20th Century.