A Conceptual Inquiry: What May Retranslation Offer for Translation Studies Research?

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to lead a discussion regarding the nature of the retranslation concept. A growing body of literature on the subject attests to some challenges about how to connect various studies around the same concept. Outi Paloposki and Kaisa Koskinen (2010), for one, point out the problematic borders between various practices and underline the relevance of definitional and methodological considerations in retranslation research in their article entitled “Reprocessing Texts: The Fine Line between Retranslating and Revising.” Advocating that retranslation discussions cannot abstain from how translation is approached as a concept in the first place as a further point, the current article refers back to the definitional leg of Translation Studies research. Similar problems were deemed “unproductive” (9) by Theo Hermans (1985) in “Translation Studies and a New Paradigm” in favor of a “goal-directed” approach (14) in the past. It is reiterated here that essentialist positions need to be sidestepped to gain new results with translational practices and theoretical underpinnings of concepts recognized for possible connections between different studies. For a possible progress in research, Gideon Toury’s (1980) working definition for translation has been critically interpreted for retranslation. By proposing “assumed retranslation,” the article believes that the retranslation concept will be operationalized with a focus concentrated on circumstances of retranslation practices and accumulating data sharing the same conceptual terrain will help understand nature, reasons and consequences of retranslation products better.