Specialised translation

A concept in need of revision

Roberto Mayoral Asensio

University of Granada

Introduction

Specialised translation and its corollaries – general translation, scientific translation,

technical translation, legal translation, medical translation, and so on – are well-es-
tablished denominations in our field, according to which many professional as-
pects have been organised: professional fees and standing, calls for employment,
courses and degrees, academic events, etc. They are the result of attempts to classi-
fy the activity of translation (classifications, typologies or categorizations) and, as
such, they should make thinking, communicating and acting on translation easier.
My opinion is that, at this moment in time, they are hindering rather than facili-
tating our task and that some reflection on them is vital.

Categorization of translation

The activity of translation can be subjected to different kinds of categorization ac-

cording to different criteria. If the criterion is the medium, we speak about trans-
lation and interpreting. If the criterion is the situation in which translating is de-
veloped, we can speak about audiovisual translation, official translation, court
interpreting, translation for publishing companies, etc. We can also describe trans-
lation according to two different axes, both related in different ways, to the concept
of specialisation of the texts translated:

• Horizontal, extensive axis (subject matter of the texts): economic, commercial,

legal, scientific, technical, medical…
• Vertical, intensive axis (grade of specialisation of the texts): general translation,
specialised translation.

Babel 53: 1 (2007), 48–55.  issn 0521–9744 / e-issn 1569–9668

© Fédération des Traducteurs (fit) Revue Babel
 Specialised translation 49

Borrowed categorizations

Translation studies have not created these categories. They originated in oth-
er fields, older than translation, and have been inherited by us, in my opinion,
through hasty and mechanical borrowing. They were adopted by translation stud-
ies from textual studies, which in turn had borrowed them from Language for
Special Purposes (LSP)/Terminology studies. Where did LSPs find these concepts?
They took them from the current classification of knowledge, which establishes a
correlation between concepts and words. Further correlating built up a cascade
which covers these steps:

concept

word

text

translation

The axis of grade of specialisation (dichotomy): general vs specialised

The vertical axis of the grade of classification (specialisation) represents an attempt

to categorize realities according to the different participation of a single parameter
or quality. Traditional approaches have observed reality as digital (yes/no dichot-
omy): facts participate of that quality or not (specialised vs general), whereas real-
ity as a display of a single quality observed from more contemporary views is seen
as analogic. i.e. a continuum with maximum and minimum poles at their ex-
tremes:

extremely minimally
specialised specialised

each reality being allocated at a different point on the scale or continuum. Special-
ised communication is considered to be that which occurs among experts in the
field, communicating on specific matters and using specific jargon, whereas gen-
eral communication is considered to be that which occurs among lay people, com-
municating on everyday facts and using the vocabulary shared by all speakers.
The former means that there is not a clear frontier separating general and spe-
cialised language, communication or translation, that every text and every act of
50 Roberto Mayoral Asensio

communication include, in different proportions, elements which can be charac-

terized as general, and elements which can be characterized as specialised. This
is admitted by a growing number of experts in LSP, terminology and translation.
Phenomena such as metaphorization, linguistic variation and idiolect which used
to be thought specific of general communication, are easily detected in highly spe-
cialised communication as well. On the other hand, as specialised knowledge has
increasingly spread over the whole community, parcels of knowledge (mechan-
ics, economics, law, medicine…) which were exclusive to specialists have become
common ground for larger segments of population and are found in everyday
communication. In my opinion, any attempt to draw the line between general and
specialized is doomed to failure.
Terminology studies used to reduce specialised communication to that which
was taking place between experts but, interlocutors intervene in more varied com-
binations (expert to expert, expert to lay, expert to politician, expert to buyer, ex-
pert to learner, expert to user…) and the vehicles and situations for communicat-
ing specialised information also present a richer variety than the one admitted by
the more traditional approaches to communication (when standardization of the
communication between experts was their main concern).
The concept of specialization is also mainly subjective. The same text is per-
ceived with different grades of specialisation according to the familiarity of the re-
ceiver with the subject matter and the field. A lecture given by an expert might be
perceived as too specialised by a part of the audience, as “acceptable” by some and
as too down to earth by others.

The axis of subject matter (first typology): scientific vs technical vs legal vs

economic…

The horizontal axis of classification (subject matter) is used when categorization of

different realities is made subject to a variety of parameters. Here we can find not
only one classification but a variety of them. Reality is described reducing it to dif-
ferent diagrams or geometrical representations. This is a proceeding of metaphori-
zation of reality, if we accept that geometrical forms (which in turn are named af-
ter everyday objects) can be used as metaphors of reality. We can also understand
this proceeding as process of theorization of reality. Different diagramatic repre-
sentations have been offered as aids to categorization, such as patchwork (objectiv-
ist); layers (generative grammar); concentric waves (Roundeau); flower with petals
(Picht); conduit (criticized by Lakoff); or tree (philogenetics).
In our field of translation, and in LSP studies as well, the most frequent way
 Specialised translation 51

of categorizing translation is through the patchwork diagram. But it has proved

­highly inaccurate as no reality, not even biological realities, present clear cut
­boundaries with other contiguous realities.
Fields of knowledge are not strictly isolated from each other, science, technol-
ogy, economy, law; civil law, property law, marriage law, procedural law. And their
categorization varies according to time and place. Even when translation is fre-
quently divided into scientific, technical, economic and legal types, fuzzy bound-
aries among them are evident. Furthermore, categories such as legal translation
prove ill-defined as

• sometimes this category is established according to the content of the texts and
other times according to the legal frame of the activity
• the legal frame covers extremely different types of text, contracts, legislation,
court procedures, registry documents, administration, treaties, etc., each of them
liable to be chosen as the prototype of legal translation by different authors
• legal texts rarely present a single subject matter or thematic frame and almost all
of them offer other information, technical, medical, etc.
• last but not least, there is no correlation between these categories of translation
and specific ways of translating

In my experience, mostly, subject matter of the text has been shown to be irrel-
evant for translating.
Recently, new diagrams have been proposed trying to avoid the excessive sim-
plification present in earlier diagrams: overlapping roof tiles (myself); overlapping
scales (cognitivism, Rosch, Lakoff…); chains (Givón)…, and new approaches to
categorization have emerged, such as gestalt (Snell-Hornby), family resemblances
(Wittgenstein), cluster analysis and prototype semantics.
Apart from that, any classification of a set of elements requires choosing which
of them will represent it for each class, becoming the prototype of the class. If all
the elements of the class present the same characteristics, any of them will do
as prototype, but realities related to translation and texts are usually all different
from each other. In this case, elements which are not selected as prototypes are pe-
ripheral elements and do not exactly abide by all the characteristics of the class/
prototype. Furthermore, the choice of the protypical element is arbitrary, as we
can chose different criteria and personal preferences for representativeness (some
authors offer the translation of legislation as the prototype of legal translation and
extrapolate their conclusions to the generality of legal translation, whilst others
may chose contracts, treaties, wills, court judgements or, other civil registry certi-
fications.
52 Roberto Mayoral Asensio

Is there any ground left for traditional categorization?

When a categorization has lasted for a long time, we should allow for some justifi-
cation of it. I would not go so far as to deny any and all merit in traditional catego-
ries of translation. Observation of practice keeps suggesting that, given the above,
there is a difference between the translating of the rough prototypical cases of eco-
nomic-commercial-legal-administrative texts and that of the rough prototypical
cases of scientific-technical texts. If this difference is not mainly based on the sub-
ject matter, which is its source? My opinion is that the difference between these
two groups of texts, and accordingly between their translation, arises from the fact
that they induce meaning in different ways. Prototypical scientific-technical texts
aim to induce a single, fixed meaning and are supposed to allow a narrow margin
for interpretation. Prototypical legal-economic-commercial-administrative texts
allow for interpretation according to the different interests and ideas of the receiv-
er, even when jurists claim that it does not, and are accompanied by the rules of
the game, a set of rules for its interpretation, the hermeneutics of legal text, rules
which, in turn, are also open to interpretation. The consequences of this distinc-
tion for translation seem to be not only relevant but also dramatic.

A third axis of specialization (2nd typology): genre

There is one more possible axis for the categorization of “specialised translation”
that I would like to comment on, and this is the introduction of the parameter of
genre. The concept of genre has been borrowed from text and LSP studies, I would
say that as hastily as the other concepts commented before. Genre is an ill-de-
fined concept which admits several definitions. The one commonly adopted by
translation scholars is that genre is a class of texts which is recognized as such by
the receiver as they contain recognizable conventions regarding their structure
and other linguistic elements and are produced in similar communicative situ-
ations. They propose genre as a crucial concept in translation as, in their opinion,
it strongly facilitates the job of the translator through the knowledge of the dis-
tinctive features of the equivalent genre in the target language. They often intermix
genre and subject matter in their analysis and classifications, excluding the pos-
sibility of interthematic genres.
The concept of genre was conceived for intralingual communication and only
provides for one receiver. In the case of translation, there are at least two receivers,
the translator and the reader of the translated text, and somebody should explain
which of them is supposed to identify the genre of both texts, especially when gen-
re is a question of perception and subjectivity and the ability to recognize a particu-
 Specialised translation 53

lar genre varies according to different readers and, particularly, between the trans-
lator, a linguist, and the reader. As in the case of subject matter, the ­designation of
a certain text as the prototype for a genre is subjective and the characteristics as-
signed will not cover all the other peripheral texts. The alleged utility of genre in
translation is seriously reduced when we consider that imitating the conventions
of the text in the target language is only one of the possible strategies for transla-
tion and that, more often than not, the translated text imitates the conventions of
the original text or tries to adopt an intermediate form between the source textual
conventions and the target language ones. Finally, as with the parameter of sub-
ject matter, different genres do not seem to be related to different specific ways of
translating and, as is often the case, distinctions which are relevant for a discipli­
nary field lose at least a great part of their relevance and usefulness when borrowed
by different fields.

Conclusions

Any attempt to categorize human activity — translation — oversimplifies it. This is

the case of theorization, which, in many occasions, adopts the form of metaphori-
zation. Classification and theorization are useful, but cannot replace the reality
from which they originate. A peculiarity of human sciences — as compared to nat-
ural sciences — is that the proposals of their scholars can modify the reality they are
analysing, i.e. the process of reification of theory. Furthermore, classifications are
not immutable, everlasting systems as they depend on the variability of the para-
meters used, such as specialisation and categories of knowledge. Classifications
usually contain a strong subjective component. So, translation scholars should be
aware that classifications of translation must evolve, that the activity of translation
must be the hallmark for their proposals. We should also remember that, to date,
classifications of translation are not straightforwardly related to different ways of
translating, to specific problems, strategies and solutions and their usefulness is
therefore rather limited when we think of translating and training translators.
Efforts should be made to provide a semantics of legal texts which is applicable
to the work of translators since regular semantics is more easily applied to scien-
tific–technical texts.

Abstract

Translation activity – and associations, and fees, and courses, and events – has traditionally been
classified through a horizontal (extensive) criteria in general and specialised translation, and the
54 Roberto Mayoral Asensio

latter has been likewise subdivided into new modalities of translation, according to different cri-
teria. These criteria have been horizontal (extensive) (subject matter of the texts: scientific, tech-
nical, legal, economic… translation).
A third approach to classifying translation is through the concept of text genre. A thorough
examination of these categories in the light of what we know about translation today shows
that all of them have been borrowed from other fields (knowledge science, LSP, text studies…)
and applied to linguistic mediation regardless of the communicative and non-descriptive nature
of our field. This mechanical borrowing produces strong discrepancies between what we learn
about translation in theory and what we learn about translation in practice.
General translation is a concept without correspondence in professional reality; the percep-
tion of the grade of specialization of a message has a powerful subjective component; also being
strongly subjective the perception of the belonging of a text to a particular gender. As to assign-
ing an only and clear-cut category to the translation of a text according to its subject matter, it
is an excessive simplification. Clear-cut frontiers between subject matters of the text or between
general and specialized communication simply do not exist. An effort should be made in order
to prevent theoretical work from detaching from reality through excessive oversimplification.
Classification of translation should be made according to the different problems, solutions and
ways of translating attached to them.

Résumé

L’activité de traduction – et les associations, honoraires, cours et événements – est traditionnel-

lement subdivisée en traduction générale et traduction spécialisée grâce à un critère horizontal
(extensif). De la même façon, d’autres critères ont permis de subdiviser la traduction spécialisée
en nouveaux modes de traduction. Il s’agit de critères horizontaux (extensifs), le sujet des textes
étant la traduction scientifique, technique, juridique, économique, etc.
Une troisième approche permettant de classifier la traduction repose sur le concept du genre
de texte. Un examen approfondi de ces catégories, à la lumière de ce que nous savons aujourd’hui
de la traduction, montre que toutes ont été empruntées à d’autres domaines (science de la con-
naissance, LSP, études de textes…) et appliquées à la médiation linguistique, en dépit du carac­
tère communicatif et non-descriptif de notre domaine. Cet emprunt mécanique entraîne de
fortes divergences entre ce que nous apprenons de la traduction en théorie et ce que nous en ap-
prenons en pratique.
La traduction générale est un concept qui ne correspond pas à une réalité professionnelle. La
perception du degré de spécialisation d’un message comporte un élément fortement subjectif.
De plus, percevoir un texte comme appartenant à un genre particulier est aussi fort subjectif. As-
signer une seule catégorie clairement définie à une traduction en fonction de son sujet, est une
simplification excessive. Il n’existe tout simplement pas de frontière bien précise entre les sujets
du texte ou entre une communication générale et spécialisée. Des efforts doivent être fournis
afin d’empêcher le travail théorique de se détacher de la réalité par une simplification excessive.
Une classification de la traduction devrait être faite en fonction des différents problèmes, solu-
tions et modes de traduction qui s’y rattachent.
 Specialised translation 55

About the author

Roberto Mayoral Asensio has lectured on translation at the University of Granada in Spain for
25 years, where he was the Dean of the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting for five years and
has been a Visiting Professor at Princeton, Dartmouth College and Brigham Young University.
He has also been a Research Fellow at the University of Surrey, Roehampton. He is the author of
La traducción de la variación lingüística (1999), Aspectos epistemológicos de la traducción (2001),
Translating Official Documents (2003) and over 100 papers on translation and has worked as an
official translator between Spanish and English for 20 years.
Address: Facultad de Traducción e Interpretación, Buensuceso, 11, 18002 Granada, Spain.
Email: rasensio@ugr.es

TRADUIRE
TRADUIRE
TRADUIRE

Revue de la Société Française des Traducteurs

TRADUIRE, revue trimestrielle, réunit des articles d’auteurs de tous hori-

zons – praticiens, théoriciens, terminologues, donneurs d’ouvrage, gens
de lettres – dans des numéros tantôt thématiques, tantôt hétérogènes.
Outre les articles de fond, interviews, enquêtes et autres tribunes,
TRADUIRE rend compte des différentes manifestations telles que col-
loques, ateliers, Journée mondiale de la traduction, organisées par la
Société Française des Traducteurs et par d’autres instances, ainsi que
des publications – revues, dictionnaires, ouvrages traductologiques – in-
téressant les traducteurs aussi bien au titre immédiat de leur pratique
quotidienne que comme horizon de réflexion.
Abonnement (4 numéros par an): € 58 TTC pour la France (tarif 2006)
Autres pays: contacter le sécretariat.
TRADUIRE / Société Française des Traducteurs
22, Rue des Martyrs – 75009 Paris – France
Téléphone: +33 1 48 78 43 32 – Télécopie: +33 1 44 53 01 14
Mél.: sft@tiscali.fr