Critical Translation Studies:

a Rhetorical Approach to
the Study of Translations
Karen Bennett
Universidade Nova de Lisboa
karen.bennett@netcabo.pt
 Introduction
This approach to the study of translations has arisen in response to the need to counter the
‘creeping empiricism’ that is afflicting Translation Studies in the current climate of neoliberal
utilitarianism. By analogy with Critical Pedagogies, Critical Discourse Analysis, etc, it rejects the
scientistic drive for objectivity, neutrality and universalism in favour of a humanistic approach
that privileges the role of subjectivity and interpretation, thereby drawing attention to the
power issues inherent in the translational act.
Its main inspiration is drawn from the rhetorical attitude to the construction of knowledge,
which is holistic in the sense that: a) it values the emotive (pathos) and ethical (ethos) aspects of
discourse as much as the rational (logos); b) it is grounded on an epistemology that understands
the ‘meaning’ of a text to be inseparable from its form.
Work undertaken under this rubric aims above all to shed light on the unconscious assumptions,
beliefs and values underpinning a translated text. It therefore enables ideological/ethical
engagement, without being defined or limited by it.
Background
 Paradigms in Translation Studies
TS has often been characterized as an inter-discipline torn between competing epistemological models: a)
a scientistic model rooted in the desire for objectivity and descriptive neutrality, which aims to uncover
universal rules or norms that can satisfactorily explain and predict the full range of translational
phenomena; b) a humanistic model which understands that knowledge of the cultural world can never
be neutral and value-free, and meanings are inherently unstable and partial, interpretable only on a
case-by-case basis. This dichotomy has been described in various ways:
• ‘linguistics’ vs. ‘cultural studies’ paradigms (Baker 1996)
• ‘essentialist’ vs. ‘non-essentialist’ approaches (Arrojo 1998)
• ‘instrumental’ vs. ‘hermeneutic’ theories of language (Venuti 2000, after Kelly 1979)
• ‘empiricism’ vs. ‘postmodernism’ (Delabastita 2003)
• ‘empirical science paradigm’ vs. ‘liberal arts paradigm’ (Gile 2005)
Around the turn of the millennium, there were attempts to reconcile these approaches:
• Chesterman and Arrojo’s (2000) statement of ‘shared ground’
• Brownlie’s (2003) ‘Critical Descriptivism’ (a refinement of the traditional empiricist approach of Descriptive
Translation Studies)
 The reign of empiricism
Since the turn of the millennium, the empiricist paradigm has increased its visibility in TS at the
expense of humanistic models. This is particularly visible in discussions of Research Methods:
• Williams & Chesterman 2003: makes a preliminary distinction between conceptual and empirical research but devotes
very little attention to the former
• Saldanha & O’Brien 2014: despite claiming to offer an overview of the various ways of viewing the social world and the
epistemological positions linked to them, the focus is on empirical (product-oriented, process-oriented and participant-
oriented) research, with an almost complete disregard of ‘theoretical or conceptual or hermeneutic approaches’
(Chesterman 2016)

Indeed, for some, ‘research’ is by definition empirical:

There are, however, signs that this situation may be changing. A new volume about research
methods in translation and interpreting explicitly aims at the ‘merging of research paradigms’
(Angelelli & Baer 2016: 6).
 Critical Approaches
Tymoczko (2000:40): calls for a methodology and terminology to enable the development of a theory and praxis of
translation as a form of social engagement.
Brownlie (2003): coins the term ‘Critical Descriptivism’ to bridge the gap between the two paradigms, though this is really
only a refinement of the empiricist approach of Descriptive TS, defined in opposition to ‘committed approaches’
Koskinen (2004:153-4): uses ‘Critical Translation Studies’ to refer to a range of approaches previously considered under
the postmodern rubric, noting that ‘the critical paradigm of Translation Studies /…/ is not methodologically unified, nor
does it share an overarching theory’, but rather is characterized by a ‘shared belief that the task of the researcher is not
only to describe and explain but also to attempt to improve the situation or to offer solutions to a perceived problem’.
Baker (2009, 2010): publishes two edited volumes with the word ‘critical’ in their title: Translation Studies: Critical
Concepts in Linguistics and Critical Readings in Translation Studies. The adjective ‘critical’ is not defined but the articles
are linked by an awareness of power relations inherent in translational act and urge the problematization of assumptions
taken for granted in more scientistic approaches.
There have also been a number of isolated attempts to apply Critical Discourse Analysis to Translation Studies (see Mason
2016 for an overview).
 Critical Translation Studies
Proposal floated by Bennett at the International Symposium
Circulation of academic thought: Rethinking methods in the study of
scientific translation in Graz (Dec. 2015) for:
• a systematic method/procedure able to deal with the changes in
meaning and value that occur during the translation process,
applicable to all kinds of texto
• a new discourse that does not have empiricism encoded in it
Rhetorical criticism
Rhetorical criticism is a method of analysing communicative
acts and artefacts that is widely taught in schools and
colleges in the United States. It starts from the premise that
reality is a symbolic creation, constituted through rhetoric,
and therefore not susceptible to objective analysis. The aim
is generally to shed light upon the worldview (i.e. the
system of unconscious assumptions, values and beliefs)
underpinning the text, and to explore the way that subject
and participants are constructed by it.
 Terminology
Rhetorical act: a communicative event unfolding in time, such as a speech or musical
performance
Rhetorical artefact: a fixed or transcribed version of rhetorical act, such as a written
text, recording or painting.
Rhetor: the person, people or bodies that have produced the rhetorical act or artefact
(often an ideal construct involving multiple participants)
Situation: the physical, cultural or textual context in which the artefact or act is
produced.
Audience: the intended recipient of the message transmitted by the rhetorical act or
artefact
Coding: the analysis of the rhetorical act or artefact (this may focus on any of the above
components depending on aim)
 Approaches
Rhetorical criticism has developed a number of different approaches for the analysis of rhetorical
acts and artefacts, most of which can be applied to translations:
• Brock and Scott (1980): ‘experiential’ (‘eclectic’ and ‘social’); ‘new rhetorics’ (‘language-action’
and ‘dramatistic’); ‘metacritical’ (‘generic’ and ‘movements’) approaches.
• Foss (2005): seven ‘cookie-cutter’ approaches (‘cluster criticism’, ‘fantasy-theme criticism’,
‘generic criticism’, ‘ideological criticism’, ‘metaphor criticism’, ‘narrative criticism’ and ‘pentadic
criticism’), plus the eclectic and made-to-measure approach that she calls ‘generative criticism’.
Translated texts are probably best approached in a flexible and eclectic manner, with the strategy
determined by the research question.
 Applying rhetorical criticism to
translation
A translated text may be considered a deferred rhetorical artefact (i.e. an artefact that has been
re-oriented to serve a new audience in a new situation).
Rhetorical criticism may used to:
• shed light on the motives or worldviews of the primary and secondary rhetors and the gaps
between them
• show how the (original and deferred) artefacts construct their respective audiences or work to
foster certain ideas or beliefs in those audiences
•reveal how a particular message is altered during the process of deferral
 Potential applications of Critical TS
• History of translation: shedding light on the worldview of the period (comparing translations of a
given text from different historical periods; comparing a historical translation with other artefacts
from the same period etc)
•Cultural studies: shedding light on the worldview of a particular cultural group (comparing the
primary and secondary artefacts to identify points of rupture and continuity)
•Philosophy: identifying conceptual shifts that take place during the translation of philosophical texts;
tracing the development of philosophical ideas by analysing successive translations of the same or
related works
•Politics: tracing the development of a political message across different intra- and interlingual
manifestations
•Intermedial studies: analysing points of rupture and continuity in translations across media and
assessing their ideological, ethical and aesthetic impact
•…
Methodology
1. Selecting the artefact
Rhetorical Criticism may be used with any kind of translated text or translational event, in any
medium.
Selection criteria should include:
• the analyst’s prior knowledge of the medium, languages and subject matter involved
• the existence of a motivational factor or a gap in existing knowledge
• personal interest (emotional investment animates the analysis)
2. Selecting the approach
The focus might be on one or more of the following:
• the text/s (rhetorical artefact): comparison of source text and translation, different translations
of the same text, different examples of a given genre etc
•the translator/s (rhetor): comparison of different translations produced by a particular
individual, school, society or publishing house, or of translations of the same text by different
translators
•the context (situation): study of translation(s) produced under a particular regime or in
particular historical or cultural context
•the subject (message): studies of how a particular subject or theme is treated in a particular
context
3. Formulating the research question
This should focus upon some aspect that is inherently problematic, requires clarification or is
personally motivating:
Text-oriented: How have particular features of a text been translated in different versions (e.g.
impersonal structures in a scientific text; markers of register in a propaganda texts; metre or
metaphor in poetry, etc)?
Reader-oriented: How does a particular translation construct its reader (compared to the source
text or to other translations of the same text)? How was the translation received in the target
culture?
Translator-oriented: What does the translation reveal about the worldview or motivations of
the translator/school/publishing house responsible for it? How does a particular author’s
translational output compare to their ‘original’ writings?
Context-oriented: What function is a particular translation serving in a particular historical or
cultural context?
Message-oriented: What message is being transmitted about a particular subject by a group of
translations from the same or different periods and contexts? How is a message altered in the
process of translation?
4. Analysing (‘coding’) the data
The approach should be determined by the research question. You may use one of the ‘cookie-
cutter’ approaches listed above, or produce an eclectic made-to-measure strategy.
In broad terms, this will involve:
• noting down all examples of the features under study
• categorizing or grouping the examples
• background study to help explain aspects (historical, political, cultural, linguistic, biographical,
etc) that emerge from this process
It is generally a good idea to allow the questions to guide the research rather than the other
way around, though of course you may have to be prepared to be flexible if your initial
orientation draws a blank or if you discover that the question you are researching has already
been covered by others or is too vast to be done in the time available.
5. Writing the text
Plan your text before you write it. This involves:
• Selecting the material to be included from the rough list
• Ordering it
• Framing it with an Introduction (in which you might specify what you are trying to do) and a
Conclusion (in which you discuss the extent to which you succeeded in doing that).
The style and formatting conventions used will of course be determined by the publication or
institution overseeing the research. However, the critical approach does not prohibit the
emotional engagement of the analyst, or the use of ethical or aesthetic criteria.
How does Critical Translation Studies (CTS) differ from
Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS)?
Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) is predicated on a desire for ‘scientificity’ (c.f. Holmes
2000:175; Toury 1983: 23; Lambert & Van Gorp 1985:42; Lefevere 1985), manifested through the
use of empirical methods and an ‘objective’ universalizing discourse. Though modified by ‘critical
descriptivism’ (Brownlie 2003), which introduced self-reflexivity into its traditional aims and
claims, it continued to be defined against ‘committed approaches’, which it criticizes for their lack
of critical distance and unsystematic methodology.
Critical Translation Studies (CTS), on the other hand, assumes that objectivity is unattainable, and
that translations, as semiotic phenomena, are best studied hermeneutically and on a case-by-
case basis. Hence, the analyst’s attitude is one of assumed subjectivity and (emotional, ethical,
aesthetic) engagement with the text, an attitude that it also reflected in the kind of discourse
used.
Manifesto
Homeopático
AGAINST EMPIRICISM IN
TRANSLATION STUDIES
 Meaning cannot be extracted from the words
that transport it and transferred wholesale to
another vehicle. As Kwame Anthony Appiah said,
“every sentence in which it can occur subtly
shades the meaning of every word”. Like us,
words are defined by the company they keep.
 If meaning is determined by environment, it
cannot be studied in a detached manner. Like
that owl, whose nocturnal behaviour
flummoxes the zoologist, it cannot be caught
and brought into the laboratory because it will
not behave in the same way there. Let us find
a way of observing meaning in the wild.
 For this we will have to put aside our
Protestant repugnance at contaminations and
natural biases. Fieldwork is a messy business.
You get your hands dirty. We cannot be
objective.
 Objectivity is a linguistic construct,
manufactured to serve the empiricist agenda.
It is a trick of the camera and needs special
lighting.
 Objectivity objectifies. It makes living
organisms into things to be dissected. Texts
are creatures that breathe and interact. They
are embodiments of human intentionality.
They need to be treated with care else they
wither and die. Vivisection is an inhumane
practice and should be abolished.
 We need to find a way of studying meaning
that is homeopathic and holistic, that respects
otherness through empathy but does not deny
our own engagement or pretend that our
presence will not change things.
 We also need a homeopathic discourse to
remedy epistemicide – one that is holistic,
emotive and engaged, and which does not
stand outside the text and look in but uses
the texture of the text reflexively to
generate new dimensions of meaning.
Homodiscursivity. It has been done before
by Jacques and Julia and others that rode
their wave, but it has also been abused.
 The source of this homodiscursivity is
language itself. Language is an organism
that breathes and metabolizes, the product
of the growth in collective human
cognition.
 Saussure was wrong: linguistic signs are
not arbitrary. Or rather they may be
arbitrary a priori but they are not arbitrary
a posteriori. Signs are made of other signs.
 We deal with things we don’t understand by
mapping onto them things we do. All language
is one big metaphor that is growing and
expanding. Metaphor may therefore be the key
to understanding texts.
 Meaning does not reside in individual
words, it clusters in commonplaces.
Understanding how commonplaces work is
essential to knowing how we translate.
 There is no originality. All meaning is
intertextual. Everything is translated.
Angelelli, C. & Baer, J. (eds). 2016. Researching Translating and Interpreting: Abdingdon and New York: Routledge
Arrojo, R. 1998. “The revision of the traditional gap between theory and practice and the empowerment of translation in postmodern times”. The Translator 4:1.
25–48
Baker, M. 1996. “Linguistics and cultural studies: Complementary or competing paradigms in Translation Studies?” A. Lauer, H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, J.Haller and
E.Steiner, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft im Umbruch: Festschrift fürWolfram Wilss. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 1996. 9–19
Brownlie, S. 2003. “Distinguishing some approaches to translation research: The issue of interpretative constraints”. The Translator 9:1. 39–64
Chesterman, A. 2016. Review of Saldanha & O’Brien 2014. The Translator, 22/1. 130-132.
--- & R. Arrojo. 2000. “Shared ground in Translation Studies”. Target 12:1. 151–160
Delabastita, D. 2003. “Translation Studies for the 21st century: Trends and perspectives”. Génesis 3/2003. 7–24
Foss, S. 2009/1996. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press Inc.
Gile, D. 2005. ‘The liberal arts paradigm and the empirical science paradigm’. http://www.est-
translationstudies.org/resources/research_issues/The%20liberal%20arts%20paradigm.html
Hart, R. & Daughton, S. 2005/1990. Rhetorical Criticism, 3rd edition. London and New York: Routledge
Kelly, L. 1979. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and Practice in the West. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
Koskinen, K. 2004. ‘Shared culture? Reflections on recent trends in Translation Studies’. Target 16:1. 143-156.
Mason, I. 2016. ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’. In Angelelli, C. & Baer, J. (eds) 203-211.
Saldanha, G. & O’Brien, S. 2014/2013. Research Methodologies in Translation Studies. Abingdon and New York: Routledge
Tymoczko, M. 2000. ‘Translation and political engagement: activism, social change and the role of translation in geopolitical shifts’. The Translator, 6/1. 23-47.
----- 2007/2010. Enlarging Translation, Empowering Translators. Manchester: St Jerome.
Venuti, L. 2000. Introduction to The Translation Studies Reader, Abingdon and New York: Routledge. 1-8.
Williams, J. & Chesterman, A. 2002. The Map: A Beginner’s Guide to Doing Research in Translation Studies. Manchester: St Jerome.