This document summarizes an article that proposes viewing the translation of books and resulting international flows as a cultural world system. It outlines some key points of the article:
1) The translation of books between language groups can be seen as a cultural world system based on a core-periphery structure that accounts for uneven translation flows and the varying role of translations within language groups.
2) Traditionally, translation has been discussed by translators themselves or in terms of cultural difference and national identity, but recent approaches view translations in relation to the target context and culture.
3) From a sociological perspective, book translations are a function of social relations between language groups and how they change over time, representing cultural exchange
This document summarizes an article that proposes viewing the translation of books and resulting international flows as a cultural world system. It outlines some key points of the article:
1) The translation of books between language groups can be seen as a cultural world system based on a core-periphery structure that accounts for uneven translation flows and the varying role of translations within language groups.
2) Traditionally, translation has been discussed by translators themselves or in terms of cultural difference and national identity, but recent approaches view translations in relation to the target context and culture.
3) From a sociological perspective, book translations are a function of social relations between language groups and how they change over time, representing cultural exchange
This document summarizes an article that proposes viewing the translation of books and resulting international flows as a cultural world system. It outlines some key points of the article:
1) The translation of books between language groups can be seen as a cultural world system based on a core-periphery structure that accounts for uneven translation flows and the varying role of translations within language groups.
2) Traditionally, translation has been discussed by translators themselves or in terms of cultural difference and national identity, but recent approaches view translations in relation to the target context and culture.
3) From a sociological perspective, book translations are a function of social relations between language groups and how they change over time, representing cultural exchange
This article was downloaded by: [University of York]
On: 26 August 2013, At: 12:27
Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Perspectives: Studies in Translatology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmps20 Translation as a cultural world system Johan Heilbron a a University of Lille, France Published online: 28 Apr 2010. To cite this article: Johan Heilbron (2000) Translation as a cultural world system, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 8:1, 9-26, DOI: 10.1080/0907676X.2000.9961369 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2000.9961369 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions TRANSLATION AS A CULTURAL WORLD SYSTEM Johan Heilbron, University of Lille, France Abstract The translation of books and the international flows which result from it, can be viewed a cultural world system. The working of this system, based on a core-periphery structure, accounts for the uneven flows of translations between language groups as well as for the varying role of translations within language groups. The article outlines some of the consequences of this sociological model and suggests directions for further research. Introduction Languages have their own rules and regulations, they are marked by peculiari- ties of different kinds and vary greatly in the number of speakers. But no matter whether linguistic communities are large or small, whether their languages have common features or not, they are all interconnected by multilingual speakers, thus constituting an emerging world language system (de Swaan 1993 a, b). Polyglots ensure the communication between speakers of various languages, either by com- municating directly in a foreign language or by translating from one language into the other. 1 Although a growing number of people learn a foreign language, and although English is becoming the international lingua franca, much communication between language groups still depends on translation and translators. Processes of transla- tion, here meant in the literal sense of the word, represent an intriguing object of study for the social sciences, although there is strikingly little social scientific literature on the subject. In sociolinguistics, translations are commonly ignored (Coulmas 1997), in economics there is little more than the occasional paper (Melitz 1998), and other relevant fields, such as the new book history, do not have much more to offer. 2 Translations have traditionally, at least since Cicero, been commented upon by translators themselves. While reflecting on their craft they have discussed transla- tion strategies, stages in the translation process and the respective merits of literal versus free translation. 3 At the end of the eighteenth century, German philosophers and literary scholars started to discuss questions of translatability, more broadly as a matter of cultural difference, often related to national identity. Schleiermacher's essay, 'On the Different Methods of Translating' ("Uber die verschiedenen Methoden des Ubersetzens") (1813) became the seminal text for the hermeneutic 9 D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
10 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1 view of translation (Berman 1984). Linguistic theories of translation, which were developed after the Second World War, were concerned with translatability, often in terms of the linguistic 'equivalence' of languages. Leading scholars in the field of Descriptive Translation Studies like Gideon Toury and Itamar Even-Zohar have argued that the traditional discourses on trans- lation were all oriented towards the source-text and the source-language, and that the underlying concern was a normative one: what is the 'proper' translation of a given text? (Toury 1980; Even-Zohar 1990). Translation theory was thus trad- itionally more concerned with 'potential' than with actual translations. This problematic approach which often serves as the basis for translator training pro- grammes, is not a sound starting point for an empirically based understanding of translation. Accordingly, Itamar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury have called for 'descriptive' approaches, based on analyses of actual translations. Following the lead of Russian formalists, 'polysystem theorists' argue that translations need to be understood in relation to the system in which they function, for example, in relation to a particular set of translation norms or, in the case of literary texts, in relation to the target-cul- ture's literary system (Even-Zohar 1990; Toury 1995). In Toury's words: 'Transla- tions are facts of target-cultures; on occasion facts of a special status, sometimes even constituting identifiable (sub)systems of their own, but of the target culture in any event.' (Toury 1995: 29) For the sociological approach to translation which is my concern, the conceptual shift from source-text to target-context offers a fruitful, but, as I will argue, insufficient point of departure. Transnational cultural exchange From a sociological perspective, translations are a function of the social rela- tions between language groups and their transformation over time. They are there- fore by no means self-evident. This fact is reflected in the terminology: Greek has no proper word for translation, only 'hermeneuein' which also means 'to interpret' and 'to explain'. Latin 'translatio' 1 is closer to the present-day meaning, but is a similarly broad term, referring to the various forms of transfer, including transfer of power, as in translatio imperii. The specific, modem sense of the word 'trans- lation' emerged only in the Renaissance, when Italian humanists started to distinguish between 'translatio' and 'traductio'. The latter term, and the corresponding verbs in Italian and French, traducere and traduire, referred D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 11 specifically to translation of texts from one language into another, especially into the vernacular. Translations into the vernacular had existed well before the Renaissance, but the invention of printing promoted the vernaculars, and gave translations in the verna- cular an entirely new significance. With the formation of national states, standard languages were codified and much translation activity in (early) modem Europe was connected with the evolving relations of cooperation and conflict between na- tional states. Translation in the broadest sense is, of course, practised in a great variety of forms and contexts: interpreting is found in political and diplomatic settings, sub- titling and dubbing abovmd in the media, and written translation dominates literary translation, as well as a range of more standardized, technical and professional translations in law, technology and commerce. If, as the pragmatist adage says, meaning is determined by use, translation practice must be analysed specifically within the field or the subfield in which it actually functions. In this article I shall focus on one form of translation: the translation of books. Book translations represent an identifiable and broad category: they are published and distributed in a similar manner, they are registered, counted and classified as a particular category of cultural goods and they are destined for a wide variety of audiences. Sociologically, book translations can be studied from various angles. Analyses of book translations can raise questions about the ways in which cultural goods circulate outside the context of their production (Bourdieu 1990); they can help un- ravel the relationship between different countries and cultures (Schoneveld 1983); they can serve to study the role of intermediary centres (Dirkx 1995) and to deci- pher the complexities of cross-cultural (mis)understanding (Oz-Salzberger 1995). One can also consider translators as a professional group (Heinich 1984) or analyse the evolution of the system of transnational communication, for example, by studying the social organization of the market for translation rights, the role of lit- erary agents or the functioning of international book fairs (Sora 1998). In this article I shall present a structural analysis of the international flows of translated books. I will argue that such an analysis is indispensable for under- standing how translation works. Two questions are central in this respect: how can one account for the uneven flows of book translations between various language groups? And, similarly, how can one explain the varying role of translations within language groups? In proposing to answer these questions, I presuppose that the ac- D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
12 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1 tivities involved in translation are interdependent and are therefore best understood as constituting an international system or a 'world system'. The analysis of this world system, and the position which language groups occupy within it, is a pre- condition for understanding the role of translations in specific local or national contexts. The significance of translations within a language group, for example, depends primarily on its position within the international system. This world system of translation, however, does not correspond entirely with the predominant view in world systems theory. Transnational cultural exchange is not a simple reflection of the structural contradictions in the world economy. Unlike what has been claimed by proponents of world systems theory (for example Wal- lerstein 1991), cultural exchanges have a dynamic of their own, based on a certain autonomy vis-a-vis the constraints of the world market. Instead of conceiving the cultural realm as merely derivative of global economic structures, it is more fruitful to view transnational cultural exchange as a relatively autonomous sphere, as an international arena with its own economic, political and symbolic dimensions. This configuration, which, in turn, is part of broader structures, is best conceived as a transnational cultural field in Pierre Bourdieu's sense, or as an emerging cultural world system as in Abram de Swaan's characteristic (de Swaan 1995). Such a view of transnational exchange eschews both the economism of certain world system theories and the culturalism which tends to prevail in cultural studies. Within this general orientation, I will argue that the dynamics of the inter- national translation system is based on a core-periphery structure and I will outline some of the main consequences of this model for the understanding of translation practices. At the end of the article I will briefly discuss the limits of the general model proposed and suggest how it may be further refined. The international system of translation As language groups are the basic units of the world system of translation, the structure of the translation flows between language groups forms the object of analysis. Language groups do not always coincide with national states: some of the more central languages - English, German, French, Spanish - have a supra-national character. The flow of book translations between these language groups can be analyzed by means of book statistics, which include figures for translations. These figures, however, must be handled with caution and the statistical material itself has to be critically examined before it can be used. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 13 International translation statistics have been produced since the 1930s. During the inter-war years, the Institute for Intellectual Collaboration under the League of Nations started an annual publication which listed translated books, the Index translationum (1932-1940). This was part of the post-First World War initiatives to promote international collaboration and mutual understanding between nations. After the Second World War, the UNESCO resumed publication of these transla- tion statistics in the UNESCO series of Statistical Yearbooks. These statistics are not always reliable. The most obvious problem is definition, for instance, of what consitutes a 'book' or a 'title'. Publications which qualify as a 'title' or a 'book' in one country, are considered 'grey' literature in other nations and are consequently excluded in their national book statistics: this often applies to doctoral disser- tations, textbooks, governmental, parliamentary and administrative documents, as well as annual reports from enterprises and the like. Therefore the information that twenty per cent of the books published in Spain in 1982 are translations, is not easily comparable with information from other countries. Precise comparisons between translation ratios cannot be based on the UNESCO figures. One might believe that such problems of definition could be avoided by analysing the UNESCO statistics for one country alone. This, however, reveals that they fluctuate. According to the UNESCO figures, 14% of the books published in the Netherlands in 1979 were translations; five years later this proportion had risen to 34%. Such fluctuations are not only improbable, but in addition, they do not cor- respond with the data provided by the Stichting Speurwerk which produces the na- tional book statistics for the Netherlands. Their figures show that the percentage of translations in the Dutch book production is more regular, varying only between 22 and 25% between 1979 and 1984 (Heilbron 1995b). The UNESCO data are thus unreliable: since they do not match official figures in specific countries it is unclear to what extent they are comparable internationally. Unfortunately, these figures are the only international data which are available. I will therefore use them, but merely as indicative of structural patterns. I shall refrain entirely from giving tables and breakdowns in tables, since such tables would have to be based on the UNESCO figures which are, in fact, quite misleading. However, by combining international translation statistics with more reliable national data and case studies, one can set up a coherent model of the structural dynamics of the international translation system. In the following pages, I will sketch its main properties and illustrate its significance for our understanding of translation practices. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
14 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1 1. The international translation system is, first and foremost, hierarchical and it comprises central, semi-peripheral and peripheral languages. Using a simple defi- nition of centrality, one could posit that the more central in the world system of translation a language is, the larger its share in the total number of translated books worldwide. The international figures available unambiguously indicate that English is by far the most central language in the international translation system. More than 40% of all the translated books worldwide around 1980 were translated from English (Curwen 1986: 21; Venuti 1995: 14). Over the years, from 1960 to about 1987, this percentage seems to have gone up, despite the fact that the percentage of English books in the total number of books worldwide has decreased (Melitz 1998: 36-37). On the European continent the position of English is even more predominant, with 50 to about 70% of the translations published being from English. 4 Following a downward ranking, three other languages have a central role, although their share is significantly smaller than that of English, namely French, German and Russian. Around 1980, each of these languages accounted for between 10 and 12% of the international market for translations. Li other words, three quarters of all books translated worldwide, were translated from these four lan- guages only. The international translation system is thus marked by a very uneven distribution and is dominated by English which is 'hyper-central'. Approximately six other languages have, in Immanuel Wallerstein's termin- ology, a semi-peripheral role, each with a proportion between 1 and 3% of the total number of translated books. In 1978 these languages were: Spanish, Italian, Dan- ish, Swedish, Polish and Czech. 5 These semi-peripheral languages, however, can- not be distinguished clearly from the peripheral ones. Contrary to the distinctions between hyper-central, central and semi-peripheral which are relatively clear-cut, the dividing line between semi-peripheral and peripheral languages is fuzzy. Provi- sionally and for analytical purposes, one might argue that all languages with a share of less than one per cent of the world market occupy a peripheral position in the international translation system. Among these peripheral languages are Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, and Portuguese, all of which represents a large number of speakers, and yet occupy a peripheral position only in the translation system. The total number of speakers of a language group is clearly not decisive for its degree of centrality in the translation system. 2. The structure of the international translation system, demonstrated only for one particular moment around 1980, is obviously not static but dynamic. The posi- D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 15 tion of language groups changes over time: central languages may lose some of their share, and peripheral languages can improve their position in the international ranking. The translation system is historical, it has a sociogenesis and there are minor as well as major transformations over time. Major changes are long-term processes. In the relations between English, French and German, for example, both the present-day hegemony of English and the relative decline of French have a long history. French was the central language in early modern Europe, above English and German. The first major change in the constellation occurred at the end of the eighteenth century. For geo-political and geo-cultural reasons, French lost some of its centrality, a fact which can be inferred from the translation statistics for the Netherlands: the proportion of books translated from French declined fairly rapidly in the course of the last decades of the eighteenth and the beginning of the nine- teenth century (Korpel 1992). Especially German profited from the French decline; English also gained ground in a much slower process. The real breakthrough of English did not occur until after the Second World War, when the hegemony of the US gave English a decisive advantage over its main rivals. 6 Since they presuppose a cultural reorientation requiring at least one generation and often more, changes in the international position of languages rarely occur abruptly. Sudden changes in the position of languages and language groups take place only when the position of a language is directly dependent on the political power of a regime. Until the 1980s Russian had a relatively high position, but since then it must have suffered a rapid decline: Its dominant role in translation was based on the political domination of the Soviet Union over Eastern Europe which implied obligatory and quasi-obligatory translations in nearly all fields, including those not bound to the marxist-leninist orthodoxy. Since the fall of the Soviet Empire, the use of Russian has therefore declined sharply in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, as has, undoubtedly, the number of translations from Russian. 3. Distinguishing languages according to the degree of their centrality does not only imply that translations flow more from the core to the periphery than the other way round, but also that the communication between peripheral groups often passes via a centre. What is translated from one peripheral language into another, depends on what is translated into the central languages from these peripheral lan- guages. In other words: the more central a language is in the translation system, the more it has the capacity to function as an intermediary or vehicular language, that is, as a means of communication between language groups which are themselves peripheral or semi-peripheral. 7 D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
16 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1 French in early modern Europe is a case in point. Given the central position of French in European culture, not only French books but also translations into French attracted special attention with authors, translators and publishers. French transla- tions were often retranslated into other languages. While known as the 'belles in- fideles', as 'unfaithful' adaptations to indigenous norms of elegance and clarity, French translations were nevertheless commonly used for translation into other languages. The most widely translated Spanish authors, Miguel Cervantes and Baltasar Gracian, were translated into German from French translations. English philosophers were translated into Italian from French rather than directly from English, and, similarly, English literature in German was most often translated from French (Blassneck 1934; Von Stackelberg 1984; Graeber 1991). Such trans- lation of French translations, which was common practice during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, fell into disrepute when nationalism became a political and cultural force. German and English literature gained wider recognition at the end of the eighteenth century and translations into French lost their central role. Translation of translations, often termed indirect or second-hand translation, has become much less common, at least in literary translation. In some ways, however, the phenomenon remains. Even though actual translations are made directly from the original source language, the decision to publish a translation of a book from a peripheral language still usually depends on the existence of a translation into a central language. Literary translations from Spanish into Dutch after the Second World War, for example, were nearly always preceded by translations into one of the central languages. Particularly so with the most prominent authors. Borges, Cortazar, Garcia Marquez and Vargas Llosa were all translated into French or English before they were published in Dutch (Steenmeijer 1989). Many features in the Dutch translation (from Spanish) indicated that the English or French transla- tion had served as a model. This applies to the choice of the title, the blurb, and the praise quoted from reviews. In a few cases Dutch publishers issued a translation prior to the English or French ones. But this, paradoxically, confirms the dominant role of central lan- guages. Not only were these the work of 'minor' writers, who were discovered by Dutch specialists, but, in addition, the Dutch translations did not meet with a posi- tive reception from critics and the public. They illustrate the opposite, namely that peripheral and semi-peripheral language groups tend to follow the example of the international centres, including as to what is to be imported. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 17 In this manner much international communication about books depends on the centres in the international system. Once a book is translated into a central lan- guage by an authoritative publisher, it catches the attention of publishers all over the globe. The very fact that an American or English publisher will publish a book by an author from a (semi)peripheral language, is used extensively for publicity by the original publisher, because it functions as an excellent recommendation for publishers elsewhere. The international recognition of Dutch literature offers a fine history of the importance of literary centres in the translation business. Although a few Dutch and Flemish authors in the sixteenth and seventeenth century acquired some international renown, none entered the canon of world lit- erature (Schenkeveld 1991). In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries very few books were translated from Dutch. Following the European recognition of Russian and Scandinavian literatures, translations from Dutch started to increase in number at the end of the nineteenth century. It grew more or less regularly and has been represented by approximately five or six hundred titles per year since the late 1960s. 8 Despite the relatively steady increase in the number of translations during the twentieth century, Dutch literature remained largely unknown and until recently no Dutch writer was an internationally recognised literary figure. Financial support and sustained translation efforts proving insufficient, the low esteem of Dutch literature outside the Netherlands seemed inevitable to many observers (Vander- auwera 1985; Paul 1990; van Noesel and Janssen 1985). The failure of Dutch authors was attributed to the poor quality of translations, to the fact that they were published by small, marginal publishing houses, and to the scarcity of good trans- lators, who should, incidentally, not only produce quality translations but also advice and information to publishers, write reviews and train future translators. Retrospectively, it is clear that there was a change during the 1980s when a few Dutch authors were published by well-established foreign literary publishers and even garnered literary prizes. 9 Although the emerging interest was not confined to one country, the breakthrough occurred in Germany, and from there Dutch litera- ture spread to other central as well as peripheral language groups. Compared to other centres in the international translation system, German publishers were best prepared for the reception of Dutch authors. Germany was the only country with a central position which had a tradition of translating Dutch literature and incorpo- rating it into a national cultural tradition. Since the end of the Napoleonic wars, germanists considered the Low Countries part of Germanic culture, and as a minor D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
18 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1 but not insignificant ally against French civilisation (Kloos 1992). Dutch and Flemish were perceived as a kind of Plattdeutsch and above all popular novels were translated into German to meet the rising demand for books in the 19 th century. Apart from popular writers, some of the more established literary figures were also translated, but they played a minor role. It was only in the 1980s that leading German publishers started to issue translations of major Dutch writers: Suhrkamp published Cees Nooteboom, Klett-Cotta Hugo Claus and Hanser Harry Mulisch. Their books were favourably received by critics and some sold relatively well. More translations followed and German critics acknowledged Cees Nooteboom as an outstanding European writer. So in 1993, when the Netherlands was the Schwer- punkt of the international book fair in Frankfurt, conditions favoured a snowball effect from German recognition. Since then the number of translated Dutch authors has increased substantially, as has the number of languages into which their work is translated. The Dutch case thus illustrates the essential role of cultural centres or 'bridge- heads' (Dollerup 1997) in the international diffusion of literatures from the (semi-)- periphery. International cultural centres are not only interested in the diffusion of their own produce, they also have a vested interest in transit trade and its benefits. Symbolic and economic transit profits are an essential component of the way the international cultural system works. Further, however, the Dutch scene also highlights the dependency on the inter- national centres in yet another way. Once a peripheral literature has been interna- tionally recognised, the recognition abroad will contribute to, and may even inter- fere with indigenous reputations. In the Netherlands it was common to refer to Willem Frederik Hermans, Gerard Reve and Harry Mulisch as the 'big three' of post-war Dutch literature. Some would add a forth name, Hugo Claus. For decades their reputation was not seriously challenged. But Hugo Claus, Hella Haasse and Cees Nooteboom have begun to enjoy growing international fame, whereas Her- mans and Reve do not. The national Dutch canon is thus undermined, illustrating the fact that especially in small countries, the process of canonization is increas- ingly affected by the international market place. 4. The more central a language is in the international translation system, the more types of different books are translated from it. Dutch book statistics distin- guish between thirty-three categories of books, from 'religion' and 'law' to 'prose' and 'history'. Only translations from the most central language, English are D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 19 represented in all 33 categories. Translations from German are found in 28 categories, from French in 22 categories, from Italian in ten categories, et cetera. Centrality, in other words, leads to variety. Since the small number of books trans- lated from peripheral languages is generally concentrated in very few categories, the opposite also holds true: book translations from peripheral languages lack the variety that increases with the degree of centrality. 5. Since the international translation system is so firmly dominated by one hyper-central language, one might presume that translations from other languages will decrease, leading to a virtual monopoly for translations from English. Jacques Me"litz has explicitly suggested such a possibility in his economic model of the world book market: "If the market in one particular language is sufficiently larger than any other, the total lack of technical barriers to diffusion can lead to the exclu- sive translation of imaginative works from that particular language into the rest." (Melitz 1998) The available statistics for the Netherlands do not confirm Melitz's hypothesis. In fact they suggest a different pattern, which needs to be checked for other countries. As far as the Netherlands is concerned, the enormous growth of trans- lations from English has not led to a diminished number of translations from other languages; it has diminished the role of indigenous books. In order to see this effect, we need to revise the usual mode of calculating proportions: the proportion of translations from a certain language is commonly calculated only as a percentage of the total number of translations. It is more accurate, however, to calculate the percentage of translations from a certain language as a proportion of the total number of books published in a given country. In this way the book production in the indigenous language becomes part of the linguistic competition. And then it can be seen that translations from English have not replaced translations from other foreign languages but rather replaced books written by native speakers. That, at least, has been the case for the Netherlands, where translations from English increased from 2 to 17% of the total book production from 1946 to 1990. In the same period translations from German increased from 1.4 to 4.3 %, translations from French from 0.6 to 2.2%, and translations from 'other languages' from 1.2 to 2.7% (Heilbron 1995a). Although English has profited far more from the increased number of translations than any other foreign language, these other languages have also increased their share in the national book production in the Netherlands. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
20 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1 6. The structure of the world system of translation also corresponds to regulari- ties of importation. The more central a language is in the international translation system, the smaller the role of translations into this language. The most central lan- guages tend to have the lowest proportion of translated works in their book production. In England and the United Stated less than five percent of all published books are translations, a percentage which has remained stable since 1945. Fluc- tuating between ten and twelve per cent of the national book production, the pro- portion of translations is consistently higher in France and Germany. In Italy and Spain translations are again more important, representing between twelve and twenty per cent of the published books. Li countries with even more peripheral languages like Sweden and the Netherlands, a quarter of all books published are translations, and in present-day Greece the proportion is more than forty per cent. Although they are open to some doubt and only indicative, these figures strongly suggest an inverse relationship between the centrality of a language in the international translation system and the importance of translations in the national book production. The more central the language of a country, the more it serves as a model to others, and the less it is concerned with the cultural production of other countries. Instead of claiming that translations 'normally' occupy a marginal position (Even-Zohar 1990: 50), it is far more accurate to say that the role of trans- lations varies significantly, depending primarily on the degree of centrality in the international translation system. The core of an international cultural system has the highest status, it is carefully observed, followed and emulated, and at the same time it is much less oriented towards products and producers from outside the centre. This feature is also found in the international exchanges in the natural sciences. Citation patterns show that scientific research in the United States is the most central and most prestigious part of the scientific world system. However, the US scientific production also has the lowest percentage of foreign co-authors, publications abroad, and foreign references. The proportion of foreign references and foreign publications is for the US about 25%. In Japan and Europe the propor- tion lies somewhere between 40 and 71%; and in the developing countries it varies between 70 and 92% (Schott 1991). Instead of assuming an equilibrium between import and export, the reality of transnational exchange is best described as a process of uneven exchange. For every book that is translated from Dutch, for example, there are six books trans- lated into Dutch. Imbalances of this kind characterize the very structure of transna- tional cultural exchange. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 21 There is no need to invoke the peculiarities of national cultural traditions in order to understand the primary structure of the international flows. When one compares the 10 to 12% translations in France with the significantly higher percentage in Sweden, one might attribute this to the relatively closed and isolated attitude often considered peculiar to French culture. Wasn't Chauvin a Frenchman? Comparing the French figures with the lower proportion of translations in the United Kingdom, one may be equally tempted to cite this as evidence of the very richness of French culture. In this last instance, traditional high esteem for cultural practices appears to be reflected in a high number of translations. However, neither of these two last arguments is necessary to explain the general level of cultural import. The proportion of translations into French matches the international position of French in the world system of translation, and easily com- pares to the role of German and to the proportion of translations in Germany. As was argued above, it is the international position of national cultures which deter- mines the general level of cultural importation rather than national cultural tradition. Towards a sociology of translation The sociology of translation may well become a new branch of the sociology of culture and a promising domain for the study of the cultural world system. It is a research field which can draw on social science research concerning culture, inter- national exchange and globalization, as well as on a variety of publications in Translation Studies. Some of the most interesting work in Translation Studies has been inspired by 'polysystems theory'. Polysystem theorists have rightly shifted the analytical focus from an exclusive concern with the source-text to the more broadly conceived target-culture. But in order to understand the role of translations in a target-culture, it is by no means sufficient to analyse them as part of the target- culture's (literary) system. It is essential, as I have tried to show, to consider target- cultures as part of an international system, of a global constellation of language groups and of national or supra-national cultures. To develop and refine the outlined approach, two directions seem appropriate. On the one hand, numerous questions may be raised about the international cultural system, its genesis and its way of functioning. The analysis of the international translation system can benefit from comparisons with other transnational cultural systems and from the ongoing debate about globalization. 10 Pascale Casanova's D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
22 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1 recent study on the international republic of letters demonstrates the fruitfulness of this perspective for the dynamics of literary renewal (Casanova 1999). On the other hand, there are questions to be raised about the significance of such an international system for the understanding of specific translation practices. There is obviously no simple and immediate transition from a world system ana- lysis to the level of a national publishing field or the understanding of particular translation strategies. The world system is concerned with the most general set of conditions. For a comprehensive account, it is necessary to link these general conditions to the social dynamics of the publishing business and various segments in it. It is telling, for example, that there are virtually no translations in certain catego- ries of books, whereas in others they have a major role. In the large category of school books translations are hardly represented at all. The market for educational publishing is 'protected', not so much by economic barriers but by national regula- tions, and is controlled by national authorities. Other market segments are more open: in the categories 'prose' and 'children's books' translations have a major and sometimes even dominant role. In these cases there are typically no national and official institutions and few institutional arrangements which regulate or control the market. The social organization of the market is thus a crucial dimension for assessing the role of translations; the sociology of markets is of immediate relevance (Swedberg 1994). One may similarly consider the role of translations in the editorial programmes and policies of publishing houses. The selection of translations and their place within editorial programmes generally correspond to the position of the publisher in the editorial field (Bourdieu 1999). A more complete sociological analysis may thus seek to connect the dynamics of the international translation system with the workings of editorial fields and the book market. Notes 1. For comments on an earlier draft of this paper I am indebted to Abram de Swaan, Jacques Mlitz and Nico Wilterdink. The present article is based on Heilbron (1999). 2. In the otherwise outstanding project directed by Roger Chartier and Henri-Jean Martin (1982-86) on the French book trade, which contains more than three thousand pages, there is not a single chapter on translations or translators. Literary history also tends to ignore translations since 'literary history' is commonly conceived as 'national history'. The only literary domains in which translations are a regular part of research agendas are reception D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 23 studies and comparative literature. In both fields, however, the scope of the work is generally restricted to canonical literary works. 3. For historical texts on translation, see the anthologies by Lefevere (1992; and Robinson (1997). Historical overviews are presented in Ballard (1992); Delisle and Woodsworth (1995); Kelly (1979); Rener (1989); Steiner (1975); and Van Hoof (1991). 4. Besides the figures reproduced in Curwen (1986); Venuti (1995) and M1itz (1998), I have consulted the UNESCO Statistical Yearbooks from 1965 to 1985. 5. Based on the UNESCO figures for 1978, this list is somewhat different from the grouping of Venuti (1995), who has combined the Scandinavian languages, as well as Greek and Latin. 6. Book translations from English have an ever-growing share in the number of books published in the Netherlands. In 1946, 39% of all translated books were translations from English, in 1990 the proportion was up to 65% (Heilbron 1995a). 7. The term 'vehicular language' is adapted from the French expression 'langue vehiculaire' which captures the social function of such languages quite well. It is similar to the term 'gateway languages'. 8. These approximate figures are based on the bibliography of translations from Dutch which is produced by the Royal Libraries of The Hague and Brussels. The absolute numbers are less significant than the trend they indicate (see Heilbron 1995 a and b). 9. Important translation prizes were awarded to Philippe Noble for his French translation of E. Du Perron's Le pays d'origine (Gallimard 1980) and to Adrienne Dixon for her translation of Rituals (1983) by Cees Nooteboom. 10. In the literature on cultural globalization the work of Ulf Hannerz is particularly suggestive (Hannerz 1992; 1996). For an illuminating comparison see the analysis of the international system of modern sports (van Bottenburg 1994). Works cited Ballard, Michel. 1992. De Cicron Benjamin: traducteurs, traduction, rflexions. Lille: Presses Universitaires de Lille. Berman, Antoine. 1984. L'preuve de l'tranger: Culture et traduction dans l'Allemagne romantique. Paris: Gallimard Blassneck, M. 1934. Frankreich als Vermittler Englisch-Deutscher Einflsse im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert. Leipzig: Verlag von Bemhard Tauchnitz. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. Les conditions sociales de la circulation internationale des ides, Romanische Zeitschrift fr Literaturgeschichte nr. 1/2: 1-10. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1999. Une rvolution conservatrice dans l'dition. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales. 126-127. 3-28. Casanova, Pascale. 1999. La rpublique mondiale des lettres. Paris: Seuil. Chartier, Roger and Martin, Henri-Jean (Eds). 1982-1986. Histoire de l'dition franaise. Paris: Promodis. Coulmas, Florian (Ed). 1997. The Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Blackwell. Curwen, Peter. 1986. The World Book Industry. London: Euromonitor Publications. Delisle, Jean and Woodsworth, Judith (Eds). 1995. Translators Through History. Amster- dam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
24 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1 de Swaan, Abram. 1993a. The Emergent World Language System: An Introduction. In: de Swaan, Abram (1993c). 219-226. de Swaan, Abram. 1993b. The Evolving European Language System: A Theory of Com- munication Potential and Language Competition. In: de Swaan, Abram (1993c). 241- 255. de Swaan, Abram (Ed). 1993c. The Emergent World Language System. International Po- litical Science Review. 14, 3. de Swaan, Abram. 1995. The Sociological Study of the Transnational Society. Amsterdam School for Social Science Research: Papers in Progress no 46. de Swaan, Abram. 1998. A Political Sociology of the World Language System 1: The Dy- namics of Language Spread. Language Problems and Language Planning 22 # 1. 63- 75. de Swaan, Abram. 1998. A Political Sociology of the World Language System 2: The Unequal Exchange of Texts. Language Problems and Language Planning 22 # 2.109- 128. Dirkx, Paul. 1995. Paris and Amsterdam as Translational Go-Betweens: The Evolution of Literary Translation in Belgium after World War II. In: Jansen, Peter & Clem Robyns (Eds). Selected Papers of the CERA Research Seminars in Translation Studies. Leuven: CETRA. Dollerup, Cay. 1997. Translation a Imposition vs. Translation as Requisistion. In: Snell- Hornby, Mary & Zuzana Jettmarova & Klaus Kaindl (Eds). Translation as Inter- cultural Communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45-56. Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies. Poetics Today 11 # 1. Gentzler, Edwin. 1993. Contemporary Translation Theories. London: Routledge. Graeber, Wilhelm. 1991. German Translators of English Fiction and Their French Mediators. In: Kittel, H. & A.P. Frank (Eds). Interculturality and the Historical Study of Literary Translators. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag. 5-15. Hannerz, Ulf. 1992. Cultural Complexity: Studies in the Social Organization of Meaning. New York: Columbia University Press. Hannerz, Ulf. 1996. Transnational Connections. London: Routledge. Heilbron, Johan. 1995a. Nederlandse vertalingen wereldwijd. In: Heilbron, Johan & Wouter de Nooy & Wilma Tichelaar (Eds). Waarin een klein land. Amsterdam: Pro- metheus. 206-252. Heilbron, Johan. 1995b. Mondialisering en transnationaal cultureel verkeer. In: Heilbron, Johan & Nico Wilterdink (Eds). Mondialisering: de wording van de wereldsamen- leving. Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff. 162-180. Heilbron, Johan. 1999. Towards a Sociology of Translation: Book Translations as a Cul- tural World System. European Journal of Social Theory. 2. 429-444. Heinich, Nathalie. 1984. Les traducteurs littraires: l'art et la profession. Revue franaise de sociologie. 25. 264-280. Kelly, Louis. 1979. The True Interpreter: A History of Translation Theory and Practice in the West. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Kloos, Ulrike. 1992. Niederlandbild und deutsche Germanistik 1800-1933. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Korpel, L.G. 1992. Over het nut en de wijze der vertalingen. Nederlandse vertaalreflectie in een Westeuropees kader (1750-1920). Amsterdam: Rodopi. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
Heilbron: Translation as a cultural world system 25 Lefevere, Andre. 1992. Translation, History, Culture: A Sourceboot London: Routledge. Mlitz, Jacques. 1998. English-Language Dominance, Literature and Welfare. Paris: CREST, Document de Travail no. 9832. Also published as Discussion Paper No. 2055. 1999. London: The Centre for Economic Policy Research. Oz-Salzberger, Fania. 1995. Translating the Enlightenment: Scottish Civic Discourse in Eighteenth-Century Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press & Clarendon Press. Paul, Anthony. 1990. Dutch Literature and the Translation Barrier. In: Westerweel, B. & T. D'Haen (Eds). Something Understood: Studies in Anglo-Dutch Translation. Amster- dam: Rodopi. Rener, Frederick M. 1989. Interpretatio: Language and Translation From Cicero to Tyler. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Robinson, Douglas (Ed). 1997. Western Translation Theory: From Herodotus to Nietzsche. Manchester: St. Jerome. Schenkeveld, Maria A. 1991. Dutch Literature in the Age of Rembrandt. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1992 (orig. 1813), [From] On the Different Methods of Translating. In: Schulte, Rainer & John Biguenet.(Eds). Theories of Translation: An anthology of essays from Dryden to Derrida. University of Chicago Press. Schoneveld, W. 1983. Intertraffic of the Mind: Studies in Seventeenth-Century Anglo- Dutch Translation. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Schott, Thomas. 1991. The World Scientific Community: Globality and Globalisation. Minerva 29. 440-462. Sor, Gustavo. 1998. Francfort: la foire d'empoigne. Liber 34. 2-3. Steenmeijer, Maarten. 1989. De Spaanse en Spaans-Amerikaanse literatuur in Nederland 1946-1985. Muiderberg: Coutinho. Steiner, George. 1975. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. Oxford Univer- sity Press. Swedberg, Richard. 1994. Markets as Social Structures. In: Smelser, Neil & Richard Swedberg (Eds). The Handbook of Economic Sociology. Princeton University Press & Russell Sage Foundation. 255-282. Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Translation Theory. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. UNESCO. 1965-1985. Statistical Yearbook. Paris: UNESCO. Vanderauwera, Ria. 1985. Dutch Novels Translated into English. Amsterdam: Rodopi. van Bottenburg, Maarten. 1994. Verborgen competitie: over de uiteenlopende populariteit van sporten. Amsterdam: Bert Bakker. van Hoof, Henri. 1991. Histoire de la traduction en Occident. Paris: Duculot. van Noesel, Marion & Ans Janssen. 1985. De Nederlandse literatuur in Frame vertaling Utrecht: Frans en Occitaans Instituut. Venuti, Lawrence. 1995. The Translator's Invisibility: A History of Translation. London: Routledge. Von Stackelberg, Jrgen. 1984. bersetzungen aus zweiter Hand: Rezeptionsvorgnge in der europischen Literatur von 14. bis 18. Jahrhundert. Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter. D o w n l o a d e d
b y
[ U n i v e r s i t y
o f
Y o r k ]
a t
1 2 : 2 7
2 6
A u g u s t
2 0 1 3
26 2000. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology. Volume 8:1 Wallerstein Immanuel. 1991. Geopolitics and Geoculture: Essays on the Changing World System. Cambridge & Paris: Cambridge University Press & Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme. D o w n l o a d e d
1982 A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy (La Comedia Sexual de Una Noche de Verano) - Woody Allen - (DVDrip) (XviD 608x320x25) (MP3 Spanish + MP3 English) .En