ELSEVIER Journal of Pragmatics 24 (1995) 451-462

Book reviews

Albrecht Neubert and Gregory Shreve, Translation as text (Translation Studies

Series, 1). Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 1992. 169 pp. Price US $ 27.00.

Reviewed by Deborah D. Kela Ruuskanen, Department of English, University of

Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland. Correspondence to: D.K. Ruuskanen, Leankuja 1, SF-01420
Vantaa, Finland.

In recent years, the field of translation studies has shifted its interest from the
single-minded pursuit of purely linguistic issues to include new ideas from other dis-
ciplines. At the same time, scholars in other fields both within and outside linguis-
tics have become interested in issues directly related to translation studies. With the
recent founding of the European Society for Translation Studies (EST) in Vienna,
translation studies is now highly visible as an area of study in its own right. Prag-
matics is one of the disciplines which has directly contributed to translation studies.
The inclusion of pragmatic factors in translation theories is the direct result of a
major shift in thinking which has occurred in translation.
Previously, translation was regarded by universities primarily as a method of
learning a foreign language, and by translation training institutes as a linguistic
means of transferring meaning across cultures through language. In both cases, the
texts being translated were often treated in complete isolation. Literary theories
which saw texts as already containing everything needed for their interpretation
within themselves contributed to an approach which saw the text to be translated as
a series of words in sentences in paragraphs. In addition, many saw translation as
something that would simply come naturally to bilinguals as a result of their acquir-
ing a second language.
In their book, Neubert and Shreve endeavour to show that in fact, translation is
much more than a mechanical skill, and involves more than philological or literary
concerns. In order to do this, they take an approach that sees translation quite simply
as text. Another objective of the book is to unify the multiple understandings pre-
sented in the large number of competing models of translation. As they say in their
Preface: "The textual perspective, because it makes the text the primary object of
research, has the potential to act as a unifying concept in the discipline" (p. viii).
The book is divided into four sections: Section 1 deals with Translation, Text, and
Translation Studies; Section 2 with Translation: Knowledge and Process; Section 3
with Textuality, including intentionality and intertextuality; and Section 4 with
Translation as Result. Traditonally translation studies have dealt either with transla-
tion as a process, or the finished translation as a product. In their book, Neubert and

0378-2166/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

452 Book reviews / Journal of Pragmatics 24 (1995) 451-462

Shreve look at both parts of translation, and in keeping with their aim of unifying
translation studies they try to combine process and product.
The first section of the book presents a useful compilation of the major trends in
translation studies up to the late 1980s. Several different models of translation are
defined and described, and the major competing theories are set out in a fairly objec-
tive manner. The old argument of theory versus practice is replayed, and Neubert and
Shreve argue for an "integrated" theory based on practice. "If we base translation
theory on translation practice, then we are not faced with choosing linguistic/seman-
tic over pragmatic/communicative approaches or emphasizing source-culture over
target-culture values. Rather, we recognize that there is a translation reality which is
extremely diverse and which calls for different translation responses" (p. 35).
The reasons for the disarray in translation studies are traced by the authors to the
history of the discipline, which was for a long time considered a sub-sub-discipline
of other fields. Since proponents of different models come from different disciplines,
they use a variety of approaches. For example, the "critical model" derived from lit-
erary-critical and political "theory" (author's quotes, p. 33) systems refers to such
gurus as Lacan, Foucault, and Marx. From another perspective, linguists and text-
linguists appear to be enamoured of formal systems derived from logical calculii and
linguistic statistics, which they use to validate their theories. These result in what
this reviewer calls 'ant hill' studies, which look like mathematical proofs and which
pile one pine needle of a number on top of another until there is quite a pile. Such
studies can be very impressive. In another model, psycholinguists use the tools of
psychiatry and cognition in talking of translation, and so on.
Neubert and Shreve are especially critical of the "naive empiricism" of practi-
tioners and teachers of translation who record "what has worked for them" (p. 33).
Like some of the realizations of the critical model, the practical or applied model
may rely on subjective assessments ("it sounds wrong") or look only at "the viola-
tion of more conventional linguistic and textual norms" (p. 17). The authors call
here for an essentially contrastive research methodology, which would comply with
their overall aim of developing a more empirical approach to translation studies.
On the whole, this is an excellent aim. But, as Neubert and Shreve themselves
admit, it runs into difficulties. As in any discipline, creating methodologies for
empirical research is a difficult task. To take an important example, consider the
large number of translation studies rooted in linguistic traditions. The criticism here
is that "Linguistic approaches ... suffer from the delusion that translation can be
assumed to be normal communication in two languages. Any practicing translator
would tell us that the competence of a language mediator is quite different from the
competence of a normal bilingual .... Translation is a communicative activity that,
while it may ideally presuppose the bilingual's double competence, calls for addi-
tional competencies" (p. 9). The problem, as the authors admit, is to arrive at
methodologies that would provide empirical evidence for this. There are very few
studies in this area, and those that exist, such as Kohn's (1990), often rely on first-
order formulations.
If being able to translate involves more than just linguistics, then obviously we
cannot assume that translation is simply a linguistic process. To help clarify the other
 Book reviews / Journal of Pragmatics 24 (1995) 451~162 453

factors involved, and to further their aim of unifying translation studies, the authors
set forth a list of research parameters they feel should be included in empirical trans-
lation studies. As they rightly point out, a failure to clarify the research parameters
used in dividing up a complex subject for study will increase the potential for mis-
understanding. It is precisely to eliminate such misunderstandings that Neubert and
Shreve also put forth their particular view o f 'Translation as Text' as one that may
be used to unify translation studies.
The text-linguistic model of translation as first described by Neubert (1968, 1973)
basically says that the differences between an original or source text and its transla-
tion are due both to differences between their sentences, and to constraints operating
above sentence level. It is these 'suprasentential' textual factors that traditional con-
trastive approaches cannot explain. As the authors say here "The linguistic systems
of the source and target cannot account for the pragmatically-motivated transforma-
tions and modifications made to a linguistically adequate target text" (p. 23). By
pragmatics, Neubert means "the various uses of language by speakers and writers in
particular communicative situations" (p. 23). This model sees the translator as facil-
itating "the textuality of the target text by mediating the two textual systems"
involved; and translations are "text-induced text productions" (p. 25).
Pragmatists will probably find the use of the adjective 'pragmatic' to describe a
'type' of translations, set in opposition to 'literary' translations, even more annoying
than it is to practicing translators who have found that there is basically no difference
involved in translating the two 'types'. For this reviewer, as a practicing translator,
one of the benefits of looking at translation as text, and the process of translation as
the "text-induced production of texts" (p. 25), is that it does away with this artificial
distinction between 'pragmatic' and 'literary' texts. There is a tendency on the part
of translators who deal only with 'literary' texts to look down on translators of 'prag-
matic' texts as not being 'creative'. Even translators who of necessity do both 'types'
tend to treat the routine, 'bread-and-butter' translation of forms, certificates, lists,
regulations, annual reports, and so on, as somehow not as important as the occa-
sional translation of an art exhibition catalogue. If Neubert and Shreve can get trans-
lators and teachers of translation to accept that translating an annual report can be
just as creative as translating a Harlequin Romance, they will have done us a great
service.
This brings up a point that is seldom made. On page 17 there is a brief, one-para-
graph mention of critical analysis which focuses on the source text and deals with
the problem of defective texts. Students of translation often stand in awe of the
source text, particularly if it is a 'literary' text, and regard the original as inviolable.
Neubert and Shreve point out that, as any practicing translator will tell you, it is not
at all uncommon to get incredibly bad, poorly written texts to translate. They refer to
a study by Berglund (1990) which should certainly be looked up. One of the good
points of the book under review is that it mentions throughout several areas in which
further study is needed. Students in search of topics for Master's theses could read
this book with an eye to finding an amenable research question.
Section 2, 'Translation: Knowledge and Process', deals with Language as System
and Language in Use, Translations as Interaction Structures, Translation as Process,
454 Book reviews / Journal of Pragmatics 24 (1995) 451-462

Knowledge and Mutual Knowledge, Copresence, Frames, Scenarios, Schemas,

Plans, and Scripts. This section deals with the analysis of the process of translation.
The approach is similar to that of cognitive linguistics, but does not emphasize this
view. In esssence, the cognitive level is seen as only one of four interrelated levels
in a procedural hierarchy of the translation process. The other levels are: textual,
first-order descriptive, and second-order descriptive (p. 51).
Section 3, 'Textuality', has as subsections: Textuality and 'Textness', Intentional-
ity, Acceptability, Situationality, Informativity, Coherence, Cohesion, and Intertex-
tuality. As can be seen from the titles of the subsections, this is the part of the book
which describes in detail what is meant by 'Translation as Text'. The extra-linguis-
tic factors and the creation of meaning above the sentence level are described and
illustrated with contrastive examples in German-English.
Section 4, 'Translation as Result', deals with Translation Evolution, or morpho-
genesis, i.e. retranslation of previously translated texts; Text Types, which the
authors see as operating as procedural knowledge; Prototypes, or first-order text
types, which "organize our understanding of textuality" (p. 132); Textual Meaning,
Macrostructures and Macrorules, used to construct textual meaning; Communicative
Value, Textual and Communicative Equivalence, which discusses the thorny ques-
tion of the definition of 'equivalence' in translation; and a final subsection on Text
and Translation Theory: An Epilogue, which restates the authors' aims.
One linguistic point in the book which pleased this reviewer was the choice of the
author's pronoun to refer to 'the translator'. The use of the feminine singular reflects
the actual situation in the field of translation, at least in Finland, where the majority
of professional translators are female. The problem of pronoun reference is a sticky
one, however. In nursing journals, the use of the feminine pronouns to refer to nurs-
ing staff, and masculine pronouns to refer to medical doctors, has caused debate.
One possible way out would be to use the plural (translators ... they), but this is awk-
ward in studies which refer to individual translators working alone.
The present volume is Number 1 in a new series of Translation Studies, which is
the successor of the German language series Ubersetzungswissenschaftliche Bei-
triige, published since 1978 in Leipzig. In the Preface, the authors state that Transla-
tion as Text is the direct successor of the volume Text and Translation, published in
the previous German language series as No. 8, in 1985. "Positive response to the
original monograph and its successful use as a reference in advanced translation
classes ... encouraged us to revise the volume and add new material" (p. vii). In my
opinion, the present, revised edition still has a place as such a reference. In particu-
lar, the review of different types of translation models presented in Section 1 is very
useful. The explanations of research parameters and the description of what is
entailed in empirical translation studies could also be useful for students attempting
to do research.
In regard to its overall aim of unifying translation studies under the banner of tex-
tuality and translation as text, however, the book falls somewhat short. While
respecting the call of Neubert and Shreve to be more empirical in our research, I
believe there is still a place for different approaches and the application of different
models in translation studies. As the discipline ages, there will be more material
 Book reviews / Journal of Pragmatics 24 (1995) 451~162 455

available for comparative studies using the same model, and more studies will be
made to show the replicability (or non-replicability) of results previously obtained. It
is still a young discipline, still picking and choosing what combinations work best.
In regard to the idea of 'translation as text', I am in agreement with the authors as
far as they go. As a practicing translator and teacher of translation, I would certainly
agree with the proposition that there is textual meaning above the sentence level, and
as a pragmatist I would certainly agree that pragmatics is better equipped than the
"linguistic systems of the source and target" (p. 23) texts to account for the motiva-
tion of extra-linguistic changes made to produce an adequate target text. However, I
do not feel that this view goes far enough. The whole question of context is dealt
with only marginally. Other recent studies which take the concept of translation one
step further, to include text-in-context, would in my opinion serve as better models
for the unification of translation studies. Such all-inclusive models look both at bot-
tom-up and top-down approaches that take into consideration the variations in trans-
lation caused by contextual and extra-textual factors. What is needed now are
methodologies which would allow us to study the effects of such factors. While Neu-
bert and Shreve have provided us with a starting point, I feel that pragmatics has a
real contribution to make in this area. I look forward to reading companions to this
volume as the series continues, volumes that might well be written by pragmatists in
collaboration with translation theorists and practitioners.

References

Berglund, L.O., 1990. The search for social significance. Lebende Sprachen 35(4): 145-151.
Kohn, Kurt, 1990. Translation as conflict. In: P.H. Nelde, ed., Confli(c)t.Brussels: AssociationBeige de
Linguistique Appliqur, 105-113. ABLA Papers 14.

Diana Raffman; Language, music, and mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993.
169 pp. $29.95.

Reviewed by Ross Charnock, Langues Vivantes, Facult6 de Droit, Sciences Eco-

nomiques, Universit6 de Rouen, F-76821 Mont Saint Aignan Cedex, France.

It is commonplace to speak (metaphorically) of music as a language. Musicolo-

gists speak of musical thought, and analysts of tonal arguments, while both com-
posers and performers are said to communicate with the audience in different ways.
Nevertheless, the idea of a musical semantics is a notoriously fragile concept. Truth-
conditional semantics is immediately excluded; and the very idea of a compositional
semantics is no more than a (feeble) play on words. Indeed, except in certain specific
contexts, it is an essential part of musical meanings that they can never be expressed
verbally. This monograph briefly considers the extent to which the perception of
musical structure could be described along the lines of the generative model pro-
posed by Lerdahl and Jackendoff (1977, 1983), and raises some interesting questions