dc.description.abstract
Antoine Berman (1984, 12) stated, in a much-cited phrase, that the constitution of a history of translation is the first task of a modern theory of translation. Verdicts of a similar nature have been presented by Bassnett (1980, 38), D'Hulst (1991, 61; 1995, 14), Lambert (1993, 22) and Delisle (1997-1998, 22). Works of a historical nature (whether they be the study of a past translation, a translated author, a translator or a translator theorist) play a leadingTaylor and Francis role within the rich bibliography produced by the discipline, and in the numerous debates, conferences and all kinds of scientific encounters on translation.
According to D'Hulst (2014, 21), when discussing the topic of translation history, two different perspectives can be adopted: on the one hand, the study of what translation means for the understanding of history; on the other, what history means for the understanding of translation. In D'Hulst's opinion (2010), the latter viewpoint can itself be understood in three different ways: (1) history can be the narration of the sequence of facts, events or ideas; (2) historiography can be the history of history-writing; (3) metahistoriography can be the explicit reflection on the concepts and methods of historiography. Other authors distinguish between just history and historiography (e.g. Apak 2003). In this respect, for example, Woodsworth mentions that "a distinction can be made between history, understood as the events of the past, recounted in narrative form, and historiography, which is the discourse upon historical data, organized and analyzed along certain principles" (2001, 101). She adds that `the term historiology refers to the methodology of writing history, but that this is if often labelled also as historiography, which is the reason why this has a double meaning. A similar position is adopted by Lambert, who states that `we have to distinguish between the object of study and the discourse on the object of study, although such a discourse can also be itself part of the investigation¿ (1993, 4). Pym, for his part, considers that there is no difference between both subjects: `translation history ("historiography" is a less pretty term for the same thing) is a set of discourses predicating the changes that have occurred or have actively been prevented in the field of "translation" (1998, 5). Similarly, Gürçaglar makes no difference between both concepts, understanding `translation history' as the methodological and epistemological reflections on the writing of history, that is, `the Introduction and definitions Antoine Berman (1984, 12) stated, in a much-cited phrase, that the constitution of a history of translation is the first task of a modern theory of translation. Verdicts of a similar nature have been presented by Bassnett (1980, 38), D'Hulst (1991, 61; 1995, 14), Lambert (1993, 22) and Delisle (1997-1998, 22). Works of a historical nature (whether they be the study of a past translation, a translated author, a translator or a translator theorist) play a leadingTaylor and Francis role within the rich bibliography produced by the discipline, and in the numerous debates, conferences and all kinds of scientific encounters on translation. ways in which [historical] findings have been gathered, assembled and mobilized in the writing of narratives about translation (2013, 132).
