Dam, Helle Vrønning, Brøgger, Matilde Nisbeth, and Zethsen, Karen Korning, eds. (2019): Moving Boundaries in Translation Studies. London/New York: Routledge, 237 p.

Recent decades have witnessed a myriad of new approaches and concepts in translation studies. Some burgeoning activities like crowdsourcing, transediting and translanguaging, to name just a few, have gained momentum in translation studies. Concepts, like intralingual and intersemiotic translation, which are considered peripheral to translation studies have gained renewed focus. Translation studies is embracing ever-expanding boundaries. It is against this backdrop that this current volume is published. To recapitulate briefly, this book touches on the following two major trends in translation studies: the internal boundaries are blurring and the external boundaries are expanding. Due to the upsurge of various translation activities, the internal boundaries of translation have blurred and have become fuzzy. Consequently, conceptual innovation should be prioritized. Chesterman (Chapter 1) suggests four ways for the creation of new categories and names. Platypus concepts are for the kind of new concept that is proposed when a new empirical phenomenon is confronted. Examples include fansubbing and translanguaging. Splitter concepts refer to focusing on differences and dividing related concepts into different entries. Professional vs. non-professional and literary vs. non-literary translation are typical splitter concepts in translation studies. Lumper concepts focus on similarities and tend to lump different concepts under a single entry. A case in point is the concept of translation itself. Rebranding concepts pertain to endowing an existing concept with a new term. A typical example is localization which illustrates how the notion of translation has been downgraded to a small corner of a rebranded larger practice, to highlight something presented as radically new. Chapter 3 focuses on the conceptual boundaries of interpreting. The difficulty, if not impossibility, of using any single criterion as a basis to define interpreting is well noted by the author. Thus, the author adopts the concentric-circle model of the conceptual territory of interpreting, with an inner circle representing established practices and outer circle phenomena that differ in some criteria and are therefore regarded as being less prototypical. Additionally, the expanding circle incorporates novel forms that have been driven by technology, such as transpeaking. Chapter 7 explores the fuzzy boundaries between professional and non-professional translation and interpreting. Traditionally, professional and non-professional translators and interpreters were regarded as disparate categories. However, incremental studies have been accounting for a range of mediation activities required in multifarious communicative contexts, irrespective of the question of professionalism. By looking beyond professional activities and approaching the miscellaneous phenomenon of translation and interpreting, translation studies is embracing new conceptual tools and new definitions for established frameworks. What’s more, scholars can take cognizance of translation and interpreting activities in contemporary society by looking at the broader practice rather than through the narrow prism of professional practice all alone. Chapter 9 argues that the borders between literary and non-literary translation should be fuzzy and moveable. First, the binary distinction is detrimental because it presupposes an exclusive non-reciprocal relationship. Second, a negative suffix suggests lower status and less complexity. Thirdly, the disciplines on which literary and non-literary translation draw are themselves constantly changing. Fourthly, technological and professional developments have overtaken such a simplified view of the world of translation. Concepts such as adaptation, localization, and transcreation have been much discussed in recent years. Divergent opinions of these concepts often exist between translation academia and industry. Chapter 12 attempts to turn the spotlight on the field of translation practice which has been criticized by scholars for introducing the above concepts that devalue the notion of translation. By drawing on data elicited in face-to-face interaction with the practitioners in the field, translators and translation project managers in particular, the chapter identifies some similarities and differences between translation …