Translation studies is the received label to name the field of studies, encompassing both humanistic and social scientific approaches. It is also often enlarged as Translation & Interpreting Studies, and most users seem to think they both cover the same extension, one being just more precise than the other one.

Translatology is a term following the tradition of Übersetzungswissenschaft. Whereas the latter, often translated as the science of translation, mainly drew from generative linguistics and belongs to the 1970s, the former was coined by Brian Harris, also in the 1970s, to refer to any and all scientific approaches to the study of translation (and interpreting, as in, e.g., natural translation). It became more popular in the 1980s, once the field had opened to comparative literature and cultural approaches, thereby acquiring very different overtones.

The term translatology is also used in the expression cognitive translatology, where it means a certain school of thought within Cognitive Translation Studies, that adheres to empirical research and is inspired by 4EA cognition.

As for traductology, sorry, never heard of it.

Traductologie is simply the French equivalent of translation studies or translatology. My sense is that the term has been coined to signal the place of the French/Canadian translation tradition together with that of the famous school of Geneva.

Dear Prof Maalej,

You are totally right, of course. Spanish and I think Portuguese also have Traductología. It is the English term Traductology that I have never heard of. In the Romance languages, the cognate labels tradutologie/traductología do not necessarily convey the empirical commitment of Translatology (although Prof Harris used traductologie as the French version of Translatology as well).

Dear Prof. Muñoz Martín and Prof. Maalej, thank you very much for your kind answers.

I can give you an authoritative answer because I’m the person who coined the term ‘translatology’ in English. That was in the early 1970s, nearly 50 years ago. My rationale was that while we had words like ‘phonetics’ for the science of speech sounds and ‘lexicography’ for the science of dictionaries, etc., we lacked a technical term for the science of translating.

About the same time as I coined ‘translatology’, a prominent French translation expert named René Ladmiral invented ‘traductologie’ in French. Terms with the ‘tradu’ stem, like Spanish ‘traductología’, are derived from Ladmiral.

‘Translatology’ never became as popular as ‘traductologie’. Native English writers usually prefer ‘translation studies’.

For more about the early history of ‘translatology’ and ‘traductologie’, please see my article ‘The Origins of Traductologie’ which is available on my Academia page at https://independent.academia.edu/BHARRIS.

Thank very much Brian Harris for your kind and 'authoritative' answer. I will read your shared article from Academia. Thank you again for your attention.

Dear Jose,

Just a few words about the use of the term "translation" in Neuroscience. Those of us who conduct neuroscience research have been long involved in what we call "translational neuroscience", which has nothing to do with translatology, traductology or interpretation. "Translation" in our field means apply basic neuroscience research in order to develop new therapies for the nervous system disorders. For example, I use Magnetoencephalography studies, other colleagues apply brain stimulation, neurorehabilitation, others again concentrate on developing auditory implanta, etc. So, research areas such as neuroimaging (my area), electrophysiology, gene therapy, are all "translational studies". Consequently, it's important to always differentiate between "translation studies" and "translational studies".

You're right to draw attention to the fact that translation has a number of meanings besides the transfer between two natural languages. My favourite is 'transfer of a bishop between two dioceses'! However, transfer between languages is the most common everyday meaning.

In my earlier comment I should have explained why native English speakers prefer 'translation studies' to 'translatology', It's because the former fits into the currently popular paradigm 'xxx studies' like black studies, women's studies, etc. Speakers of other languages sometimes prefer 'translatology' because it's more like existing terms in their own language. The late Peter Newmark once told me that translatology sounded too pompous, but towards the end of his life he agreed it had some usefulness.

Dear Brian,

I really enjoyed the "bishop's transfer" paradigm! My real intention was to prevent confused students from what it appears to be unexplained but rather common practice: they attend neuroscience conferences and lectures during which papers on "translation" are presented, and they end up listening to hard-core neurobiology stuff. Thanks for coining the term "translatology", it IS useful and definitely helps more than "translation studies" which is way too vague.

While it is a prescriptive scientific study of translation, translatology also opens spaces for descriptive observations a translator produces in real working situations, looking at the translator’s unique mental processes. On the other hand, translators do more than “translate”; upon deep reflection, the individual creates new knowledge during the cognitive process of reflection (translatology). Is this accurate?

I don't agree that it is a prescriptive study; if it is a scientific study, it cannot be prescriptive, only descriptive. The prescriptive part (translation criticism) belongs to another field.

Dear Prof Villacorta,

Translatology was meant to cover scientific approaches to (later, within) translation studies. By definition, it is empirical, hence descriptive, be it qualitative or quantitative. In my humble opinion, Prof Harris coined the term to frame his claim that we should study the phenomenon as it spontaneously emerges in the communicative behavior of bilinguals, and not only in professionals. So it was and is literally the opposite from prescriptivist approaches. Current views on CTIS and on non-profesional translation and interpreting have inherited and substantiated this view.

Check James S Holmes The Name and Nature of Translation Studies. You could probably just use them as synonyms. A lot of this is about who coined which term, claiming parenthood of the term, this just encourages more terms. I think this problem is characteristic of tradutranslatology studies

Dear Patrick, I beg to disagree. Colleagues using Translation Studies may see them as synonymous, but nearly all of the few of us using Translatology apply it exclusively to scientific approaches, leaving out comaprative literature and other approachers, which do fit under the overall umbrella of Translation Studies. As envisioned, btw, by both Holmes and Toury.

Dear Ricardo,

Consensus. If only a few use a term within a field that’s not good. Typical of our discipline: needs to be corrected. I hope you are not implying that compararive literature (anything for that matter) cannot be studied scientifically. Scientific method is a range of methods based on positivism, not a subject matter

Dear Patrick

No, I just meant what I wrote :-)

I wish that was our only terminological quandary, but we are not so different from other research realms in the social sciences.

I would not go for 'translatology' or 'traductology' simply those are bad forms semantically, concocted from two roots coming from two different languages - Greek and Latin, roughly comparable to 'sociology'. Also, if the connotation is roughly one of 'science', I think that's wrong - there is no science of translation. Thirdly, somebody referred to 'prescriptive' or 'descriptive' aspects. The notion of 'translation' itself is normative in the sense that all translations are subject to normative criteria (of success and failure), and the ethical considerations play always a major part (in the triad - translator, the source language text, the target language beneficiary). I added here one text on translation of ambiguity, that's an issue always. As to some other aspects, I think you should consult with A. Pym.

“There is no science in translation”. 1 translation can benefit from applied science of many fields. 2. Must distinguish translation practice from the (scientific) studie(s) of translation phenomena

The 1st rule of translation studies is to distinguish it from translation. One can apply scientific method to studying translation (or anything for that matter).

What's in a name, as the bard would say. I prefer Interpretation Studies myself since it brings in the pragmatics of alignment between world-visions and cultural perspectives, adaptation and localisation, the social science of getting the message across (the translation) without destroying the essence. I find Manguel's thoughts on interpretation/translation inspiring in that respect. But alas! As few people actually call Simultaneous Interpreting what it is and how it is, reverting to the use of Simultaneous Translation as if it were mechanical, I find it difficult to imagine its more mainstream use as the "blanket" term for the subject. However, it would be positive in times when AI threatens to reduce the general public's idea of transfer of messages as, at the best, Deep Translation. My take, anyway