A Historical Horizon Of Translation Studies

There are correspondences in chronology and correlations in theme among George Steiner's narration about the history of Translation Studies, Foucault's archaeology of the human sciences, and Jameson's theory of history periodization. Therefore, we are guided into a historical horizon formed of translation studies, episteme and mode of production. Translation studies get the rules of constructing themselves from episteme, and basic motive force and condition of shapes transforming from Mode of Production.There is an interactive relationship between Translation Studies and Episteme named by Foucault. On one hand, translation studies construct its inner knowledge and methods according to the episteme rules of different period. On the other hand, the episteme rules of different period will project and run itself in the Translation Studies in that period. In this interactive relationship, the continuity of translation studies surrounding the translation fidelity gains the form of rupture. And it has formed a sequence: from experiential narration to universal hermeneutics, then to form-structural linguistics, finally return to philosophical hermeneutics.The mode of production has made up of the "absent causes" of translation studies. The transition of capitalism , national market capitalism , monopolizing capitalism and multinational capitalism have caused the lingual logic conversion from symbol, integrated signs(realism), signs(modernism) to signifiers(post-modernism). Therefore, translation has gained three different methods: translation on symbol, translation on signs and translation on signifiers. This conversion can also correspond to the track of transition of capitalism.Nevertheless, in the narration of Niranjana and Spivak , George Steiner ignored the dissymmetry relationship among different languages during the colonial reign. Foucault was cheated by the narrow vision caused by the imperialist topography. So they had actually lapped over the colonialism discourse and being reevaluated as the vestiges of colonialism discourse or something restricted by the colonialism vision. Their narrations have actually leaded to the oppugning of scientific validity of translation studies and episteme.Whether emphasizing the dissymmetry relationship among languages or imperial topography both mean to comprehend issues in the geographic structure of the First World/the Third World. And this actually returns to the mode of production: the differentiation of the First World and the Third World is just the dimensional result of capital outstretching. But the difference between the two worlds is not only space but also including languages. So there are three directions in the translation: inside the languages of the First World, from the First World language to the Third World language, and from the Third World language to the First World language Both Niranjana and Spivak mainly discuss translation between the First and the Third World. What they are lack of is the direction inside the First World and this requires us return to the intertextual reading of George Steiner's, Foucault's and Jameson's works.