LSP translation

Taylor (2006) writes about the relations between languages for specific purposes (LSP) and translation strategies. He makes attempts to partially limit the scope of the LSP term and notes that while individual contributions have widened the scope of subjects of LSP, the related literature has usually concentrated on a limited number of areas, mainly science, technology, medicine, law and economics. Taylor concedes that in the widest sense of the term LSP could cover areas like basketball or stamp collecting, there is a limited range of conventionally

accepted LSP texts. In contrast, according to the aforementioned chapter by Gotti and Šarčević (2006: 9–11), the term LSP has gradually been replaced with the term “specialized translation”, which for the purposes of this study is a more fitting term, as the term LSP, as Taylor (2006: 27–28) points out, conventionally has a limited scope. A contrasting point to this is offered by Faber (2012: 1), who states in a footnote that she prefers to use the term specialized language as she sees the term LSP to be too general.

Continuing on the topic of LSP in the same volume, Sandrini (2006: 107) writes an article about the changes globalization has made on LSP translation. As he points out, through globalization LSP settings have become increasingly multilingual. In the context of this study the statement holds especially true, as playing, watching and discussing e-sports is a truly global phenomenon.

Sandrini (2006: 107–110) begins his article with a description of LSP translation. According to him, the first point of a definition for LSP translation is linked to the skopos theory.

Sandrini briefly explains the theory through a citation by Nord (1997: 29), which states that all texts are produced to serve a specific purpose. Texts should be translated in a way that allows them to fulfill the desired purpose in a desired way. According to Sandrini, the first assumption for defining LSP translation is that the translations are governed by skopos, though he does not mention whether this differs in comparison to general translation. Sandrini expands this concept by stating that translation is a part of a certain discipline’s global communication. This leads to the requirement of taking into account both the communicative framework of a certain discipline, which is linked to the discipline’s methodology, and the fact that experts of the discipline convey information in ways specific to the disciplines norms.

Sandrini (2006: 109–110) presents his definition of LSP translation, which he claims to combine elements of both translation and specialized communication:

LSP translation shall be the 1. exteriorisation of

2. specialised knowledge systems and cognitive processes

3. weighed and selected from an information offer (interiorisation)

4. with the objective of disseminating them in another linguistic (interlingual) and 5. cultural context (transcultural)

6. governed by skopos.

While this type of definition of LSP translation seems to fit the concept of translating an e-sports text, it should be remembered that, akin to Taylor (2006), Sandrini uses the quite dated concept of LSP, which, even in his text, is limited to a few specific disciplines like law or medicine. This, however, proves the point of Gotti and Šarčević (2006), who note that the fairly limited concept of LSP has been gradually replaced by more open terms like specialized translation.

Writing an article about the topic of LSP translation, Archibald (2016) focuses on the topic of translating political discourse. Specifically, he focuses on the difficulties a translator can face when translating these politically sensitive texts. Archibald (2016: 2) introduces the term

“politeme”, which he defines to mean a “politically laden term”. He claims that for the translator working on a text of a political nature, the understanding of the political lexicon and the typology as well as the narrative of the text are especially important. Continuing on the concept of politemes, Archibald explains that politemes are politically laden terms that can be understood in differing ways depending on the political disposition of the reader. He notes that it is the translator’s duty to understand both the ideology and the intent of a given political text and its politemes. This ties in with what previous sources like Faber (2012) or Popescu & Cohen-Vida (2015) have said regarding the translator needing to be able to understand the special subject field of a given text and to recognize terminological units within said text.

Deviating slightly from talking about LSPs and their translation, Sandrini (2006: 112–113) writes a chapter about cultures and subject fields. While talking about disciplines, he again works with the limitations of the concept of LSPs. Sandrini states that every discipline has a distinct culture due to the specific values and norms being embedded in the ideology and methodology of a specific discipline. These cultures generate special text types, which leads to translators needing to master these specific text types both actively and passively.

According to Sandrini, most disciplines that exist globally also have globalized their internal cultures, as all of their characteristics apply worldwide. He uses medicine as an example, which has broad global consensus on concepts like ethics of practice.

The concept of subject fields being their own cultures presented by Sandrini (2006: 112–113) applies very well to the concept of e-sports. E-sports or competitive video gaming is due to its nature quite fragmented, as not all people who are part of the e-sports culture play, watch or discuss all of the different video games that are played competitively globally. Indeed, some fans of e-sports culture may follow only a specific game or in extreme cases a specific star player. There are also major global differences in how much different videogames are played or watched depending on which part of the world is observed. In spite all of this, the e-sports culture is very similar in any part of the world across all of the different video games. An outsider to the e-sports culture could observe a fighting game tournament in North America or a strategy game tournament in South Korea and notice only a difference in the gameplay shown on the screen.