We thus need a conceptualization of the human actor as a socialized individual. We need a sociology at the individual level, analyzing social reality in its individualized, internalized form (Lahire 2003, 2004). Until now, Translation Studies has conceptualized this socialized individual mainly as a professional (Simeoni 1998; Sela-Sheffy 2005; Inghilleri 2003, 2005; Gambier 2006). Translators, though, are always more than mere translators. A socialized individual cannot be reduced to a profession: "The habitus of a translator is the elaborate result of a personalized social and cultural history" (Simeoni

1998:32). Furthermore, in situations where the professional field is not (or is only weakly) differentiated, this individualized history is likely to make up most of a translator's habitus, particularly in periods prior to the second half of the twentieth century. Many social domains (politics, religion, arts, economics) have been evolving into relatively autonomous fields over the past two centuries (cf. Bourdieu 1971), and translation is no exception. Only a few major translator-training institutes were founded prior to the 1930s (Caminade and Pym 1995), and it was not before the 1960s and 1970s that their number started to increase and spread out geographically, with a real boom after the 1980s. The large majority of translations in human history would seem to be produced by what we would call "non-professional translators". Research on translation thus mostly deals with situations where, in Toury's terms, bilingual or multilingual speakers become translators (cf. Toury 1995:241ff.). We find numerous situations where translators are simultaneously writers, critics, lawyers, philosophers, teachers, monks, priests, kings, diplomats, etc. In all these cases, insight is needed into these actors' various and variable internalization of broader social, cultural, political and linguistic structures, of both the institutional and discursive kind. This helps us grasp the actors’ actual position-takings, their possible role in the dynamics of constraints on positions, and the evolution of their translational choices at the micro-structural and macro-structural levels. These choices concern a continuum ranging from the specific socio-stylistic aspects of habitus-governed translating to an individual’s willingness or refusal to be a translator. They exclusively depend neither on individual preferences nor on collective norms but require instead an analysis of the relations between structure and agency.

The usefulness of a dynamic and plural subject-grounded category that goes beyond the purely professional is most evident in a professionally non-differentiated or weakly differentiated multilingual context where the various source and targetlanguages, cultures and people share the same space within a particular institutional framework. This is precisely the type of context in which people's social and cultural history is often intricately linked to linguistic and cultural oppositions and tensions (cf. Even-Zohar 2005). How do translators find their way through complex webs of competing norms and socio-political, sociolinguistic structures? How are we to understand variations and evolutions in translators' profiles and choices in relation to the overall structural and normative model? Part of the answer lies in the individual's dynamic and varying internalizations of the norms and structures of the source and target fields, and of their mutual contacts and intersections.

责任编辑：admin