Delving Further in Skopostheorie Deborah Shadd Nida Institute October 2014

Delving Further into Skopostheorie A Functional Typology of Translations The Translation Brief Evaluating Functional Translations Criticisms of Skopostheorie

A Functional Typology of Translations “Text function is, therefore, a pragmatic quality assigned to a text by the receiver in a particular situation and not something attached to, or inherent in, the text. Thus, it seems only logical that the function of the source text is specific to the original situation and cannot be left invariant or ‘preserved’ through the translation process. The function of the target text, on the other hand, is specific to the target situation, and it is an illusion that a target text should have automatically the ‘same’ function as the original.” (Nord 1997: 49) Both source and target text need to be considered in terms of their intended functions before an adequate translation strategy can be determined.

A Functional Typology of Translations Primary division into two types: Documentary translation “a document of the situation in which a SC sender communicates with SC receivers via the source text… various aspects of which are reproduced in the target language” (1997: 51) Marked as a translation, rendering audience “conscious of ‘observing’ a communicative interaction of which they are not a part” Instrumental translation “an instrument in a new TC situation in which the ST sender communicates with the TC receivers via the target text which has been produced under TT conditions” (52) Audience may not be aware or may not care that they are reading a translation

A Functional Typology of Translations Subdivision of each of these primary types: Documentary translations Interlinear – focuses on reproducing morphological, lexical or syntactic features of the source language system Literal – reproduces the words of the original, but adapting syntactic structures and idiomatic use of vocabulary to target language norms Philological – fairly literal reproduction, but addition necessary cultural or linguistic information (often in footnotes or glossaries) Exoticising – maintaining cultural elements to produce an ‘exotic’ effect in what would have been familiar to original audience In all these cases, a metatextual function predominates

A Functional Typology of Translations Subdivision of each of these primary types: Instrumental translations Equifunctional – where function of source and target texts are the same Heterofunctional– where source text function(s) cannot be maintained entirely or in same hierarchical arrangement Homologous – achieving the same effect as the source text, displaying a similar degree of originality / creativity Primary direct function may be referential, appellative, phatic, expressive, etc.

A Functional Typology of Translations Documentary Translation Instrumental Translation Interlineal Equifunctional Literal Heterofunctional Philological Homologous Exoticising

The Translation Brief A translation brief… specifies the intended purpose(s) of the translation process defines the conditions under which the target text should carry out its particular function A translation brief should contain information about: The intended text function The people involved Audience / Initiator The motive or reason for the production of the text The prospective context of reception Time / Place / Sociocultural considerations The medium over which the text will be transmitted

The Translation Brief Because translation briefs are prospective rather than retrospective, they can used to develop a systematic approach to translation problems. Three main categories of translation problems: Pragmatic – arising from differences in contextual and extratextual factors Cultural – arising from differences in the norms and conventions verbal and non-verbal communication Linguistic – arising from structural differences between the two languages Beginning translators often have a tendency to move from the bottom up. In functional translation, however, problems should be dealt with in a top-down movement.

The Translation Brief The skopos of the translation, as laid out in the translation brief, thus becomes… The central statement defining a translation’s intended purpose The fundamental basis for all decisions made throughout the translation process The standard against which the translation project is evaluated “Once the translation purpose has been defined explicitly, critics can only judge whether or not the translation achieves the intended purposes, regardless of their own subjective theory of what a translation is or should be.” (Nord 2001)

Evaluating Functional Translations In a functionalist perspective, translations are evaluated in terms of adequacy rather than equivalence: “Within the framework of Skopostheorie, ‘adequacy’ refers to the qualities of a target text with regard to the translation brief: the translation should be adequate to the requirements of the brief. It is a dynamic concept related to the process of translation action and referring to the ‘goal-oriented selection of signs that are considered appropriate for the communicative purpose defined in the translation assignment.’” (Du 2012) Translation errors are defined in terms of the purpose of the translation process, and can be ranked in terms of seriousness according to the same hierarchy of problems already seen: Pragmatic errors Cultural errors Linguistic errors

Criticisms of Skopostheorie Criticism #3: Functional approaches transgress the limits of translation proper. Functionalism is a theory of adaptation. “On the basis of modern translation theory, we can talk of ‘translation’ when a source text (of oral or written nature) has, for a particular purpose, been used as a model for the production of a text in the target culture. As translator, I am also in a position to judge when a source text is unsuitable as model for a target culture text, and to propose to the client the production of a new text for that culture.” (Ammann 1989: 107-108)

Criticisms of Skopostheorie Criticism #3: Functional approaches transgress the limits of translation proper. Functionalism is a theory of adaptation. Response: In linguistically based textual theories, a constant need to relativize ‘equivalence’ to account for real world conditions If it occurs in professional practice, it should be accounted for in our theory. Functionalism allows this. Tendency to focus on instances of instrumental translation “This impression is really no more than a form of ‘selective reception’, a quite normal process whereby, confronted by a large offer of information, we pay attention to only those items that succeed in awaking our interest or our disapproval.” (120)

Criticisms of Skopostheorie Criticism #6: Functionalism produces mercenary experts. In Pym 1996, “mercenary experts, able to fight under the flag of any purpose able to pay them” Response: Translation briefs are always the result of a negotiation process. Need to distinguish between the skopos and the actual procedures used to achieve them. Neither the skopos nor the theory dictate how translation is to be carried out. Translator still responsible to justify decisions by rational arguments.

Criticisms of Skopostheorie Criticism #7: Functionalism does not respect the original. Based on the assumption that a focus on the needs and expectations of the target audience entails losing site of ‘the’ source text Response: “The form in which the source text lies before the translator is a product of the many variables of the situation (time, place, addressees) in which it originated, and the way this form is interpreted and understood by the translator or any other receiver is guided by the variables of the new reception situation, including, of course, the translator’s competence in text analysis, which may help them to relativize their own standpoint.” (119)

Criticisms of Skopostheorie Criticism #10: Functionalism is marked by cultural relativism. Response: “I would in principle agree with this statement, but I do not take it as a negative criticism.” (120) Developed in reaction against universalistic tendencies in earlier theoretical approaches Focus on cultural complexity in context guards against assumption of fixed holistic cultural systems