2013 Norms of Translation_Wiley Encycl Applied Lingcs Ed C Chapelle

Norms of TranslationTHEO HERMANS If we assume that translation serves a communicative purpose, some degree of coordination between the participants in the process—sender and receiver, ego and alter—will be necessary. The concept of norms has been deployed in the study of translation in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the factors governing the communicative behavior of translators and the interaction between translators and their audiences. There has been a good deal of theoretical reflection on the role of norms in the context of translation and translation studies (Toury, 1980, 1995; Frank & Schultze, 1988; Hermans, 1991, 1996, 1999; Nord, 1991: Chesterman, 1993, 1997; Schäffner, 1997) and the issue has gained renewed attention with the recent interest in the sociology of translation (Wolf & Fukari, 2007; Pym, Shlesinger, & Simeoni, 2008). In what follows I will first set out the concept of norms in general terms before explaining how it has been used in the study of translation. I will then consider some of the applications and implications of the norms concept in translation studies. The Concept of Norms The concept of norms has proved useful in a range of social sciences, from law and ethics to social psychology and international relations (Hjort, 1992), but there is no unanimity as regards terminology or the exact distinctions between norms, conventions, rules, constraints, and other similar terms. The term “norm” may refer both to a regularity in behavior and to the mechanism which accounts for this regularity. The mechanism has a socially regulatory function and comprises a psychological as well as a social dimension. It mediates between the individual and the collective, between the individual’s intentions, choices, and expectations, and collectively held beliefs, values, and preferences. Norms bear on the interaction between people, more especially on the degree of coordination required for the continued, more or less harmonious coexistence with others in a group. Norms contribute to the stability of interpersonal relations by reducing uncertainty about how others will act. By generalizing from past experience and allowing projections concerning similar types of situation in the future, norms help to make behavior more predictable. Translation in a social environment involves transactions between several parties who have an interest in these transactions taking place. The translator, as one of the decisionmaking parties in the transaction, is an agent whose actions are neither wholly free nor predetermined, especially as the entire process is played out in the context of existing social structures. The more the parties can coordinate their actions, the greater the likelihood that they will consider their interaction successful. To appreciate the role of norms and conventions in solving interpersonal coordination problems, we may start from the definition of convention provided by the American philosopher David Lewis (1969). Lewis describes conventions as regularities in behavior which emerge as contingent solutions to recurrent problems of interpersonal coordination. The solutions are contingent in that they are neither necessary nor impossible: they could The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0873 but they presuppose a degree of common knowledge and acceptance. Norms imply that there is a course of action which is more or less strongly preferred because it is accepted as proper or correct or appropriate. As the prescriptive force of norms increases from the permissive to the mandatory. 1969. 1990. which may be understood as institutionalized. Whereas cognitive expectations respond to what “is. In all these manifestations they help to increase predictability by reducing the risk of communication misfiring. even though these remain available in principle. the mutually shared expectation about what course of action to adopt in certain types of situation may grow beyond a mere preference and acquire a binding character. become norms by falling victim to their own success. but they are able to cope with a relatively large amount of discrepant behavior. norms provide relative stability and hence security. they do so more slowly than individual behavior. 1959). stretching as far as prescriptions at one end and proscriptions at the other. Like conventions. usually explicit obligations and prohibitions issued by an identifiable authority with the power to impose specific sanctions for transgressions. Norms can be understood as stronger. Because they form part of the fabric of social expectations. They cover the entire range of preferences and permissions. Norms may be strong or weak. p. In this respect the relation between behavior and norms is similar to that between parole and langue. p. prescriptive versions of conventions. p. Conventions are not norms. while they change in response to changing values and persistent or conspicuous transgressions. backed up with inducements and rewards or the threat of sanctions. Normative expectations. the latter is kept intact and “correct” behavior continues to be expected at the next occurrence.” normative expectations stipulate what “ought” to be the case. 97. 2008. I will adopt a certain course of action. p. on the individual level. when something unexpected happens. norms derive their legitimacy from shared knowledge and mutual expectations. To the extent. however. propensities to act in certain ways. The directive force of a norm is a matter of social pressure. the expectation accommodates the new information and changes accordingly. Niklas Luhmann speaks of norms as “counterfactually stabilised behavioral expectations” (1995. they become internalized as dispositions. more or less durable. Unlike conventions. however. or event and structure. If they prove effective. 43). and narrow or broad in scope. a particular selection from among the range of possibilities. They can. by contrast. If a convention has served its purpose sufficiently well for long enough. norms have a directive character: They tell individuals not just how others expect them to behave but how others prefer them to behave. more or less emphatically. 321. In this sense norms do not preclude conscious agency or erratic conduct. At that point the modality of the expectation changes from cognitive to normative (Galtung. these solutions become the preferred course of action for individuals in a given type of situation. They do not have to be explicitly agreed. Conventions grow from precedent into social habit.2 norms of translation have been different. . working as a problem-solving device by offering ready-made templates for action. They can and will be breached. 39). that norms are inculcated as part of an individual’s socialization. and my expectation that others expect me to adopt that course of action. they are largely internalized. Hence norms may act as constraints on the individuals’ decision making by foreclosing certain options. when things happen which do not accord with the expectation. are unwilling to learn or adjust. they move away from conventions toward rules. in a given situation. At the same time norms suggest. although the distinction is not always made and conventions are sometimes regarded as implicit norms or “quasi-norms” (Lewis. Cognitive expectations are willing to adjust to changing events. They imply reciprocal expectations and the expectation of expectations: the expectation of others that. Hjort. p. and process or production norms on the other. which he subdivided into product or expectancy norms on the one hand. saw two norms governing the translator’s decision making: one that was reproductive and concerned with how to represent the original. Chesterman’s process or production norms are broken up into three kinds: an accountability norm. which distinguish between translation and other kinds of rewriting such as parody or adaptation. commissioners. by grammatical categories) and total unpredictability (wholly idiosyncratic one-off choices). Various operational norms guide decision making during the actual business of translating. clients. a relation norm. 69). 52). adding that audiences might well project different norms on a work of art than those initially observed by its creator. the Czech theorist JiÕí Levn invoked game theory to describe translating as a decision-making process: Between the two extremes of total predictability (decisions necessitated. audiences. Different historical periods. and fellow translators. which stipulates that translators should optimize communication in accordance with Gricean maxims. pp. They largely determine what will be accepted as proper or legitimate translation by a particular community and thus stake out the perimeter of the concept of translation for that community. Product or expectancy norms reflect the expectation of what a translation should look like. In an influential essay from 1967. Elsewhere Levn.norms of translation 3 Norms in Translation Studies With respect to translation. p. What constitutes . The relevance of norms in this outlook is that the sum of the choices made by the translator determines the shape of the end product and hence not just the nature of the relation between the translation and its proto-text but also the way the translation is likely to be perceived by the audience for which it is intended. Preliminary norms govern the choice of what to translate in the first place. the initial norm steers the translator either toward preserving as much as possible of the original or toward producing a well-formed new text. norms are relevant only to the extent that translators or other participants in the transaction make decisions. Apart from the social and ethical norms which govern communication in general. put the emphasis now on one and then on the other norm and valued translations accordingly. which ensures that “an appropriate relation of relevant similarity is established and maintained between the source text and the target text” (1997. Toury saw norms as performance instructions for translators and distinguished different kinds of norms operating at different stages of the translation process. readers. who in the 1930s and 1940s had described the individual work of art as “a complex tangle of norms” and a “confrontation of heterogeneous norms” (1978. who made the norms concept a central plank in his descriptivist program for the study of translation. and fellow translators into account. and most importantly. The norms in each case were those factors that constrained the translator’s freedom of choice (Levn. 175–86) distinguished translation-specific “technical” norms. for example. 1969. Andrew Chesterman took the interaction between translators. 1976). which is ethical in nature and regulates personal relations between translators and other stakeholders such as authors. Popovig. and finally. each move represents a choice from among a given set of alternatives and in turn conditions the next move. Both Levn and Popovig drew on the Czech structuralist Jan MukaÕovskn. a communication norm. and shortly afterwards Anton Popovig. with matricial norms regulating the macrostructure of the text and textuallinguistic norms affecting microstructures. they suggested. They correspond to what Christiane Nord (1991) had previously called the constitutive conventions of translation. Chesterman (1997. and one that was productive and concerned with the wellformedness of the new text. Whereas Toury approached norms very much from the point of view of the translator’s decision making. and drew on theoretical discussions in other disciplines. Much the same approach was taken by Gideon Toury (1995). In this sense.4 norms of translation relevant similarity. so that repeated recourse to certain options can gain relief against the backdrop . but taking a broader view. In neither case is the inference without risk. All the process or production norms operate at a level below that of product or expectancy norms. and they are likely to defer to the rules governing textual well-formedness in these genres. Nevertheless the importance of the norms concept for translation is that it allows a revision of the traditional notion of what constitutes a correct translation. if a text is accepted as a translation. Christiane Nord speaks here of regulative conventions. Considered from a norm-theoretical point of view. An additional difficulty is that norms are not directly observable. Tejaswini Niranjana suggests that translation is overdetermined by religious. and behavior. In other words. 21). Statements about norms may reflect individual intentions or attitudes rather than shared expectations. Separating out the demands stemming from the kinds of texts for which translation caters from normative expectations specific to translation is problematic because translations are never just translations. researchers have faced the problem of identifying translation norms. or the type of original to be translated. such as skopos theorists Hans Vermeer and Christiane Nord (see Nord. these may include the translation brief or a particular translation tradition. Adherents of functionalist approaches to translation. Many decisions translators make can be ascribed to norms governing the acceptability of texts as such. Toury argued that norms give substance to equivalence. and how it is to be achieved will depend on the circumstances. In his view. norms determine the concrete shape of that equivalence relation in specific instances. Whereas early theorists like Levn and Toury treated norms primarily as constraints which simplified the translator’s decision making by foreclosing undesirable options. stability. subsequent approaches stressed the interaction between various stakeholders as well as the importance of ideological values underpinning social norms. in that they regulate the kind of translation that will result. From a methodological point of view it seems obvious that studying translation through the prism of norm theory requires a substantial number of translations. They are translated novels or contracts or speeches or recipes. without necessarily involving translation-specific norms. Only the third of Chesterman’s process or production norms is properly a translation norm. this adequacy involves respect for or violation of norms. Applications and Implications The introduction of the concept of norms into translation studies enabled the contextualization of translation and offered a tool for historical research at a time when cultural rather than linguistic factors came to be seen as relevant to understanding translation in its social manifestations. 1997). translation seems to be affected by a multiplicity of norms. p. Whatever the emphasis. sexual. and the confirmation of the status quo to norm breaking and its potential to challenge the social order. the others are not exclusive to translation. correctness in translation cannot be predetermined but is a matter of compliance with prevailing norms of translation. Others shifted the emphasis from observance. what type of similarity is considered appropriate. it follows axiomatically that the relation of equivalence between the translation and its original obtains. but many of these apply to all manner of communication and indeed all manner of behavior. have suggested that equivalence is an inappropriate term in this context and that translations can be measured in terms of their “adequacy” to the context in which they are deployed. They must be inferred. either from statements about them or from behavior. the supposed needs of a prospective audience. even recurrent behavior or patterns of behavior. may be explained in multiple ways. and economic discourses (1992. racial. and there is no easy solution to it. translation norms in their totality can be said to inform the translation poetics of particular periods and cultures. and how the resulting translations are likely to be received. and in any case the lines separating individual preferences. SEE ALSO: Cultural Identity. The process amounts. more often than not. critical approval or rebuke. The inclusions and exclusions. The idea that translation is overdetermined by other discourses has implications for translator training. Through examples of good practice and analysis of errors it fosters conscious awareness of the rules of the game. across natural languages. selects for translation from outside its own sphere. Retranslations as well as translations which have caused controversy tend to be particularly rewarding objects for study. we need to find a way to translate them into our contemporary disciplinary idiom and. it follows that the scholarly translation of translation which takes place in translation studies cannot entirely avoid being contaminated by its object. Learning to translate means acquiring the knowledge and skill necessary to produce adequate translations. Even then the choices made need to be further contextualized with reference to such things as commercial success or failure. a translation poetics provides an index of cultural self-perception and self-definition.norms of translation 5 of available alternatives. This calls into doubt the neat separation between object-level and meta-level. or a relevant subsection of it. A poetics may be understood as made up of a body of mostly normative textual expectations together with a set of canonical models and practices. in one way or another. Strategies of Translation . by becoming increasingly self-reflexive and by drawing on the ethical norms regulating professional translating as well as those governing academic scholarship and research. they may translate out of a sense of need or curiosity. They have done so primarily. Training. and the public response to the end products are indicative of how that culture sees itself. conventions. The study of translation and translations must translate. how it will process the data. the modes of translation that are chosen or rejected. But if we study norm complexes in their historical setting. Like ethnography and historiography. The concept of norms has thus gained an unexpected relevance. in the last decade or so. in Pierre Bourdieu’s terminology. to the acquisition of an appropriate habitus enabling the novice translator to become a player in the field. The competent translator should therefore be able not just to translate in accordance with relevant expectations but to decide when it is right or appropriate either to follow suit or to transgress—together with a realistic assessment of the consequences of these decisions. Viewed in a broader cultural and historical context. If translation is a normgoverned activity. Cultures may adopt welcoming or defensive stances. which in turn means the ability to negotiate the demands of the relevant discourses. It is a predicament students of translation share with ethnographers and historians. Certainty as to the impact of norms on the translator’s choices is not to be had. Sociological Approaches to Translation. or because the choice whether or not to translate is denied them. translation studies have devised ways of living with the paradox. norms. not just as a tool to unlock translation but as an instrument of disciplinary reflection. The study of norms is not itself a normative activity. does more than merely inculcate routines. however. prevailing models and explicit normative statements. and rules remain blurred. Pragmatics and Culture. Whatever the configuration in particular instances. as revisions and critical debate bring the players’ assumptions and expectations to the surface. A translation poetics in this broad sense largely determines what a culture. since such definitions involve positioning oneself in relation to otherness. Toury.-Á.). CT: Yale University Press.6 norms of translation References Chesterman. 25–55). Manchester. (1993). Amsterdam. A. Canada: University of Alberta. (Eds. history and culture (pp. Rules and conventions: Literature. Netherlands: Rodopi. Clevedon. In S. & Simeoni. England: St. Translation studies: The state of the art (pp. J. Amsterdam. 1171–82). 24–51). Die Moral der Gesellschaft (pp.). Die literarische Übersetzung: Theorie einer Kunstgattung (W. Levn. Amsterdam. Chesterman. Pym. Amsterdam. social theory.). (Ed. N. Stanford. M.). Target. (1978). Berkeley: University of California Press. Beyond descriptive translation studies: Investigations in homage to Gideon Toury. Popovig. P. van Leuven-Zwart & T. (1995). (1996). Translation in systems: Descriptive and systemic approaches explained.. Burbank & P. Frankfurt. (1976). Frankfurt. (2007). Trans. Israel: Porter Institute. Constructing a sociology of translation. Schäffner. Netherlands: John Benjamins. Special issue of Current Issues in Language and Society. 5. . (Ed. MA: Harvard University Press. A. In search of a theory of translation. 3(1). 38–45). post-structuralism and the colonial context. Hermans. Kittel (Ed. 5. Norms and the determination of translation: A theoretical framework. New Haven. (1997). (1959). Hjort. (Original work published 1963) Lewis. Manchester.). Hermans. G. Trans. Bednarz. Translation and norms. Levn. C. 155–70). A. (1997).). T. Translation. (1991). Inquiry. Netherlands: John Benjamins. MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. J. Nord. Cambridge. Convention: A philosophical study. and translational conventions. subversion (pp. 96–121). Netherlands: De Gruyter. A. Wolf. Germany: Erich Schmidt. (1980). Hermans. Lefevere (Eds. and Eds. (2008). power. Amsterdam. Structure. In To honor Roman Jakobson (vol.. M. A. Steiner. Germany: Athenäum. B. England: Pinter. M. Netherlands: John Benjamins. England: Multilingual Matters. loyalty.). In R. Toury. (1967). 2. Translational norms and correct translations. C. In D. England: St. Schamschula. pp.). Germany: Suhrkamp. (1999). Translation. (1991). Scopos. Horster (Ed. C. (2008). In H. T. Baltimore. Netherlands: John Benjamins. The Hague. (Eds. (Original work published 1969) MukaÕovskn. Normen in historisch-deskriptiven Übersetzungsstudien. M. A.. Normen in soziologischer Perspektive. A. In K. T. Die literarische Übersetzung: Stand und Perspektiven ihrer Erforschung (pp. 91–110. Jerome. Shlesinger. D. & Fukari. 1–27. Hjort. (1969). (1997). (1995). & Schultze. Nord. Memes of translation: The spread of ideas in translation theory. Vidal (Eds.). J. G. Jerome. philosophy. Social systems (J. (1990).. Galtung. N. norms and strategies in translation studies. (1988). Translating as a purposeful activity. A. Tel Aviv. Dictionary for the analysis of literary translation. D. Luhmann. Translation as a decision process. Siting translation: History. Descriptive translation studies and beyond. sign and function: Selected essays (J. J. CA: Stanford University Press. From “is” to “ought”: Laws. Trans. Edmonton.). London. Frank. Niranjana. (Original work published 1984) Luhmann. Bassnett & A.). Berlin.). (1969). 2. Expectations and interaction processes. (1992). T. (1992). 213–34. Álvarez & C. Naaijkens (Eds. Target. Translation and the consequences of scepticism. norm and value as social facts (M.). Suino. In H. Sela-Sheffy. R. (1992). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Normen des literarischen Übersetzens im System der Literatur. Aesthetic function. Trans. (Original work published 1936) Poltermann. System. Kittel (Ed. (1970).). Geschichte. J.norms of translation 7 Suggested Readings MukaÕovskn. systems. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. 1–26. 17. . Target. (2005). 5–31). How to be a (recognized) translator: Rethinking habitus. norms and the field of translation. Literarische Übersetzung: Histories. literary translations (pp. A.