ETI 301ETI 301

Descriptive Translation StudiesDescriptive Translation Studies

and Normsand Norms

Neslihan Kansu-YetkinerNeslihan Kansu-Yetkiner

What is Polysystem theory about?

Polysystem theory was suggested in 1969 and 1970, sub-sequently reformulated and developed in a number of later studies and improved, then shared, advanced, enlarged, and experimented with by a number of scholars in various countries, mainly by Even-Zohar).

In the Dictionary of Translation Studies polysystem theory is defined as a theory to account for the behavior and evolution of literary system.

In polysystem theory a literary work is not studied in isolation but as part of a literary system. In other words literature is a part of social, cultural, literary and historical framework. A literary system can influence other ones. It's to say, the translated literature which is being imported to a country can influence the native writings. These effects can be more or less in according to some causes and effects.

Snell-Hornby in her book Translation Studies an Integrated Approach points to translation system within the polysystem and writes that in this theory literary translation is seen as one of the elements participating in the constant struggle for survival and domination. It is emphasized that translations play a primary, creative and innovative role within the literary system. Hence, in this approach, translation is seen essentially as a text-type in its own right, as an integral part of the target culture and not merely as a reproduction of another text (Snell-Hornby 1988:24)

As we know, the literature of every country consists of 'original' writings and 'translated' writings.

Even-Zohar (1978: 193-194) gives three major cases when translated literature can occupy the primary position in a country:

(a) When a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to say, when a literature is 'young' in the process of being established;

(b) When a literature is either 'peripheral' (within a large group of correlated literature) or ' weak, ' or both; and

(c) When there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuum in a literature.

Think about TANZİMAT.

Gideon Gideon Toury and DTSToury and DTS

Early work(1970s) was within Early work(1970s) was within polysystem theory. Sociocultural polysystem theory. Sociocultural study of lit. translated into Hebrew study of lit. translated into Hebrew between 1930-1945;between 1930-1945;

1980: In Search of a Theory of 1980: In Search of a Theory of TranslationTranslation

1995: Descriptive Translation 1995: Descriptive Translation Studies – And Beyond Studies – And Beyond

DTS: proposed methodologyDTS: proposed methodology

Focus is on description of translations, seen as Focus is on description of translations, seen as texts in their own right, which occupy a place texts in their own right, which occupy a place within the TL social and cultural system; within the TL social and cultural system; translation strategies employed are a result of translation strategies employed are a result of the position of Ts within the TC.the position of Ts within the TC.

Translated texts exist as “replacements” of Translated texts exist as “replacements” of specific ST in the receiving culture, so the idea specific ST in the receiving culture, so the idea is to describe them, trying to identify possible is to describe them, trying to identify possible regular patterns (regular patterns (normsnorms) that govern decisions ) that govern decisions in translation. The aim is NOT to judge a TT as in translation. The aim is NOT to judge a TT as correct or incorrect. correct or incorrect.

In other words, once a text is In other words, once a text is published as the translation of published as the translation of another text, it is, another text, it is, de factode facto, , accepted as equivalent to the ST. accepted as equivalent to the ST.

So, translation equivalence, becomes So, translation equivalence, becomes a fact, an empirical matter, a fact, an empirical matter, (Gentzler:128) (Gentzler:128) to be analysed rather than to be analysed rather than assessed against the ST for a assessed against the ST for a presumed or ideal correctness.presumed or ideal correctness.

Three-phase methodology for Three-phase methodology for systematic DTSsystematic DTS

1.1. Situate the text within the target culture Situate the text within the target culture system, looking at its significance or system, looking at its significance or acceptability.acceptability.

2.2. Compare the ST and TT for Compare the ST and TT for shiftsshifts, identifying , identifying relationships between relationships between ‘coupled pairs’ of ST‘coupled pairs’ of ST and TT segments, and trying to formulate and TT segments, and trying to formulate generalizations about the underlying concept generalizations about the underlying concept of translation. (1995: coupled pairs are chosen of translation. (1995: coupled pairs are chosen ad hoc, i.e., they differ in different case ad hoc, i.e., they differ in different case studies; flexible approach)studies; flexible approach)

3.3. Draw implications for decision-making in Draw implications for decision-making in future translating. future translating. (Munday: 112)(Munday: 112)

NORMS of translation behaviourNORMS of translation behaviour

The objective of case studies is to “make The objective of case studies is to “make generalizations regarding the decision-generalizations regarding the decision-making processes of the translator and making processes of the translator and then to reconstruct the ‘norms’ that have then to reconstruct the ‘norms’ that have been in operation in the translation.” been in operation in the translation.” (Munday:113) (Munday:113)

NORMS of translation behaviourNORMS of translation behaviour

““Norms are options that translators in a given socio-Norms are options that translators in a given socio-historical context select on a regular basis.” historical context select on a regular basis.” (Baker quoted in Munday: 113)(Baker quoted in Munday: 113)

One of the concepts that has been used differently within translation studies and whose value has been both asserted strongly and called into question, is the concept of norms.

Both Gideon Toury and Theo Hermans have contributed substantially to this debate and to the development of the concept of norms in and for translation studies.

Toury takes his definition of norm from sociology. He Toury takes his definition of norm from sociology. He defines a norm indefines a norm in the following way:the following way:

““the translation of general values or ideas shared by a the translation of general values or ideas shared by a community - as tocommunity - as to what is right and wrong, adequate what is right and wrong, adequate and inadequate - into performanceand inadequate - into performance instructions instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations,appropriate for and applicable to particular situations, specifying what is prescribed and forbidden as well as specifying what is prescribed and forbidden as well as what is toleratedwhat is tolerated and permitted in a certain behavioural and permitted in a certain behavioural dimension […]. (Toury 1995: 55)dimension […]. (Toury 1995: 55)

Norms can be reconstructed from:Norms can be reconstructed from:

Analysis of texts, which will reveal Analysis of texts, which will reveal regular patterns of behaviour, i.e., regular patterns of behaviour, i.e., recurring correspondences between ST recurring correspondences between ST and TT segments)and TT segments)

Explicit statements about norms by Explicit statements about norms by translators, publishers, reviewers, etc. translators, publishers, reviewers, etc. (which can, however, be biased).(which can, however, be biased).

Bartsch (1987: xii) defines norms as ‘the social reality of correctness notions’. That is, in each community there is a knowledge of what counts as correct or appropriate behaviour, including communicative behaviour. In a society, this knowledge exists in the form of norms. Norms are developed in the process of socialisation. They are conventional, they are shared by members of a community, i.e. they function intersubjectively as models for behaviour, and they also regulate expectations concerning both the behaviour itself and the products of this behaviour.

Bartsch (1987), who applied the norms concept to linguistics, differentiates between product norms and production norms, which, however, are closely related.

Product norms regulate what a product must look like

in order to be regarded as correct and appropriate. They concern the correctness and the well-formedness of linguistic expressions (i.e. linguistic norms as related to the language system) as well as the correctness of their use (i.e. communicative norms as related to communicative behaviour).

Production norms concern the methods and strategies by which a correct product can be achieved (cf. the ‘operational norms’ in Toury (1995: 58).

Linguistic Norms in Translation Studies

When a more systematic study of translation began in the second half of the twentieth century, it was very much influenced by (applied) linguistics.

Translation was understood as a linguistic phenomenon, as an operation performed on languages. This operation was seen as a process of transcoding between source language (SL) and target language (TL), as illustrated by the following definition:

Translation may be defined as follows: the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent material in another language (TL).

(Catford, 1965: 20) A translation norm in this context was defined as

translating a linguistic unit by its generally accepted equivalent

The concept of norms is important in two respects in linguistic approaches to translation.

On the one hand, they are concerned with the linguistic norms of the two languages, i.e. how to produce utterances and texts that are correct according to the respective rules and norms.

On the other hand, the relations and regularities between the two linguistic systems that were discovered on the basis of contrastive analyses were ‘translated’ into guidelines or rules for the translator,mostly with prescriptive intent (cf. frequently encountered formulations such as‘translators must (not) ¼, should ¼’, etc.).

Translation procedures and similar guidelines, however, were formulated in a rather general way and gave the impression that they are applicable throughout.

A chosen TL-form may well be correct according to the rules of the language system, but this does not necessarily mean that the text as a whole appropriately fulfils its communicative function in the TL-situation and culture. Since we do not translate words or grammatical forms, but texts with a specific communicative function, the limitations of a

narrow linguistic approach soon became obvious.

Toury (1980: 53ff.) described three kinds of norms: (1) preliminary norms,which decide the overall translation strategy and the choice of texts to be translated, (2) initial norms, which govern the translator’s decision to adhere primarily to the source text or to the target culture, and (3) operational norms, which control the actual decisions made during the act of translation. If it is accepted that norms are central to translating, then their nature and their function need to be explained more systematically.

Toury (1980)

Toury defines norms as being central to the act and the event of translating.

Norms are ‘a category for descriptive analysis of translation phenomena’ (Toury, 1980: 57), or more specifically, norms are ‘the translation of general values or ideas shared by a certain community — as to what is right and wrong, adequate and inadequate — into specific performance-instructions appropriate for and applicable to specific situations’ (Toury, 1980: 51).

Translational behaviour is The Concept of Norms in Translation Studies contextualised as social behaviour, and translational norms are understood as internalised behavioural constraints which embody the values shared by a community. All decisions in the translation process are thus primarily governed by such norms, and not (dominantly or exclusively) by the two language systems involved.

Questions to be asked:

How can we establish which particular general concept of translation prevailed in a particular community at a particular time?

How does this concept compare to general concepts of translation that were valid at another time and/or in other communities?

Who are the norm authorities? Who introduced changes in dominant norms, and why were they accepted?

Since translating is situated in time and space, any answer to such questions implies a careful description of the situation and the culture in which such norms obtain.

The initial norm determines the global approach of The initial norm determines the global approach of the translator withthe translator with respect to the following two respect to the following two polar alternatives: the translator submits himself polar alternatives: the translator submits himself oror herself to the textual relations and norms herself to the textual relations and norms embodied in the source textembodied in the source text (adequacy); or the (adequacy); or the translator follows the linguistic and rhetorical translator follows the linguistic and rhetorical norms of thenorms of the target language and culture target language and culture (acceptability).(acceptability).

Preliminary norms decide on overall Preliminary norms decide on overall translation strategy and the choice translation strategy and the choice of text to be translated.of text to be translated.

Operational norms control the actual Operational norms control the actual decision made during the act of decision made during the act of translation.translation.

Operational norms direct decisions made during the Operational norms direct decisions made during the translating processtranslating process with respect to specific levels. with respect to specific levels. Operational norms affect the matrix of the text,Operational norms affect the matrix of the text, the the distribution of linguistic material, and actual verbal distribution of linguistic material, and actual verbal formulation. formulation.

MatricialMatricial norms govern the existence of target language norms govern the existence of target language substitute material, its locationsubstitute material, its location in the text, and textual in the text, and textual segmentation. segmentation.

Textual-linguistic norms govern theTextual-linguistic norms govern the selection of target selection of target language material to replace source text material language material to replace source text material (Toury(Toury 1995: 58-59).1995: 58-59).

Chesterman (1993) Translational norms prevail at a certain period and within a

particular society, and they determine the selection, the production and the reception of translations.

Based on the work by Toury and Hermans, Chesterman (1993, 1997) differentiates between expectancy norms and professional norms.

Expectancy norms refer to what the target language community expects a translation to look like ‘regarding grammaticality, acceptability, appropriateness, style, textuality,preferred conventions of form or discourse and the like’ (Chesterman, 1993: 17).

Professional norms govern the accepted methods and strategies of the translation process, and they can be subdivided into three major types: accountability norms,

communication norms, relation norms.

Andrew Chesterman’s T normsAndrew Chesterman’s T norms (1997)(1997)

Chesterman’s norms (1997)Chesterman’s norms (1997) Expectancy norms – expectations of readersExpectancy norms – expectations of readers – – Allow evaluative judgementsAllow evaluative judgements – – Validated by a norm-authorityValidated by a norm-authority Professional normsProfessional norms – – Accountability norm = ethicalAccountability norm = ethical – – Communication norm = socialCommunication norm = social – ‘– ‘Relation’ norm = linguistic (between SL and TL)Relation’ norm = linguistic (between SL and TL)

How do we get from the norms to the text, and how do we reconstruct norms from textual features?

What is the relationship between regular patterns in texts and norms?

How do translators acquire norms, do they behave according to norms, and are they conscious of their norm-governed behaviour?

What happens if translators show some kind of deviant behaviour?

Are translators themselves powerful enough to introduce and change norms?

Are there translation specific norms, or more general norms in society that also influence translational behaviour?

What can sociological theories contribute to an understanding of norms?

Do norms really exist, as social facts, or are they just hypotheses?

Is the behaviour of translators indeed governed by norms, or are they rather actively involved in the

maintenance of norms?

Horrid Henry-I

Other things I hate Homework Boring holidays Walks Fresh air Health food Bedtime

Nefret Etttiğim Diğer Şeyler: Ödevler Sıkıcı Tatiller Yürüyüşler Temiz Hava Sağlıklı yiyecekler Uyku zamanı

Greatest Victories -Tricking Bossy Bill into photocopying his bottom. -Switching Christmas presents with Stuck-up Steve -Stinkbombing Moody Margaret’s Secret Club. Being older, bigger and cleverer than Perfect Peter.

En Büyük Zaferler -Buyurgan Bill’i kandırıp poposunun fotokopisini çekmesini sağlamak -Noel hediyelerini Kasıntı Stevenkilerle değiştirmek -Huysuz Margaret’in gizli kukübüne koku bombası atmak -Mükemmel Peter’dan daha büyük, daha güçlü ve akıllı olmak.

Horrid Henry-IIAzılı Düşmanlardan Kurtulmanın Yolları (2007:114)

How to get rid of Evil Enemies Azılı Düşmanlardan Kurtulmanın Yolları Catapult them into a moat filled with piranha fish

Piranhalarla dolu bir hendeğe fırlatıp atmak

Let crocodiles loose in their bedrooms. Yatak odalarına timsah bırakmak Exile to an island with no TV. Tv olmayan ıssız bir adaya yollamak

Make them eat school dinners. Okul yemeklerinden yedirmek Dump them in snakepits. Yılanlarla dolu çukura atmak Drop them in vats of glop Onları bulamaç kazanına atmak.