Scopos, Loyalty,
and Translational Conventions
Christiane Nord Institut fur Ùbertzen und Dolmetschen der Universität Heidelberg Abstract: Within the framework of the functionalist or "scopos" theory, the (in-
tended) scope or function of the target text is the most important criterion for the
杀破狼3translator's decisions. However, this is a general theory of translation, which is
not concerned with the culture-specific conventions valid in a particular culture.
Since conventions determine what readers expect of a translation, the translator
has the responsibility not to deceive the urs of his translation by acting con-
trary to the conventions without telling them what he is doing, and why. This
responsibility is what I will refer to as loyalty. Loyalty is a moral principle guid-
ing the relationships between human beings.
新名词
Résumé: Dans le cadre de la théorie fonctionnaliste dite "scopos", la cible (vi-
出师未捷sée) par le texte traduit constitue le critère majeur des décisions traductives. Cette
松茸的吃法théorie générale néglige toutefois les conventions spécifiques d'une culture don-
née. Or, ce sont des conventions qui prédispont l'attente des lecteurs d'une tra-
duction. Le traducteur ne peut tromper cette attente en agissant à l'encontre des
conventions sans expliquer au lecteur ce qu'il fait et pourquoi. Une telle forme
de responsabilité répond à ce que j'appelle loyauté. La loyauté est un principe
moral qui règle les rapports entre les êtres humains.
0. Introduction
Every year, conferences on translational topics call for scholars from all over the world to discuss the question of what translation is or should be and how certain translation problems ought to be solved. However, although translatologists usually agree on more general issues, e.g. the importance of tran
slation as such or the necessity of improving the often Target 3:1 (1991), 91-109. DOI 10.1075/target.3.1.06nor陆军讲武堂
ISSN 0924-1881 / E-ISSN 1569-9986 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
92 CHRISTIANE NORD
deplorable quality of translations, there ems to be little connt as far as concrete translational "rules" are concerned. Wouldn't it be uful to have a sort of Magna Charta of translation which every translator could turn to in ca of doubt?
Such a charter does not em to be in sight so far, however, for if whenever one claims that a certain text "must" or "ought to" be translated in a certain way, he or she is subject to a culture-specific convention. In a particular culture, at a particular time, the urs of translations as well as the translators themlves expect a translated text to meet certain standards as far as the relationship between the translation and the original is concerned (e.g. fidelity), or the relationship between the translation and its purpo (e.g. functionality), or the reception of the translated text (e.g. strangeness). But different standards may be valid in another culture, or even in the same culture at another time (e.g. equivalence, adequacy, and fluency, respectively). Or, as van den Broeck puts it:
炒鱿鱼花
What was regarded as good — not to say 'optimum' — translation at one
moment was rejected as bad, or inadequate, at another and considered
either unfaithful or unacceptable translations by later generations. For
社会保障政策translations to be given the label of 'optimum' renderings of their source
texts they had, at the very moment they were published, to be in agree
ment with the norms prevailing there and then. (van den Broeck 1980: 82) This is why there will never be a common translation code for all cultures. What we can achieve, though, is agreement on a general theory of translation which allows for specific variations when applied to particular cultures, taking into account the culture-specific conventions of translation and the expectations the members of a particular culture have of a translated text. This then is what I'm trying to suggest in the prent paper.
After briefly describing Vermeer's scopos theory, which I think could provide a general framework for translation, I will introduce the concept of loyalty. It is a moral category which permits the integration of culture-specific conventions into the functionalist model of translation. After discussing the role an
d scope of convention in and for translation, I will outline some approaches to the investigation of translational conventions. The last chapter will deal with the application of the model to translation teaching.
SCOPOS, LOYALTY, AND TRANSLATIONAL CONVENTIONS 93 1. Scopos Theory: Functionality Is the Aim
The functional approach to translation, which is constantly gaining ground
in modern translation studies (e.g. Snell-Hornby 1986), was first formulated by Vermeer in 1978 (cf. Vermeer 1983 [11978]) and is prented as the "Foundation of a General Theory of Translation" in Reiβ and Vermeer 1984. Vermeer calls his approach "scopos theory" becau it is the "scopos", i.e. the purpo (or scope) of the translated text, that determines the translation process. The theory hinges on the so-called "scopos rule": Human interaction (including translation as its subcategory) is determined
by its purpo (scopos), and therefore is a function of its purpo — IA
(Trl) = f(Sc). ... The purpo can be described as a function of the reci哄男朋友
pient: Sc = f(R). (Vermeer 1983: 54; my translation)
This means that, in this model, the recipient for whom the target text (TT)
is intended is the crucial factor in any translation process. The original has
to be translated in such way that the TT becomes part of a "world continuum" which can be interpreted by the recipient as "coherent with his situation" (Vermeer 1983: 57). If the TT is intended to fulfil the same function
as the source text (ST), there can be a relationship of "intertextual coherence" or "fidelity" between ST and TT; but the demand for fidelity will always be subordinate to the scopos rule. If the scopos demands a change of function, the required standard will no longer be intertextual coherence with the ST, but adequacy or appropriateness with regard to the translation scope (Reiβ and Vermeer 1984: 139).
The scopos of a particular translation process is fixed by the translator according to the "translating instructions" given by the customer or client (who is the instigator or, as I call him, "initiator" of the translation process; cf. Nord 1988: 8ff. and forthcoming c) when commissioning the translation. Even
though the instructions may not be very detailed, they should provide the translator with some (explicit or implicit) information on the "situation" the TT is going to be ud in (i.e. the recipient, medium, time and place of, and motive for, communication, and the intended function or functions of the target text).
As a general theory of translation, this model allows the formulation of any translation scope for a particular original. But if we want to apply the model to the daily routine of professional translation (and/or translation teaching) we have to get down from the lofty heights of generalizing abstraction and deal with concrete facts: The translator, who is always act-
94 CHRISTIANE NORD
ing within the boundaries of a particular culture community, cannot, in fact, take the liberty of choosing any translation scope for a particular text even if that is what the customer asks him to do.
What does this mean?
2. Loyalty: The Responsibility of the Translator
The decision on what may or may not be a "possible" or "legitimate" translation scope for a particular
source text is bad on the conventional concept of translation regarded as valid in the cultures involved. This concept determines, for example, what relationship the urs of translations (i.e. the initiators of translations, the readers of translated texts, and even the authors of texts which are going to be translated) expect between the original and the target text.
In normal intercultural communication, neither the initiator nor the recipient of the translated text is able to check on whether or not the TT really conforms to their expectations. They have to rely on the translator's doing a fair job. A text pragmatically marked as a translation is usually interpreted by the reader as a translation that conforms to the conventional concept of translation, even if this is not the ca. If, for example, the reader erroneously expects the translation to reproduce the author's intention, he will never find out that it doesn't. He takes the intention expresd in the translation for the authentic intention of the (ST) author. No matter whether the translator has violated the convention intentionally or inadvertently, the reader will be deceived without realizing it. Although apparently successful from the reader's point of view, the communicative act cannot be regarded as "functional" in this ca becau it is bad on a fal assumption.
This is why I would like to introduce the principle of loyalty into the framework of the scopos model (Nord 1988: 31ff. and forthcoming c). Along similar lines, Berglund (1987: 7) speaks of a "fair" transla
tion. The translator is committed bilaterally to the source and the target situations and is responsible to both the ST nder (or the initiator, if he is the one who takes the nder's part) and the TT recipient. This responsibility is what I call loyalty. Loyalty is a moral principle indispensable in the relationships between human beings who are partners in a communication process.
SCOPOS, LOYALTY, AND TRANSLATIONAL CONVENTIONS 95 Whatever the translating instructions, the translator has to consider the conventional concepts of translation, since they determine the expectations
of his partners from the translated text. However, "to consider the conventional concept" does not automatically mean "to do what everybody expects you to do". Loyalty may require precily non-obrvance of certain conventions. But in any ca, the translator should at least inform the other participants of what has been done, and why.
3. Translational Conventions: What Does the Reader Expect?
3.1. General Considerations: The Concept of Convention
Before discussing the conventional concept of translation or translational conventions in general, we
have to explain the concept of convention underlying the considerations. In ordinary language, a convention is "(an example of) generally accepted practice, especially in social behaviour" (DCE). Since verbal communication is a form of "social behaviour", we find conventions here as well. It is a convention, for example, to u certain words and phras to express thankfulness or to address friends and unknown persons in different ways.
David K. Lewis defines conventions as a way of solving coordination problems by precedent, i.e. "by means of shared acquaintance with a regu-larity governing the achievement of coordination in a class of past cas which bear some conspicuous analogy to one another and to our prent coordination problem" (Lewis 1969: 41). Remembering satisfactory solutions of previous problems, we try to solve a similar problem in a similar way and expect others to do the same.
Translation is not a "coordination problem" in the n that intercul-tural communication is simply blocked without the help of conventions, as would be the ca if the two parties in a telephone call were suddenly cut off and tried to call each other back immediately, or if each waited for the other to call back (cf. Lewis 1969: 43). But if we have learned in foreign language class that translations have to be "as faithful as possible and as free as necessary", we will assume that every translation we read is a rather literal reproduction of the original. In this ca, "coordination" consists in
a tacit agreement about the relationship between a term and the phenomenon it applies to.
