Chapter 16
Gideon Toury
THE NATURE AND ROLE OF NORMS IN
TRANSLATION
H OWEVER HIGHLY ON E may think of Linguistics, Text-Linguistics,
Contrastive Textology or Pragmatics and of their explanatory power with respect to translational phenomena, being a translator cannot be reduced to the mere generation of utterances which would be considered “translations” within any of the disciplines. Translation activities should rather be regarded as having cultural significance. Conquently, “translatorship” amounts first and foremost to being able to play a social role, i.e., to fulfil a function allotted by a community—to the activity, its practitioners and/or their products—in a way which is deemed appropriate in its own terms of reference. The acquisition of a t of norms for determining the suitability of that kind of behaviour, and for manoeuvring between all the factors which may constrain it, is therefore a prerequisite for becoming a translator within a cultural environment.
藏猫猫
The process by which a bilingual speaker may be said to gain recognition in his/ her capacity as a translator has hardly been studied so far. […] In the prent chapter the nature of the acquired norms themlves will be addresd, along with their role in directing translation activity in socio-culturally relevant ttings. This prentation will be followed by a brief discussion of translational norms as a cond-order object of Translation Studies, to be reconstructed and studied within the kind of framework which we are now in the process of sketching. As strictly translational norms can only be applied at the receiving end, establishing them is not merely justified by a target-oriented approach but should be en as its very epitome.
1978/revid 1995
NORMS IN TRANSLATION199 1Rules, norms, idiosyncrasies
粉色包包In its socio-cultural dimension, translation can be described as subject to constraints of veral types and varying degree. The extend far beyond the source text; the systemic differences between the languages and textual traditions involved in the act, or even the possibilities and limitations of the cognitive apparatus of the translator as a necessary mediator. In fact, cognition itlf is influenced, probably even modified by socio-cultural factors. At any rate, translators performing under different c
讲成语故事onditions (e.g., translating texts of different kinds, and/or for different audiences) often adopt different strategies, and ultimately come up with markedly different products. Something has obviously changed here, and I very much doubt it that it is the cognitive apparatus as such.
In terms of their potency, socio-cultural constraints have been described along a scale anchored between two extremes: general, relatively absolute rules, on the one hand and pure idiosyncrasies on the other. Between the two poles lies a vast middle-ground occupied by inter subjective factors commonly designated norms. The norms themlves form a graded continuum along the scale: some are stronger, and hence more rule-like, others are weaker, and hence almost idiosyncratic. The borderlines between the various types of constraints are thus diffu. Each of the concepts, including the grading itlf, is relative too. Thus what is just a favoured mode of behaviour within a heterogeneous group may well acquire much more binding force within a certain (more homogeneous) ction thereof, in terms of either human agents (e.g., translators among texters in general) or types of activity (e.g., interpreting, or legal translation, within translation at large).
退学申请书
Along the temporal axis, each type of constraint may, and often does move into its neighbouring domain(s) through process of ri and decline. Thus, mere, whims may catch on and become more and more normative, and norms can gain so much validity that, for all practical purpos, they
become as binding as rules; or the other way around, of cour. Shifts of validity and force often have to do with changes of status within a society. In fact, they can always be described in connection with the notion of norm, especially since, as the process goes on, they are likely to cross its realm, i.e., actually become norms. The other two types of constraints may even be redefined in terms of norms: rules as “[more] objective”, idiosyncrasies as “[more] subjective [or: less inter subjective]” norms.
Sociologists and social psychologists have long regarded norms as the translation of general values or ideas shared by a community—as to what is right and wrong, adequate and inadequate—into performance instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations, specifying what is prescribed and forbidden as well as what is tolerated and permitted in a certain behavioural dimension (the famous “square of normativity”, which has lately been elaborated on with regard to translation in De Geest 1992:38 40). Norms are acquired by the individual during his/her socialization and always imply sanctions—actual or potential, negative as well as positive. Within the community, norms also rve as criteria according to which actual instances of behaviour are evaluated. Obviously, there is a point in assuming the existence of norms only in situations which allow for different kinds of behaviour, on the additional condition that lection among them be nonrandom.1 Inasmuch as a
200GIDEON TOURY
处女座男和什么星座最配
norm is really active and effective, one can therefore distinguish regularity of behaviour in recurrent situations of the same type, which would render regularities a main source for any study of norms as well.
The centrality of the norms is not only metaphorical, then, in terms of their relative position along a postulated continuum of constraints; rather, it is esntial: Norms are the key concept and focal point in any attempt to account for the social relevance of activities, becau their existence, and the wide range of situations they apply to (with the conformity this implies), are the main factors ensuring the establishment and retention of social order. This holds for cultures too, or for any of the systems constituting them, which are, after all, social institutions ipso facto. Of cour, behaviour which does not conform to prevailing norms is always possible too. Moreover, “non-compliance with a norm in particular instances does not invalidate the norm” (Hermans 1991:162). At the same time, there would normally be a price to pay for opting for any deviant kind of behaviour.
One thing to bear in mind, when tting out to study norm-governed behaviour, is that there is no necessary identity between the norms themlves and any formulation of them in language. Verbal f
ormulations of cour reflect awareness of the existence of norms as well as of their respective significance. However, they also imply other interests, particularly a desire to control , to dictate norms rather than merely account for them. Normative formulations tend to be slanted, then, and should always be taken with a grain of salt.
2Translation as a norm-governed activity
Translation is a kind of activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions, i.e., at least two ts of norm-systems on each level. Thus, the “value” behind it may be described as consisting of two major elements: 1being a text in a certain language, and hence occupying a position, or filling in a slot, in the appropriate culture, or in a certain ction thereof;
2constituting a reprentation in that language/culture of another, preexisting text in some other language, belonging to some other culture and occupying
沈阳名胜古迹
a definite position within it.
The two types of requirement derive from two sources which—even though the distance between them may vary greatly—are nevertheless always different and therefore often incompatible. Were it
not for the regulative capacity of norms, the tensions between the two sources of constraints would have to be resolved on an entirely individual basis, and with no clear yardstick to go by. Extreme free variation may well have been the result, which it certainly is not. Rather, translation behaviour within a culture tends to manifest certain regularities, one conquence being that even if they are unable to account for deviations in any explicit way, the persons-in-the-culture can often tell when a translator has failed to adhere to sanctioned practices.
It has proven uful and enlightening to regard the basic choice which can be made between requirements of the two different sources as constituting an initial
NORMS IN TRANSLATION201 norm. Thus, a translator may subject him-/herlf either to the original text, with the norms it has realized, or to the norms active in the target culture, or, in that ction of it which would host the end product. If the first stance is adopted, the translation will tend to subscribe to the norms of the source text, and through them also to the norms of the source language and culture. This tendency; which has often been characterized as the pursuit of adequate translation,2 may well entail certain incompatibilities with target norms and practices, especially tho lying beyond the mere linguistic ones. If, on the other hand, the cond stance is adopted, norms systems of the target culture are triggered and t into motion. Shifts from the source text wo
uld be an almost inevitable price. Thus, whereas adherence to source norms determines a translation’s adequacy as compared to the source text, subscription to norms originating in the target culture determines its acceptability.
Obviously, even the most adequacy-oriented translation involves shifts from the source text. In fact, the occurrence of shifts has long been acknowledged as a true universal of translation. However, since the need itlf to deviate from sour ce-text patterns can always be realized in more than one way, the actual realization of so-called obligatory shifts, to the extent that it is non-random, and hence not idiosyncratic, is already truly nor m-governed. So is everything that has to do with non-obligatory shifts, which are of cour more than just possible in real-life translation: they occur everywhere and tend to constitute the majority of shifting in any single act of human translation, rendering the latter a contributing factor to, as well as the epitome of regularity.
The term “initial norm” should not be overinterpreted, however. Its initiality derives from its superordinance over particular norms which pertain to lower, and therefore more specific levels. The kind of priority postulated here is basically logical, and need not coincide with any “real”, i.e., chronological order of application. The notion is thus designed to rve first and foremost as an explanatory tool. Even if no clear macro-level tendency can be shown, any micro-level decision can
still be accounted for in terms of adequacy vs. acceptability. On the other hand, in cas where an overall choice has been made, it is not necessary that every single lower-level decision be made in full accord with it. We are still talking regularities, then, but not necessarily of any absolute type. It is unrealistic to expect absolute regularities anyway, in any behavioural domain.
Actual translation decisions (the results of which the rearcher would confront) will necessarily involve some ad hoc combination of, or compromi between the two extremes implied by the initial norm. Still, for theoretical and methodological reasons, it ems wir to retain the opposition and treat the two poles as distinct in principle: If they are not regarded as having distinct theoretical status, how would compromis differing in type or in extent be distinguished and accounted for?吊装施工方案
Finally, the claim that it is basically a norm-governed type of behaviour applies to translation of all kinds, not only literary, philosophical or biblical translation, which is where most norm-oriented studies have been conducted so far. As has recently been claimed and demonstrated in an all too sketchy exchange of views in Target (M.Shlesinger 1989 and Harris 1990), similar things can even be said of conference interpreting. Needless to say, this does not mean that the exact same
202GIDEON TOURY
conditions apply to all kinds of translation. In fact, their application in different cultural ctors is precily one of the aspects that should be submitted to study. In principle, the claim is also valid for every society and historical period, thus offering a framework for historically oriented studies which would also allow for comparison.
3Translation norms: an overview
Norms can be expected to operate not only in translation of all kinds, but also at every stage in the translating event, and hence to be reflected on every level of its product. It has proven convenient to first distinguish two larger groups of norms applicable to translation: preliminary vs. operational.
Preliminary norms have to do with two main ts of considerations which are often interconnected: tho regarding the existence and actual nature of a definite translation policy, and tho related to the directness of translation.
Translation policy refers to tho factors that govern the choice of text types; or even of individual texts, to be imported through translation into a particular culture/language at a particular point in time. Such a policy will be said to exist inasmuch as the choice is found to be non-random. Different policies may of cour apply to different subgroups, in terms of either text-types (e.g. literary vs. non-
literary) or human agents and groups thereof (e.g., different publishing hous), and the interface between the two often offers very fertile grounds for policy hunting.
Considerations concerning directness of translation involve the threshold of tolerance for translating from languages other than the ultimate source language: is indirect translation permitted at all? In translating from what source languages/ text-types/periods (etc.) is it permitted/prohibited/tolerated/preferred? What are the permitted/prohibited/tolerated/preferred mediating languages? Is there a tendency/ obligation to mark a translated work as having been mediated or is this fact ignored/ camouflaged/denied? If it is mentioned, is the identity of the mediating language supplied as well? And so on.
Operational norms, in turn, may be conceived of as directing the decisions made during the act of translation itlf. They affect the matrix of the text—i.e. the modes of distributing linguistic material in it—as well as the textual make up and verbal formulation as such. They thus govern—directly or indirectly—the relationships as well that would obtain between the target and source texts, i.e., what is more likely to remain invariant under transformation and what will change.彩石溪
So-called matricial norms may govern the very existence of target-language material intended as a s
ubstitute for the corresponding source-language material (and hence the degree of fullness of translation), its location in the text (or the form of actual distribution), as well as the textual gmentation.3 The extent to which omissions, additions, changes of location and manipulations of gmentation are referred to in the translated texts (or around them) may also be determined by norms, even though the one can very well occur without the other.
Obviously, the borderlines between the various matricial phenomena are not
