662 Funct i onal and Skopos Ori ent ed Approaches t o Transl at i on

Funct i onal and Sk opos Ori ent ed Appr oaches t o Transl at i on

C Nord, Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal, Magdeburg,
Germany
2006 E lsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Functional translation theories are gaining ground in
many parts of the world, especially where translation
needs are pressing and equivalence theories are out of
the question because of (1) different stages of (lexico
logical, terminological etc.) development in source
and target languages, (2) discrepant levels of knowl
edge and experience in source and target audiences,
or (3) large gaps between source and target cultures,
value systems, perspectives, world views, and so on.
Nevertheless, criticisms have been leveled at the
theoretical foundations and applicability of functional
ist approaches in general and of skopos theory in par
ticular. Although, as Toury pointed out with reference
to both skopos theory and his own target-oriented
approach, target-orientedness as such no longer
arouses the same antagonism it used to less than 20
years ago (Toury, 1995: 25), quite a number of criti
cisms are still, explicitly or implicitly, present in
debates on translation theory today. Some scholars
keep maintaining the view that equivalence is the
only valid yardstick of translation quality, as well as
being a constitutive characteristic of translation prop
er (cf. Koller, 1995).
Is equivalence a safeguard against manipulation?
Post-colonial translation studies show that the (theo
retical) notion of equivalence has never stopped any
translator (or commissioner of translations) from ma
nipulating source texts consciously or unconsciously.
A corrective is needed for both equivalence-based and
function-oriented translation theories. For this pur
pose, I have suggested the concept of loyalty (cf.
Nord, 1997a) to account for the culture-specificity
of translation concepts, setting an ethical limitation
on the otherwise unlimited range of possible skopoi
for the translation of one particular source text.
Hi st ori cal Over vi ew
Functional approaches to translation developed in
Germany in the beginning of the 1980s. At that
time, university programs for translation and inter
preting could look back on quite a long tradition,
since the first interpreter training had been estab
lished at Humboldt University in Berlin as early as
1894. During and shortly after World War II, transla
tor training departments were founded at several uni
versities in both East and West Germany to meet the
increasing demand for well-trained translators and
interpreters.
The training was mainly practical; theoretical
foundations were borrowed from linguistics. Equiva
lence between source and target language was the
quality yardstick that was never questioned, although
the definitions of the concept were far from satisfac
tory. The material used in the classroom comprised
mostly essays or literary texts used to train the stu
dents linguistic and stylistic proficiency in both the
source and the target language. Trainers were often
language teachers with little or no experience in
professional translation.
Employers, however, kept complaining about the
poor competence of graduated translators with regard
to the variety of text genres and tasks that had to be
tackled in professional practice, where equivalence
of whatever kind is often neither possible nor desir
able. For example, resume translations need not give
more than the gist of the source-text information,
specialist research reports sometimes must be trans
lated for a broader nonspecialist audience, and poorly
written operating instructions have to be adapted to
the needs of a target culture where technical or cul
tural conditions are completely different from those
of the source culture. Teachers needed a new yard
stick to explain why different contexts call for differ
ent translation solutions, and the pragmatic turn in
linguistics seemed to point in the right direction.
The publication of Hans J . Vermeers Framework
for a general translation theory (1978) seemed to
offer a theoretical foundation for translator training.
The theory was later explained in more detail in a
book co-authored with Katharina Reiss, who had
prepared the ground for a functional approach in
her work on translation criticism as early as 1971
(cf. Reiss, 1971; Reiss & Vermeer, 1984). Using the
Greek word skopos, meaning purpose or aim,
Vermeer called his theory skopos theory because he
considered translation to be a type of human action.
Action, in turn, was defined as a behavior intended
to change a state of affairs. In accordance with action
theory (for example, von Wright, 1968), Vermeer
defined translation as a purposeful behavior that
takes place in a given situation; it is part of the situa
tion at the same time as it modifies the situation.
Further, because situations are embedded in cultures,
any evaluation of a particular situation, of its verba
lized and nonverbalized elements, depends on the
status it has in a particular culture system (cf.
Vermeer, 1989).
According to this line of thought, translation can
not be considered a one-to-one transfer between lan
guages, and a translation theory cannot draw on a
linguistic theory alone, however complex it may be.
Funct i onal and Skopos Ori ent ed Approaches t o Transl at i on 663
Skopos theory is, therefore, a culture-oriented
approach. One of the most important factors deter
mining the purpose of a translation is the intended
audience of the target text, specifically its culture-
specific world knowledge, expectations, and commu
nicative needs. Every translation is directed at an
intended audience, because to translate means to
produce a text in a target setting for a target purpose
and target addressees in target circumstances
(Vermeer, 1987: 29).
In the phrase just cited, the source text is not even
mentioned. I ts status is clearly much lower in skopos
theory than in equivalence-based theories. Vermeer
regarded a text as an offer of information, from
which any receiver picks precisely the items he or she
wants, and is able, to process. Therefore, a translation
is an offer of information produced in the target lan
guage and culture for target-culture addressees about
another offer of information that was produced in a
source language and culture for source-culture addres
sees. This means that, in the translation process, the
translators decisions are no longer guided by the lin
guistic and stylistic characteristics of the source text but
by the constellation of participants and conditions of
the communicative situation for which it is produced.
I nstead of equivalence between source and target
texts, the aim is adequacy for the translation purpose.
Right from the outset, skopos theory had a consid
erable impact on the methodology of translator train
ing. Hans G. Ho nig and Paul KuSmaul (1982), both
engaged in translator training, gave the starting signal
with their book on translation strategy. They showed
how functional strategies lead to appropriate solu
tions to translation problems. Although their exam
ples are taken from German-English translating, the
problems they discussed are clearly not language-
specific, but may occur, with slight variations caused
by language structures and culture conventions, in
any translation situation. Other scholars followed
suit, developing models for a functional approach to
translation error analysis (Kupsch-Losereit, 1985),
functional text analysis (Nord, 1988), functional
text typology (Gopferich, 1995), translator training
(KuSmaul, 1995), a functional typology of transla
tions (Nord, 1997b), and a functional redefinition of
the translation unit (Nord, 1997c). Applications of
functionalist methodology dealt with the descriptions
of nonverbal behaviour in the Odyssey (Vermeer,
1992), titles and headings (Nord, 1993, 1995),
culture-references in literary texts (Nord, 1994), the
cultural transfer in simultaneous interpreting
(Pochhacker, 1995), text-type conventions (KuSmaul,
1997), and the translation of paralanguage in literary
texts (Nord, 1997a), to name only a few contribu
tions available in English.
It is a feature common to the functionalist scholars
engaged in translator training that they try to focus
on the language-independent pragmatic and cultural
aspects of translation, emphasizing the specific nature
of translation competence, rather than language pro
ficiency. Obviously, they want to distance themselves
from the first phase of German translator training,
which evolved from the philologies and from language
teaching.
Fundament al Pri nci pl es of Funct i onal
Transl at i on
The main hypotheses of a functional approach to
translation may be summarized in the following
principles:
The purpose of the translation determines the choice
of translation method and strategy. This means that
any choice among two or more available solutions
to a translation problem must be guided by an
intersubjective criterion that, in the functionalist
framework, is provided by the communicative
function or functions for which the target text is
needed.
The purpose is defined, either explicitly or impli
citly, in the translation brief provided by the client
or commissioner. The translator interprets the
translation brief in order to find out what kind
of translation is needed and which translation
strategy to choose.
A translation may be called functional if it works
for its receivers in a particular communicative situ
ation precisely in the way the client wants it to
work. The translator has, therefore, to evaluate
the audiences capacities for comprehension and
cooperation, especially with regard to previous
knowledge about the topic, and anticipate the
possible effects that certain forms of expression
may have on the readership.
Function is not an inherent quality of a text. It is
attributed to the text by the receiver, at the moment
of reception. It is the receiver who decides whether
(and how) a text functions (for him or her, in
a specific situation). If, as we know, the same
receiver at different moments of his or her life
may react in different ways to the same text
(e.g., to Shakespeares Romeo and Juliet), it is
most improbable that different readers, at differ
ent moments, will react to the same text in the
same way, let alone readers belonging to different
cultural environments.
Yet, if this is true, how can we be sure that a
text achieves the function we want it to achieve?
We cannot. Usually, we rely on the audiences
664 Funct i onal and Skopos Ori ent ed Approaches t o Transl at i on
willingness to cooperate in a given situation; other
wise, communication would be impossible. Any
text producer, therefore, consciously or uncon
sciously uses some kind of verbal and/or nonverbal
function markers, which indicate the intended
communicative function(s). Thus, printing the
text in tiny letters on a slip of paper that comes
with a box of pills indicates patient information;
imposing a title, such as I nstructions for use, is a
most explicit function marker. Other types of mar
kers might be a particular text format or layout,
such as a newspaper headline; certain sentence
structures, such as imperatives in a recipe; a partic
ular register, like that of an editorial; certain forms
of address for the readership, for example in a
students manual, and the like. I f the receivers rec
ognize the function markers, they may accept the
text as serving the intended function. However,
markers can only be interpreted correctly by a re
ceiver who is familiar with the marker code used.
Basically, the function (or set of functions) intended
for, and/or achieved by, the target text may be
different from that intended for, and/or achieved
by, the source text.
Funct i onal i t y and Loyal t y
Looking at the basic principles presented above, we
may wonder why there is no mention of such equiva
lence-based criteria as faithfulness or fidelity to
the source text. This is the reason why some critics
reproach functionalism for producing mercenary
experts, able to fight under the flag of any purpose
able to pay them (Pym, 1996: 338). This criticism
refers to an ethical quality related to the status of the
source text. I f the linguistic and stylistic features of
the source are no longer regarded as the yardstick for
translation quality, does this mean that the translator
is entitled to do whatever he or she likes?
I ndeed, the first basic principle of functionalism
could be paraphrased as the translation purpose jus
tifies the translation procedures, and this statement
could easily be interpreted as the end justifies the
means. In this case, there would be no restrictions
to the range of possible ends: The source text could
be manipulated, as clients (or translators) saw fit. In
a general theory, this doctrine might be acceptable
enough, since one could always argue that general
theories do not have to be directly applicable. Yet,
translation practice does not take place in a void.
It takes place in specific situations set in specific
cultures, so any application of the general theory,
either to practice or to training, has to take account
of the specific cultural conditions under which a text
is translated.
At different times and in different parts of the
world, people have had and still have different con
cepts of the relationship that should hold between
an original and the text that is called its translation.
According to the prevailing concept of transla
tion, readers might expect, for example, that the
target text gives exactly the authors words; other
cultures might want it to express the authors inten
tion, even though this would mean changing the
words. Still others could praise archaizing translations
or ones that are comprehensible, readable texts. Tak
ing account of all these different expectations, which
may vary according to the text type in question or
depend on the self-esteem of the receiving culture
with regard to the source culture, the translator acts
as a responsible mediator in the cooperation develop
ing among the client, the target audience, and the
source-text author. This does not mean that transla
tors always have to do what the others expect - doing
so may even be impossible if the three parties expect
different translational behaviours. It just means that
the translator has to anticipate any misunderstanding
or communicative conflict that may occur due to
discrepant translational concepts and has to find a
way to avoid them.
This responsibility that translators have toward
their partners can be called loyalty. Loyalty is not
the old fidelity in new clothes, because fidelity usually
refers to an intertextual relationship holding between
the source and the target texts as linguistic entities.
However, loyalty is an interpersonal category refer
ring to a social relationship between individuals. In a
general model, loyalty would be an empty slot that, in
a specific translation task, is filled by the demands of
the translation concepts of the cultures in question,
especially when the source-text author and the target-
text audience hold discrepant views of what a
translator should or should not do. It is the transla
tors task to mediate between the two cultures, and
mediation cannot mean the imposition of the concept
of one culture on members of another.
The loyalty principle thus adds two important
qualities to the functional approach. Because it
obliges the translator to take account of the difference
between culture-specific concepts of translation pre
vailing in the two cultures involved in the translation
process, it turns skopos theory into an anti-universal-
ist model, and because it induces the translator to
respect the senders individual communicative inten
tions, as far as they can be elicited, it reduces the
prescriptiveness of radical functionalism.
The first basic principle of functional translation
theory mentioned above should, therefore, be comple
mented by the following limitation: The acceptability
of translation purposes is limited by the translators
Funct i onal and Skopos Ori ent ed Approaches t o Transl at i on 665
responsibility with regard to her or his partners in the
cooperative activity of translation. Loyalty may oblige
translators to lay open their translation purposes and
justify their translational decisions.
As the only one in the communicative game of
translation who knows both the source and the target
cultures, the translator plays a powerful role. She
could easily deceive her partners without anybody
noticing - sometimes even just by faithfully translat
ing what the source text says. Seen in this way,
loyalty may be a corrective in the power play among
client, author, target receivers, and the translator.
Bi bl i ography
Go pferich S (1995). A pragmatic classification of
LSP texts in science and technology. Target 7(2),
305-326.
Ho nig H G & Kufimaul P (1982). Strategie der Uberset-
zung. Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Tilbingen: Narr.
Koller W (1995). The concept of equivalence and the ob
ject of translation studies. Target 7(2), 199-222.
Kupsch-Losereit S (1985). The problem of translation error
evaluation. In Tietford C & Hieke A E (eds.) Translation
in foreign language teaching and testing. Tiibingen: Narr.
169-179.
Kufimaul P (1995). Training the translator. Amsterdam &
Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Kufimaul P (1997). Text-type conventions and translat
ing: some methodological issues. In Trosborg A (ed.).
67-86.
Nord C (1988). Textanalyse und Ubersetzen. Theorie,
Methode und didaktische Anwendung einer uberset-
zungsrelevanten Textanalyse. Heidelberg: Groos. [En
glish translation (1991). Text analysis in translation.
Theory, methodology, and didactic application of a
model for translation-oriented text analysis. Amsterdam
& Atlanta: Rodopi.].
Nord C (1993). Einfiihrung in das funktionale Ubersetzen.
Am Beispiel von Titeln und Uberschriften. Tubingen:
Francke.
Nord C (1994). Its tea-time in Wonderland: culture-
markers in fictional texts. In Piirschel H (ed.) Intercul-
tural communication. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
523-538.
Nord C (1995). Text-functions in translation. Titles and
headings as a case in point. Target 7(2), 261-284.
Nord C (1997a). Translating as a purposeful activity. Func
tionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Nord C (1997b). A functional typology of translations. In
Trosborg A (ed.). 43-66.
Nord C (1997c). Functional translation units. In
Mauranen A & Puurtinen T (eds.) Translation - acquisi
tion - use. Jyvaskyla: University Press. 41-50.
Nord C (1997d). Alice abroad: dealing with descriptions
and transcriptions of paralanguage in literary transla
tion. In Poyatos F (ed.) Nonverbal communication and
translation: new perspectives and challenges in literature,
interpretation and the media. Amsterdam & Philadel
phia: Benjamins. 107-129.
Pochhacker F (1995). Simultaneous interpreting: a func
tional perspective. Hermes - Journal of Linguistics 14,
31-53.
Pym A (1996). Material text transfer as a key to the pur
poses of translation. In Neubert A, Shreve G &
Gommlich K (eds.) Basic issues in translation studies.
Proceedings of the Fifth I nternational Conference Kent
Forum on Translation Studies II. Kent, OH: Institute of
Applied Linguistics. 337-346.
Reiss K (1971). Moglichkeiten und Grenzen der Uberset-
zungskritik - Kategorien und Kriterien fur eine sachge-
rechte Beurteilung von Ubersetzungen. Munich: Hueber.
[English translation (2000). Translation criticism - the
potentials & limitations. Categories and criteria for
translation quality assessment. Manchester: St. Jerome.].
Reiss K & Vermeer H J (1984). Grundlegung einer allge-
meinen Translationstheorie. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Toury G (1995). Descriptive translation studies and beyond.
Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Trosborg A (ed.) (1997). Text typology in translation.
Amsterdams & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Vermeer H J (1978). Ein Rahmen fur eine allgemeine
Translationstheorie. Lebende Sprachen 23, 99-102.
Vermeer H J (1987). What does it mean to translate?
Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics 13(2), 25-33.
Vermeer H J (1989). Skopos and commission in transla
tional action. In Chesterman A (ed.) Readings in transla
tion. Helsinki: Oy Finn Lectura Ab. 173-187.
Vermeer H J (1992). Describing nonverbal behavior in the
Odyssey: scenes and verbal frames as translation pro
blems. In Poyatos F (ed.) Advances in nonverbal com
munication. Sociocultural, clinical, esthetic and literary
perspectives. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.
285-299.
von Wright G H (1968). An essay in deontic logic and the
general theory of action. Amsterdam: North Holland.