TRANSLATION, POWER, SUBVERSION

24
Culture
Translation, History and
Sus an Bas sne tt and André Lefevere (eds),
15. ;
: Pinter, 1990), p. 11. Post-Structuralism and the
Ling Translation. History, ),
16 Ngenuant Niranjana, Los Angeles: University of
California Press, 1992
Colonial Text (Berkeley and
hnnson, ‘The Surprise i of Othhiernes: s: A Note on
the Wartime Writings
Literary Theory
3 Norms and the
ae Helga Geyer-Rya (eds),
n
Determination of
’, in Pet er Col lie r and
” Be Paul x Man Press, 1990).
;
,
idge: Polity
Nature of Phi losophy (London: Routledge
Oe araeit Tranation and the
Translation: A
18 Se
1989), p. 9.

Theoretical Framework

THEO HERMANS
1
Although Translation Studies today constitutes anything but a unified field
of study, some of its larger disciplinary shifts have been felt more or less
across the entire range of the subject. At an early stage, for example,
‘fidelity’ was replaced by ‘equivalence’ as a theoretical and methodological
concept in applied as well as in descriptive and theoretical approaches to
translation. In the last ten years or so, ‘equivalence’ too has been
progressively questioned and hollowed out, largely in favour of the
concept of ‘norms’.
Perhaps the first step in the direction of the current preoccupation with
norms was taken in Jifi Levy’s work, in particular in his essay on
‘Translation as a Decision Process’,’ which viewed translation in terms of
games theory and the practical reasoning involved in decision-making. The
concept itself, however, was introduced into translation studies by Gideon
Toury,’ who deployed it as an operational tool in his descriptive approach.
For Toury, translational norms govern the decision-making process in
translating, and hence they determine the type of equivalence that obtains
between original and translation. He also distinguished different types of
norms, and commented on ways of discovering them. In practice, Toury
saw norms mostly as constraints on the translator’s behaviour,’ and he
gave only a brief indication of the broader, social function of norms.
Since then, the concept has continued to receive attention in Translation
Studies.’ At the same time, the nature and functioning of norms, rules and
25
 NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 27
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUBVERSION
26
ons vee a agents involved in these processes rather than on the nature of the relation
ghted ina number et publicati
conventions have been highli lingu é between source and target texts. I will refer to norms primarily as social
isci plin es, from law and and cultural realities, rather in the way that sociologists or anthropologists
oan a
ent collection Rules and Easoat
i
k pe nn The rec might use the term.
wate r frc n theory in
te Hior t,’ ran ges fro m phi losophy and literatwre tohe
by Met interdisciplina It is worth pointing out at the start that, as regards translation, norms
i i on Hj rt stresses precisi ely the in of fansite are relevant to the entire transfer operation, not just the actual process of
conventions ” Given the nature
ome ae eability of rules and con cep ts may W ” translating, if only because this latter process is necessarily preceded by a
approach through these
ud of T anslation Studies, an al dim ension number of other decisions. Translation may be regarded as a particular
we ‘wish to focus on the soci
oe e eenductive , especially if on to pow er and mode of discursive transfer between cultural circuits or systems. It
ans
nslla
ati ng and on the pla ce of translation in relati
tra _ ect constitutes one among a number of possible modes of the intercultural
ideology. imp movement of texts. Other modes include, for example, importing or
i and socia l entities. They constitute an
sychological l exporting a text in untranslated form — although it might be noted that
act ion and as such are Part ot wil
between people, rule
eci- Fs ae Pe ter
alization process. In essence, norms, like s and co nv en e en deploying materially the same text in a different linguistic and cultural
They Pp nn environment will still lend that text a different ‘load’, for it is bound to be
h late r), hav e a soc ially regulatory function. perceived differently; Anthony Pym rightly speaks of ‘value transforma-
listingui with other r
rdi .
na tion req uir ed for continued coexistence tion” in such cases of physical transfer. Summary, paraphrase, gloss,
abot
Oa ut che
the coo i | coex1sistence’ 9
cor ditions of f socia
iti
‘ safeguar d the
doiing so norms
collective sphere, critical commentary and other forms of what André Lefevere broadly calls
ween the individual and the
for or they usefully mediate bet actions, and collectively
‘rewriting”® constitute a further set of alternative modes, as do transforma-
dua l’s intentions, choices and
bet etw
w een an ind ivi
norms and conventions tions into other semiotic media, and so on.
i s and preferences. Moreover, e ofilitgrou ps, The choice of one or other mode of transfer is initially made by whoever
ilit y of inte rper sonal rela tions, and hencctab y, and
mae ri belie
cont fs ve stab , . ictability is the prime mover instigating the process. This may be an agent in the
reducing contingency, unpred
communities and societies, by our inability to con tro l time or to source culture or, more usually, in the target culture. The initial choice may
ty whi ch spr ing s fro m
th e unc ertain of contingency be delegated, and it may turn out to be impracticable. Whether the choice
human beings. The reduction
predict the actions of fellow ing from
tions is a matter of gen liz era of a particular mode of transfer is practicable in a given situation, is largely
bro g t about by norms and conven
rouugh , more
ble, me or Pr
less prescrip- determined by the situation and by the ‘rules of the game’ at that moment.
i ce and of making i re asonably relia liable
t experien in the fu The initial choice of a preferred or intended mode of import may be
similar types of situations
five projections concerning modified by the initiator’s assessment of what is materially possible in
terms of various physical factors (technology, geography, etc.), and of what
. =a is socially, politically, culturally and/or ideologically feasible, ie. what is
° ard ed priimar
ma rily
ily in
1 ter
term ms of rel|ations be tween likely to be tolerated, permitted, encouraged or demanded by those who
‘ o n use d to be reg a
rans tem s. Today it is inensingy Se control the means of production and distribution and by the relevant
eth lan gua ge sys
' t az beleee in a communicative, SOc
lO- ml "
transaction taking place fully institutions and channels in economic, social, ideological and artistic terms.
com, soc ial bei ng
bring the translator as a
t This requires that we
context.
Co Intercultural traffic, then, of whatever kind, takes place in a given social
context, a context of complex structures, including power structures. It
a network of active social agents, who oT
me the en — involves agents who are both conditioned by these power structures or at
and interests. e
snaivide ‘lsor ups, each with certain preconceptionsen parties that have least entangled in them, and who exploit or attempt to exploit them to serve
individuals °F ie is a matter of transactions betwe their own ends and interests, whether individual or collective. The power
canes rae ese transactions taking place. For those involved in e
structures cover political and economic power but also, in the field of
ppos
‘ouss modalities
natethe votive and procedures that go with it presu cultural production, those forms which Pierre Bourdieu calls ‘symbolic
transfer, decisions, strategies, aims and goals. Norms Play | a
be on the
eT é a a processes. In what follows the emphasis will
crucia
 NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUBVERSION OF TRANSLATION 29
28
s, have to make like any other use of language,
uage, is a communicati
cative act. Thi i
. The age nts , fac ed wit h an array of possible option Sopenol™ 3 more or Ness interactive form of social behaviour, evolting 3
power’
how to proceed.
choices and decisions about brought in. They
crolattsaine erpersona coordination’ among those taking part (selecting
e tha t the con cep t of norms can be usefully anving atte tion PPropriate code, recognizing and interpreting the code
It is her gover the
gui de the pro ces s of decision-making. Norms paying attenti y é in inating ‘noise’, etc.). However, it depends for its
facilitate and ation of
ort of cul tur al pro duc ts — for example, of the transl meena’ y onso ving the specific ‘coordination problems’ presented
mode of imp every
to a con sid era ble ext ent , at virtually every stage and
literary texts — action need to be
ween alternative courses of ofof the
the Peparticipants, and on fe aloes i tote
interestsaotat dake.
stake. Siete
level, whenever choices bet
Si
write’ in some other
or not to import? to translate or to ‘re peed issues of material and symbolic power, success too may bavetnihe
mad e (to imp ort mode of export,
tra nsl ate ?). Of cou rse, norms also govern the judged in terms of the interests of one party rather than the other being
way? how to er cultural goods.
sec tio n of it, actively exports texts or oth served. Once we recognized this social dimension of the producti .
+¢ a cul tur e, or a eptor system,
pro duc t will be imp orted by the intended rec Pp of translations, as distinct from the psychological reality of
But whethe r a tly on factors
in the way env isa ged by the donor, depends par of the the translation process, we e are in a positi 10n to appreciate
i
or imported itse lf and partly on the nature
the rec ept or sys tem and models, as social realities, in these processes, the role of norms
pertaining to
systems in question.
relations between the two tly, in the
this mea ns that nor ms play a significant part, firs 5
In practice, or not to
rel eva nt age nt in the receptor system whether n .
decision by the ed; secondly, if it is Whatr ex is thi
see of lnnpus rei My basic assumption is that translation, like any
eig n-l ang uag e text, or allow it to be import othe
imp ort a for term may mean ina communer icative act. . A As was i ted , i
poin
, whe the r to translate (whatever the : 7
dec ide d to imp ort other mode of revi o ion consti tut es a for of social bohavious
m
tion) or to opt for some ie ek sai comm unicat
cul tur al con fig ura
given soc io- to approach the : ers ona l coordordination amon
inati
thi rdl y, if it is decided to translate, how :
ievelved,
ree of interp
importati on; and
n prebieons ee
task, and how to see it thr
ough.
le 7e ows fro m this that communicatioper
s itself. 1am not ped ripns’
orabie cescrb ed in ter ms of so- cal led ‘in ter sonal coordination
s is, of cou rse , the translation proces
This latt er pro ces translation sffen “ a Subset of social interaction problems. . Norms ’
e in the men tal rea lit y — the ‘black box’ — of the like canventione ki . It is
r solutions to problem: s of thisis kind thi
interested her means of f
of rec ons tru cting Or representing it by erspectiv
process as $ uch or in way s
ever, that translating ly, or at least to transpose, wha ee
diagrams an d such like
. I take it for granted, how
a number of sciens tintands and ne allows uss tohavapp
e to say abo ut soci al con ven tio ns nor ms
making by the translator on rule mo dele: 0 eat ’ : l:
requires constant decision- discrete units. This e domain. of lan take
gua of n t historica
usee inanda sive
ge plac
since texts are made up of . ° : of translation as it s
iod of tim e, t g the practice
tenin
and ove r a per arily and benefi- conlud
inc
isi on- mak ing is in large measure, necess F
proces s of dec with a source OWS a general term like ‘behaviour’ compri
were not, translators faced activitie . D
nor ms. If it ting’ prises such
cially, gov ern ed by
, wou ld either be unable to
opt for one s as ‘speaking’, ‘writing’ and ‘transla
r sho rt or sim ple or make aspect of norms can be explained m
text, howeve thr ow up their hands in despair, This
: ore fully by drawing fi
tha n ano the r and :
solution rather haywire. not ion
non w on ST ee see n her e also in gen era l terms as a avian ne
, like a computer gone
entirely random decisions rj
w of the stu dy of translation it is important
to bear
los oph ica l aa ator y fun cti on. In his highly influential Convention: n
From the poi nt of vie
hence the operation of Phi ewis gave a technical definition of conventio
of decision-making, an d
which might be a . :
pro ces s
in min d tha t this thus remains largely Behavions ut be Pa aphrased as follows: conventions are regularities i
es pla ce in the translator’s head and
nor ms in it, tak can speculate about
w. We hav e no direct access to it. We recurrent proble ms of n prbitrar
ater y Ent ciicceire: aetationts t
hidden fro m vie like talk-aloud rsonal coordinati ion. Becaus
try to mov e clo ser to it through procedures roved
; :
it, and we can h its output, Proved encctive, these solutions become the preferred mea ae yi
oug h con fro nti ng the input of the process wit
protocols, or thr rospective ventio nswlegro and ofa race
w out d sie.
optanc
text wit h the tar get text, and then make ret and social cur oat they pre sup
ation.com
type of situpos e
Conmon kno dge
ie. the source fact that translation, , and
rse we are helped by the
inferences. In this latter cou
 NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION
POWER, SUBVERSION
31
TRANSLATION,
30
ionseof
ct: atar
peot the community has agreed to accept it as ‘proper’ or ‘correct’ or ‘appropri-
i
im pl y a set £
ofr mu tu al expectatioionnss: the exPo Ehal ate’. This is the course of action which therefore should be adopted. The
isely, they
uat ion , I wil l ver y pr ob ably adopt® cen vast
my en exsit pectation that others expect a p n intersubjective sense of what is ‘correct’ constitutes the content of a norm.
on h ‘antl ziv
sehetrs Pa
ot
More about this below. First a few more words about the operative aspect
ectati: o:
are a matter of social exp . lmann
5 ave tions therefore
of norms, their executive arm, as it were.
rec ipr oca l exp ect ati ons, or, in UlIm
ati ons
ions ,
’, ie.
Le. of Since norms imply a degree of social and psychological pressure, they
tions of expect ae ions’.
re r
onvergent mutual
Margalit’s words, of ‘c they im nes, ve: on act as practical constraints on the individual’s behaviour by foreclosing
rms, or
i thisi sense, are NO t no
ions, in er en certain options and choices, which however always remain available in
ies and sh ar ed pr ef
b estac they depend on regularit T principle. At the same time, and more positively, they single out and
. : :

cogniition suggest, or prescribe more or less emphatically, a particular selection from

s im pl y ac ce pt an ce , and the mu tual re among the range of possible courses of action. Ultimately, the directive or
tion
however, that conven
f
normative force of a norm stems either from some kind of social pressure,
Pp
be it in the form of inducements and rewards or of the threat of sanctions,
or from the consenting attitude of the individual addressed by the norm;
Plicit agree- or indeed from a combination of the two.” Strong norms are strongly felt
con ven tio i ns do not presuppo se exp to be appropriate, or backed up by strong sanctions, often spelled out
contingency. Alth ou gh pted s ocial
di vi du al s, th ey sti ll act as generally acce explicitly. But since all action within the scope of conventions and norms
mentsts between in
haviour. requires the individual’s consent to some degree, such action is always a
constraints on be
form of cooperative action.
. ing a re
To the extent that norms grow out of conventions more or less
ene expectation, on all sides, that
eS

has cere
conventionufficiently : Purpose spontaneously, they derive their legitimacy from the same patterns of
problems well forill ong en
be adopted
: will 4in a certain; typ: e of situation Beatmay
ie
obabilistic mutual expectation characteristic of conventions, and they presuppose a
: of action be aaop
2 oAbe ondamee preference, i.e. beyond a preferential oan begin to similar degree of social acceptance and internalization on the individual's
on and acquire a binding char acter. At that poin
expec aation,
ae part. Where norms most resemble conventions they are also at their most
permissive. In any case, non-compliance with a norm does not usually
speak of norms.
nger, more pre scriptive versions
understood as stro result in drastic sanctions for the individual concerned, just as non-compli-
Norms, then, can be ance with a norm in particular instances does not invalidate the norm.
. tu m1 s
0. soci
Provided the breaches do not occur persistently and on a large scale
without any effective sanction, norms are able to cope with a relatively
DOUh large amount of discrepant behaviour. It is in this sense that Niklas
at all ows é k of norms as ot
us to spea Luhmann speaks of norms as ‘counterfactually stabilised behavioural
This
i ed. This is
i wh
i ern: liz
int , moral and art
an d soc ial ent iti es. There are many social expectations’."* The conventions and norms of polite conversation at a
cal
psy¢are
55) dinner party, for example, are not invalidated because one of the guests
fails or refuses to observe them. The same goes for, say, the highway code,
aware of them. which is a much stronger and more explicit norm (or rule, see below). In
other words, norms can be broken. They do not preclude erratic or
adey
ons s 1in that the
a

es. " No rm s dif

¢ fer from conventiion ts
idiosyncratic behaviour. Which norms are broken by whom will depend
ian-making capaci iti
tie s. e e pec
ofa o m e ee ey ong aE aw on the nature and strength of the norm and on the individual’s motivation.
Sec ual weembers how the ae Inns, 2
ituat
uation,
ion , but As the prescriptive force of norms increases from the permissive to the
r
i en
e ina giv sit
array of Poss e ‘ prions, 8
there is, among the mandatory, from the preferred to the obligatory, they move away from
words, they * ply Snat s strongly p
tticnal
ula r our se of act ion which is more or les
par
va
 NO RMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 33
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUBVERSION
32
alized
yin g less on mut ual expectations and intern
conventions in rel ated
e on rul es and ins tru cti ons, which are often formul OBLIGATION
acceptance, and mor and commandments. (what is prescribed) nut bis Festi
(what forbidden)
ifi ed and expressed as commands
explic itl y, i.e. cod ch in many cases
use d her e as meaning a strong norm, whi
The ter m ‘ru le’ is exerted by a rule
ins tit uti ona liz ed. When the pressure
will have be co me n another, we
onl y rea son for beh avi ng in one way rather tha
becomes the to conventions, which
are non-statutory
s. In con tra st s are
onalized sanctions, decree
can speak of dec ree
do not car ry ins tit uti
and impersonal and hority, which has the
y are iss ued by an identifiable aut NON-PROHIBITION
the e we recognize the
ory , and NON-OBLIGATION
sta tut
san cti ons for non-compliance. Her (what is not forbidden, (what is not prescribed,
power to imp ose systems, and the
ure of mos t social and socio-cultural i.e. what is tolerated) ie. what is permitted)
hierarchi cal str uct within them. Of
rel ati ons of po we r and authority prevailing
overarchi ng of norms and
are inscribed in the entire network
course, power relations their socio-cultural
systems; in the
ive in societies and ed form.
conventions operat
the y man ife st the mse lves in their most nak Figure 3.1 Modalities of normative force
case of decrees resent the opposite end : io . i,
ns, therefore, decrees rep positi s (obligat
Each of these four position eit
ven tio n, negative obligati
Co mp ar ed wit h con which may be codified . 8
ive sca le: the y spell out explicit orders, tion, non-obli gati
ion) can be vacition opean areal
of the nor mat
y, as obligations or as
prohibitions. This is i obligation, and non-prohibit
positively or negativel = course of action n, aaan
entire range between in Figure 3.2, in which A = agent, C
adl y spe aki ng, the n, norms and rules cover the as
neg = negative.
Bro ld be set out in a continuum,
rees. This range cou
conventions and dec
follows: ; - decree
PRESCRIBED
FORBIDDEN
convention — norm — rule OBLIGATION NEGATIVE OBLIGATION
on shared habits and AC)
se out of precedent and rely = PROHIBITION
Con ven tio ns ari Norms differ from
are common knowledge.
Aought to (C) A(neg-C)
exp ect ati ons whi ch some form of A obliged to (practise C) _
mutual a binding character, carry
_Aought to (neg-C
in tha t the y hav e issued by an
A obliged to (practise ee
conventions w out of customs or be A obliged to (abstain from C)
ma y eit her gro ed and
sanction, and ong nor ms, usually institutionaliz
A prohibited from (practise C)
ce. Rul es are str
authorizing instan t the full assent of the
fia ble authority, with or withou
pos ite d by an ide nti directives issued as
ted to the m. Decrees are specific
indivi dua l sub jec drastic sanctions.”
ds by a par tic ula r aut hority and backed up by NOT FORBIDDEN NOT PRESCRIBED
comman
NON-(NEGATIVE
B OBLI GATION NON-OBLIGATION
= ABSENCE OF NEGATIVE OBLIGATION = ABSENCE OF OBLIGATION
4 cover a narrow
= ABSENCE OF PROHIB = PERMISSION
can be strong or weak. They may = “TOLERATION’ TION
Norms and rules, then, OF may not be explicitly
posited. They may Anot(C)
. The y may
tions or towards
Anot (neg-C)
or a broad dom ain A does not have to (C)

ati ve, ie. tending towards obliga A does not have to (neg-C) Anot obliged to (practise C)
be positive or neg ch indicate the Anot prohibited (practise C)
of normative force’, whi
A permitted to (C)
‘mo dal iti es reas obliged to (practise neg-C)
prohibitions. The load, A permitted to (practise C)
positive or negative
m, together with its
not obliged to (abstain from C)
eng th of a nor square,» SO
in the form of a semiotic
relati ve str Apermitted to (abstain from C)
mmatically
could be mapped diagra ts various modes of operative
force become
err ela tio ns bet wee n
that the int Fj oye
clear (see Figure 3.1). igure 3.2 Modalities of normative force - 2
 VERSION
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUB
NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 35
34

the square contains strong, clearly a group of persons, j a collective, y a communi

unity. If A has an obligati
In both cases the upper half of gations
ms and rules, formulated as obli rowares B, it follows that Bhas acertain claim on A. This ‘claim’ means Bet
recognized and well-defined nor ted by B has : plismee vo impose a norm on A and invoke sanctions in case of
backed up by sanctions or suppor
and prohibitions, which may be
The lower half indicates areas of “| ance by A, if B chooses to use that power.” As i
strong attitudes and belief systems. ged
viour: that which one is not obli normative ¢ aa clinohve
ities ofof normati
modalities of normative force, , th the modalities i
permissiveness and of tolerated beha , and that whi ch one not only a set of clearly defined relations
ations ini which i B control ele ered
e ‘may’ be done or said
to do or say and which therefor ther efor e ‘can ’ be i mutually recognized
below as B > A), , so that A h as certain, eed cdtnigatitors
g or saying and which
is not obliged to refrain from doin are also mor e towards B to behave in a certain manner on certain aerate, TESA
vin occasions, but al:
more permissive norms
done or said. On the whole, ust men t in nm vi versa.
vice
to re-interpretation and adj more uncertainnarea,area, where
A is more or less si immune from B and vice versa,
malleable and hence more open gene ral
s, whereas stronger and more Figure 3.3 it,is again the top half of the diagram which . shows clearly
response to changing circumstance d and whil
ned relations, whil
time and become institutionalize defi
uncertainty. e the bottom half shows areas of diffuseness and
norms tend to stabilize over re their
renc hed’ , so that they may even be felt to apply in cases whe
‘ent
no longer holds. ;
original justification or rationale ences
may grow out of repeated occurr
Since norms, as indicated above,
CONTROLB> A
to type s of situ atio ns,
ina general manner B has control over A in field F
Aine Reeeee
Bhas Nana
(neg. control) boatF
over A in field
falling into a pattern, they apply ion. Whe n a new Bis subject to Ain F
eralization and abstract
i.e. they involve a degree of gen rpretive
agent may have to make an inte
situation arises, an individual m rather
it falls within the scope of one nor
judgement in deciding whether the agent
more than one possibility, and
than another. Indeed there may be rath er
motive, for referring to one norm
may have a reason, or an ulterior oric al
iding to translate a text as an hist
than another, for example in dec stab le and ent ren ched
of literature. More
document rather than as a piece rnal izat ion and are
a larger degree of inte NON-(NEGATIVE CONTROL) B > A NON-CONTROLB > A
norms and rules usually involve the very act of
er of course. Either way, = ABSENCE OF NEG. CONTROL B > A = ABSENCE OF CONTROL B > A
more likely to be applied as a matt scop e. Thi s
reinforces its validity and
Bis not subject to Ain F Ais not subject to B in F
observing a norm confirms and a nor m, Bis immune from A in F Ais immune from B in F
e the linguistic formulation of
practical aspect is important, sinc rver, is
in question or by an outside obse
whether within the community ticular Figure 3.3 Modalities of normative control
in effectively guiding actions in par
different from its directive force matter of
a given set of norms may be a
situations. In practice, following
ee A legal ae is more binding than a voluntary code of conduct or a
Bou rdi eu’ s sens e ofa
t, indeed of ‘habitus’ in reement. experienced and well-establi ablished
disposition, of acquired habi has also argu ed.
, as Charles Taylor”
‘durable, transposable disposition’ ng to tran slat e trans'ator may feel more confident than the young aspiring tse
d but inculcated. Learni
Such dispositions are not ‘nherite ate wit h ae he wishes and Suggestions ofa particular editor or publisher. The
norms of translation, i.e. to oper t 3s, s, howev that norms and rules ar e social re. it
means learning to operate the however, is i
them and within them. involving notjust individuals, groups and communities but also the owe
(econtamaie legal these
ions within etiealh
communities, Wwwhether er th these relations
i are material
, , or ‘symbolic’. This is what gives the m odel j
5
between Gynamic character. Norms operate in a complex aed dynamic social
ion of norms implies interaction
As suggested earlier, the operat d F, and in a given ;
Widoeet erectmay be a cultural domain, i such asas the
th domaini of literature.
i
ext. If in a given fiel
agents, and therefore a social cont this mea ns he i ne y matter whether one thinks of this c ‘ontext ini terms of a
on to act in a certain way,
situation, agent A has an obligati of cour se be oem mn the sense of systems theory or in terms of, say, a ‘field’, such as
s another agent B, who may
or she has this obligation toward of cultural production in Bourdieu’s sense. What is important is
 NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 37
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUBVERSION
36
bstrac
from more abstract i
prototypi ypical values and instances, or as ifi
ed in the social and cultural life of a
the fact that norms are deeply implicat products (e.g. individual texts) recognized as embodying those vate The
and often competing positions and
community. They involve different canonized models are likely to be the models adopted and promoted b
rests and stakes being pursued,
possibilities, they point up various inte tegies to
the dominant groups in a given community. In that sense we can say that
individual's desires and stra
defended, coveted, claimed - and the and the ope
the soci and cultural systems isi governed by norms and
operation of social
her as a result of rational choices
further his or her own ends, whet nor ms and
unded in entrenched
gro
practical reasoning or of decisions The mere fact of entering a cultural system and learning to operate as a
and stratified societies, a multiplicity
rules. In large, complexly structured participant in it, involves a process of familiarization with the relevant
ing norms coexist. This multi-
of different, overlapping and often conflict of the potential for change. models. This is true whether we are speaking, say, of going to universi
repository
plicity is at the same time the main or of joining a translation agency, or of aspiring writers trying to get tex
and the hierarchy of the power
It is also the stratified social context, poems or literary translations accepted by a publisher. In fact they roce
ter prominence as well as the greater
relations in it, which explains the grea itself has directive and motivational force, as cultural models ate = eenal-
sed to others. The institutions or
binding force of some norms as oppo ized, and behaviour is adapted to conform to the models recognized as
tend to occupy positions of relative pertinent to the system.” It remains possible, of course, to resist the process
agents who exercise normative control
ar field where the norms apply, or
power and dominance in the particul of adaptation, but at the cost of a failure to integrate into the s stem
s closer to the centres of power ina
indeed in higher-level fields, i.e. field Looking at it from a different angle, we can say that it is through th
possibility of effectively subverting
community. Generally speaking the n the norm
motivational force of models and norms that relations of obligation and
of weak normative control, whe
norms only arises in conditions to acce pt them. claim are created between collectives and individuals.
indivi T i
s, or prepared
subject is relatively immune to sanction also relations of power. hese relations are
are usually those of the dominant
The dominant norms of a community
also the sections which determine the 6
sections of the community. They are
norms are neither true nor false. They
content of the norms. In themselves, If every stage in the transfer and translation of texts is governed by choices
existing states of affairs. Rather, they
do not represent assertions about which require criteria to make more than wholly random decisions about
how things ‘should’ be. The content
stipulate what ‘ought’ or ‘is to’ happen, which options to select, and to what end, then norms, rules and maodels
per’ or ‘correct’. This is a social,
of a norm is a notion of what is ‘pro supply these criteria and goals. Compliance with the set of translational
ation of patterns of behaviour —
intersubjective notion, a conceptualiz norms regarded as pertinent in a given community or domain means that
ing -— regarded as correct or at least
including speaking, writing, translat
ly. What is ‘correct’ is established the product, ie. the translation, is likely to conform to the relevant
legitimate, and therefore valued positive
community’s power structures and correctness notion, which means conformity with the model embodyin
within the community, and within the of norms, their that correctness notion — behind which we can discern the dominant values
members. The directive force
ideology, and mediated to its and secure these and attitudes of the community or the domain in question. Translatin
things to delimit
executive arm, serves among other correctly , in other words, amounts to translating according to the
of what constitutes ‘correct’ behaviour,
notions of correctness. The notion prevailing norm, and hence in accordance with the relevant cononized
translation, is a social and cultural
or ‘correct’ linguistic usage, or ‘correct’ models. The result can be expected to be another ‘model’ translation
construct.
entities. They are values, which,
in on mnins to translate correctly means the acquisition of the relevant
Notions of correctness are abstract fixed, both co Pp , ie. the set of dispositions required to select and apply those
order to become socially or culturally operative, have to be
so that collective attitudes can be rms and rules that will produce legitimate translations, i.e. translations
subjectively and intersubjectively, wiih conform to the legitimate models.” In this way the translator
be learned, and they are constantly
attuned to them. They also have to
ess. In practice, they often appear as aE or any other type of instruction performing the same
reproduced as part of the learning proc els, under- panction , con ually reproduces the dominant norms and models, ensur-
ally manageable form of mod
in the more schematic but ment
ts and precepts of a poetics) derived g their canonization and entrenchment. The higher-level authority — a
stood here as patterns (e.g. the elemen
 SION NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 39
38 TRANSLATION, POWER, SUBVER

to is ultimately on. No less importantly, unless the client can rely on an expert
community — which attaches value
political entity, a economic class, a r to the educ a- control mechanism, he or she is not in a position to challenge the ima eof
its norm-setting powe
those norms and models, delegates the unknown as constructed by the translator. The history of the vole of
tional institute. interpreters in early European encounters with the New World (Columbu:
translating, as a form of textual
It will be clear that in the case of in the Caribbean, Cortés in Mexico, Jacques Cartier in Canada) furnishes
to are textual, discursive entities.
production, the models being referred abundant illustrations of the interplay between power, loyalty and
ally called a ‘poetics’ (including
They cover the substance of what is norm . self-interest in the relations between translators and their afer ”
principles and practical rules for’ good
a ‘poetics of translation’), ie. a set of
practice. But they appear here with
writing’, and a set of examples of good 7
us to appreciate more clearly their
a different emphasis, which allows
ure. Particular groups or subgroups One of the major tasks of the researcher wishing to account for translation
strategic role in the dynamics of cult
translational models and prototypes as a social practice consists in identifying and interpreting the norms which
may adopt a certain configuration of
ete with them and because there are governed the translator’s choices and decisions. The task extends to
in opposition to other groups, to comp
es to be defended or claimed. As accounting, in given communities, at certain times or over a period of time
certain material and symbolic stak
and around these configurations, for the system of norms governing particular domains of translation and
individuals weave their way through
ances, so as to be able to achieve their the discursive models which inspired the norms. The adoption, in specific
they take up positions and build alli
as those of the groups with which instances, of certain models in preference to others informs us about the
own aims, goals and ambitions as well
marked intertextuality which results motivation and strategy used by translators in negotiating existing norms
they have aligned themselves. The
vance. In translating detective novels the kind of text they were aiming to produce, the goals they were tryin; to
from these strategies has a social rele
choice of a particular textual model achieve, and the negative models they were presumably trying to aveid
or popular romances, for example, the
rary’ but it may also spell the end of The discourse about translation, whether by translators themselves or b :
may well mark the translation as ‘lite
, the textual models in question are others (clients, publishers, critics, readers), will also point up notions of
a lucrative contract. At the same time
of the receptor cuture. The specificity correctness, operational aspects of norms and positive and negative models
not only, and not necessarily, those
it refers, expressly or tacitly, to an and prototypes. As was already pointed out by Toury,”* establishing the
of translation stems from the fact that t in
system which it claims to represen nature of the relation of this meta-discourse, i.e. the historical mented
anterior discourse in another sign tual nature of
one way or another. This not only complicates the intertex guage of translation, to the contemporary production of translations is
hes beyond systemic borders, but it particularly delicate aspect the researcher’s task. All this amounts t P
the translated text, which always reac
systemic ‘otherness’ of the source is comprehensive programme for historical research. -
also emphasizes its hybridity, as the
| translation. Translated texts, we can The task may still sound relatively simple. It is not, for obvious reasons
unlikely to be wiped out altogether in
of at least two cultures. Norms are not directly observable, and there may be a gulf separatin,
say, always signal to textual models
te the relative power which the statements about norms from norm-governed behaviour. Tracin. actual
This context also helps us to apprecia
in certain circumstances be able to decisions and regularities does not tell us why the decisions were made
translator has in principle, and may
for those who have no access to the and what induced the regularities. Moreover, cultural systems are ex-
exploit. Translators normally cater
selves but require information from tremely complex and perpetually changing entities, embedded in other
other side of the language barrier them
recognized expert, is acknowledged social systems, each with a history of its own. Translation is necessaril
that source. The translator, as socially sign
e to convey information from one anchored in several of these systems at once. We can therefore expect to
as possessing the special competenc easi ly
e individual translators cannot find a variety of competing, conflicting and overlapping norms and models
system to another. In conditions wher expensiv e, which pertain toa whole array of other social domains. Their directive force
rnatives are unavailable or too
be dispensed with, because alte but to trust not only the will ineach case depend on their nature and scope, on their relative weight
have no option
for example, the translator’s clients onal and ideo logical
also his or her pers their centrality or marginality, their relation to other canonical or nonca
translator’s technical expertise but well as mate rial.
cases is symbolic as nonical models and norms. This is what determines, for both collectives
loyalty. The translator’s power is such the tran slat or
depend on whose side
Loyalty may have its price, and may
 VERSION NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 41
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUB
40
wnat discourses’, and consequently she regards the deployment of translation
normative forces) vs must be auth
and individuals, the modalities of ea res ». ncl ate‘ in a colonial context as part of the ‘technology of colonial domination’.”
id, , w what can be said SE (see Figu
must not be saidid,, what may be said turn ee asa d Niranjana also takes the empirical study of translation to task for not
above). But these varii ous obligaigations and prohibitions in aoe ee
a thinking through the ideological and social force of translation, as in the
i modalitie
with i contro 1 (Figure 3.3 above), which
iti s of normative
complee>xes that we can ee beg case of its complicity in the European colonial project. This type of
i s of power. It isi only wi ithin such
on relation s or cons one , investigation, she charges, ‘seems to ignore not just the power relations
mo dels as opportunitie
to assess the role of norms and eeking at informing translation but also the historicity or effective history of
both pressure-driven and goal-s
the translator’s activity as being _ . translated texts’.” Criticizing in particular Gideon Toury’s insistence on
the same time. systematic, empirical description she observes that ‘[t]he ‘empirical
domains, at certain times, certain
The fact, moreover, that in certain isa ales science’ of translation comes into being through the repression of the
e in evidence than a
models rules and norms are mor olic) power A strugs”Ee asymmetrical relations of power that inform the relations between
of the hier i of power an d of the (real or symb
i archies ni Tai languages’.”
socieieties. As social and
cultural
‘
that run through human and new eof The criticism has some:substance to it, if only because, coming as it does
change, new values, ideologi
ies and structures prevail,
es ; Se
mode ls, nor
no m re e from a politically committed position, it draws out the political and
it on or patronage enmerge, the
control, competiti eis
and cultural acti
tf vity , tran
eesia ideological implications of the academic and scholarly discourse on
i
translation change as well. Asa socia 1 [0
s and constitu
ture tes an operative translation, indeed of any discourse. But surely the main issue is different,

ifi orchestr atioi n 0 f tran slat ions , : through the\ and it is not so much that in the last ten years or so empirical translation
Par i oy throughh the specific eough acti
adoptt,,Sthr
se to to adop theinr studies have, by and large, and increasingly so, begun to pay attention to
prec tbi
isely whi ich ch indi
ch vidual transla1 tors choo
i “indiv’ p
models
and rules, that theyD ee taxe edials the fact that translation is bound up in relations of power — witness, for
assessment and inte i rpretatii on Oo € norms s and ae example, the work of André Lefevere, José Lambert, Susan Bassnett, Maria
translator
s, t he identification of the
that dynamic.i In other word stre ngth prov ides a Tymoczko, Theresa Hyun and others working within the so-called
lati tive
tion of0 their rela
sation
and norms and the apprecia It also a mak e
e target-oriented paradigm. The point is, rather, that empirical studies have
i
insi ght into, strategies i ant d motivations.
to, and insi exchange, a pers« yet to develop a comprehensive theoretical and methodological frame-
translator an agent, an acti
i ve par ticipant in a’ complex
and with
hence a certain amount of power, work that can encompass the social and ideological embedding and impact
witha particular expertise and of translation. André Lefevere’s triad of ideology, poetics and patronage
interests to look after.
all manner of private and public as determining factors in translation directly addresses the problem.”
Niranjana’s notion of the overdetermination of translation is a particularly
8 useful concept in this respect, even though her book as a whole is too much
ae Ty
translation isnecessary focused on the colonial and postcolonial conditions and on poststructural-
The observation (above) that slat Ca
ions are e
no t s
flects the fact that tran ist critiques to provide a general framework.
of these systems at once, re e, an
their own sake, but for a purpos of a
e rs
nee As is being suggested here, an approach to translation via the issue of
i ours es.s. The norm al 1 m mode of existenc
alre ady exta
produces ornt texts and disc per se,t N norms can furnish a key component of such a framework. It can cope with
isi not as 4 a translation’ son’ or or ‘a‘a t translated text’ the overdetermination of translation precisely because the norm concept
translation
ion
trans. lated phi hilo losophical treatise, a Ee oe
translated legal document, a i , has its basis in social interaction, and therefore in questions of ideology,
ing in a self-containe re
work of lite i rature. Rather than occurrring g; e
alonho social complexity, shared values and the unequal distribution of power.
i are inse into
i rted into —— or S0 metimes between, a or Leaving aside the irony that it was, of all people, Gideon Toury who
translations catering for nethe nee
xisti i ursiive forms and prac tices. In
isting disc ae aera introduced the concept of norms into translation studies, it remains true
not but defer to the prevailing
: stem veaient, translation can asw int iranjana that the broader theoretical and methodological implications of the norms
of translation which Tej
of that system. It is this aspect ati on cor mes approach need developing. One aspect of this concerns the very determi-
slation. As she puts it, transl
calls the overdetermination of tran econ
religious, racial, sexual and
into being overdetermined by
 NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 43
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUBVERSION
42
following pages Nevertheless, the distinction is still useful in a number of ways. In fact
nslation, and for whom. The
nation of what constitutes tra we constantly appeal, however indirectly, to a constitutive norm to
direction.
are a first, faltering step in that determine what our culture understands as translation.
In 1959, in his famous essay ‘On Linguistic Aspects of Translation’,
9 Lo r Roman Jakobson presented a tripartite division of different kinds of
rule s and nom s ope rat ive ty a ake translation into what he termed intralingual translation or rewording,
l
The complex of translationa for that community, ee ction interlingual translation or translation proper, and intersemiotic translation
s lation
mmu
com ni
mun ity defii nes what is1 tran norms of tra to
Se
i d as translation. The
ognize or transmutation. In Jakobson’s own presentation of these different kinds,
determin es what isi rec cted, , how the. ma en
i what can and s. hould be selected both intralingual and intersemiotic translation are ‘translated’ into other
broadly prescribe itis likely to be received.
vi dual translators, an d how
indiivi terms, ‘rewording’ and ‘transmutation’, respectively.” The very fact that
andled b ind recognized, social
e ee n defi ne the con tours of translation as a the middle term is given as ‘interlingual translation or translation proper’,
mr sens a
without a ‘proper’ intralingual equivalent (i.e. without rewording), serves
category. consti e
tut as an indication that this form is the one which, in our contemporary usage,
rs have done,” between
a useful to distinguish, as othe is certae
Oi er is commonly understood as being ‘translation’ tout court. In other words,
translation. The distinction
ive’ norms and ru les of
and ‘ ‘regulative’ vanity
t regu
Ba la Jakobson’s extension of the term to intralingual and intersemiotic modes,
not absolute, as constitu itu tive norms ¢ annot do withou vhat y,
ss,, we could say that, for a
give
ven co m accepted in academic circles as perfectly legitimate from a linguistic and
i versa.” 2 Neverthel
and vice hele
ess e
tion mark the boundary betw en ee semiotic point of view, acknowledges in its very designation of ‘translation
the constitu tive norms of transla
ituti niity
mun reg,cee proper’ for interlingual translation that as a social category this is what
i and what isi not, i.e. i be tween what a given com e
translation ernion,
slat
nas
: to call tran aee ane
i constitutes the entire concept of translation, to the exclusion of the other
and accepts as translation i an d therefore agrees TE ier
tex produduc
tual pro tion
ction or tra"nst orm two forms. The formulation itself concedes that the extended meaning may
exp res i
sio n and of n the ;
modes of tion, a P Pagia claim validity in the academic community, but that it does not coincide
(creativi e wr iting, imitation, adadar pta
by some other name slation distinguisn,i Si snales with common usage. At the same time, in extending the ‘commonsense’
i e norms OF f tran|
burlesque, etc.). Regulativ of beh avi our
i . en d the concept of translation to accommodate a number of related operations, the
i between option tional forms
domaini called translation, 0 ,
at aon definition significantly underdetermines that concept. But it is equally
ropriate in i certain types ee
i s may be regarde d as app The obvious that the commonsense notion of translation as restricted to
option
i ure in adheringng to this Ot tions,
success or failfailure
translator’s‘ perceived oF ad ‘bad io the con sti7 tu interlingual operations rests on the application of a constitutive norm.
med to hav e re sulted in ‘good’ or
may be dee
s lati on are therefore subord. ina eT ecipel d aoe
The boundaries of what is recognized as translation can also be
regula tivi e nor ms of tran
ther a parttiicul
ce ar per formances} ae
illustrated with reference to ‘phonemic’ translations (or transpositions, or
i norms. Regardless of whe
tive aes Ae . il
the bounds of tran
end id or poor , it
i rem a ins wit hin whatever) such as the Englishings of Catullus by Louis and Celia Zukofsky,
or bad, spl i no Sey oe
tive
breac hes of stroong ng re regula or Ernst Jandl’s versions of Wordsworth.” A good many readers and critics
course, serii ous OT repeated proer
on is ‘notota a Prop pe tran at thisMs
i that the pro duct in questi have hesitated to call these texts ‘translations’, even though at least the
lead to the verdict , and So
a ,
Onee t
ion’,, ‘no longer translation See
ion’ Zukofsky versions were presented as such. However, the privileging of
‘not acceptable as a translat translation the distinct i
indi cates that as regarddss
sound over sense in such ‘phonemic’ renderings is so strong that most
merely indi fast or a de used
and regu lati ve nor ms 15 not en and critics” feel the result cannot be reconciled with our expectations of the
apratina tive the outer 2edge Sand
i of a communi ity. But if kind of relation a translation should entertain with its original. The
in di erent sections
in diff e morore
e s mod ; i
els
are ofte n fray ed, iits centre is usuallyFo much normative moment in this expectation is clear enough and appears in
of translationi The
institutionalized norms
and rules. statements to the effect that translation should preserve such things as the
serv e both h as arc! ypal instances of
archetyp ot
‘sense’, or the ‘pragmatic meaning’, or the ‘communicative value’ of the
essi Yemor i ly y to
e eover, are like 3
tranern
gov slat ion, tutive ac ete
ce satisfying the consti source text. At the same time, itis hardly a coincidence that renderings with
translation as such (hen ng the
med excellent (hence satisfyi an ambivalent status occur precisely in the literary field, with its relatively
examples of translation dee
weak modalities of normative force and normative control.
regulative norms).
 NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 45
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUBVERSION
44
tional core is retained ed ‘i‘invariant
i under transformation’, and on its basis
10 a relationship known as ‘equi equivalence’ - is establi
‘translation’ in, say, the Western resultant and initial entities.* ished Between the
determine what constitutes
we It needs Li hae Lage
tion is obviously unanswerable.
Can
ssnecnalt caliogg Oi onite aah presents a considerable extension of our
world? In this crude form the ques ical areas, and
es, cultural circuits, geograph or intuitive use of the term ‘t ion’ i
to be broken down into genr may
with luck, empirical investigation of the Western world today. Inits
i attempt to extrapolat oat
in iot
historical periods. In principle, and
ence
the form of shar ed
ial answers in kernel from a large numb er of everyday, metaphoric Pecand and echoleehrasent
then come up with at least part and conv enti ons.
hence shared norms the term ‘translation’, , it
it cl clearly underdetermines
Ceethe concept,
assumptions and expectations, and
; eet ate at least i
e, by
ch which was adopted, for exampl isc
comparison with the 2 ‘commonsense’
“co noti
notion of ‘translation , proper’ OF
This is the type of empirical approa ’ gov ern ing
iry into the ‘macro-conventions snd ign is the ae of modern academic discourses om Ie npaages
Siegfried Schmidt in his enqu .” As
construct in West Germany in 1980 systems together with existing ‘comm onsense’ 4 concepts
the concept of literature as a social
and
rver s
e formulations by seasoned obse practices of translation which create th e conditions
iti definition sn ini th
regards translation, certain intuitiv
for the
particul ar
to capturing a consensus in
may or may not come close
first place, and for its acceptance in an academic milieu Gefinition in the
es. Wit h refe rence to
rm working hypothes
subdivisions, and could info Harr is posi ts the oamieale as the definition isolates the minimal or core features of a
, for instance, Brian
modern professional interpreting is
icular of semiotic
i operation, " it also int ends to name a uni
and universal’ norm, which
existence of a “fyndamental -
category, Presumably translation unbound by socio-cultural a ie
the norm of the ‘honest spokesper ning factors. This would be the common d
the ‘true interpreter’ norm, Or... lf of othe rs,
i
le who speak on beha from all those: practices t ermed ‘ ‘translation’ in one!
son’. This norm requires that peop i oe eeenees ‘ redestioa ion’
ss the original speakers’ ideas and iin another, ‘Ubersetzung’ ina third, , ‘ vertaling’ ing’ iin a fourth, titeletc. teeta
interpreters among them, re-expre t
Th initi
accurately as possible and withou is then the result of a pro gressive i reduction i to a minimal ice set of ienuitatine ituti
manner of expressing them as
them up with their own ideas and norms, i.e. the requirement concerning th ion ‘invariant under
significant omissions, and not mix s
tention ‘invari
m is made explicit, as in the oath transformation’ of ‘some informati ational Y core’,ore’, aand th seen eats
expressions. Occasionally this nor e juri sdic tion s.”
swear under som lishment of a relation of ‘equi equivalence’ (the terms : are amiontroablen
obvi
which court interpreters have to
and universal’ a norm of interpreting aatical, vé as is the syntaxax bf of the definiti
inition
t as regards
g the e vequivalen’a
‘equivalence’ lana
‘equi clause).
Of course, just how ‘fundamental also
seen. But the formulation itself ven i the ‘providing’ clause in the definition is read as a on
is formulated here remains to be esh ed in othe r
mode of translation, is enm dese HP ive statement, the problem is only displaced, as in performing
reminds us that interpreting, as a The y are part
legal and moral categories. erations which might qualify as ‘translation’, cultures will still have s
spheres of human activity, and in the
ion. At the same time, they mark decide what the y recognize i
as the valid retention invari ‘i ‘
of the social construction of translat
ant under
transformation’ of an snfaroational tints

overdetermination of translation. translation

decontextualized accounts of ot ~ mow broad oruniversal is the definition then? Clearly, the reduction
If this is true, it follows that environment, riers rative ey
without reference to its social to a semiotic core puts it at some remove from
which describe the process the case with Jakobson’s io-culturally
lturally « determined ‘common sense’ , concepts of transla-
slation. This was P
necessarily underdetermine tran which
for exa mple, to the semiotic definition tionas they occur in individual languages. Its claim to universality could
description. It also applies, ic pers pect ive’ on
broad ‘cultural-semiot then me mone of wo thin oa Either all usages in all languages have a
Gideon Toury offers as part of his otic s (198 6):
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semi aning for their respective terms denoting * i
translation in Thomas Sebeok's
which is performed (or occurs) over
i.e. for whatever translates as ‘tr anslation’
i from and caine
into th erate idi
Translating is an act (or a process) a
widest of its possible senses it is
although
a one must then wo: nder on the |basis of what ae
wh concept ohof taadaine
translation
fon
and across systemic borders. In the whi ch ne femmin ological and conceptual equivalence is to be established. Or the
whereby one semiotic entity,
series of operations, Or procedures, is trans- scans on identifies a universal non-linguistic category, an operation
certain cultural (sub)system,
is a constituent (element) of a l oted by means of different terms in different languages. This presents
ty, which forms at least a potentia
formed into another semiotic enti a-
tem, providing that some inform
element of another cultural (sub)sys
 POWER, SUBVERSION NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 47
46 TRANSLATION,

into our own terms a concept of translation radically different from ours,
the question of knowing how
problems of a different kind, among them we inevitably do so by making use of our own categories of translation.”
to this entity.
terms in individual languages correspond The exploration begins, then, by establishing a ‘base of agreement’ to
ann eat latn
Neither interpretation looks convincing or even sa - at make comparison and commensuration possible.” In the case of translation
ition implic-it
n’s’s imp and never more *
than
ifi we reject j the defininitio there may be something to be said for taking Toury’s semiotic definition of
to expl ore other, and EE p
to unive i rsality,ity, itit willwil stillsti be usefu La a s
tool
translation as a starting point. Having grown out of the contemporary
n in other cultu res. Te ee ae
very diffe i rent concepts © f translatio d e scholarly discourse of descriptive studies, it clearly underdetermines
ly, and delib erate ly, unde rde
recisei ly ini the fact that iti clearly, ae pproach concepts of translation current in the Western tradition and may reason-
Fanlatien as it has been pract ised in much of the ve ably be expected also to underdetermine (many? most?) concepts of
ing the semiotic defini tion roach
is worth remembering i i using
that in translation likely to be encountered in other cultures, communities and/or
mome 1 nt in |
ts of translatio ion n in i other cultures, the normative periods. Precisely because it underdetermines the social practice of
theoretical “e PA E enpt
definition is retained. While this presents e. en we attem ] translation, the semiotic definition serves to counterbalance to some extent
it is hard to envisi age a pract ical
i alternativ
tive.
a é
hence its the fact that the researcher’s perspective is necessarily grounded in his or
Pees and and circumscribe i the concept t 0 of translation,n, and her own overdetermined ‘commonsense’ understanding of translation.
is no safe, objective point trom
soretifative norms, in other cultures, there resea; rche This will facilitate the subsequent mapping and plotting of culturally
hich to tackle the he issue. In thisi respect ct |the translation different conceptions of translation as far as possible in their own terms
the type of ‘cultural
ogee are similar to, and as problematical as, and context.
translation’ performed by anthropologists. What this amounts to, is an attempt to grasp and reconstruct the other
a distant cunure 5 distant in nee
In looking at the field of translation in pre community’s culture-specific field of translation in its relation to its
i ~ researchers projej ct the concept © trans: lation immediate environment, i.e. in its social conditioning and overdetermina-
i
and start Kom
from
in their own
SEE AS lac and language on to the new domain,
time, place tion. This is rather more than a simple matter of fleshing out a clinically
i other domains ins as well. Our present-rong day Haacu se
there. Thisi happens in decontextualized semiotic skeleton.
h-century _Bur Pp n opea As, for example, Clifford Geertz
categoriesi have no exact counteterpart in, say, tent demonstrates in his essay ‘Art as a Cultural System’, the practices
of the Amazon regio Bion. n. ne
ties, or among the Nambi kwara
socieieti tera encountered in one domain of culture can only be understood in the light
nevertheless wish i to study cultura 1 products which function of the practices which make up culture as a whole. As he puts it:
way or anot her with th w what we
ities ini a manner compara ble in one way
communities other op It is out of participation in the general system of symbolic forms we
‘literature’, , or ‘art’, have no we
here and now call, for example, li
thing eae Se call culture that participation in the particular we call art, which is in
except to explore the possibility that some : fact but a sector of it, is possible. A theory of art is thus at the same time
&X s in
ini mally de fined, 1 exist those co n
i , however mini
categories
on ae wnin map a theory of culture, not an autonomous enterprise. And if it is a semiotic
cihaeanantly to proceed from thisassumpti alate theory of art it must trace the life of signs in society, not in an invented
other c re,re, togter
and gloss the varii ous prac tices in the eaten in
metalanguages, and together with th relat re ed practices On in ne the umm world of dualities, transformations, parallels, and equivalences.
i and de lineation of the doma ; in of tran The references in Geertz’ article are to such art forms as Yoruba carvings,
icini ity. The exploration
vicin
rent from this esse ntia lly ethnographic Abelam four-colour painting, European Renaissance painting, and Moroc-
ler cultures is no diffe
tric pias is peer sa ow
heavily interpretive practice. The ethnocen orica ee
can oral poetry. He might equally have been speaking of translation.”
course, simil imi ar procedures are app lied in most Even so, the researcher’s description of the assumptions, conventions,
ns own ow p mee
and they, too, inva i riab i ly bring ing ininto play the researcher's norms and rules of what another culture understands by ‘translation’
lation, thee resear
tions
i and hist oric
istori The fact that, inin the the case of transa
ci ity. remains itself, necessarily, an interpretation, an attribution of meaning
rmin ed ‘ by the p evailing
concept of translatio i n canno t help being dete resulting in a textual construct, a cultural translation into the terms and
milie u, a
cann seserve wa
translatio i nal norms in in hishi or her own cuculture and terminology of one form or another of translation studies. As a scholarly
and meta- level 1s r
i
inder that the separatii on between ob)bject-level trans late text, and as a translation into scholarly discourse, the description, like other
Moreover, when we
Tess clear-cut that we might like to believe.
 VERSION NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 49
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUB
48
ditions of 8. i p. 70,
Friedrich Kratochwil , op. cit.,
is ‘inevitably enmeshed in con
forms of cultural translation, 9.7 Tag ey
Anthony Pym, Relations
‘The en i
LE, b etween Translation and Material Text Transfer’,
ational’. Just as the terms of the
power — professional, national, intern part of a
ess of tran scri ptio n are neit her neutral nor transparent but . André Lefevere,
. (London 150) , Rewriti
aie,Translation, i 7
Rewriting and the Manipulation i
of Literary Fame
proc process is
ve web, so the product 0 f that
broader conceptual and discursi thei r own status, . i
See Hermans’ ‘Translational Norms and CorrectT ranslations’ and ‘O -
es and institutions with
entangled in pre-existing structur , bei ng also ling Translation. Models Norms and the c of Translation’ for farther detail
words, our own descriptions
role and functioning. In other fro m the C r eoretical works David Lewi i
with interferences stemming
transcriptions, are shot through
Renate Bariset Oe vm of Laren Mass.: Plaand University Press, 1965) ana
fro m
our own language and culture, and nate orms of Language. Theoretical and Practical , i
concept of translation inscribed in eu’ s
ial pers ona’ , our posi tion and position-takings (in Bourdi this view, of the nature and an role of n orms isi largely "Dron. Hjort’ ube ana
based. Eecit.
our ‘soc is, the study of Conventions contains critical discussions of the concept Pores ties “
e) in an inst itut iona l cont ext. As a social practice, that D pear by piesep ee like Lewis and Wittgenstein men @s
sens
f, is always overdetermined.
translation, like translation itsel . ‘ ee
mann- argalit,i The Emergence of Norms (Oxford: j Clarendon Press,

. Cf. Lewis, op. cit., p. 97; and Hj |

Notes
Ho nor Roman Jakobson, vol.
14. Lewis, op. cit., p. gp Ten Nore Beh cp.
a Decision Process’, in To
1. jitiLevy, ‘Translation as 15. Bartsch, op. cit., p. 126.
), pp. 1171-82. 16. Schauer, op. cit., p. 2.
2 (The Hague: Mouton, 1967 : Porter Institute,
Gideon Tour y, In Sear ch of a Theory of Translation (Tel Aviv 17, Ibid., p. 8.
2.
1980). . (London
18. Niklas Luhmann, 1988 nomen,Th me
Reratledge,A Sociological Law, trans. E. King
i and M. Albrow
3. Ibid., p.51. , ‘Normen in
Paul Frank and Brigitte Schultze (ed.), Die liter-
4. See, for example, Armin Kitte l terminology
. Thehe tern i
is of little consequence here, iy and certain! i igi
setzungsstudier’, in Harald ey As far as I can make out, writers on the theory of corm eaticns
historisch-deskriptiven Uber (Berlin: Erich
arische Ubersetzung. Stan d und Perspektiven ihrer Erforschung sequences of nc ors and nfo do pot use a uniform terminology. Individual terms derive
Hort, ‘Translation and the Con
Schmidt, 1988), pp. 96-121; Mette Translation, History T | t er terms being deployed. In what foll
rom i
and André Lefevere (eds.), ‘rule’ more or less stench ontaeatily, On the issue operant von
Scepticism’, in Susan Bassnett Christiane Nord, use norm and
York: Pinter, 1990), pp. 38-45; 90 an is relative unimportance, see Schauer (op. cit., pp. 14-5) omey
and Culture (London and New ons’, Target, iii, 1, 1991, pp. 91-110;
Conventi
‘Scopos, Loyalty and T: ranslational and Correct Translations’, in Kitt Art
y van ; a Sepik de Ge tate pea See Paris: Seuil, 1970, 135ff.) and
tion al Nor ms e Notion of ‘System’: Its Th ical |
Theo Hermans, ‘Transla The State of the
s (eds.), Translation Studies: ‘ | Tearalation Teeny’
yesionalist Translati
for a Functionalist “i tx
Leuven-Zwart & Ton Naaijken 69; Theo Her man s, ‘On Modelling and Its Methodological Implications
pp. 155-
(Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1991), Field of Tran slat ion’ , Livi us 4, 1993, pp- Harald Kittel, ed., Geschichte, System, Literarische U. hersctounp/tiistorien Syst a
and the ranslations, Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 1992, pp. 32-45, and De Geest,
Translation. Models, Norms and Strategies hes
rew Ches term an, ‘Fro m ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms Lit erat als aectom Lecce voor een systemisch-functionalistische senate
69-88; And
v, 1, 1993, pp. 1-20.
in Translation Studies’, Target, ons, Norms and vers , Leuven: Katholieke UniversiteitL
rs, Ladi slav Holy & Milan Stuchlik, Acti use of semiotic squares of this kind in connection with nowt; the brane
5. See, among othe ty Pres s, 1983); Renate
Cambridge Universi
Representations (Cambridge: Longman, ™ ed - aa ARs tae rep pias of normative control’ (below)
Bartsch, Norms of Language . Theo retical and Practical Aspects (London:Theory and irectives and Norms, London: Routl
ept of Convention in Literary ff.), where they, are discussed
1774f.), in : en fencetier te
1987); Douwe Fokkema, ‘The Conc et al., (eds.) Convention and Innovation in se a legal context, and ina diff tf
D’ha en
Empirical Research’, in Theo Kratochwil, diagonal li axes ine semiotic square indicate relations of Gppasitions he
amins, 1989), pp- 1-16; Friedrich
Literature (Amsterdam: John Benj Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in sroaation. . s of contradiction; and the vertical lines, relations of
Rules, Norms and Decisions. On the University
Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge
International Relations and Domestic Theory of Norms, trans. Michael Hartney a St, op. cit., pp. 38ff., 165ff.
ral
Press, 1989); Hans Kelsen, Gene by the Rules. A . ‘To FFollow
Charles Taylor,or, “To E. Lipuma
e...’,inC. Calhoun,
a Rule...’,inC.C i and
Clar endo n Pres s, 1991 ); and Frederick Schauer, Playing (Bret published ration (ale tates (Cambridge: Polity Bross, 1993) EP. one
(Oxford: ed Decision -Mak ing in Law and Life (Oxford:
Philosophical Examination of Rule-Bas 2. Ros, eo nH . !
ed.), ules and Conventions). _
Clarendon Press, 1991). Social Theory
Conventions. Literature, Philosophy,
6. Mette Hjort (ed.), Rules and ty Pres s, 1992 ).
. For exexemplary f case studies cf. ’ Richard Shweder, er, ‘ ‘Ghost Busters i =
Universi
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins ogy’, in Roy D’Andrade and Claudia Strauss (eds.), Human Mottocband Celera
7. Ibid., pp. ix-xi.
 NORMS AND THE DETERMINATION OF TRANSLATION 51
VERSION
TRANSLATION, POWER, SUB
50
of the Nambikwara word as ‘drawing g lines’
lines’ but emphatically not ‘writing’
Holland,
ersity Press, 1992); and Dorothy nitrates Se Nam or for Levi-Strauss it apparently canna cen weg?
Models (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ re. A Case Study of American Romance’, becau
e
ikwara do not have a
.. les
tradition of writing inthe Western
Desi
‘How Cultural Systems Become Cultural
Clau dia Strauss (eds.), Human Motives and
in Roy D’Andrade and |
41. Matthijs Bakker (‘Metaspron, g, en wetenschap: een kwestie van discipline’, i
Models, pp. 61-89. ion of ‘correct’
25. The parallel here is with
Bourdieu’s account of the acquisit te Language’: oe a_i and Theo Hermans, eds., Verialen historisch bezien ore oa " e:
and Reproduc tion of Legi tima 5 Hcl hting I Me Baby Reriaaiey 1995) offers an ingenious and pertinent
linguistic usage in “The Production petence whichis an incorporated grammar, utch) of the problematical nature of th iti
usag e’ is the prod uct ofa com
“Correct the linguists)
icitly (and not tacitly, as itis by i studies
ptive translation
object-level to meta-level in descripti (an cnproach, that
ios (an
the word grammar being used expl scholarly rules, derived ex post facto from is, which does not wish to define translation fori, air pi
in its true sense of a system of e yet to be
as imperative norms for discours resulting Se
the result
which it observes into its own terms), ' and of “the nde teak
complici
expressed discourse and set up Ray mon d and M. Adamson, bd ven
Power, trans. G. the researcher and the normative structures of his or A
expressed’ (Language and Symbolic 42. Tambiah, op. cit., p. 131 ff. *
1991, p. 61).
Cambridge: Polity Press, E [ i
slation, p. 57ff. 43. Clifford Geertz, , Local Knowledge. 7 Furth
26. In Search of a Theory of Tran Text (Berkeley and
27. Siting Translation. Hist ory, Post-Structuralism and the Colonial (London: Fontana, 1993 11983) } p. 109. er Essays in Interpretice Anthropology
ia Press, 1992), p. 21.
Los Angeles: University of Californ
. Asad, art. cit., p. 163

28. Ibid., p. 59.

_ Ibid., p. 60. , Rewriting and the Manipulation
of Literary Fame) for
30. See e.g. Lefevere (Translation studies, and Her man s (‘Tr anslation between
the theoretical exposition and case for criticism
and Literature 3, 1994, pp. 138-45)
Poetics and Ideology’, Translation
of both.
rman, art. cit.
31. Nord, art. cit.; and Cheste
. Schauer, op. cit., pp- 6-7; and Kratochwil, op. cit., p. 26.
ts on the terms
ues Detr ida’s shrewd and ironic commen
33. See also, of course, Jacq Babe l’, in Joseph
division, in ‘Des Tours de
and assumptions of Jakobson’s Univ ersi ty Press, 1985),
ion (Ithaca: Cornell
Graham (ed.), Difference in Translat
pp. 165-248. (Assen and
Seven Strategies and a Blueprint 43-5.
_ Lefevere, Translating Poetry. Tour y, op. cit., pp-
pp- 19-26; and
Amsterdam: Van Gorcum, 1975),in Translating Poetry.
Including e.g. Lefe vere , at least
t, op. cit., pp. 222-24.
ions and Literature’, in Hjor
. Siegfried Schmidt, ‘Convent et 2, 1 (199 0), p. 118.
tation’, Targ
Brian Harris, ‘Norms in Interpre ural -Semiotic Perspective’, in
Thomas
A Cult
‘{Translation]:
. Gideon Toury, ter, 1986), vol.
c Dict iona ry of Semiotics (Berlin: De Gruy
Sebeok (ed.), Encyclopaedi
2. Anthropol-
ural Translation in British Social
Talal Asad, ‘The Concept of Cult Marcus (eds.), Writing Culture. The Poetics
ge
ogy’, in James Clifford and Geor Press, 1986),
of Ethn ogra phy (Ber keley: University of California
and the Politics ce, Reli gion , and the Scope
Tambiah, Magic, Scien
pp. 141-64; and Stanley Jeyaraja ty Pres s, 1990 ).
dge Universi
of Rationality (Cambridge: Cambri Derrida’s
t is also mad e by Nira njan a (op. cit., p- 67), with reference to Spivak,
40. The poin logy (tran s. G.C.
. In Of Grammato
critique of Claude Lévi-Strauss pp. 122ff.)
n: John s Hop kin s University Press, 1974 [1977],
Baltimore/Londo Lévi-Strauss’ thesis, subs eque ntly omitted
Derrida discusses a passage from ropologist remarks that the Nambikwara
anth
from Tristes Tropiques, where the d which
word for ‘wri ting ’, alth ough he quotes a Nambikwara wor wara
donot havea used by the Nam bik
lines’. The word was
he reports as meaning ‘drawing n to them
ribi ng wav y lines using pencils and paper give slation
when they were insc auss ’ tran
criticism focuses on Lévi-Str
by the anthropologists. Derrida’s