128 REVIEWS

Mary Snell-Hornby. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach.

Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 1988. viii 4- 164 pp.
ISBN 90-272-2060-3. Hfl. 35.

From a historiographical point of view, studies of the type offered by Mary Snell-
Hornby are highly illuminating as they both represent and discuss fundamental
issues in translation studies, and hence reveal major strategies of theory design.
The present study, dealing as it does with an impressive array of topics and
reflecting current positions and debates, aims at an original reformulation and
restructuring of modern hypotheses with respect to the present situation and pos-
sible evolution of the discipline.
Quite naturally, such a historical dimension, interesting as it might be in view
of the stimulating results arrived at by adjacent disciplines (such as the historio-
graphy of linguistics and literary theory), does not correspond to the scope of the
study itself; as is the case with most contemporary theories of translation, it is
replaced by a "state of the art" description, complemented by metascientific con-
siderations on the general status and orientation of translation studies. On the
one hand, the basic assumption which governs the overall organisation of the
book, namely the necessity of "integrating" into translation studies the "whole
spectrum of language" (p. 3), leads the author to oppose her approach to a whole
range of "unsuitable concepts (dichotomies and box-like categories), prejudices
('translation is a matter of words') and fixed ideas (such as the fixation on equiva-
lence and dictionary equivalents)" (p. 131). On the other hand, the selective pro-
cedures required for a (brief) survey of modern achievements in translation
theory are apparently unable to do justice to the complex historical backgrounds
and aims of preceding and contemporary theories.1 For this very reason, they
cannot avoid the embarrassing impression of a petitio principii ("only a limited
number of issues in linguistics are relevant for translation", p. vii), as if apparent
convergencies between the two did not belong to a set of hypotheses within a dis-
covery procedure, but were actually needed to uphold a predetermined concept
of translation and of the adequate strategies for its practice and description.
The first chapter is a general outline of translation studies as an independent
discipline, in which the previous succession of attempts at grasping the phenome-
non itself — i.e. translation as communication, thus including both process and
product — is pitted against an approach based on prototypology as a "dynamic,
gestalt-like system of relationships, whereby the various headings represent an
idealized, prototypical focus and the grid-system gives way to blurred edges and
overlappings" (p. 31). One can legitimately argue that this model and its earlier
variants as expressed by German Gestaltpsychologie or by Wittgenstein, are help-
ful in remedying the shortcomings of traditional linguistic categorization, as they
have appeared mainly in the typology of relationships between source- and

Target 2:l (1990), 128-133. DOI 10.1075/target.2.1.12dhu

ISSN 0924-1884 / E-ISSN 1569-9986 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
 REVIEWS 129

target-texts, and in the typology of translated texts themselves. A six-level model

(diagram on p. 32) starts with some general distinctions (literary translation, gen-
eral language translation, special language translation) and descends along "smal-
ler-scale" ones, such as generic and textual distinctions, down to the micro-level
of sound. At the same time it also introduces several non-linguistic and linguistic
disciplines relevant to translation. The horizontal plane of the diagram applies
essentially to the general and generic distinctions, and shows a "cline, where
sharp divisions have been replaced by the notion of gradual transition" (p. 31).
Particular attention is paid to the communicative dimension of texts. As is
well known, empirical research carried out in different areas, on both synchronic
and diachronic axes, has convincingly demonstrated that typologies developed on
the basis of the various communicational functions of texts and translated texts,
or on the basis of translational processes, are far too static, and therefore com-
pare unfavourably with the more flexible categories introduced by prototypology.
However, like all typologies, prototypology, while suitable as long as we accept
that "overlappings" and "blurred edges" take account of the variable nature of
translational phenomena, also maintains that there is a "hard" focus: "it is a
hallmark of the prototypical literary translation that it is assumed to stand as a
valid full-scaled representative of the original in a foreign culture" (p. 114). It will
therefore be first and foremost of descriptive use for particular corpora only,
namely those that are covered by it, at the exclusion of all other, allegedly "de-
viant" forms of translational behaviour, throughout history and across cultures.
In these cases, it can merely claim to be a heuristic tool, and even then it should
be treated with circumspection, as it should not hamper the understanding of the
typological features underlying the "deviant" translated text itself,2 insofar as
these features as such are relevant characteristics of the phenomenon under
study. In other words, typologies of source-texts should be complemented by
typologies of translated texts; and both typologies should be as flexible as neces-
sary in time and place.
Throughout the book, the axiom of prototypology is taken as a basis for the
development of interesting theoretical models, which appear as useful stepstones
in the gradual formation of a general theory of translation. Total cohesion
between these models is still lacking however, not least because of the risks
involved in the strategy of "filling in" a basic concept by a plurality of more or
less distinct concepts drawn from a variety of disciplines (in this case, text-linguis-
tics, contrastive linguistics, terminology, literary and cultural history, etc.). If
there is no reason why one should reject the borrowing of possible explanatory
models from other disciplines, especially when the unequal status of two adjacent
and already interfering disciplines favours hierarchical relationships and a one-
way communication as between a "sender" and a "receiver", it is doubtful
whether translation studies in its present state is still in need of such a receptive
strategy vis-a-vis linguistics.
130 REVIEWS

The ambivalent transitional position of modern translation studies, i.e. the

fact that "translation draws on many disciplines, but is not equal to the sum total
of their overlapping areas and is not dependent on any one of them" (p. 35), is a
clear example of the receptivity of the discipline, and has successfully contributed
to its rapid progress. Yet the major attention to model design has also hindered
the unfolding of an empirical dimension of translation research that goes beyond
the mere application of theories; the time has possibly come for an open "prob-
lem-solving" attitude towards translational facts, favouring both the descriptive
level of research and the consideration of "new" phenomena, which have tradi-
tionally been rejected from the core of translation studies (visual communication,
the semiotics of intersystemic transfer, etc.), because they illustrate a tremendous
variety of phenomena, in synchrony and diachrony alike, which necessarily
escapes a one-sided, general interpretative framework. One should not forget, by
the way, to what extent translation studies itself has proved fruitful for the
development of linguistics (e.g. contrastive linguistics) and literary studies (com-
parative literature, literary history).
A "top-down" order for translation theory is advocated in the first chapter
("translation begins with the text-in-situation as an integral part of the cultural
background, whereby text-analysis proceeds from the macro-structure of the text
to the micro-unit of the word, this being seen, not as an isolatable item, but in its
relevance and function within the text"; p. 2), and adopted from the second chap-
ter on. Many pages are devoted to "translation as a cross-cultural event", culture
on the one hand being defined as "a totality of knowledge, proficiency and per-
ception", connected with behaviour and events and dependent on norms, and
translating, on the other, as an act of communication. These ideas were applied
to translation studies by Hans J. Vermeer, and by other scholars whose orienta-
tion "towards cultural rather than linguistic transfer" (p. 43) has been widely
accepted in translation studies; it is well demonstrated here by the observed
interplay between textual structures (e.g. "dimension" as the relationships
between linguistic structures: semantic congruence, phonological affinities, con-
notation, etc.) and cultural structures, via the "perspective", i.e. "the viewpoint
of the speaker, narrator or reader in terms of culture, attitude, time and place"
(p. 52). The translation of metaphor is of crucial interest in this respect.
In the third chapter, the projected integration of new or renewed concepts
becomes more clearly profiled thanks to the concrete examples offered by the
comparative descriptions of translated texts. The general statements about the
relationship between translation and linguistics fully take into account the
increasing reorientation, within language studies, towards the cultural foundation
of language-in-texts and hence the complex intertwining of verbal communication
with the vast body of surrounding cultural configurations. Accordingly, the aim
oi the author is apparently to arrive at a better comprehension of the factors
influencing translational communication. It is somewhat strange, therefore, that
 REVIEWS 131

the approach to the source-text and to the translation process takes a purely pros-
pective direction: "strategies should be developed for translating the text, based
on conclusions reached from the analysis" (p. 69; boldfacing added). However, it
remains to be seen whether a prospective analysis of the source-text is preferable
to an analysis for its own sake.
A complementary step would be the comparison of both texts, as "an essen-
tial preliminary to translation" (p. 69, and p. 77: "With an analysis of this kind
translation problems are not solved, but the translator is made aware of them,
and in the actual translation process he can then decide on which priorities are to
shape the target text"). However, if the aim were to understand the constraints
underlying the target text as such, its analysis would claim to have the same status
as source-text analysis, and therefore be more independent both logically and
methodologically. It is precisely here that the borderline lies between descriptive-
explanatory3 and prescriptive approaches to translation. When M. Snell-Hornby
says that "literary translation should develop methods of analysis and investiga-
tion both to determine the envisaged role for the translated text in the target cul-
ture and to anticipate its possible reception by readers and critics" (p. 77), she
clearly suggests that the effective role of the translated text and its effective recep-
tion within the target system do not belong to the central concern of translation
studies. Whereas her attention is mainly directed towards the understanding of
the source-text as a culturally marked product to be translated, it should, from
the descriptive point of view, equally and even primarily focus on the translated
text and try to reconstruct the set of constraints that govern its being, next to and
even possibly distinct from the source-text. Earlier analyses of the translation
process and the communicational functions of translations (e.g., Holmes 1978;
Reiß 1981) have already insisted, even from a (partially) prescriptive point of
view, on the necessity of taking into account the latter constraints.
The same remark holds for the (proto)typological distinctions between liter-
ary texts and other "special language" forms in chapter four, because of the pre-
dominant orientation towards the status and situation of the source text, and
towards the function of the target-text as far as it can be derived from the previ-
ous steps of the analysis. Owing to their indebtedness to R. Barthes' or Dressier
and de Beaugrande's definitions of the literary work of art (p. 70), these typolo-
gical distinctions suppose that "the more 'literary' a translation, the higher is the
status of the source text as a work of art using the medium of language" (p. 115);
they are complemented, at the textual "micro-level", by a study of style (syntax,
semantics, lexis and rhetorics), of norm being both the "unmarked" form and the
"creative extension" of language, and of convention: "the more specialized the
text, and the more specific the situation, the more the individual style recedes to
make way for group convention" (p. 124).
As is clear from the general outline of this book, the recent progress made by
translation didactics is closely connected with the search for models in translation
132 REVIEWS

research, and hence leads to situations where linguistic models (such as the scene-
and-frame analysis taken from Fillmore, p. 81) become the instruments actually
determining (or intended to determine) translation practice, and thus tools for an
a posteriori evaluation. As in Honig and Kußmaul's Strategie der Übersetzung
(1982), they gain a quasi-explanatory status, although neither the foundations nor
the criteria are explicitly elucidated. It could be questioned in this connection to
what extent traditional scholarship and training influence actual translational
behaviour. Such hypotheses have already been tested for several literatures in
different historical situations, even before historical research in translation took
account of modern thinking. It is equally certain that modern linguistic theories
are considered applicable to the training of translators and to translation itself;
this evolution is manifest in Snell-Hornby's comparative analysis of Somerset
Maugham's "The Pacific" and its German translation, which "was published in
1953, before the rise of text-linguistics and before the emergence of translation
studies as a subject of academic status, and indeed it shows some characteristic
features of the time and of most translations where the text is viewed as a string
of words and structures to be converted into a string of equivalents" (p. 75).
Again, a question arises as to the nature of and reasons for the role that the
translation has really played in the target system. And what about the existing,
and often implicit doxa of the translator? Should we infer that no (optimal) trans-
lation is possible without a previous conceptual framework which generates an
adequate understanding (and monitoring) of the translation process?
Such questions finally show the need of a further clarification not only of the
relations between evaluation and description, but also of the relations between
the whole range of secondary activities on the one hand, and their possible
dependence on a general theory, on the other. Mary Snell-Hornby's challenging
book will certainly play an important role in the future developments of this dis-
cussion.

Notes

1. It is striking that M. Snell-Hornby's assertion regarding the literary and linguistic orienta-
tions in the history of translation theory is directed against the "repetitive" character of
thinking (p. 26). But just like historians of language and culture, who discover both simi-
larities and divergencies between, say, the Saussurian and medieval concept of sign, or
Chomskyan and Port-Royal grammar, and recognize the existence of what might prefer-
ably be called traditions of thought, historians of translation theory should be aware of
the often subtle interplay between (strong) traditions and innovations in the evolution of
their discipline.
2. An interesting set of "borderline" cases for which no such typology seems to be available
can be found in Toury 1986: 1118 ff.
 REVIEWS 133

3. Snell-Hornby refers especially to what she calls (rather inadequately) the "Manipulation
School" (paraphrasing the ambiguous and misleading title of a collection of essays edited
by Theo Hermans in 1985). Her statement that the scholars thus qualified "have much in
common with conventional studies in Comparative Literature except that they deal with
translations rather than original works" (p. 25) manifests a highly deficient knowledge of
current research.

References

Hönig, Hans G. and Paul Kußmaul. 1982. Strategie der Ubersetzung: Ein Lehr- und
Arbeitsbuch. Tubingen: Narr.
Holmes, James S. 1978. "Describing Literary Translations: Models and Methods".
James S Holmes et al., eds. Literature and Translation. New Perspectives in Literary
Studies. Leuven: Acco, 1978. 69-81.
Hermans, Theo, ed. 1985. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Transla-
tion. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.
Reiß, Katharina. 1981. "Understanding a Text from the Translator's Point of View".
The Bible Translator 32:1. 124-134.
Toury, Gideon. 1986. "Translation: A Cultural-Semiotic Perspective". Thomas A.
Sebeok, ed. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Semiotics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986.
1111-1124.

Lieven D'hulst (Antwerpen)