Translation Studies: A brief history of the discipline

Translational phenomena, variously defined as an art, a craft, or a

science, date back to the third millennium BC:
The Babylon of Hammurabis day (!"" B#C#$ %as a poly&lot
city, and much of the official business of the empire %as made
possible by corps of scribes %ho translated edicts into various
lan&ua&es#
!
Translation theory aims at determinin&, cate&ori'in&, and ultimately utili'in&
&eneral principles of the translation process in relation to its ma(or issues#

Translation theories can be divided diachronically into three main
cate&ories:
!# Translation theories based on )ource*oriented approaches
# +in&uistic translation theories
,# -ecent translation theories
.rom the
nd
Century B# C# until the last century, all theoretical frame%orks
developed under )ource*oriented approaches %ere concerned %ith %hat a
translator must or must not do# The principle focus %as on the closeness to
the source te/t as re&ards both meanin& and form# 0n other %ords, the
translator needed to reproduce the te/t, in all its aspects, as a tar&et te/t#
40
.or e/ample, 1tienne 2olet of .rance (!3"4*56$ devised one of the first
theories of translation# He established five essential principles for translators
%hich can be classified under )ource*oriented theories
,
:
(!$ The translator must fully understand the sense and meanin& of the
ori&inal author, althou&h he is at liberty to clarify obscurities#
($ The translator should have a perfect kno%led&e of both )+ and T+#
(,$ The translator should avoid %ord*for*%ord renderin&s#
(5$ The translator should use forms of speech in common use#
(3$ The translator should choose and order %ords appropriately to produce
the correct tone#
7eor&e Chapman, the famous translator of Homer, restated these principles
into the follo%in&, in !348:
5
!*9void %ord*for*%ord renderin&
*9ttempt to reach the :spirit of the ori&inal
,*9void over loose translations, by basin& the translation on a sound
scholarly investi&ation of other versions and &losses
T%o centuries later, 9le/ander .ra'er Tytler published The Principles of
Translation, a systematic study of the translation process in 1n&lish and
stated the follo%in& principles
3
:
!* The translation should &ive a complete transcript of the idea of the ori&inal
%ork#
* The style and manner of %ritin& should be the same character %ith that of
the ori&inal#
41
,* The translation should have all the ease of the ori&inal composition#
9ccordin& to ;atthe% 9rnold translator must focus on )+ te/t primarily and
must serve that te/t %ith complete commitment# The T+ reader must be
brou&ht to the )+ te/t throu&h the means of translation#
6

H#<# +on&fello% is even more committed to the )T and the author# He ar&ues:
(=$ the business of a translator is to report %hat the author
says, not to e/plain %hat he means> that is the %ork of the
commentator# <hat an author says and ho% he says it, that is
the problem of the translator#
?

)t# @eromes su&&estions about ho% to render translation can be considered
another e/ample of )ource*oriented theories:
)t# @erome already stated that Bible translations must respect
the e/act form of the source te/t because 7ods %ord must not
be tampered %ith %hereas in secular te/ts the translator
should strive to render the meanin& of the source te/t#
8
Conversely, lin&uistic translation theories have a history dated from the
!4""s %hich has lasted for appro/imately half a century# 9t that time,
translation %as absorbed into the discipline of lin&uistics# That means that it
42
%as conceived as a branch of lin&uistics, and not as an independent science#
These theories became headed as lin&uistic studies rather than as translation
studies#
2urin& that time, translation theory %as re&arded as a part of lin&uistic
communication based on 0nformation Theory# This theory defines lan&ua&e
as a :code# 2urin& communication, speakers or %riters encode %hat they
%ant to say and the listeners or readers, %ho share the same code, %ould
decode it# Therefore, translation is a special case of communication because
sender and receiver do not share the same code> the translator recodes the
messa&e from the sender into the receiver code# The main issue of translation
is to sustain the ori&inal messa&e despite that there is &enerally no one*to*
one correspondence bet%een the si&ns of the t%o different code systems#
These theories %ere also basically source*oriented, normative, synchronic
and focused on process as in the previous period#
9t last, in the last three decades of the "th century Translation )tudies
started to become an autonomous science# @ames Holmes, an 9merican poet
and translator coined the term Translation )tudies for this ne% scientific
43
approach# He believes that the main intention of Translation )tudies is the
development of a full and comprehensive translation theory#
4
9t that time, the most influential theories posited %ere the )kopos Theory,
the -elevance Theory, and the Tar&et*Ariented 9pproach# The proponent
of the )kopos Theory %as Hans Bermer, %ho vie%s the translation process
and the teachin& of it as a substantial revision of the lin&uistic attitude# This
considers translation as a communicative process in %hich purpose has been
&iven the ma(or emphasis# An the other hand, the -elevance Theory
provided by )perber and <ilson
!"
ar&ues that there is no need for a distinct
&eneral theory of translation because translation can be naturally accounted
for under the &eneral aspect of human communication#
Ho%ever, these t%o theories aforementioned that stem from lin&uistic
paradi&ms do not concern literary translations# To determine the functions
and describe literary eCuivalents is difficult because the meanin& of these
te/ts stem not only from their denotative meanin&, but especially from their
connotative meanin&#
44
2ou&las -obinson in his book Western Translation Theory from Herodotus to
Nietzsche states:
<e are currently in the middle of a translation studies boom:
all around the %orld ne% pro&rams are sprin&in& up, some
aimed at the professional trainin& of translators and
interpreters, others at the academic study of translation and
interpretin&, most at both#
!!
James Holmes Map of Translation Studies
@ames Holmes famous book The Name and Nature of Translation Studies is
considered as a ma(or step in the scholarly study of translation# This book
provides a theoretical system that both reco&nises and unifies many aspects
of translation studies# 0t predicts an entire future dicipline and effectively
encoura&e %ork aimed at establishin& that discipline# This book %as a ma(or
step%ard because it attacked the unclear but :self assured cate&ories that
used to (ud&e translations for so lon& a time# Holmes &rouped and mapped
scientifically, and arran&ed his topics hierarchically# :9pplied %as opposed
to :Dure, the latter devided into :Theoretical and :2escriptive, then
:2escriptive %as broken do%n in turn into :Droduct Ariented, :Drocess
Ariented and :.unction Ariented, and so on#

45
.i&ure ! sho%s the &raphic form these cate&ories received later from 7ideon
Toury# Af course, translation studies cannot be reduced to this one map, and
the map itself has been evolvin& dynamically, alon& %ith the fields it claims
to represent#
Figure 1: Holmes Map of Translation Studies
12

T r a n s l a t i o n S t u d i e s
' P u r e ' A p p l i e d
T h e o r e t i c a l D e s c r i p t i v e
G e n e r a l P a r t i a l P r o d u c t
O r i e n t e d
P r o c e s s
O r i e n t e d
F u n c t i o n
O r i e n t e d
T r a n s l a t o r
T r a i n i n g
T r a n s l a t i o n
A i d s
T r a n s l a t i o n
C r i t i c i s m
M e d i u m
R e s t r i c t e d
A r e a
R e s t r i c t e d
R a n k
R e s t r i c t e d
T e x t - T y p e
R e s t r i c t e d
T i m e
R e s t r i c t e d
P r o b l e m
R e s t r i c t e d

46
Figure 2: Tourys map of the relation !et"een translation studies and its
applied e#tentions
1$

Translation )tudies
Dure 9pplied e/tensions

Theoretical 2escriptive


Translator Translation Translation
Trainin& aids criticism



= = =
ure Translation Studies
Dure Translation )tudies is classified into 2escriptive Translation )tudies
and Theoretical Translation )tudies# The aim of 2escriptive Translation
)tudies is :to describe the observable facts of translatin& and translation(s$ as
47
they manifest themselves in the %orld of our e/perience, %here for
translatin& %e mean the process that underlies the creation of the final
product of translation# The ob(ective of the Theory of Translation )tudies is
:to establish &eneral principles by means of %hich these phenomena can be
e/plained and predicted#
There are three main types of research %ithin 2escriptive Translation
)tudies: product*oriented, process*oriented and function*oriented# The focus
of product*oriented descriptive translation studies is the description of
individual translations# Drocess*oriented descriptive translation studies aims
at revealin& the thou&ht processes that take place in the mind of the
translator %hile she or he is translatin&# .unction*oriented descriptive
translation studies include research %hich describes the function or impact
that a translation or a collection of translations has had in the socio*cultural
situation of the tar&et lan&ua&e#
Theoretical Translation )tudies often uses the empirical findin&s produced
by 2escriptive Translation )tudies# 0t elaborates principles, theories and
models to e/plain and predict %hat the process of translation is, &iven certain
conditions such as a particular pair of lan&ua&es or a particular pair of te/ts#
48
Theoretical Translation )tudies hold both a 7eneral Translation Theory and
Dartial Translation Theories# Holmes established the final aim of the
discipline as the elaboration of a &eneral theory capable of e/plainin& and
predictin& all phenomena re&ardin& translatin& and translation# Ho%ever, as
he reco&ni'ed, most theories that had been elaborated until that time %ere
models limited to one or more aspects of translation# The formulation of a
&eneral theory is a lon&*term &oal for the discipline as a %hole#
Holmes distin&uishes si/ different types of Dartial Translation Theory:
medium restricted (theories of human versus computer assisted translation
or %ritten versus oral translation$, area*restricted (theories relatin& to
specific lan&ua&e communities$, rank*restricted (theories dealin& %ith
lan&ua&e as a rank or level system$, te/t*type restricted (theories relatin& to
particular te/t cate&ories such as poems, technical manuals, etc#$, time*
restricted (theories dealin& %ith contemporary te/ts or those from an older
period$, and problem restricted(for e/ample theories concernin& the
translation of puns, titles, idioms, proper names, metaphors, etc#$#
Applied Translation Studies
49
9pplied Translation )tudies, the second main branch of the discipline, is
concerned %ith the follo%in& issues:
!* Translator trainin&#
* The preparation of translation tools, such as dictionaries, &rammars, term
banks#
,* Translation criticism %hich concerns itself %ith the development of
criteria for the evaluation of the Cuality or effectiveness of the translation
product#
5* The establishment of translation policy (%hich involves &ivin& advice on
the role of the translator in a &iven socio*cultural conte/t, decidin& on the
economic position of the translator, or decidin& on %hich te/ts need to be
translated, or decidin& on the role that translation should play in the teachin&
of forei&n lan&ua&es$
@eremy ;unday developed the E9ppliedE part of translation studies in vie% of
the emer&in& interdisciplinary fields of study as follo%s:
Figure !#
!5
50
Approaching translation "ithin a target#oriented frame"or$
olysystem Theory
0n the !4?"s, Dolysystem Theory %as introduced as a reaction to the static
prescriptive models# 0tmar 1ven*Fohar produced a synthesis of
structuralism, -ussian formalism, the Communication theory, and
semiotics to create the Dolysystem theory, of literature and culture#
Dolysystem Theory, %hich deals %ith all cultural, lin&uistic, literary, and
social phenomena, does not consider translations as sin&le te/ts, but re&ards
them as a system functionin& %ithin a polysystem
!3
&overned by the literary
system in %hich translations are done# Dolysystem theory developed ne%
aspects in 2escriptive Translation )tudies that attracted many scholars in the
last t%enty years#
51
9s a conseCuence, one hardly &ets any idea %hatsoever of the
function of translated literature for a literature as a %hole or of
its position %ithin that literature# ;oreover, there is no
a%areness of the possible e/istence of translated literature as a
particular literary system# The prevailin& concept is rather that
of translation or translated %orks treated on individual
&rounds#
!6
1ven GFohar claims that translated literature %orks as a system
!?
:
!* 0n the %ay the Tar&et +an&ua&e selects %orks for translation#
* 0n the %ay translation norms, behavior and policies are influenced by
other co*systems#
The polysystem is conceived as a hetero&eneous, hierarchi'ed
con&lomerate (or system$ of systems %hich interact to brin&
about an on&oin& dynamic process of evolution %ithin the
polysystem as a %hole#
!8

The hierarchy, accordin& to 1ven*Fohar, is the means by %hich translations
%ere chosen, and the %ay they functioned %ithin the literary system
!4
# 0f the
hi&hest position is occupied by an innovative literary type, then the lo%er
levels are likely to be occupied by &ro%in& conservative types# 9nd if the
52
conservative forms are at the top, innovation and rene%al are e/pected to
come from the lo%er levels> if not, a phase of sta&nation takes place#
This dynamic method of evolution is essential to the polysystem,
demonstratin& that the relations bet%een innovatory and conservative
systems are in a steady status of instability and competition# Because of this
instability, the position of translated literature is not permanent in the
Dolysystem# 0t may take up a primary or a secondary position in the
Dolysystem# 0f it is primary, it contributes dynamically in shapin& the center
of the Dolysystem# +eadin& %riters freCuently produce the most important
translations and translations are essential in the formation of ne% models for
the tar&et culture, e#&#, introducin& ne% poetics, techniCues, etc#
1ven*Fohar classifies three social circumstances in %hich translation may
preserve a primary position
"
:
(!$ <hen a literature is at its developin& sta&e
($ <hen a literature is mar&inal or feeble or both
(,$ <hen a literature contains a vacuum or finds itself in a state of crisis or at
a turnin& point#
1ven*'ohar ar&ues:
53
Translated literature fulfills the needs of a youn& literature to
put its rene%ed ton&ue in use in as many literary &enres as
possible in order to make it functional as a literary lan&ua&e
and useful for its emer&in& public# )ince, %hen it is youn& and
in the process of bein& established, a youn& literature cannot
create ma(or te/ts in all &enres until its polysystem has
crystalli'ed, it &reatly benefits from the e/perience of other
literatures, and translated literature becomes, in a %ay, one of
its most important systems
!
#

0f translated literary %ork presumes a secondary position, then it provides a
minor system %ithin the polysystem# 0t has no ma(or influence over the
central system and even becomes a conservative element, maintainin&
conventional forms and conformin& to the literary norms of the tar&et
system# 1ven* Fohar points out that this secondary position is the normal one
for translated literatures# 0t is, of course, %orth mentionin& that some
translated literature may be secondary %hile others, translated from ma(or
source literatures, are primary#
1ven GFohar believes that the position taken by translated literature in the
polysystem ori&inates the translation strate&y# 0f the position is primary,
translators do not feel forced to follo% tar&et literature models and are more
54
prepared to break conventions, thus, they often create a Tar&et Te/t that is a
close to the )ource Te/t in terms of adeCuacy, reproducin& the te/tual
relations of the )T# This, 1ven*Fohar says, may then lead to ne% )+ models#
9nd if translated literature is secondary, translators are likely to use in hand
tar&et*culture models for the TT and produce more non*adeCuate
translations#
Tourys %escripti&e Translation Studies
Translation )tudies %as e/tremely )ource*Ariented in the !4?"s# Translators
%ere primarily concerned %ith the source te/t and %ith the safe&uard of its
le&al ri&hts# Tar&et constraints became supplementary unless they fell %ithin
the ran&e of lin&uistics#
7ideon Toury, a translation scholar and theoretician, planed the Tar&et
Ariented 9pproach based on Dolysystem Theory# This approach is an
e/clusive and comprehensive theory of translation that is also a reaction to
normative, synchronic, and )ource*)ystem Ariented theoretical frame%orks#
0n his book %n Search of a Theory of Translation, he says that he %ants to put
to&ether a &eneral theory applicable to all translational phenomena:
55
0t (the book$ consists of a series of papers representin& a
su&&estion of steps in their authors search for such a theory, a
search underlined by one main ob(ect: to enable himself, and if
possible, other students of translational phenomena * be they
entire te/ts or their constituents, corpora bi&&er than one te/t,
or, finally, phenomena %hich have no direct te/tual reali'ation
G to account for them in a systematic %ay, %ithin one unified
frame%ork#

The Tar&et Ariented 9pproach critici'es ma(or principles of )ource*Ariented
Theories, and replaces them %ith ne% ones# .irst of all, traditional )ource
Ariented Theories define t%o levels in Translation )tudies: theory and
process# The Tar&et Ariented 9pproach critici'es this and claims that
theories developed by )ource*Ariented Theories do not suit translation
realities because they are abstract, prescriptive norms that do not stem from
actual translation processes:
= it appears not only as naive, but also as misleadin& and
infertile for translation studies to start from the assumption
that translation is nothin& but an attempt to reconstruct the
ori&inal, or certain parts or aspect thereof, or the preservation
of certain predetermined features of the ori&inal, %hich are (or
are to be$ unconditionally considered the invariant under
56
transformation, in another si&n*system, as it is usually defined
from the sources point of vie%#
,
(###$ ;ost of the theories of translation hitherto formulated tend
to be prescriptive, and thus are in no position to serve as a
point of departure for research# Therefore 0 here posit the need
for a revision of the theory in keepin& %ith the needs of the
translation scholar, namely a revision %hich %ill lend it a
&reater descriptive and e/planatory force#
5
(###$ This paper %ishes to ar&ue that source*oriented theories*
%hile able to serve as a basis for translators trainin& and other
applied activities are totally unable to supply a sound startin&
point and frame%ork for a descriptive study of actual
translations, especially literary
3
(###$Thus, an )T*oriented theory is inadeCuate, or at least
insufficient, as a basis for a descriptive study of translations
relationships as empirical phenomena#
6
Hence, the Tar&et Ariented 9pproach ar&ues that Translation )tudies is an
empirical discipline since its ob(ects of study are facts of real life:
)ince the ob(ect * level of translation studies consists of actual
facts of :real life * %hether they be actual te/ts, interte/tual
relationships, or models and norms of behavior * rather than
the merely speculative outcome of preconceived theoretical
57
hypotheses and models, it is undoubtedly, in essence, an
empirical science#
?
9fter about t%o decades, tar&et te/t attracted lots of attention amon&
scholars# TouryEs idea that a translation is a te/t that is accepted in the tar&et
culture as bein& a translation %as revolutionary# The notion carries several
important implications# .irst, as Toury ar&ues that translations are facts of
the culture %hich hosts them, %ith the assumption that %hatever their
function and identity, these are constituted %ithin that same culture and
reflect its o%n constellation# 9 translation is a translation in the tar&et
culture, not the source culture# 9nd so the position and function of a
translated te/t, is determined by considerations initiatin& in the culture
%hich hosts them
8
#
By focusin& on the role of tar&et factors in a translation, %hether
retrospectively or prospectively, one %ill discover that he or she is optin& for
the tar&et*oriented approach, even thou&h, in the course of application one
%ill return to the source te/t# 0t is a matter of orientation#
Then 2escriptive Translation )tudies %as added to the skeleton of
Translation )tudies, a branch that is necessary for every empirical discipline:
58
Ho empirical science can make a claim for completeness and
(relative$ autonomy unless it has developed a descriptive
branch#
4
2escriptive branch of the discipline %as developed to replace isolated free*
standin& studies:
<hat %e need, ho%ever, is not isolated attempts reflectin&
e/cellent intuitions and supplyin& fine insi&hts (%hich many of
the e/istin& studies certainly provide$ but a systematic
scientific branch, seen as an inherent component of an overall
discipline of translation studies, based on clear assumptions
and armed %ith a methodolo&y and research techniCues made
as e/plicit as possible# Anly a branch of this sort can assure that
the findin&s of individual case studies carried out %ithin its
frame%ork %ill be both relevant and intersub(ectively testable,
and the studies themselves repeatable.#
,"
9s it is evident in .i&ure , Toury believes that the three branches of
theoretical, descriptive, and applied Translation )tudies interact %ith
each other# These three branches deal %ith possible, e/istin&, and reCuired
relationships respectively:

59
T Ta! Table 1'The differences !et"een Translation Theory, &TS, and the applied
e#tensions of the discipline as e#emplified !y the use of 'er!s(
$1
0n this frame%ork, translation theories consist of consistent hypotheses that
are developed in the li&ht of findin&s of 2escriptive Translation )tudies#
Toury, asserts that 2escriptive Translation )tudies is at the heart of the
discipline# 0t has a distinctive internal or&ani'ation> it interacts %ith
translation theory and has a unidirectional relationship %ith applied
e/tensions# He considers for 2escriptive Translation )tudies a ma(or role in
the development of the %hole discipline as an independent field of study:
60
Branch of
Translation
Studies
Typical Verbs Criterion (or Type
of Condition)
Type of
Relationship
Translation theory,
!asic translation
theory, modified
)an !e
%s li*ely to !e
Theoretical
conditional
Possi!le
Pro!a!le
&TS is +mpirical e/istin&
,pplied e#tensions Should !e Dostulated re-uired
(###$ one of the aims of Translation )tudies should definitely be
to brin& the results of descriptive*e/planatory studies e/ecuted
%ithin 2T) to bear on the theoretical branch#
,
(###$ descriptive studies are actually the best means of testin&,
refutin&, and especially modifyin& and amendin& the
underlyin& theory, on the basis of %hich they are e/ecuted#
,,
(###$Ane of their (of descriptive studies$ aims is al%ays to put to
test the hypotheses and models supplied by the theory, in
%hose frame%ork the studies are carried out# There is simply
no other %ay of verifyin&, refutin&, and especially amendin&
these hypotheses, and %ithout a constant testin& of this sort
the theory is bound to lose contact %ith the empirical
phenomena, or to lead to sta&nation (=$#
,5
9pplied Translation )tudies, on the other hand, in accordance %ith the
results of 2escriptive Translation )tudies and accordin&ly %ith the
theoretical branch is a prescriptive branch:
Abviously, descriptive*e/planatory investi&ations can be
re%ardin& in the attempt to dra% the applied e/tensions of
Translation )tudies close to real*life behavior, thus miti&atin&
%hatever pretentiousness they are liable to display (###$#
,3
61
They (9pplied Translation )tudies$ are not intended to account
either for possibilities and likelihoods or for facts of actual
behavior, but rather set norms in a more or less conscious %ay#
0n brief, to tell others %hat they should have doneI or should
be doin&, if they accept these norms and submit to them#
,6
9ccordin& to Toury, translations primarily occupy a position in the social and
literary systems of the tar&et culture, and this position verifies the
translation strate&ies that are used# He proposes the follo%in& three*phase
methodolo&y for systematic 2T)
,?
:
!* )ituate the te/t %ithin the tar&et culture system, lookin& at its si&nificance
or acceptability#
* Compare the )T and the TT

for shifts, identifyin& relationships bet%een
coupled pairs of )T and TT se&ments, and attemptin& &enerali'ations about
the underlyin& concept of translation#
,* 2ra% implications for decision*makin& in future translatin&#
There are three main types of research %ithin 2escriptive Translation
)tudies (2T)$: Droduct*Ariented, Drocess*Ariented and .unction*Ariented#
The focus of Droduct*Ariented descriptive translation studies is the
description of individual translations# Toury &ives .unction a primary role
62
over Droduct and process# Holmes, ho%ever, sa% .unction, Droduct and
Drocess as havin& the same importance#
9 comparative analysis of different translations in the same tar&et lan&ua&e
of one source te/t, or of a source te/t and its translation into one or more
lan&ua&es mi&ht be limited to %orks of one historical era, in %hich case they
are kno%n as synchronic studies, or they mi&ht be e/tended to different
periods, in %hich case they are called diachronic studies#
The 2escriptive Translation )tudies focus on translations themselves rather
than on the translation process# Drocess*Ariented descriptive translation
studies aims at revealin& the thou&ht processes that take place in the mind of
the translator %hile she or he is translatin&#
(###$ any research into translation should start %ith
observational facts, i#e# the translated utterances themselves
(and their constitutive elements, on various levels$, proceedin&
from there to%ards the reconstruction of nonobservational
facts, and not the other %ay around#
,8
63
The reason, accordin& to Toury, is the simple fact that it is really complicated
to e/amine the human mind, %hile one can easily e/amine its products, that
is, the translations#
.unction*oriented descriptive translation studies include research %hich
clarifies the function or impact that a translation or a collection of
translations has had in the socio*cultural situation of the tar&et lan&ua&e# 0t is
thus :a study of conte/ts rather than te/ts# <ithin this field of research one
may, for e/ample, study the reasons %hy certain types of te/ts %ere
translated in a certain country in a particular period of time (synchronic$ or
durin& a lon&er stretch of time (diachronic$ %hile others %ere e/cluded#
Considerin& .unction, Drocess, and Droduct * Ariented 9pproaches as
(ustifiable and autonomous fields of study %ould surly makes any study in
these fields more %ealthy and to the point# 9ccordin& to Toury, .unctions,
Drocesses and Droducts are not (ust :related, but rather, from one comple/
%hole %hose constitutive parts are hardly separable from one another for
purposes other than methodical# Therefore, re&ardless of the approach of
translation studies one selects, at institutional level, the pro&ram must pay
64
due attention to the interdependence of the three aspects in order to &ain
true insi&ht into the particulars of the translation phenomenon#
<hen the translations are e/amined based on the frame%ork of 2escriptive
Translation )tudies, the source te/t is (ust one principle to be taken into
consideration and the real importance is &iven to the translations themselves
that, accordin& to the tar&et system, are not pro(ections of the source te/t,
but in fact the only reality#
.inally, apart from the synchronic, a diachronic analysis of the
translations is desirable because this can &ive a %ider perspective to the
study, %hich can then be more comprehensive in its findin&s and
conclusions:
Ane of the tasks of this branch (2T)$ of translation studies %ill
be to account for the relationships actually obtainin& bet%een
a body of translated items servin& as its corpus (be it a sin&le
te/t, the total variety of solutions to a certain, %ell, defined
translational problem, the entire production of a certain
translator, school of translators, period$#
,4
0t %ill be ar&ued that this approach, (###$, is more adeCuate from
the point of vie% of the reCuirements of descriptive,
65
historically*oriented translation studies, and likely to correct
many of the fla%s inherent in the e/istin&, mostly prescriptive
and a*historical approaches to the problem
5"
#
Translational (orms
9ccordin& to the Tar&et Ariented 9pproach, synchronic or diachronic
2escriptive Translation )tudies reveal translation norms, %hich establish
the type of correspondence bet%een source and tar&et te/ts, to understand
translation process:
(###$ norms are the key*concept and focal point in any scientific
approach to the study and description of social phenomena,
especially behavioral activities (###$#
5!
Horms are operative at every sta&e in translatin& process and
at every level in its products, the translation itself#
5
He believes that the translation norms should be the focal concept in any
study of literary translation and the main ob(ect of the study#
9s strictly translational norms can only be applied at the
receivin& end, establishin& them is not merely (ustified by a
tar&et*oriented approach but should be seen as its very
epitome#
5,

66
Translation norms are not static facts valid forever, but rather they are
dynamic:
But they (norms$ are by no means fi/ed and &iven# An the
contrary, the establishment of the e/act relationships is an
essential part (###$ of the overall study of translational norms#
55

Horms are also unstable, chan&in& entities because of their
very nature# 9t times, norms chan&e rather Cuickly> at other
times, they are more endurin&, and the process may take
lon&er#
53

The Tar&et Ariented 9pproach defines three types of norms: initial norms,
preliminary and operational
The initial norms cate&ori'e the individual translators choice to conform
either to the ori&inal te/t %ith its te/tual relations and norms or to the tar&et
cultures lin&uistic and literary norms, or some combination thereof#
)o, rather than fidelity or lack of fidelity to the source te/t, translation
eCuivalence can be seen as JadeCuacyJ or Jacceptability#J 0n the former the
translator %ill move closer to the source te/t system, but in the latter to the
tar&et system:
67
0f (###$, the translation tends to adhere to the norms of the
ori&inal %ork, and throu&h them * as %ell* to the norms of )+
andIor the source literary polysystem as a %hole# This
tendency, %hich %e shall call the pursuit of an adeCuate
translation, may mean * or cause * incompatibility of the
translated te/t %ith the tar&et lin&uistic andIor literary
norms#
56
T%o lar&er &roups of norms related to translation are preliminary vs#
operational#
Dreliminary norms are concerned %ith the t%o main sets of considerations
that are interrelated: those considerations re&ardin& the e/istence and actual
nature of an e/act translation policy on the one hand and those concernin&
the directness of the translation on the other# Translation policy, accordin& to
Toury, refers to those factors that &overn the choice of te/t*types, or even of
individual te/ts, to be imported throu&h translation into a particular
cultureIlan&ua&e at a particular point in time
5?
#
Aperational norms) accordin& to Toury, maybe described as servin& as a
model, in accordance %ith %hich translations come into bein&, %hether
involvin& the norms reali'ed by the source te/t plus certain modifications, or
purely tar&et norms, or a particular compromise bet%een the t%o#
58

68
9nd lastly, as Ben&i ar&ues, the Tar&et Ariented 9pproach su&&ests a
descriptive, diachronic (includin& synchronic aspects$ tar&et (includin&
source$ system*oriented theoretical frame%ork focused on the product
rather than a normative, synchronic source system oriented theoretical
frame%ork focused on the process of the )ource*Ariented Theories#
54

(otes'
69
1
# 1u&in Hida, To"ard a Science of Translatin., !465, D# !!
2
# Bassnett K ;c7uire , Translation Studies, !483
3
# 0bid# p# 35
4
# 0bid, p# 35*33
5
# 0bid, p# 6,
6
# 0bid, p# 64
7
# 0bid, p# ?"
8
# )ten'l, !48,# D# 6
9
# 1d%in 7ent'ler, )ontemporary Translation Studies, !44,
10
# 7utt, , theoretical ,ccount of Translation "ithout a Translation Theory( !44,
11
# !44?, p#
12
# 7ideon Toury, 2escriptive Translation )tudies and Beyond, !443, p# !"
13
# /outled.e +ncyclopedia of Translation Studies, """, p# ?8
14
# %ntroducin. Translation Studies Theories and ,pplications, ""!
15
# +iterary polysystem includes all sorts of literary and semi*literary te/ts as an a&&re&ate
of systems (1ven*Fohar, !4?8, D# !!4$
16
# 1ven*Fohar, !4?8, :The Dosition of Translated +iterature <ithin the +iterary
Dolysystem#
17
# 7ent'ler, Contemporary Translation )tudies, !44,, p# !!8
18
# 1ven*Fohar, !4?8
19
# 7ent'ler, )ontemporary Translation Studies,!44,, p# !"
20
# 0bid, p#!!?
21
# 0bid#
22
# 7ideon Toury, %n Search of a Theory of Translation, !48", p# ?
23
# 0bid, p#!?
24
# 0bid, p# 6
25
# 0bid, p# ,3
26
# 0bid, p# 5"
27
# 7ideon Toury, The manipulation of 0iterature, !483, p# !6
28
# 7ideon Toury, &escripti'e Translation Studies and 1eyond, !443, p#6
29
# 7ideon Toury, The manipulation of 0iterature, !483, D# !6
30
# 0bid# p# !?*!8
31
# 7ideon Toury, &escripti'e Translation Studies and 1eyond, !443, p# !4
32
# 0bid, p# !3
33
# 7ideon Toury, The manipulation of 0iterature ,!483, p# !6
34
# 7ideon Toury, %n Search of a Theory of Translation, !48", p# 8"
35
# 7ideon Toury, &escripti'e Translation Studies and 1eyond ,!443, p# 8!
36
# 0bid# p# !4
37
# @eremy ;unday, %ntroducin. Translation Studies Theories and ,pplications, ""!
38
# 7ideon Toury, The manipulation of 0iterature ,!483, p# !8
39
# 7ideon Toury, %n Search of a Theory of Translation, !48", p# 4"
40
# 0bid# p# 6,
41
# 0bid, p# 3
42
# 0bid, p# 3,
43
# 0bid#
44
# 0bid, p# 35
45
# 0bid#
46
# 0bid, p# 33
47
# 7ideon Toury# 2escriptive Translation )tudies and Beyond, !443, p# 38
48
# 0bid, p# 6"
49
# Critical -eflections and )u&&estions as to :a Comprehensive 9pproach in Translation
)tudies, !44