Functional theories of translation

5.0 Introduction
The 1970s and 1980s saw a move away from the static linguistic typologies of
translation shifts and the emergence and flourishing in Germany of a
functionalist and communicative approach to the analysis of translation. In
this chapter, we look at:

1 Katharina Reiss's early work on text type and language function;
2 Justa Holz-Miinttiiri's theory of translational action;
3 Hans J. Vermeer's skopos theory which centred on the purpose of the
TT;
4 Christiane Nord's more detailed text-analysis model which continued
the functionalist tradition in the 1990s.

Van Leuven-Zwart's comparative-descriptive model of translation shifts3

4.4 Van Leuven-Zwart's comparative-descriptive model of
translation shifts
The most detailed attempt to ~roducean d apply a model of shift analysis has
been carried out by Kitty van Leuven-Zwart of Amsterdam. Van Leuven-
Zwart's model takes as its point of departure some of the categories proposed
by Vinay and Darbelnet and Lev9 and applies them to the descriptive
analysis of a translation, attempting both to systematize comparison and to
build in a discourse framework above the sentence level. Originally published
in Dutch in 1984 as a doctoral thesis it is more widely known in its
abbreviated English version which consists of two articles in Target (van
Leuven-Zwart 1989, 1990). The model is 'intended for the description
of integral translations of fictional texts' (1989: 154) and comprises
(1) a comparative model and (2) a descriptive model. Like Popovi;, van
Leuven-Zwart considers that trends identified by these complementary
models provide indications of the translational norms adopted by the
translator. The characteristics of each model are as follows:
1 The comparative model (1989: 155-70) involves a detailed comparison
of ST and TT and a classification of all the microstructural shifts (within
sentences, clauses and phrases). Van Leuven-Zwart's method (1989:
155-7

:

Van Leuven-Zwart first divides selected passages into 'comprehensible
textual unit[s]' called 'transemes'; Ishe sat up quickly' is classed
as a transeme, as is its corresponding Spanish TT phrase 'se
enderezo'.
Next, she defines the 'Architranseme', which is the invariant core
sense of the ST transeme. This serves as an interlingual comparison
or tertlum comparation~s (see chapter 3). In the above example, the
Architranseme is 'to sit up'.
A comparison is then made of each separate transeme with the
Architranseme and the relationship between the two transemes is
established.) :

czech

Two other papers on translation shifts by Czech writers were published in
the influential volume The Nuture of Translation: Essays on the Theory and
Practice of Literury Translation (Holmes 1970). FrantiSek Miko concentrates
on discussing different theoretical aspects of what he terms 'shifts of expression'
or style in translation. He maintains (Miko 1970: 66) that retaining the
expressive character or style of the ST is the main and perhaps only goal of
the translator. Miko suggests an analysis of style under categories such as operativity, iconicity, subjectivity, affectation, prominence and contrast. In
the same volume, Anton PopoviP (1970: 85) emphasizes the importance of
the shift of expression concept:
An analysis of the shifts of expression, applied to all levels of the text, will bring to
light the general system of the translation, with its dominant and subordinate
elements.
This is an important development. Shift analysis can be seen as a way of
influencing the system of norms which govern the translation process, a
concept which is discussed in more detail in chapter 7. PopoviP (p. 801, in
terms very similar to LevG1s, relates shifts to the 'literal vs. free' debate,
considering them to arise from the tension between the original text and the
translation ideal, and to be the result of the translator's conscious efforts
faithfully to reproduce the aesthetic totality of the original. A clarification of
these principles is to be seen in Popovii-'s short Dictionary for the Analysis of
Literary Translation (1976), where the entry 'adequacy of translation' is
defined as synonymous with both 'faithfulness to the original' and 'stylistic
equivalence in translation'. Stylistic equivalence is itself defined (p. 6) as
'functional equivalence of elements in both original and translation aiming
at an expressive identity with an invariant of identical meaning'. However, in
their articles neither PopoviE nor Miko applies the ideas in detail to the
analysis of translated texts.

Czech writing on translation shifts1

4.3 Czech writing on translation shifts
Other writing on translation shifts in the 1960s and 1970s from the then
Czechoslovakia introduces a literary aspect, that of the 'expressive function'
or style of a text. JiEi Levjr's ground-breaking work on literary translation
(Urngni pr't.kladu, 1963) - translated into German as Die literarische Ubersetzung:
Theorie einer Kunstgattung (Lev? 1969) - links into the tradition of the
Prague school of structural linguistics. In this book, Lev? looks closely at
the translation of the surface structure of the ST and TT, with particular
attention to poetry translation, and sees literary translation as both a reproductive
and a creative labour with the goal of equivalent aesthetic effect (pp.
65-9). He, too, gives a categorization of features of texts where equivalence
may need to be achieved. These are (p. 19): denotative meaning, connotation,
stylistic arrangement, syntax, sound repetition (rhythm, etc.), vowel length
and articulation. Their importance in a translation depends on the type of
text. Thus, vowel length and articulation must not vary in dubbing, while, in
a technical text, denotative meaning is of prime importance and must not
vary. Levj.'s work was crucial for the development of translation theory in
Czechoslovakia before his early death, and it has subsequently influenced
scholars internationally. Another of his papers, 'Translation as a decision
process' (1967/2000), has also had an important impact, relating the 'gradual
semantic shifting' of translators1 linguistic choices to game theory. Hence,
Lev? sees real-world translation work as being 'pragmatic1:
The translator resolves for that one of the possible solutions which promises a
maximum of effect with a minimum of effort. That is to say, he intuitively resolves
for the so-called MINIMAX STRATEGY.

translation shifts

As far as translation is concerned, Catford makes an important distinction
between formal correspondence and textual equivalence, which was later to
be developed by Koller (see chapter 3):
A formal correspondent is 'any TL category (unit, class, element of
structure, etc.) which can be said to occupy, as nearly as ~ossible,t he
"same" place in the "economy" of the TL as the given SL category occupies
in the SL' (Catford 1965: 27).
A textual equivalent is 'any TL text or portion of text which is observed
on a particular occasion . . . to be the equivalent of a given SL text or
portion of text'.
Textual equivalence is thus tied to a particular ST-TT pair, while formal
equivalence is a more general system-based concept between a pair of languages.
When the two concepts diverge, a translation shift is deemed to have
occurred. In Catford's own words (2000: 141), translation shifts are thus
'departures from formal correspondence in the process of going from the SL
to the TL'.

The translation shift approach2

Key concepts
Translation shifts =small linguistic changes occurring in translation of ST to TT.
Vinay and Darbelnet (1 958): classical taxonomy of linguistic changes in translation.
Catford's (1 965) term translation 'shift' in his linguistic approach to translation.
Theoretical work by Czech scholars Lev);, Popovir and Miko (1960s-1970s) who
adopt stylistic and aesthetic parameters of language.
Most detailed model of translation shifts:van Leuven-Zwart's,an attempt to match
shifts to discourse and narratological function.
The problem of the subjectivity of the invariant that is used to compare ST and TT

-------------------------------------

Since the 19505, there has been a variety of linguistic approaches to the
analysis of translation that have proposed detailed lists or taxonomies in an
effort to categorize the translation process. The scope of this book necessarily
restricts us to describing a small number of the best-known and most
representative models. Thus, the focus in this chapter is on the following
, three models:1 Vinay and Darbelnet's taxonomy in Styiistiqw cornpuree d i ~fr an~aise t de
l'anglais (1958195)' which is the classical model and one which has had a
very wide impact;
2 Catford's (1965) linguistic approach, which included the introduction of
the term 'shift' of translation;
3 van Leuven-Zwart's (1989, 1990) very detailed model, designed for the
analysis of the key concept of small 'microlevel' translation shifts and
the gauging of their effect on the more general 'macrolevel'..

EQUIVALENCE AND EQUIVALENT EFFECT2

Chapter 4 details attempts that have been made to provide a taxonomy of
the linguistic changes or 'shifts' which occur in translation. The main model
described here is Vinay and Darbelnet's classic taxonomy, but reference is
also made to Catford's linguistic model and van Leuven-Zwart's translation
shift approach from the 1980s

In chapter 4, we discuss taxonomic linguistic
approaches that have attempted to produce a comprehensive model of translation shift analysis. Chapter 7 considers modern descriptive translation
studies; its leading proponent, Gideon Toury, has moved away from
a prescriptive definition of equivalence and, accepting as given that a TT
is 'equivalent' to its ST, insted seeks to identify the web of relations
between the two. Yet, there is still a great deal of practically oriented writing
on translation that continues a prescriptive discussion of equivalence.
Translator training courses also, perhaps inevitably, have this focus: errors
by the trainee translators are often corrected prescriptively according to a
notion of equivalence held by the trainer. For this reason, equivalence is
an issue that will remain central to the practice of translation, even if
translation studies and translation theory has, for the time being at least,
marginalized it.

summery

Summary
Even-Zohar's polysystem theory moves the study of translations out of a
static linguistic analysis of shifts and obsession with one-to-one equivalence
and into an investigation of the position of translated literature as a
whole in the historical and literary systems of the target culture. Toury
then focuses attention on finding a methodology for descriptive translation
studies. His TT-oriented theoretical framework combines linguistic comparison
of ST and TT and consideration of the cultural framework of the
TT. His aim is to identify the patterns of behaviour in the translation and
thereby to 'reconstruct' the norms at work in the translation process. The
ultimate aim of DTS is to discover probabilistic laws of translation, which
may be used to aid future translators and researchers. The exact form of
ST-TI comparison remains to be determined; scholars of the related
Manipulation School led an interplay of theoretical models and case studies
in the 1980s, among which was Lambert and van Gorp's systematic
'scheme' for describing translations. Chesterman has later developed the
concept of norms

Other models of descriptive translation studies: Lambert and van Gorp and the Manipulation School

Other models of descriptive translation studies: Lambert and
van Gorp and the Manipulation School

With the influence of Even-Zohar's and Toury's early work in polysystem
theory, the International Comparative Literature Association held several
meetings and conferences around the theme of translated literature. Particularly
prominent centres were in Belgium, Israel and the Netherlands, and the

first conferences were held at Leuven (1976), Tel Aviv (1978) and Antwerp
(1980).
The key publication of this group of scholars, known as the Manipulation
School or Group, was the collection of papers entitled The Manipulation of
Literature: Studies in Literary Translation (1985a), edited by Theo Hermans.
In his introduction, 'Translation studies and a new paradigm', Hermans
summarizes the group's view of translated literature:
What they have in common is a view of literature as a complex and dynamic
system; a conviction that there should he a continual interplay between theoretical
models and practical case studies; an approach to literary translation which is
descriptive, target-organized, functional and systemic; and an interest in the norms
and constraints that govern the production and reception of translations. in the
relation between translation and other types of text processing, and in the place
and role of translations both within a given literature and in the interaction
between literatures

Toury and descriptive translation studies

Working with Even-Zohar in Tel Aviv was Gideon Toury. After his early
polysystern work on the sociocultural conditions which determine the translation
of foreign literature into Hebrew, Toury focused on developing a general
theory of translation. In chapter 1, we considered Toury's diagrammatic
representation of Holmes's 'map' of translation studies. In his influential
I Descriptive Translation Studies - And Beyond (Toury 1995: lo), Toury calls
for the development of a properly systematic descriptive branch of the
discipline to replace isolated free-standing studies that are commonplace:

What is missing is not isolated attempts reflecting excellent intuitions and supply-
I
ing tine insights (which many existing studies certainly do), but a systematic branch
proceeding from clear assumptions and armed with a methodology and research

techniques made as explicit as possible and justified within translation studies
itself. Only a branch of this kind can ensure that the findings of individual studies
will be intersubjectively testable and comparable, and the studies themselves
replicable.

Toury goes on to propose just such a methodology for the branch of descriptive
translation studies (DTS).
For Toury (1995: 13)' translations first and foremost occupy a position in
the social and literary systems of the target culture, and this position determines
the translation strategies that are employed. With this approach, he is
continuing and building on the polysystem work of Even-Zohar and on
earlier versions of his own work (Toury 1978, 1980, 1985, 1991). Toury
(1995: 36-9 and 102) proposes the following three-phase methodology for
systematic DTS, incorporating a description of the product and the wider
role of the sociocultural system