Towards a General Theory of Translational Action

Skopos Theory Explained

Katharina Reiss, Hans J Vermeer, Christiane Nord

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781138133365
• eBook ISBN: 9781317639992
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This is the first English translation of the seminal book by Katharina Reiß and Hans Vermeer, Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie, first published in 1984. The first part of the book was written by Vermeer and explains the theoretical foundations and basic principles of skopos theory as a general theory of translation and interpreting or 'translational action', whereas the second part, penned by Katharina Reiß, seeks to integrate her text-typological approach, first presented in 1971, as a 'specific theory' that focuses on those cases in which the skopos requires equivalence of functions between the source and target texts. Almost 30 years after it first appeared, this key publication is now finally accessible to the next generations of translation scholars.

In her translation, Christiane Nord attempts to put skopos theory and her own concept of 'function plus loyalty' to the test, by producing a comprehensible, acceptable text for a rather heterogeneous audience of English-speaking students and scholars all over the world, at the same time as acting as a loyal intermediary for the authors, to whom she feels deeply indebted as a former student and colleague.

Part I Theoretical groundwork

1. Terminological distinctions

DOI: 10.4324/9781315759715-2

1.1 The need for a generic term

As a generic term to cover both translating and interpreting, we shall adopt the German term Translation, pronounced [transla:tsio:n], from the Leipzig School (cf. Kade 1968: 33), which will be rendered as ‘translational action’ (TA) in this book.

(We shall use these pseudo-formulas as handy short forms and as a mnemonic device.)

A generic term is useful when we want to emphasize the similarities between translating and interpreting and when terminological distinctions are not relevant for a general analysis.

In the first part of our theoretical discussion, we shall look at translational action, focussing on the common ground and similarities between translating and (simultaneous and consecutive) interpreting. Differences are considered irrelevant here. As Nida (1977: 214) states:

essentially the same basic principles are applicable, and any unified theory of interlingual communication must take into consideration, the essential similarities as well as the differences.

1.2 The advantage of neologisms

Loanwords from Latin and Greek or hybrid neologisms are particularly appropriate for the formation of new technical terms because they lack the connotations typical of everyday language words.

For example: if the form I am is classified as present tense, the rule ‘The present tense is occasionally used to indicate future actions (as in I am travelling to London tomorrow)’ is acceptable. However, if we use ‘time’ as a technical term, the rule ‘The present time is occasionally used to indicate future actions’ may sound rather incoherent.

Moreover, words of Latin or Greek origin are more readily accepted in international communication because they often permit a formal transfer and do not need to be translated. Latinisms lend themselves to the formation of derivatives or compounds where the vernacular requires complicated paraphrases.

For example (for the following derivatives see Kade 1968: 33): in German, the Latinism Translation (from the past participle, translatum, of the Latin verb transferre) designating an activity, a process, a production, a production process, permits the derivatives Translator for the person who produces a Translation and Translat (translatum in English) for the product resulting from the process, as well as compounds like Translationstheorie, translationstheoretisch, Translationswissenschaft and even Translatologie, all of which are used as generic terms referring to both written and oral forms of translational action. The only drawback is that there is no verb. The existing verb transferieren, belonging to the same Latin root but borrowed from English as a loan translation, is used as an economic term and would be misleading in a T&I context.

The Germanic word Sprachmittler (‘language mediator’), which was used as a generic term in former East Germany and permits the derivatives sprachmittlerisch (‘[activity] of a language mediator’) and Sprachmittlung (‘language mediation’), is problematic because the translator does not mediate merely between languages but also between cultures, and is not just a mediator but also an independent and creative text producer. On the contrary, the nominalized verb Übersetzen (‘translating’), which permits the derivatives Übersetzung (‘translation’ as process and product); Übersetzer (‘translator’), Übersetzungswissenschaft ⁴ (‘science of translation’, ‘translation studies’), Übersetzungstheorie (‘translation theory’), and the nominalized verb Dolmetschen (‘interpreting’), with the derivatives Dolmetscher (‘interpreter’), Dolmetschwissenschaft (‘interpreting studies’), Verdolmetschung (‘interpretation’ as process and product) cannot be used as generic terms.

⁴ Fränzel (1914: 206), quoted in Wilss ([1977]1982: 31), attributes the term Übersetzungswissenschaft to Schleiermacher.

Hildebrandt (1974: 40) also emphasizes that new technical terms should permit derivatives to be formed; for general terminology problems cf. Vermeer (1971).

1.3 Formal distinctions

For the formal distinction between translating and interpreting, we are indebted to Kade, whose definitions read as follows:⁵

⁵ The English translation has been adopted from Snell-Hornby, Mary (2006) The Turns of Translation Studies. New Paradigms or Shifting Viewpoints? Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Translator’s note)

By translating we understand the rendering of a source-language text that has been preserved (in writing) and is hence permanently available or can be repeated at will, in a target-language text which can be checked any time and can be repeatedly corrected.⁶

⁶ Wir verstehen daher unter Übersetzen die Translation eines fixierten und demzufolge permanent dargebotenen bzw. beliebig oft wiederholbaren Textes der Ausgangssprache in einen jederzeit kontrollierbaren und wiederholt korrigierbaren Text der Zielsprache. (Kade 1968: 35)

By interpreting we understand the rendering of a source-language text presented once (usually orally) in a target-language text which can be checked only to a limited extent and which due to lack of time can hardly be corrected.⁷

⁷ Unter Dolmetschen verstehen wir die Translation eines einmalig (in der Regel mündlich) dargebotenen Textes der Ausgangssprache in einen nur bedingt kontrollierbaren und infolge Zeitmangels kaum korrigierbaren Text der Zielsprache. (^ibid.)

1.3.1 Translating vs. interpreting

Accordingly, we shall define translating as a specific type of translational action in which the complete source text and target text and all parts thereof remain accessible to the translator in such a way that the process as well as its result can be corrected at any time. (Speaking of ‘the’ text is an abbreviated form of expression, cf. Vermeer [1979]1983: 62-88.) This is usually true for situations in which a written source text is translated into a written target text. The translatum can be checked, independently or against the source text, and corrected. However, it is not necessary that the source text be fixed in written form; it can also be recorded. In this case, it can be checked by replaying the recording. The translatum need not be fixed in written form either; it can be checked and corrected by replaying a voice recorder.

Interpreting, on the other hand, is defined as a specific type of translational action in which the process and its result cannot be corrected by the interpreter, e.g. because the source or the target text, or both, are presented only once in oral form and are not available for checking or correction.

In a personal communication to the authors dated 20 December 1982, Hella Kirchhoff suggests a distinction according to whether or not the translator has a full overview of the text as an alternative to the distinction based on correctability. In translating, the source (and the target) text can be reviewed completely at a glance, which allows an analysis of the macrostructure and determines the strategies for information processing. “In this sense, working from a tape recording would not be translating”, says Kirchhoff, who is obviously thinking of simultaneous interpreting as opposed to translating.

At any rate, the distinction between translating and interpreting is not yet relevant at this early stage of our discussion, nor do we claim to be able to offer a clear-cut definition which always applies. But there are a few more aspects we would like to address.

1.3.2 Formal criteria

In our formal distinction between translating and interpreting, the following considerations should be taken into account.

1. Correctability usually requires the availability of the complete source and target text and all parts thereof (cf. Kirchhoff, ↗ 1.3.1.). Translators in their role as text producers should be able to make the corrections themselves.
   For example: let us assume a listener who has recorded a source text (or taken some notes of the source text) and can compare it to its interpretation. This would mean that the source and the target texts, or only the target text, would be accessible to, and could be checked and corrected by, the listener but not by the interpreter himself.
   In this case, the target text is not a translation but still an interpretation because the text producer cannot make any corrections. If, however, the listener checks the translatum against the source text and corrects it, if necessary, in order to use it again, this form of translational action would be a translation (or, to be more precise, it would be a translation produced on the basis of an interpretation, which actually may be required under certain circumstances).
2. Correctability may take one of two possible forms:
   • (2a) the source and the target texts can be compared during the process of translational action, and the target text can be corrected afterwards on the basis of this comparison. This procedure leads to a ‘translation’ in the usual sense of the word;
   • (2b) the target text cannot be compared with the source text but can be checked independently (e.g. on the basis of a previous translation of the source text into another language). This procedure leads to a ‘quasi-translation’. If an interpretation is checked against the source text later on, it will become a translation in the usual sense of the word, provided that the other requirements for a translation (e.g. accuracy of the imitation, ↗ 3.) are met.
3. Correctability refers to the possibility of correction, not to the actual fact that a correction has been or will be carried out. For our definition, it is irrelevant whether or not a translatum is actually corrected. A translator checking his first draft may find that it is absolutely perfect and does not need to be corrected.
4. Instead of a single translator or interpreter, a team may be involved. In this case, at least one member of the team must have the possibility to correct the result if we want to speak of a translation.
5. Whether or not a text is fixed in written or any other form, or not fixed at all, is not a relevant criterion for the distinction between translating and interpreting. What matters is the possibility of the text being checked and, if necessary, corrected by the producer at a later moment in time. This requirement at a later moment in time (e.g. after completing a draft) is intended to exclude any ad hoc corrections, e.g. of a slip of the tongue by the interpreter during the interpretation process, from the definition. The decisive criterion for the definition of a translatum as translation or interpretation is, therefore, the possibility of being checked and corrected after the completion of the whole process of translational action or, in rare cases, of at least a substantial, relatively independent part of it, which, in itself, is more or less a text, e.g. after finishing one topic or one chapter of a book and before proceeding to the next. Translational action always deals with texts, so that smaller units are not of our concern here.
   Correctability has to be maintained for a while and must be repeatable. This does not mean, for example, that a correction made by the interpreter immediately after finishing the performance would turn the interpretation into a translation...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Translator’s preface
• Foreword to the first edition
• Foreword to the second edition
• 0. Introduction
• Part I. Theoretical groundwork
• Part II. Specific theories
• Bibliography
• Index of Authors
• Index of Subjects