Christiane Nord

Scopos, Loyalty, and Translational Conventions1

Abstract: Within the framework of the functionalist or "scopos" theory, the (intended)
scope or function of the target text is the most important criterion for the translator's
decisions. However, this is a general theory of translation, which is not concerned with
the culture-specific conventions valid in a particular culture. Since conventions determine
what readers expect of a translation, the translator has the responsibility not to deceive
the users of his translation by acting contrary to the conventions without telling them
what he is doing, and why. This responsibility is what I will refer to as Loyalty. Loyalty is
a moral principle guiding the relationships between human beings.

Résumé: Dans le cadre de la théorie fonctionnaliste dite "scopos", la cible (visée) par
le texte traduit constitue le critère majeur des décisions traductives. Cette théorie générale
néglige toutefois les conventions spécifiques d'une culture donnée. Or, ce sont des
conventions qui prédisposent l’attente des lecteurs d'une traduction. Le traducteur ne peut
tromper cette attente en agissant à l'encontre des conventions sans expliquer au lecteur
ce qu'il fait et pourquoi. Une telle forme de responsabilité répond à ce que j’appelle
loyauté. La loyauté est un principe moral qui règle les rapports entre les êtres humains.

0. Introduction

Every year, conferences on translational topics call for scholars from all over the world
to discuss the question of what translation is or should be and how certain translation
problems ought to be solved. However, although translatologists usually agree on more
general issues, e.g. the importance of translation as such or the necessity of improving
the often deplorable quality of translations, there seems to be little consent as far as
concrete translational "rules" are concerned. Wouldn't it be useful to have a sort of
Magna Charta of translation which every translator could turn to in case of doubt?
Such a charter does not seem to be in sight so far, however, for if whenever one
claims that a certain text "must" or "ought to" be translated in a certain way, he or she is
subject to a culture-specific convention. In a particular culture, at a particular time, the
users of translations as well as the translators themselves expect a translated text to meet
certain standards as far as the relationship between the translation and the original is
concerned (e.g. fidelity), or the relationship between the translation and its purpose (e.g.
functionality), or the reception of the translated text (e.g. strangeness). But different
standards may be valid in another culture, or even in the same culture at another time
(e.g. equivalence, adequacy, and fluency, respectively). Or, as van den Broeck puts it:

What was regarded as good — not to say 'optimum' — translation at one moment was
rejected as bad, or inadequate, at another and considered either unfaithful or
unacceptable translations by later generations. For translations to be given the labet of
1
Target 3:1. 91-109 (1991). To my knowledge, this is the first time the word skopos is used in
English translation. In the meantime, the original Greek orthography has become the norm instead of
the adaptation to English orthography that I decided to use. (C.N. 2008).
 `optimum' renderings of their source texts they had, at the very moment they were
published, to be in agreement with the norms prevailing there and then. (van den Broeck
1980: 82)

This is why there will never be a common translation code for all cultures. What
we can achieve, though, is agreement on a general theory of translation which allows
for specific variations when applied to particular cultures, taking into account the
culture-specific conventions of translation and the expectations the members of a
particular culture have of a translated text. This then is what I'm trying to suggest in the
present paper.
After briefly describing Vermeer's scopos theory, which I think could provide a
general framework for translation, I will introduce the concept of loyalty. lt is a
moral category which permits the integration of culture-specific conventions
into the functionalist model of translation. After discussing the role and scope of
convention in and for translation, I will outline some approaches to the
investigation of translational conventions. The last chapter will deal with the
application of the model to translation teaching.

1. Scopos Theory: Functionality is the Aim

The functional approach to translation, which is constantly gaining ground in

modern translation studier (e.g. Snell-Hornby 1986), was first formulated by
Vermeer in 1978 (cf. Vermeer 1983 [11978]) and is presented as the "Foundation of a
General Theory of Translation" in Reiß and Vermeer 1984. Vermeer calls his
approach "scopos theory" because it is the "scopos", i.e. the purpose (or
scope) of the translated text, that determines the translation process. The theory
hinges on the so-called "scopos rule".
Human interaction (including translation as its subcategory) is determined by its
purpose (scopos), and therefore is a function of its purpose — IA (Trl) = f(Sc). ...
The purpose can be described as a function of the recipient: Sc = f(R). (Vermeer
1983: 54; my translation)

This means that, in this model, the recipient for whom the target text (TT) is
intended is the crucial factor in any translation process. The original has to be
translated in such way that the TT becomes part of a "world continuum" which
can be interpreted by the recipient as "coherent with his Situation" (Vermeer 1983:
57). If the TT is intended to fulfil the same function as the source text (ST), there
can be a relationship of "intertextual coherence" or "fidelity" between ST and
TT; but the demand for fidelity will always be subordinate to the scopos rule. If the
scopos demands a change of function, the required standard will no longer be
intertextual coherence with the ST, but adequacy or appropriateness with regard
to the translation scope (Reiß and Vermeer 1984: 139).
 The scopos of a particular translation process is fixed by the translator according
to the "translating instructions" given by the customer or client (who is the
instigator or, as I call him, "initiator" of the translation process; cf. Nord 1988: 8ff.
and 1991a) when commissioning the translation. Even though these instructions
may not be very detailed, they should provide the translator with some (explicit or
implicit) Information on the "Situation" the TT is going to be used in (i.e. the
recipient, medium, time and place of, and motive for, communication, and the
intended function or functions of the target text).
As a general theory of translation, this model allows the formulation of any
translation scope for a particular original. But if we want to apply the model to
the daily routine of professional translation (and/or translation teaching) we
have to get down from the lofty heights of generalizing abstraction and deal
with concrete facts: The translator, who is always act- ing within the boundaries of a
particular culture community, cannot, in fact, take the liberty of choosing any
translation scope for a particular text even if that is what the customer asks him to
do.
What does this mean?

2. Loyalty: The Responsibility of the Translator

The decision on what may or may not be a "possible" or "legitimate" translation

scope for a particular source text is based on the conventional concept of translation
regarded as valid in the cultures involved. This concept determines, for example, what
relationship the users of translations (i.e. the Initiators of translations, the readers of
translated texts, and even the authors of texts which are going to be translated) expect
between the original and the target text.
In normal intercultural communication, neither the initiator nor the recipient of the
translated text is able to check on whether or not the TT really conforms to their
expectations. They have to rely on the translator's doing a fair job. A text pragmatically
marked as a translation is usually interpreted by the reader as a translation that conforms
to the conventional concept of translation, even if this is not the case. If, for example,
the reader erroneously expects the translation to reproduce the author's intention, he will
never find out that it doesn't. He takes the intention expressed in the translation for the
authentic intention of the (ST) author. No matter whether the translator has violated the
convention intentionally or inadvertently, the reader will be deceived without realizing
it. Although apparently successful from the reader's point of view, the communicative
act cannot be regarded as "functional" in this case because it is based on a false assump-
tion.
This is why I would like to introduce the principle of loyalty into the framework
of the scopos model (Nord 1988: 31ff. and 1991a). Along similar lines, Berglund (1987:
7) speaks of a "fair" translation. The translator is committed bilaterally to the source and
the target situations and is responsible to both the ST Sender (or the initiator, if he is the
one who takes the sender's part) and the TT recipient. This responsibility is what I call
loyalty. Loyalty is a moral principle indispensable in the relationships between human
beings who are partners in a communication process.
Whatever the translating instructions, the translator has to consider the
conventional concepts of translation, since they determine the expectations of his
partners from the translated text. However, "to consider the conventional
concept" does not automatically mean "to do what everybody expects you to
do". Loyalty may require precisely non-observance of certain conventions. But in
any case, the translator should at least inform the other participants of what has been
done, and why.

3. Translational conventions: What Does the Reader Expect?

3.1. General Considerations: The concept of convention

Before discussing the conventional concept of translation or translational

conventions in general, we have to explain the concept of convention underlying
these considerations. In ordinary language, a convention is "(an example of)
generally accepted practice, especially in social behaviour" (DCE). Since verbal
communication is a form of "social behaviour", we find conventions hexe as
well. It is a convention, for example, to use certain words and phrases to express
thankfulness or to address friends and unknown persons in different ways.
David K. Lewis defines conventions as a way of solving coordination
problems by precedent, i.e. "by means of shared acquaintance with a regularity
governing the achievement of coordination in a class of past cases which bear
some conspicuous analogy to one another and to our present coordination
problem" (Lewis 1969: 41). Remembering satisfactory solutions of previous
problems, we try to solve a similar problem in a similar way and expect others to
do the same.
Translation is not a "coordination problem" in the sense that intercultural
communication is simply blocked without the help of conventions, as would be
the case if the two parties in a telephone call were suddenly cut off and tried to
call each other back immediately, or if each waited for the other to call back (cf.
Lewis 1969: 43). But if we have learned in foreign language classes that
translations have to be "as faithful as possible and as free as necessary", we will
assume that every translation we read is a rather literal reproduction of the
original. In this case, "coordination" consists in a tacit agreement about the
relationship between a term and the phenomenon it applies to.
Conventions are arbitrary in the sense that there is always an alternative
regularity that could have become a convention instead; that is, they are not necessarily
motivated. If we had learned in foreign language classes that a translation should be "as
free as possible", we would probably believe this to be the true form of translation.
 In the field of social regularities we have to distinguish between Conventions,
rules, and norms. RULES (e.g. traffic rules) are set up by a kind of legislative power
and imposed on those subject to this power under threat of punishment. NORMS are
fixed by the members of certain groups within the framework of the existing rules.
Norms may be regarded as
the translation of general values or ideas shared by a certain community —as to what is
right and wrong, adequate and inadequate — into specific performance-instructions
appropriate for and applicable to specific situations. (Toury 1980: 51)

Violation of norms (e.g. wearing a coloured tie at a funeral) is not penalized by law,
but usually has consequences for the social evaluation of the individual by the other
members of the group. CONVENTIONS are specific realizations of norms (cf. Searle
1969: 40f.).
A regular behaviour R of members of a group G, who participate in a repeatedly
occurring situation S is a convention if (a) everybody follows R, (b) everybody expects of
everybody to follow R, and (c) everybody prefers following R. (Searle 1969: 43)

Conventions are not explicitly formulated, nor are they binding. They are based
on common knowledge and on the expectation of what others expect you to
expect them (etc.) to do in a certain situation. Therefore, they are only valid
for the group that shares this knowledge. They are acquired, and even
internalized, by the members of the group during the socialization process.
Newcomers have to learn the convention either by "trial and error" or by imitation.
This leads us to assume a certain hierarchy of regulating principles, establishing
rules and norms on a higher rank than conventions (Fig. 1).

Conventions may be raised to the rank of (tacit or explicit) norms or even rules.
They are not enforced by sanctions, but make social cooperation easier and
more foreseeable and/or reliable. They are opposed to the Intention of an
individual (Toury, 1980: 511., speaks of "idiosyncrasy") who, at his own risk,
decides not to follow the conventional way of acting (cf. Strawson 1969).
Moreover, they are subject to more or less gradual change and can be replaced by a
new convention whenever the need or wish arises. In case of replacement, however,
there will have to be a period in which old and new conventions coexist until the
new one is commonly known and accepted.

RULES

NORMS

CONVENTIONS

Fig. 1: Hierarchy of rules, norms, and conventions

3.2. Conventions in Translation:Translation as a communication activity

Since translation is a form of communication activity, the rules, norms, and

conventions of communication (such as grammatical rules, stylistic norms, text
type or speech act conventions, and the like) are effective in translation as well.
Let me give a few examples.
In Lewis Carroll's famous Alice in Wonderland we find several "embedded"
texts belonging to certain text types, e.g. an address (—> Example 1), the
beginning of a fairy tale ("Once upon a time there were three little sisters . . .
"), a funny riddle ("Why is a raven like a writing desk?"), etc. In direct speech,
we have to observe the conventions of addressing a partner (--> Example 2),
and in narrative passages we may have to follow the general conventions of
"good style" (--> Example 3) or measuring conventions (--> Example 4).

Example 1
Alice's Right Foot
Hearthrug,
near the Fender
(with Alice's love) (Carroll 1946: 12)

In only one of several German versions I have analysed, did I find a translation
which really looks (and sounds, as far as the names of the addressee and place are
concerned) like a typical German address:

Herrn
Rechterfuß v. Alice
Kaminteppich
z.Z. Irgendwo beim Sofa
Herzliche Grüße A. (Carroll 1989: 21)

Example 2
"How are you getting on now, my dear?" (Carroll 1946; the Mouse addressing Alice)
(a) "Wie fühlst du dich inzwischen, mein Kind?" (Carroll 1973a: 29)
(b) "Wie fühlst du dich, meine Liebe?" (Carroll 1973b: 46)
(c) "Nun, mein Kind," wandte sie sich unvermittelt an Alice, "hat diese trockene
Geschichte ihre Wirkung getan?" (Carroll 1989: 31)

The form mein Kind ("my child") evokes an "asymmetrical" relationship between Alice
and the Mouse, in which the Mouse seems older and wiser than Alice, whereas
meine Liebe would be the form used by an elderly woman to address another elderly
woman. But it is not only the form, but also the syntactic position (end of sentence vs.
beginning of sentence vs. second position) and the frequency of direct addressing tags
that may vary between two cultures. On the whole, Ger-man speakers would use them
less frequently than English or Spanish speakers, and they would preferably be
integrated into the sentence, as in version (c).
 Example 3
If we compare the frequency and construction of relative clauses in English and German
parallel texts (i.e. texts belonging to the same text type) we will find that although
relative clauses are possible and grammatically acceptable in both languages, they are
much less frequent (and often, if used at all, are constructed differently) in German. Just
compare the literal translations (LT) of the following sentences taken from two English
newspaper articles with their translations into conventional German style (CT):

(a) lt all depends on the tone with which the word is spoken (Ted Gup. "Meltdown of the
Mind in a Language Class". The Guardian, 18.8.1985)
LT: Das hängt ganz von dem Ton ab, in dem das Wort ausgesprochen wird.
CT: Das hängt ganz davon ab, in welchem Ton das Wort ausgesprochen wird.

two of the finest people I know ("Teachers...". Encounter column, 3.3.1983)

(b)
(c)LT: zwei der nettesten Leute, die ich kenne
CT: zwei meiner nettesten Bekannten

The sounds I’m supposed to say remind me of ... ("Meltdown")

(d)
LT: Die Laute, die ich hervorbringen soll, erinnern mich an ...
CT: Wenn ich bestimmte Laute hervorbringen soll, denke ich an ...

(e)... spending so much of the day in what educationists call the "teaching situation"
("Teachers...")
LT: . . . daß man einen so großen Teil des Tages in dem verbringt, was die
Pädagogen die "Unterrichtssituation" nennen.
CT: ... daß man einen so großen Teil des Tages in einer "Unterrichtssituation"
verbringt, wie es die Pädagogen nennen.

Example 4
"I wonder how many miles I've fallen by this time?" she said aloud. "I must be getting
somewhere near the center of the earth. Let me see: that would be four thousand
miles down, I think..." (Carroll 1946: 3)
(a) "Wie viele Meilen ich wohl schon gefallen bin?" sagte sie laut. "Weit kann es nicht
mehr sein bis zum Erdmittelpunkt. Das wären dann, ja: sechstausend Kilometer wären
das, ungefähr wenigstens". (Carroll 1973a: 12)
(b) "Ich möchte wahrhaftig wissen, wie viele Kilometer ich bisher gefallen bin!"
murmelte Alice. "Wahrscheinlich lande ich im Mittelpunkt der Erde. Mal überlegen: Das
ist viertausend Kilometer tief, glaub' ich!" (Carroll 1973b: 15)

In the examples we have tacitly assumed that the target text should conform to
the conventions of the target culture. But this is by no means a general rule; as a
communication activity mediating between two culture communities, translation
always involves two sets of conventions, the source-culture ones and the
target-culture ones. Which of the two sets is given priority in a particular
translation process — and when — is also subject to conventions, i. e. the
conventions for translation.
3.3. Conventions for Translation: What a Translation is Expected To Be Like

By analogy with Searle's regulative rules, which guide people's behaviour in a

certain situation (e.g. the rules of etiquette), and constitutive rules, which "create the
possibility of new forms of behaviour" (e.g. the rules of chess; cf. Searle 1969: 31ff.), I
would like to distinguish between "regulative" and "constitutive" translational
conventions. Regulative translational conventions refer to the generally accepted
forms of handling certain translation problems below the text rank (e.g. proper
names, culture-bound realities or realia, quotations, etc.), whereas constitutive
conventions determine what a particular culture community accepts as a
translation (as opposed to an adaptation or version or other forms of intercultural
text transfer). The sum total of constitutive conventions forms the general
concept of translation prevailing in a particular culture community, i.e. what the
users of translations expect from a text which is pragmatically marked as a
translation, e.g. by the remark "translated from X (= source language) into Y (=
target language) by Z (= translator)" on the title page or — more often, alas! — in
a less conspicuous place.
In terms of hierarchy, then, the conventional concept of translation,
consisting of the sum total of constitutive conventions, determines the regulative
conventions the translator may have to observe on lower ranks, thus providing him
with a framework for his decisions concerning specific translation problems.
On a higher rank, there are also translational norms, for example, for
certain juridical translations (cf. Toury 1980, who discusses the role of norms
in literary translation). There may even be culture communities where
government authorities (e.g. a censor) set up rules establishing what a target text has
to be like if it is to be officially accepted as a translation. In these cases the translator
has little choice. But more often, the readers or initiators of translations (including
government authorities) expect translators to act according to a general tacit convention
or set of conventions of what is normally called a translation, and translators expect
their readers to expect them to expect... etc. And this is precisely what we call a
convention (see 3.1.).
If, for example, according to the constitutive translational conventions to which
they are accustomed, the members of a particular culture community expect a literary
translation to reproduce the "strangeness" of the original (which, of course, is "strange"
only for the target readers, not for the readers of the original, who may find the story
rather "ordinary"), the translator will leave the setting and the proper names of persons
and places unchanged or even stress the "local colour" of the scene by reproducing the
original forms of address (e.g. "signora") instead of following the target culture
conventions.
If, on the other hand, there is the convention that the translation of a
children's book "generalizes" the setting of the story or even shifts it to the
target culture, in order to enable the reader to interpret it as "coherent with his world"
(see Vermeer's definition quoted above), the translator may decide to change the
proper names and adjust "strange" forms of (verbal or other) behaviour to the
conventions of the target culture.
Two German translations of Alice in Wonderland provide a few inter-
esting examples.

Example 5
Translation A (Carroll 1973a) changes Pat and Bill into "Heinz" and "Egon",
Alice's cat is called "Suse" instead of Dinah, and the nurse's name is "Marie"
instead of Mary Ann. The three little sisters Elsie, Lacie and Tillie are called
"Hilde", "Else" and "Trine", three names which sound rather North German.

Translation B (Carroll 1973b) leaves most of the English names, but adjusts some of
them to German orthographic or phonetic norms. Thus, Dinah becomes "Dina"
(pronounced [deena] in German), Lacie is changed to "Lassy'" (which might produce
associations with the famous TV collie), Tillie becomes "Tilly", while Elsie is left
unchanged.

Example 6
"Perhaps it doesn't understand English," thought Alice; "I dare say it's a French
mouse, come over with William the Conqueror." (Carroll 1946: 18)

(a) "Vielleicht versteht sie kein Deutsch," dachte Alice; "ich könnte mir denken, sie ist
eine französische Maus und mit Napoleon herübergekommen." (Car-roll 1973a: 25)

(b)"Sie versteht mich nicht," sagte sich Alice. "Vielleicht ist es eine französische Maus,
die mit Wilhelm dem Eroberer zu uns nach England gekommen ist." (Carroll 1973b: 38)

Example 7
She gut up and went to the table to measure herself by it, and found that, as nearly as
she could guess, she was now about two feet high, and was going on shrinking rapidly.
(Carroll 1946: 16)

(a) Sie stand auf und ging zu dem Tischchen hinüber, um sich daran zu messen, und
entdeckte, daß sie jetzt, so gut sie das abschätzen konnte, ungefähr zwei Fuß maß und
dabei noch immer rasch in sich zusammenschrumpfte. (Carroll 1973a: 23)

Sie sprang auf, lief zum Tisch, um sich an ihm zu messen, und stellte fest, daß sie jetzt
bloß noch fünf [!] Zentimeter hoch war und schnell weiter zusammenschrumpfte. (Carroll
1973b: 36)

In the light of the conventions described above (which seem, in fact, to be more or
less the ones we find in Germany today), we might attribute the difference between the
handling of personal names and realia (Examples 5 and 6) in versions A and B to the
fact that translator A translated Alice in Wonderland as a book for children, whereas
translator B rendered it as a literary text for an adult readership. The analysis of
the handling of measure conventions (Example 7), however, gives exactly the
opposite impression. This might point to the fact that neither translator was
particularly concerned about (regulative) conventions.
As far as constitutive conventions are concerned, both translators have acted
contrary to what is normally expected: Being part of a series of books for children
("dtv junior"), translation B, in fact, addresses young readers, while translation A,
published by "Insel Verlag" in a rather serious-looking edition, seems to be
intended for a mainly adult readership. I suppose that translator A must have been
conscious of acting contrary to the conventions for literary translation; otherwise
he would not have felt the need to justify his translation in a postscript:

Example 8
This translation tries to reproduce the humourous effect of the original instead of striving
after literal exactness, substituting, for example, William the Conqueror and his
unpronounceable Earls by Napoleon and the South German princes. (Enzensberger 1973:
137; my translation)

There is no comment on translation strategy in version B, and this corresponds

to the convention that children are usually not explicitly made aware of the fact
that they are reading a translation.

3.4. The General Concept of Translation: How To Find Out About conventions

The question arises, how can we describe the general concept of translation prevailing
in a particular culture community at a particular time (e.g. in Germany in the
early nineties) in order to compare it to the general concepts of translation valid at
another time and/or in other culture communities (= diachronic vs. synchronic
comparison)? As long as we do not know the general concept of translation we
cannot really give a fair judgement of any concrete target text.
Just compare the following statement with what you expect (in your own
native culture, today) of a proper translation:

Example 9
In 16th century Spain it was very common to expand the original by adding explanations
whenever the translator felt it necessary in order to make the sense absolutely clear to
a lay public, and by replacing the abstractions of mythological and classical allusions of
the original with refrains and proverbial expressions which give his version a more
concrete character. Thus, the translation of Erasmus by Fernández de Madrid had
approximately twice the length of the original. (Cf. Barrass 1978: 195.)

Since translational conventions are not explicitly formulated, it seems extremely

difficult to find out where, and how, they are operating. There are various
possible approaches, some of which will be briefly discussed in the following
paragraphs.
 (a) Analysis of existing translations

"We know what translation is because there are lots of existing translations", a
well-known translation scholar said recently in a discussion on translation theory.
But is this really true? When we analyse existing target texts, we can never be
sure whether a particular translation really reflects a convention or rather the
Intention of an individual translator. And we would need a rather large number of
Samples in order to rule out other variables determining the form and quality of a
translation, e.g. the (in)competence of the translator or any particular translating
instructions given by the Initiator. Nevertheless, scholars of historical or
descriptive translation studies (See, for example, Frank and Schultze 1988: 96ff.)
have chosen this approach with regard to literary translation.

(b) Translation criticism

One would think that reviews of translated books would yield some Information
on the reviewer's judgement of the translation, which, at the same time, might
reflect the general expectations towards a translation of the text type in question.
But when reviews refer to the translation at all (translated books are usually
reviewed as if they were Originals), they are rather superficial and tend to
generalize. Example 10 is taken from a review of the Eng lish translation of
Philippe Djian's novel Betty Blue, and is actually the only reference to the fact
that the reviewed book is a translation:

Example 10
Howard Butler [the translator, C.N.] has managed to keep true to the spirit of the original.
(Sunday Times Books, January 1, 1990, p. 1113)

Example 11
[The new German translation of Virginia Woolf’s short stories] closely follows in the
original's footsteps.... The identity of the original is not infringed. (Die Zeit November 11,
1989, p. 85f.; my translation)

(c) Theoretical statements

Theoretical and methodological statements on translation, whether written by

theorists or practitioners, often reflect, at least in part or indirectly, the general
concept of translation. But, again, it would be rather difficult to distinguish
between conventional and personal normative views on translation.

Example 12

The word-for-word or interlinear version of the holy text is the essence or ideal of
translation. (Benjamin 1972: 21; my translation)
By this statement, Walter Benjamin probably did not mean to say that we should
put Luther's bible translation aside and turn back to illegible word for-word
versions. Rather, he was referring to the ideal case — one in which interlinear
translation results in a readable, acceptable, and functionally "equivalent" target text.
Other statements are more explicit, at least as far as the pragmatic aspect
(here: functionality) is concerned, although not with respect to the formal aspect
(e.g. text type conventions, terminology, etc.).

Example 13
For our work on translating maintenance documents, and probably for all such technical
translation, any criterion of good translation centers around the amount of information
and knowledge conveyed. In operational terms, the criterion means that people using the
translated material should be able to maintain the equipment as well as people using the
material in its original language form. (Brislin 1976: 14)
The most interesting kind of theoretical or methodological statement, in my
opinion, comprises translators' comments on their own translation activity, as,
for example, Enzensberger's remark on the purpose of his translation of Alice in
Wunderland quoted above (---> Example 8). There is usually no need for a
translator to comment on his translation unless he feels that the readers might
expect something else.
(d) Input from users
In matters of translation, the process of "socialization" comprises not only
the experience we have of reading translated texts, from instructions for use and
Computer manuals to classical drama, but also that of language teaching at
school. Therefore, the general concept of translation which "normal" users of
translations have in mind will be very vague, and the answer to any question about
expectations will strongly depend on how the question is put.
(e) Multilingual comparison of translations
On the whole, there seems little point in seeking reliable Information about
the general concept or concepts of translation prevailing in a particular culture
community. I would therefore suggest proceeding "bottom up", starting out from
those concrete translation problems whose solutions tend to be determined by
regulative conventions (i.e. mainly pragmatic and intercultural translation
problems; cf. Nord 1987 and 1991a).
By comparing translations of the same original into various languages, we
observe the different ways of dealing with a particular translation problem in the
respective target cultures. From the solutions generally (or rather: predominantly)
adopted for these problems, we may be able to infer more general (constitutive)
conventions, e.g. concerning the relationship between text type and translation
type.
Examples 5, 6, and 7 show how this could work. The handling of the
translation problems "personal proper names", "realia", and "measures and
weights" points to the translation type. Programmatically, translator A has chosen
an "instrumental translation" (See Nord 1989; House 1981: 188f. would call this
type "covert translation"), i.e. a translation which tries to achieve the same
function and/or effect with the target recipient which was intended by the source
text Sender. The problem is that he does not stick to this translation type
throughout the book.
Translator B has chosen a "documentary" translation (House 1981: "overt
translation"), which leaves the text surface more or less unchanged, thus producing
quite a different effect. Where the original allows the readers to recognize their
own world, the translation presents a strange world which does not lend itself to
identification. Like translator A, translator B does not strictly follow the same
strategy throughout the book.
In spite of such inconsistencies (see Examples 4 and 7), the analysis of concrete
translation problems leads us to constitutive translation strategies. Comparing these
two translations with other translations of books for children or adults, we may
even be able to find out whether translator A and B have followed a culture-specific
translational convention.
Comparing the handling of the translation problem "personal proper names"
in Spanish and German translations of literary texts, we observe a difference of
conventions between these two cultures, which is discussed in Example 14:

Example 14

In German translations of literary texts, personal names (including Christian

names) are usually left unchanged in the form of the original language, although we
have to take into account that the names existing in German will be phonetically
adapted by the reader (e.g. Richard). The foreign names are used to "mark" the
cultural setting of the story. In Spanish translations of literary texts (as in original
Spanish literature) Christian names are usually given in the Spanish form, if there is
one, and nobody seems to mind a mixture of Spanish Christian name and French
surname. In a Spanish play by Max Aub, which is set in France, the French persons are
called Josefina, Claudio, and señora Bernard, while in the German translation of
the play, the persons are called "Joséphine", "Claude" and "Madame Bernard".
(Cf. Aub 1972.)

4. Conventions and Functionalism in Translation Teaching

To conclude, let us have a look at the consequences of these considerations for
translation teaching.
What we have been doing in translation teaching during the past sixty years
or more, was to "give some hints, give some practice and, if you're lucky, Show
more or less how the job can be done" (Newmark 1980: 127). And, of course, by
doing this, we have implicitly taught our students the regulative and constitutive
conventions of translation prevailing in our respective cultures. Many of us, who
are now training young translators-to-be, acquired translation competence this
way, without ever hearing the word "convention" or any of the other scientific terms
now in vogue.
 Yet, it has taken us more than the four or five years at university, and has cost
a great deal in terms of trial and error to acquire and internalize the conventions of
translation in our particular culture(s). Therefore, I think it would be a great help
to future translators to have an exact description of the regulative and constitutive
conventions of translation for the source and target cultures they are working with.
As we have seen, this is not easy, but I am sure it can be done. We might
decide to choose not one of the approaches listed above, but all of them.
Meanwhile, we can use a pedagogical "trick" to make things easier both
for translation students and for teachers: Instead of asking for a translation that
conforms to the vague and often contradictory standards set by translational
conventions, we might give an explicit and detailed definition of the scope and
function for which the target text is required (which I call "translating instructions"),
asking for a translation which corresponds to the norm of functionality. Such a
translation must be functional in the sense that it should achieve the function or
functions required by the target situation, and its form should conform to the target
culture conventions valid for the text type in question. Thus, we replace the
convention with a norm that provides the student with a stringent frame of
reference for his or her translational choices.
Once familiar with the norms and conventions of translation in his/her
culture, the student may even be brought to "violate" them as another
pedagogical "trick", as suggested by Toury (1980a: 191). However, as I stated
before, in professional translation any nonconformism has to be layed open in
order to prevent the reader from being deceived in his expectations without so much
as noticing it.

References
Aub, Max. 1972. "El puerto" / "Der Hafen". Tránsito. Tres obras en un acto / Drei Einakter,
ed. and trans. Erna Brandenberger. München: dtv, 1972. 63-107.
Barrass, Tine. 1978. "The Function of Translated Literature within a National Literature: The
Example of Sixteenth Century Spain". James S Holmes, José Lambert and Raymond van
den Broeck, eds. Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies.
Leuven: acco, 1978. 181-203.
Benjamin, Walter. 1972. "Die Aufgabe des Übersetzers". Gesammelte Schriften.
Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp, 1972. 82-96.
Berglund, Lars O. 1987. "The Ethics of Ineffective Translation". Lebende Sprachen 1. 7-11.
Brislin, Richard W. 1976. "Introduction". Richard W. Brislin, ed. Translation: Applications and
Research. New York: Gardner Press, 1976. 1-43.
Broeck, Raymond van den. 1980. "Toward a Text-Type-Oriented Theory of Translation".
Poulsen and Wilss 1980. 82-96.
Carroll, Lewis. 1946. Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. New York: Grosset
& Dunlap.
Carroll, Lewis. 1973a. Alice im Wunderland, trans. Christian Enzensberger. Frankfurt/ M:
Insel Verlag.
Carroll, Lewis. 1973b. Alice im Wunderland, trans. Liselotte Remané. München: dtv.
Carroll, Lewis. 1989. Alice im Wunderland, trans. Barbara Teutsch. Hamburg: Cecilie Dressier.
Dictionary of Contemporary English (DCE). 1978. ed. P. Procter et al. London: Langenscheidt-
Longman.
Enzensberger, Christian. 1973. Nachwort zur Übersetzung von Alice im Wunderland. Carroll
1973a: 129-138.
Frank, Armin Paul and Brigitte Schultze. 1988. "Normen in historisch-deskriptiven
Übersetzungsstudien". Harald Kittel, ed. Die literarische Übersetzung: Stand und
Perspektiven ihrer Erforschung. Berlin: Schmidt, 1988: 96-121.
House, Juliane. 1981. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.
Kupsch-Losereit, Sigrid. 1986. "Scheint eine schöne Sonne? oder: Was ist ein Überset-
zungsfehler?" Lebende Sprachen 1. 12-16.
Lewis, David K. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Newmark, Peter. 1980. "Teaching Specialized Translation". Poulsen and Wilss 1980: 127-
148.
Nord, Christiane. 1987. "Übersetzungsprobleme - Übersetzungsschwierigkeiten. Was in den
Köpfen von Übersetzern vorgehen sollte...". Mitteilungsblatt für Dolmetscher und
Übersetzer 2. 5-7.
Nord, Christiane. 1988. Textanalyse und Übersetzen: Theoretische Grundlagen, Methode und
didaktische Anwendung einer übersetzungsrelevanten Textanalyse. Heidelberg: Groos.
Nord, Christiane. 1992. "The Relationship between Text Function and Meaning in
Translation". Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, eds. Translation
and Meaning, Part II: Proceedings of the Lodz Colloquium, September 1990.
Maastricht: Euroterm.
Nord, Christiane. 1991b. "The Role and Scope of Conventions in Translation". Proceedings of
the XIIth World Congress of FIT, Belgrade 1990.
Nord, Christiane. 1991a. Text Analysis in Translation (English version of Nord 1988).
Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Poulsen, Sven-Olaf and Wolfram Wilss, eds. Angewandte Übersetzungswissenschaft:
Internationales übersetzungswissenschaftliches Kolloquium an der Wirtschaftsuniversität
Århus/Dänemark, 19.-21. Juni 1980. Århus.
Reiß, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Trans-
lationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. London: Cambridge
University Press.
Snell-Hornby, Mary, ed. 1986. Übersetzungswissenschaft — eine Neuorientierung.
Tübingen: Narr.
Strawson, Peter Frederick. 1969. "Intention and Convention in Speech Acts". Philo-
sophical Review 73. 439-460.
Toury, Gideon. 1980. "The Nature and Role of Norms in Literary Translation". Gideon Toury.
In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv. 1980. 51-62. (11978)
Toury, Gideon. 1980. "The Translator as a Nonconformist-to-be, or: How to Train Translators
So As to Violate Translational Norms". Poulsen and Wilss 1980: 180-194.
Vermeer, Hans J. 1983. "Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie". Aufsätze
zur Translationstheorie. Heidelberg. 1983. 48-61. (11978)