Thread by @elisa_freschi

Ongoing thread on #HansVermeer's 1984 (Skopos Theory explained), on #Translation. Let me start with some of my favourite quotes:
"Language is a system" (p. 19)—>Hence, discussing about how to translate a single word is a misunderstanding of the way language works. 1/

In HV's words: "Simple signs can be combined to form complex signs, e.g. words form sentences, and sentences form texts. A sequence of simple signs is not just a collection of signs but a new sign of higher rank […] The formation of super-signs is language-specific. 2/

A word in one language can correspond to a phrase in another" (p.19).
"Signs delimit, determine, condition and define each other's meanings. Signs form language- and culture-specific fields"(p. 20) 3/

HV constantly stresses how the transfer implied in translation is not just "interlingual", but "intercultural", since translations "imply a cultural transfer as well" (p. 22) 4/

Vermeer then moves on to possible obstacles to translations: "Ppl see their worlds like refracted light through a prism, The refractions may overlap [@bsod_nams & @NeuroYogacara may like that!]"
Refractions:
1. "culture-specific conventions" (e.g., "Italians are noisy")
5/

2. "individual attitude": "Social conventions may be overruled…by individual views based on specific situations (e.g., I know three Italians who are very noisy)"
3. "different realities ('possible worlds')…The borders b/w these worlds may be drawn differently acc. to cultural 6

or individual beliefs (e.g. do angels exist?)."
4. "frozen traditions:…Some conventional expressions continue to be in use, although they do not correspond to what we know about the world (e.g. the sun rises)".
5. "value system…(e.g. British cars are better than French cars)" 7

In other words, "an identical material fact may, if inserted into different lives, have the most diverse realities" (p. 24)
"The translator is not interested in either objective reality or truth values in general but in the value of a historical even as manifested in a text" 8/

"Translators must therefore…be bi-cultural. For, in trasnslation, the value of an event, with regard to its nature or its degree or both, may change" (p. 25) 9/

EF: At this point, it becomes clear that #translation is a philosophical exercise, since it implies the ability to understand a worldview. It is also clear how the above points are not only relevant when translating dialogues or novels, since, e.g., a philosophical 10/

argument about linguistic communication will have a different value if expressed in British empiricism or in Mīmāṃsā. 11/

"Each transfer inevitably involves changes in value […] The decision depends, among other things, on the type of text or genre we have in mind.
As we do not tend to say that a text *is* a technical text or a propaganda speech, rather, that it is transmitted/received/ 12/

translated/interpreted *as* a text of one type or another, our dynamic answer to this Q is that the decision depends on the purpose or *skopos* of the translation action" (p. 27) 13/

"There are 2 opposite ways of looking at this problem: one's the model influenced by Marxist image theory…, which more or less ignores the problem of value changes, assuming an objective reality as the intercultural tertium comparationis for translation, 14/

and the other is the relativist model, acc. to which the value changes produced by a transfer will lead, in any case, to an incomparability of source and target texts; cf. Weisgerber's theory on the worldview of languages… and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis" (p. 27) 15/

What is being translated?
1. meaning (="the specific circumstances are not taken into consideration", but still, also the meaning refers to a text, not to words). In this view, the meaning "is not bound to a particular language (let). It exists independently" (p. 29) 16/

2. behaviour. "In this model, the translator deals with 5 factors, with the situation remaining unchanged: the source text, wrt its form and its sense, the situation, the target text, wrt its 'sense' and its form" (p. 30). 17/

"If we take this seriously, identical situations are simply not possible." This "translation requires a comprehensive knowledge of culture-specific behaviour" (p. 31) 18/

EF: I have to admit that long ago I thought that Tibetan lotsawas were following model 1 (grasping to an invariable meaning and rendering it into Tibetan) and that this could be replicated. Can it, even in the world of types and not tokens, aka philosophy? 19/

"No es traducir, sin remedio, un afán utópico? Verdad es que cada día me acuesto más a la opinión de que todo lo que el hombre hace es utópico" (Ortega y Gasset 1957:11) 20/

"Acc. to Nida (1964), faithfulness wrt text effect means 'to reproduce in [the translator's] audience sth of the same effect which is understood to have existed in the response of the original hearers" (p. 35) 21/

#Terence criticizes a colleague:
qui bene vertendo et easdem scribendo male
ex Graecis bonis Latinas fecit non bonas
(which applies to most of my translations of Skt verses!)
22/

In sect 3.2 #Vermeer moves to the analysis of two possible theories about translation. The first one is the idea of a two-phase translation (SL->meaning->TL).
"If taken too seriously, the two-phase model will lead us directly to machine translation" (written in 1984!) (p.42) 23/

This approach presupposes two points:
"1. #Translation is a biunique, reversible mapping process of communication and
2. translation is a process involving language only, & not the entire human being" (p. 43) 24/
(This is interesting after y'day's discussions of Google & Skt) 24/

Vermeer also refutes the idea that this model can work for technical translations although not for literary ones (p. 40) 25/

Alternative view: "Translational action as 'information' about a source text in another language. A precursor of this theory may be found in the views of translation as an 'interpretation' of a source text using a target code (Jakobson 1959)" (p. 43) 26/

Vermeer then moves on to Neubert's theory (1970) which distinguishes:
1. source texts not specifically oriented towards the SL (e.g., user manuals)
2. source texts specifically oriented towards the SL (e.g. local news)
3. source texts specifically oriented towards the SL but 27/

transcending it (e.g. fiction)
4. source texts specifically oriented towards the TL (e.g., business information meant for distribution abroad only) (pp. 43--44)
EF: Is philosophy closer to a user manual or to a novel?;-)
28/

Vermeer disagrees: "even a user manual may be designed in a culture-specific way" (e.g., a translator may want to change the name of a specific lubricant that is only available in a certain country while translating a user manual) (p. 45). 29/

More relevant: "A text can be intended to fulfil various functions".
Then: House'distiction (1977):
"An overt translation is one which must overtly be a translation"
"A covert translation is a translation which enjoys the status of an original ST in the target culture" (p.46)30

Consequences: "Consider the case of the Bible, which may be treated as either a collection of historical literary documents, in which case an over #translation would seem to be called for, or as a collection of human truths directly relevant to Everyman, in which case a covert 31

translation might seem appropriate […] So clearly the initial choice b/w translating a given text & producing an overt version of it, can't be made on the basis of features of the text, but is conditioned by the arbitrarily determined purpose for which the transl is required" 32

Vermeer thereon: "Instead of claiming that a particular translation strategy *is* the appropriate one for a given text, it should be stated that…a particular strategy *is chosen* for a text" (p. 48) 33/

Next, Diller and Kornelius (1978) distinguish "primary & secondary #translation". They relate their typology "to the distinction b/w alienating & assimilating translation…usually attributed to #Schleiermacher. 'Either the translator leaves the author in peace as much as 34/

possible & moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in peace as much as possible and moves the writer towards him'. This dichotomy can actually be traced back to #Cicero, who distinguished b/w a #translation intended to inform the recipient & a translation 35/

intended as a rhetorical exercise. […] Cicero finally rejected the literal translation 'ut interpret' in favour of the free translation 'ut orator'." (p. 49) 36/

Vermeer: "The way the translator as recipient interprets the source text is a decisive factor in translation. As Grimm puts it 'The Q whether Grimmelhausen's Simplicissimus is read as a coming-of-age novel, an adventure…, a picaresque novel…has a considerable impact'"(p.53) 37/

"It is possible to claim that in the case of cultural distance, i.e. spatial or temporal distance b/w a literary work & its translation, it is inevitable that the function will change" (p. 53) 38/

"To summarize what we have discussed so far. we would like to emphasize that a text IS not a text but is received & interpreted, for example by a translator, as a particular kind of text" (p. 54). EF: Are we going to translate the MBh as a "Hindu scripture"? As an epic?… 39/

"Transl action, therefore, is not only linked to meaning but to sense (=what somebody means to say), or rather to sense-in-situation" (p.54).
Vermeer then distinguishes based on Reiß 1976: informative, operative & expressive function (the latter may be implicit, a parafunction)40

HV on #vivakṣā:-) "Information is used here as a generic term for speech functions in the sense of a producer communicating (or, to be more precise, wishing to communicate) to an intended audience what he wants the audience to understand & how he wants it to be understood" 41/

"This isn't a matter of understanding 'more' or 'less' (let's leave the Q of incompetence aside) but of understanding sth 'different'. This applies a fortiori to a translational action: it doesn't achieve less (as long as the translator is competent), rather, sth different" 42/

(pp. 56--57)
"Do not try both strategies at once—the result would be another largely indigestible translation of a Latin classic, which are readily available in today's bookstores" (Caveat, #Sanskrit translator!) 43/

Another good point: translating "may be ut nunc (as it would be today) or ut tunc (as it was then). The consequences of such decisions may be illustrated by some statistics. Modern German prefers an average of 13--16 words per sentence, whereas Cicero uses approx. 30 words 44/

per sentence. Traditional translators…have used up to 39 words per sentence in the German text! This is an approach which would not do justice to the Latin—let alone the modern German" (p.57). Again, caveat Sanskrit translator! 45/

"The target audience's background knowledge is also different, at least compared with that of the source-text recipients addressed by the author" (p. 58) 46/

Vermeer explains again how "translational action is a holistic process in which linguistic signs are not only transcoded" through the ex. of #Portuguese "disse" marking the end of a speech (lit. "I have said", Lt dixi), which cannot be literally transcoded. (p. 59) 47/

HV then discusses Stein 1980 and its use of "instruction linguistics":
"Instruction linguistics claims that:
1. each text is an instruction, which is
2. directed at both the producer and the recipient, obliging them to understand
3. and carry out the corresponding action; 48/

4. this claim is applicable to each actual text-in-situation
5. and even to each possible text-content" (p. 62). NB the similarities with the #Prābhākara model!) 49/

This time, HV has powerful objections to the Prābhākara model:
"Reality is not per se the same for all individuals […]Only the interaction itself can tell us whether or not and to what extent, the 2 models of reality are sufficiently equivalent so that any differences are 50/

not worth a protest, i.e., whether and to what extent an interaction is successful. This is a very important factor for a theory of translation bc it helps us identify some conditions for a successful #translation" (p.63) 51/

Citing S.J. Schmidt: "A recipient understands a text only 'when he observes the decision made by the speaker […] & is able to draw conclusions as to what the speaker may have intended to communicate or bring abt'. But this is precisely what the average recipient does not do 52/

He may react acc. to the producer's intention, but he will not analyse the text to find out what the intention is" (p. 63) EF: So, inferring the vivakṣā seems a dead-end. 53/

"Instruction linguistics would only work…if a textual instruction could be addressed to both audiences in the same manner. But this would conflict with the condition that texts are defined by their situations" (p.64). 54/

In fact, ppl react differently to the same command, e.g. "Pls close the door". Good point against the Prābhākara approach! 55/

NB: HV keeps on referring to sth resembling the Prābhākara paradigm: "An 'instruction'[…] must be carried out; otherwise we must face sanctions[…]. An instruction is normative […] instruction indicates an asymmetrical relationship between the communication partners" (p.65) 56/

Conclusion by HV: "We do not claim that instructions do not exist! What we do claim, however, is that an 'offer' is a more general term which includes 'instruction' as a subcategory […] Consequently, 'offer' linguistics is the more general theory. Moreover, we shall again 57/

distinguish b/w the producer's and the recipient's perspectives: what may be interpreted as an offer by one side may be interpreted differently by the other, & vice versa. Moreover, we are not speaking here of a text being an offer but of being interpreted as an offer" (p.65).58/

Back to Prabhākara: "Gadamer (1960) claims that […] an interpreter has to obey a command in order to understand it (this would mean that a kamikaze command is not understood until it is too late.[…]In contrast,[…] some currents[…]distinguish b/w reception & effect" (p66) 59/

"Contrary to a producer-oriented instruction theory, an information offer theory which is both producer- & recipient-oriented can tell us if, when & how certain texts are actually communicated. In an instruction setting, w its asymmetrical relation b/w the partners, the 60/

producer decides when & how he wants to give an instruction, whereas an information offer is decided ('negotiated') by both partners bc the producer must have some expectations abt the recipient's information requirements[…] 61/

instruction also takes the recipient into consideration, but not as an equal partner" (p. 66)
HV has a further obj against the instruction theory using the case of declarative statements, that can't be read as enjoining to be understood (cf #Maṇḍana in the VV!) (p.67) 62/

HV also discusses the case of "phatic communication (Malinowski 1923), just saying sth to break the silence" (p. 67) and how it can lead to an action unwanted by the speaker ("It's raining" as phatic communication leading to the listener hurrying to bring the laundry inside) 63/

"B's utterance was meant to be phatic, but was interpreted as 'informative' by C".
Further problem: "This would leave no room for vagueness, i.e. for translational variants" (p. 68). 64/

Conclusion: "A translational action is not a biunique reversible process" (pace Tibetan translators!) (p. 68)
"It's essential for our theory…that each translatum…be considered…an information offer for a TL & culture abt an information offer from a source language & culture"
65

This "IO abt an IO" becomes explicit when the translator/interpreter informally explains "he goes on to write that he will…" whereas the text said "I will". (p. 69)

66/

"The IO approach also resolves the dichotomy b/w foreignizing & domesticating #translation…:a foreignizing translation would be a translation that primarily informs abt source-text forms, whereas a domesticating translation would primarily inform abt text meaning & effect" 67/

Similarly, HV distinguishes b/w prospective and retrospective (=source-text oriented) theories. His slopes theory is prospective, bc it is "primarily oriented towards the translatum". "Prospectivity is linked to the functional perspective" (p. 71) 68/

"The 'information offer' theory is a more complex model[…] whereas a theory of translation as a 2-phase transcoding communication is a specific subtype in which the non-verbal cultural phenomena are assigned a value of 'zero' " (p. 71) 69/

"There are different types of information offers abt other information offers. For our purposes, they can be classified in 2 overlapping groups: 'commentaries' & 'translations'.
1. 'Commentaries' are all those IOs which are explicitly marked as an IO abt another IO […] 70/

such as *The author claims that…* […] In a commentary, we can find a combination of metacommunication & referential communication
2. In contrast…a 'translational action' is by definition interlingual & intercultural. A transl isn't explicitly marked as a transl in the text" 71

(p. 72) [EF: This is relevant, bc many of our Sanskritist translation-cum-commentary would still qualify as translations] 72/

HV addresses my comment above bc he defines a translatum "insofar as it van be proved to be an information offer in T which simulates the corresponding information offer in S" (this should exclude translation-cum-commentary, but HV uses it to exclude parodies). (p. 72) 73/

But even word-by-word translations could be said to fulfil "another function, as it is no longer read as a translation…but a different kind of text", namely a grammar support to learn the TL. (p. 73).
Back to IO: It allows one to focus on the perspective of the recipient 74/

HV speaks of the "target linguaculture" (nice neologism!) and insists on the role of the target:
"Every translational action is directed at an intended audience. The translator…need not be consciously aware of the recipients & their situation…but they are there" (p. 76) 75/

[EF:the above is so far the most convincing point,imho]
"It isn't the source-text producer or any other participant who is responsible for extending the communicative interaction in translation, it is the translator…The decision depends on his analysis of the situation"(p.78)76/

HV emphasizes how the role of the translator is often underestimated, even by translators themselves.
"Rules for passing on information are specific to cultures, languages & functions; ppl in the Middle Ages…had a different concept of translation from the one we have"(p.79) 77/

Now the really interesting stuff starts: "There is no such thing as 'the' authoritative text for all recipients. There is only 'a' text in a given situation of reception […] A 'text' can change during the process of interpretation & by being interpreted; interpretation is a 78/

dynamic process. We cannot say that sth 'is' per se a text; a text does not exist UNTIL IT IS CONSTITUTED BY ITS RECEPTION—in a particular situation" (emphasis mine) (p. 81)
On mimesis: "Imitation meant 'making a working of one's own out of the original'. J. Peleteir du Mans 79/

(1555) regarded translation as 'the truest form of imitation' […] Mimesis turns a particular reality…into a complete reality, not just a verbal reality…This…reality includes translational action. An extreme form…is Schleiermacher's alienating translation" (p. 82) 80/

HV then criticisms Toury (1980) on different norms and their chronology. Then, as a summary, he distinguishes between:
1. "an irreversible, only partially regulated transfer
2. a partially reversible transfer (…free translation)
3. a transfer which imitates an original 81/

(acc. to out present culture-specific model)"(p.84).
Chapter 4 is the core of the book & starts w a theory of action akin to #Maṇḍana's: "An action aims to achieve a goal & thus to alter the current state of affairs. The motivation…is that the intended goal is estimated 82/

to be of greater importance than the current state".
"A theory of transl. action begins w a situation that always includes a preceding action, ie the source text…A theory of transl action is a complex theory of action[…].
A transl. action is governed by its purpose"(p.85) 83/

"Even the old Q 'Is this a correct translation?' must be answered in terms of another Q, namely 'For whom?' " (sth I will be reminded of often when the topic is raised on twitter!) (p. 86) 84/

How to determine success? "If the values assigned to it by the sender & the recipient are within the permissible value parameters set for each case so that neither of the 2 'protests'[…]
Given that transl. action is a specific form of interaction, it is more important that 85/

a particular transl purpose be achieved that that the translation process be carried out in a particular way".
"There is no such thing as 'the' translation of a text; the results of the translation process will vary acc. to their skopoi" (p.90)
The prevalence of the skopos
86/

determines these phases:
1."A skopos can't be set unless the target audience can be assessed"
2."Redefining the relevance of certain aspects of the source text acc. to the skopos"
3."Accomplishing the skopos: The source text must be transferred functionally, taking 87/

the expectations of the target audience into account" (pp.91--92)
"The skopos of the translatum may be ≠from that of the source text." Because preserving "the source-text purpose…is a culture specific rule & not a basic requirement" 88/

"Cultures & languages constitute independent systems in which the value of each element is defined by its relationship w the other elements of the…system" (p. 93)
Against the myth of "the" right transl: "a target offer…represents only 1…of an infinite No of…potential offers"

Chapter 6 defines an action as "successful it the feedback doesn't include a protest" (p.95).
"We consider full understanding to be practically unachievable[…] The 'fact' that ppl communicate only tells us that their theories reg. the situation are compatible" (p.96) 90/

Requirements "to make understanding possible:
1. the parties…must share similar &/or complementary experiences;
2. they must have gone through similar enculturation processes;
3. they must be in a similar frame of mind. For translators, the 1st two requirements mean=bicultural"

Another #Mīmāṃsā-vibe: "An action can be regarded to have been provisionally successful as long as no protest has been made (just as a theory is valid as long as it has not been falsified)" (p. 96) 92/

"Translating…is not transcoding, as the relationship between known and unknown varies from one culture to another, & the translator has to take this into account"
And, citing #Unamuno:"We call a concept true which agrees w the general system of all our concepts" (p.99) 93/

Test for a #translation: "It must be possible for the message produced by the translator, i.e., the translatum, to be interpreted coherently in the situation of the target recipient" (p. 101) 94/

Another key point is the distinction b/w intratextual and intertextual linguistic coherence. The former is the coherence within the source text, the latter takes into account the broader context (p. 104) 95/

A sentence by H.Vermeer defining my translation style: "The tendency to add clarifying expansions…often reflects the difficulties the translator had wrt text comprehension & which…he wants to spare the target audience (the translator as a 'humanitarian institution') (p. 105) 96

Cultural transfer has to do with intertextual coherence. "In the Middle Ages, cultural transfer was a very common rule" as in painting of Jesus' birth in a European setting. "Auerbach explains this transfer as a characteristic of medieval culture, where all history, which has 97/

been determined by God from time immemorial, was regarded as fixed & embedded in God's omnipresence. Therefore, historical events could be represented in anachronistic ways" (p.106)
Next chapter 7 (p. 107): "General rules for translational action", in hierarchical order:
98/

1. A translatum is determined by its skopos
2. A translatum is an offer of info in target culture & language abt an IO in source cult & lang
3. A translatum is unique, irreversible…
4. A translatum must be coherent in itself
5. A translatum must be coherent w the source text 99

Various models of translation:
"1 Translation with a (partial) transfer of the cultural background, i.e. a translation of both the verbal & cultural elements of a text (= most complex model);
(2) translation of the verbal elements, leaving the cultural background as it is, 100/

including, however, at least partly, a transfer of cultural values;
(3) linguistic transfer at text level, taking formal, syntactic, & stylistic phenomena into account, but disregarding cult values;
(4) ling transfer of units below text level;
(5) transfer of basic ling units 101

"In current European translation practice, model (1) is mostly limited to advertising; model (4) is often justified with a need for ‘philological faithfulness’; model (5) is used in the translation of magical texts" (p. 108)
End of Hans Vermeer's text!
102/

EF: These elements are key to discuss translations: What are they doing? Translating language or also culture? Are they just transcoding? For whom?…
Too often I read ppl criticizing translations bc they are not "grammar translations", reproducing the grammar of the ST. 103/

I generally reply that translations should focus on sentences, not words, but the skopos POV might add an interesting perspective. A grammar translation is fine for ppl learning the language (or philologists!), and ppl sharing many cultural values w the source text may not 104/

need (or think that they don't need) anything beyond transcoding. By doing that, however, one must be aware of what one is doing & honest about it. The grammar translation is not the "only correct" one (bc there are multiple possibilities acc. to skopos, audience & function) 105/

A grammar translation often sacrifices the aesthetic value of the text, to begin with.
By contrast, if we translate primarily the philosophical content of a text we might want to stress the function and audience we are focusing on.
A last remark by me: We might want to 106/

translate, say, Udayana for Analytic philosophers. Intratextual coherence, however, requires that we don't omit passages that don't fit with the Udayana we would like to present to them. Otherwise, we are not translating but re-creating. 107/107