We’ve encountered norms before in this course, and I found them a compelling and useful concept then. Anthony Pym, in the video “What is Translation Studies?,” referred to Toury, and claimed that the idea of norms solves the classic conflict between linguistic and literary approaches to Translation Studies. Pym described norms as guiding principles that allow for deviation and creativity.1 Now, having spent some time reading Toury, I see that norms are central to the descriptive branch of Translation Studies, and thus a fundamental part (the epitome, as Toury says) of the target-oriented approach.2 In particular, I took to Toury’s view that norms are inherently unstable, and change over time. This acknowledges that the translator has approximate boundaries, but also has the capacity to push those boundaries. Generally, Toury gives the translator much autonomy while still insisting that he or she is subject to a multitude of pressure and may face consequences for excessive deviation.
I really appreciate Toury’s views on the role of the translator. His ideas around the target-oriented approach, the fluidity of norms, and his overall preference for ‘acceptability’ within the Target Text culture (as opposed to ‘adequacy’ of fidelity to the Source Text culture) mean that, as a translator, I’m free to make a wider range of choices than if I were to stick dogmatically to the content and form of the Source Text. Most often, I believe, translators work from a learned language into their mother tongue (with exceptions, including myself). They therefore should have a better idea of how a translation will be understood and accepted by the Target Audience. So it seems appropriate that the translator should have the freedom to make choices about the ultimate character of the text. These choices, no doubt, are channeled through the various levels of norms that Toury enumerates. Still, his emphasis on the existence of matricial norms, for instance, suggests that the translator should have the freedom to rearrange, abridge and expand segments of a text in order to suit the needs and preferences of the Target Culture.
It could be argued, however, that Toury goes too far in his minimization of the role of the Source Text. Firstly, his position assumes the translator is the equal or even the superior of the original author. If I were to translate a writer of genius—say, a Proust or a Shakespeare—I would be uncomfortable making drastic choices that may undermine the artistry of the Source Text. I’m fully aware that I’m no Shakespeare. It is inevitable that some of Joyce’s multitude of meanings will be lost as I seek to slot Finnegan’s Wake into the norms of Haitian culture.
Additionally, the intentional distancing from the Source Text is a slippery slope. At its extreme we end up with the annihilation of the original author, and we’re left with products that can scarcely be called translations. Toury goes so far as to acknowledge this possibility in his concept of pseudotranslations. I must say I find the idea fascinating, and I understand why an author might wish to present her own writing as a translation of someone else’s work. I immediately thought of William Goldman’s The Princess Bride, which is presented as an abridgement (a pseudoabridgement?) of a much longer, meandering work by the fictional S. Morgenstern. This allowed Goldman the opportunity to annotate his own work to comedic effect. There’s no doubt that pseudotranslations and other false adaptations are an interesting branch of literature. Still, I’m not sure they have much to offer to Translation Studies. Even in the context of Toury’s own theories they seem out of place. Toury’s ultimate aim was to study couple-pairs in order to identify norms and create rules and predictions. You’d be hard pressed to find couple-pairs when working with pseudotranslations.
Matt Robertshaw
19 October, 2017
Notes:
1 Anthony Pym, “What is Translation Studies?,” YouTube video, 24:25, posted by “Anthony Pym,” 9 March 2015, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZXhzP3mBsA.
2 Gideon Toury, “The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation,” in The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., ed. Lawrence Venuti (New York; London: Routledge, 2000), 198.
Sources:
Pym, Anthony. “What is Translation Studies?” YouTube video, 24:25. 9 March 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZXhzP3mBsA.
Toury, Gideon. “The Nature and Role of Norms in Translation.” In The Translation Studies Reader, 1st ed., edited by Lawrence Venuti, 198-211. New York; London: Routledge, 2000.
Thanks Matt, it is clear that you have really spent time reading and thinking about DTS and your comments are all well-placed. A couple of comments from me: Toury does not really propagate "acceptability" as such, his interest lies in "describing" the situation as it is from the viewpoint of the target text. So although his theory is extremely target oriented, he does not say translators should always follow the norms of the target culture. Secondly, Toury does not undermine the source text, hence his emphasis on comparison, coupled pairs. And finally, I think if you think about it some more you will recognize the use of pseudotranslations in DTS some more. Because PTs do not have STs, all textual choices (vocabulary, syntax etc) are made by the pseudo-translators. Presumable, they will create texts that will respond to people's expectations from translations, so a PT will give you an idea about what people are used to seeing in translations. Also, the choice of the pseudo-source culture, author, genre etc will offer lots of clues about cultural hierarchies, notions of foreignness, what is more dominant and prestigious etc.
ReplyDeleteThanks Senhaz. You're right I did find Toury quite interesting, but I got a bit sidetracked in my reflecting on his ideas. I think where I went wrong was, as you noted, in thinking about Toury from a translator's perspective and not from a Translation Studies perspective. When I thought about his emphasis on the target text I took it as permission to translate liberally and only think about the norms of the TT society. But clearly Toury was writing more about ways of studying translations, not of ways of translating per se. Thanks again for your feedback.
Delete