What happened to Skopostheorie Anthony Pym Intercultural Studies

What happened to Skopostheorie? Anthony Pym © Intercultural Studies Group Universitat Rovira i Virgili Plaça Imperial Tàrraco 1 43005 Tarragona Fax: (++ 34) 977 55 95 97

Why Canada? Welcome to Dragon Naturally. Speaking, Canada’s most acclaimed large-vocabulary continuous-speech dictation system. With Dragon Naturally. Speaking you can compose e -mail messages, create reports, draft letters, edit proposals, create reports, and more, all by speaking to your computer instead of typing. © Intercultural Studies Group

Resolving the problem of equivalence n Equivalence means “same function” (Funktionskonstanz). But most TTs have a new function, for a new client and for a new receiver (on the target side) n Equivalence is thus a special case. n © Intercultural Studies Group

A paradigm shift? n n Reiss, Katharina, & Hans J. Vermeer (1984). Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Holz-Mänttäri, Justa (1984) Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Academia Scientiarum Fennica. © Intercultural Studies Group

Main concepts n n n The dominant factor in a translation is its purpose [Skopos] (Reiss & Vermeer 1984). The source text is dethroned. The same text can be translated in different ways for different purposes. All strategies are legitimate if they achieve the purpose. The translator is an expert who decides on the basis of the client’s instructions (commission, Auftrag). © Intercultural Studies Group

A development n n n Koller had a theory of equivalence. Reiss related equivalence to text types. Nord related functionalism to the analysis of source texts. Holz-Mäntärri studied translating as an action. Vermeer declared the dominance of the purpose. © Intercultural Studies Group

Reiss . From Nord Übersetzen als zielgerichtete Handlung, 2002. © Intercultural Studies Group

Translatorial action © Intercultural Studies Group

Daniel Gouadec © Intercultural Studies Group

Daniel Gouadec © Intercultural Studies Group

Areas of agreement n n n The translator’s decisions are ultimately governed by the purpose of the translation. The purpose of what translators do (“translatorial action”) may be to produce equivalence to various aspects of the source text, or to engage in rewriting, or to give advice, as required. The one source text can be translated in different ways to suit different purposes. © Intercultural Studies Group

Areas of agreement n n A key factor in defining the purpose of the translation are the instructions given by the client or negotiated with the client. In the last analysis, the purpose of the translation is defined by the individual translator, working in relation with all the other social actors involved. © Intercultural Studies Group

Strong points n n The paradigm recognizes that the translator works in a professional situation, with complex obligations to people rather than to texts. It liberates the translator from theories that would try to formulate linguistic rules governing every decision. © Intercultural Studies Group

Strong points n n It forces us to see translation as a project, involving many factors, rather than as work on just one text. It can address ethical issues in social terms (explanation, loyalty). © Intercultural Studies Group

Weak points n n n The concept of purpose (or Skopos, or Zweck) is an idealism. The theory is unfalsifiable. The theory does not address equivalence as an underlying “default norm”. © Intercultural Studies Group

Weak points n n n Purpose analysis is mostly not cost-effective. The expert translator is a self-serving notion. The theory cannot resolve cases of conflicting purposes. © Intercultural Studies Group