Since I have applied to do a PhD in interpreting, I am very interested in what translators and interpreters think theorists could examine that mighr be useful to them and to the profession in general. I have given a few examples below but if none fit, or if you can think of better ones, please suggest them in your post. I believe that it is time that theorists, especially those who still translate professionally, listened to those work work in the profession full-time. So, here is your chance. You may pick as many as you wish but I would appreciate it if you could pick what you think the highest priority should be and post it as a reply, along with your reasoning.

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 12, 2009 5:40 AM How to Save Dying Languages

I think issues like this should be of concern to theorists. On my scale the history of translation is on top. Knowing something is best accomplished by investigating its origins. I don't think that the study of the history of translation will affect the "business" per se, but I think it would enhance the approach to it.

Hope that helps.. good luck    

Interesting. My own research will be in interpreting in purely bilingual environments and the effect of different interpreting modes on comprehension. This will, hopefully, allow interpreters and their clients to pick the right mode of the right occasion, although a lot more investigation will be needed until we can be sure.

However, I do find it really interesting to find out what other professionals think should be examined. I want to include ideas on this in my thesis and also in other research I am doing. Yours comments are really helpful. They also give me ideas for future work.

Very interesting points!

In my opinion, theories of translation must:

1- Acknowledge the pioneers in the fields in old times.

2- Review classical literature and heritage that did indeed give concrete examples of theories of translation though not explicitly saying these examples were related to translation.  (My point is specifically related here to the Holy Quran as a body of texts that best exmplify many points in translation theories including speech acts theory, cohesion and coherence, intertextuality, etc.)

3- Pay attention to translators' training schemes and get away from futile debates in translation.  I particularly hate discussions on the translation of proverbs, for example.  Such futile debates shut the eyes of trainees on what the theory of translation is about.

What about interpreting in different languages v. the modes: I believe in some languages it is harder to do simultaneous interpreting since you need almost the complete utterance in the source language to apply proper grammatical structure in the target language.

Also the problem of speed in interpreting is very interesting: in some languages you need many more words to express the same content, which some people who do not know much about interpreting ignore, including some of the people who prepare the tests.

Mohammed: Funnily enough, one of the classics of translation literature "Translator as communicator" by Hatim and Mason actually shows how theory can be applied to the translation of sacred texts like the Qur'an and the Bible. I have two papers on applying skopos theory to Bible translation due to be published in the summer.

On the translation of proverbs and futile debates: I would agree with you. I really can't see why pro translators would be at all interested in purely theoretical concerns and in the discussion of different models. It is only when these are applied to practice that they count.

Harry: Too true! I have found that the relationships tends be closer in interpreting studies than translation studies but a lot of interpreting theorists are still stuck in psychological stuff, which, while very interesting, doesn't really help practising interpreters.

Liliana: I am actually working on how much interpreters need before they begin at the moment. I have about 2 and a half hours of audio to transcribe but it looks like, if the interpreters are working on a small amount at a time (like in dialogue interpreting), they need a subject, verb and an object. However that is a very preliminary finding from English to French audio.

Speed is indeed an amazing topic. The conventional wisdom (from the work of Gerver and others) is that the "ideal" speed for most languages is 110-125 wpm. Funnily enough, slowing down from that seemed to do more immediate damage than speeding up. I might want to test those findings later as I have a big area of problems that I want to solve.

Speed is a very interesting subject in relation to interpreting. 125 words/min in which language, source or target? Most tests fail to specify it.

I think they meant 110 to125 wpm in the source but you are right, they don't often specify.

This may sound like another of those futile debates since so much has already been said about it also on TC, but since I noticed that literary translation is right next to legal translation on your poll, it is paramount to bear in mind the difference between authoritative and non-authoritative texts and the ensuing difference in their treatment.

The field is of course large enough to allow people to examine many different issues, some of which are identified in the poll.  There is no need to limit the areas of inquiry, although each individual will have his/her own particular area of interest which he should pursue while others delve into different fields.  Some of the issues identified I think have strong connections with other disciplines and may not really be something that is best examined by translators (or translation theorists) as such.  Issues concerning the business of translation, for example, are probably best considered in business school using business theories already established.  Many of the issues also have strong cross-disciplinary connections with linguistics.

I myself am interested in how multi-lingual states and political systems operate, and particularly the question of whether multi-lingualism is compatible with democracy.  As I recently mentioned in another thread, multi-lingual states tend to be undemocratic, unstable, weak, or some combination of these.  Democratic theory is based on a community of interest, and linguistic diversity presents a serious challenge to the viability of democratic forms of government.

Originally written by David Kallans on March 14, 2009 5:17 PM ... As I recently mentioned in another thread, multi-lingual states tend to be undemocratic, unstable, weak, or some combination of these.  Democratic theory is based on a community of interest, and linguistic diversity presents a serious challenge to the viability of democratic forms of government.

I have not thought in such terms before, so this is tentative, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that cultural diversity presents a serious challenge to establishing different forms of democratic government?

When you have linguistic diversity you will also have cultural diversity - the two go together - no?

Nanna

It is true: the field is massive.  We now have multidisciplinary work with psychology, sociology, politics, neurophysiology, rhetorical theory, theology, history to name just a few. I find multilingual and multicultural societies as well as the idea of texts as actions interesting. My main interests are in interpreting and translation quality from a client perspective, the same as practices embedded in other institutions (the church, the democratic state, the EU etc) and the whole homogenity vs multiculturalism question. Mind you, what mostly interests me are those theories and investigations that could have a big effect on professional practice: quality, differences between modes and text types etc, skopos.

I have been amazed at the width of people's responses and ideas. I think there are enough suggestions here to last a lifetime!

Originally written by Nanna Mercer When you have linguistic diversity you will also have cultural diversity - the two go together - no?

 

Indeed they do.  Language is one of the most important markers of culture - indeed many would say it is the single most important feature of a given culture - so linguistic diversity will ipso facto indicate cultural diversity.

Cultural diversity, however, may exist without linguistic diversity, as a culture may be lingusitically united but diverse racially, religiously, economically, socially, or on other bases.

It is no accident that the most successful democratic states are the least diverse ones - Denmark, for example   In the US, democracy has long been hobbled by racial issues, and racial diversity is one of the main reasons the US has been unable to improve its educational system, establish universal health care and take other progressive steps, as these are always viewed as programs that benefit blacks at the expense of whites.

Originally written by David Kallans on March 14, 2009 11:17 AM The field is of course large enough to allow people to examine many different issues, some of which are identified in the poll.  There is no need to limit the areas of inquiry, although each individual will have his/her own particular area of interest which he should pursue while others delve into different fields.  Some of the issues identified I think have strong connections with other disciplines and may not really be something that is best examined by translators (or translation theorists) as such.  Issues concerning the business of translation, for example, are probably best considered in business school using business theories already established.  Many of the issues also have strong cross-disciplinary connections with linguistics. I myself am interested in how multi-lingual states and political systems operate, and particularly the question of whether multi-lingualism is compatible with democracy.  As I recently mentioned in another thread, multi-lingual states tend to be undemocratic, unstable, weak, or some combination of these.  Democratic theory is based on a community of interest, and linguistic diversity presents a serious challenge to the viability of democratic forms of government.

I do not agree with this; perhaps some states tend to be less democratic due to the history of slavery and conservatism, but not racial or cultural diversity. New York is very diverse and yet it is one of the greatest places on Earth and most democratic.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov I do not agree with this; perhaps some states tend to be less democratic due to the history of slavery and conservatism, but not racial or cultural diversity. New York is very diverse and yet it is one of the greatest places on Earth and most democratic.

You misunderstand my point.  My comment is directed towards states, i.e. sovereign states.  New York, indeed a great and (somewhat) democratic place, is not a "state" in this sense.  The "state" is the entity known as the United States.  The United States is a weak state in one sense - that it is a federal state, meaning that the central government lacks complete authority over its territory.  Much of the power in the US is exercised by the various states (there is confusion because what Americans call "states" are not "states" in the international law sense of sovereign states like the US, France, the UK, etc.)  Federalism is a way to handle diversity, but it comes at the price of weakening the state.  Several multi-lingual states have adopted federal arrangements or have otherwise provided for significant forms of local autonomy as a way to handle linguistic diversity (notable examples include Switzerland, Belgium, Spain and Canada).  This is to be contrasted with states like France, which only has one official language (and which officially has no "minority languages") in which virtually all power is vested in the central state government.  Such "strong" states tend to lack significant linguistic diversity, or tend not to be democratic.  One can argue which of these France is.

Oh, ok. Thank you David.

Jonathan,

First , let me wish you good luck in your academic career.

Regarding your question about the importance of theories to the translator (trainee /professional) , I think they are crucial.Understanding Theories in Translation Studies /Translation will :

-Enhance and empower the capabilities  of the practicioner translation or trainee alike;these insights (especially from applied translation studies : Cultural turn in translation+Cognitive approach to translation( +interpreting)+process explanation+hermeneutics +the semiotic +pragmatic approaches to translation (especially in literary texts , consumer oriented texts ,journalistic texts..ect)..........and the role of discourse analysis as an approach or 'model' to analyse as well as translate texts, since it approaches the text where the UNIT of translation  is not the sentence or word but the whole Text including the contextual/situational /semiotic..ect implications ONLY known via a thorough diagnosis of the ST.Also , insights from studies in  Genre analysis/ register(stylistics) analysis can give a better outlook for the translator on how to understand STs and fulfill a better transfer/production.

One important gain can the translator earn from the above is : The variable approaches/strategies he/she can adopt in approaching translation texts accrding to many layers: Text types , Brief ,Skopos , discoursal factors (social+cultural..ect), audience/readers

So , If the practioner translator is consciously aware of teh above he/she will adopt various strategies to approach the text AND will justify here/his decisions based on insights from the findings of theorists.

-I agree with mohammed on focusing our researches in strategic, vibrant, on-demand and market oriented ,challenging and applied issues and not on "collocations" " idioms" -theses should be given just enough importance.The linguistics era is over ...there are other issues of most importance in Translation theory that could be  fruitful for both translators /interpreters :

----Discussing the process of translation itself : the cognitive +psychological journey that the translator go through when operating and how he/she resolves the problems (linguistic+cultural...ect) encountered and  the role of the translator in resolving problems and find/choosing/selecting adequate options/equivalences from a list of other options.

---Providing methods/approaches to be used as TOOLs to approach texts either for translation or assessment .

---History of translation is of great importance to translators :It gives you a background about the profession and the role of translators interpreters through history and the way they  contributed to the developement of the discipline till today.Also , one will understand that it is high time for the translator to be VISIBLE and his role in translation process/production recognised, unlike in the old times where interpreters and translators were invisible and hardly acknowledged by their MASTERS.

Regards

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on March 14, 2009 6:56 AM The difference between theory and praxis.

Many interesting ideas in this thread, but this one seems crucial to me when it comes to at least some part of business and technical translations (financial, legal, technical, medical, etc.) where the strict customer's requirements may in part override theory and confirm once again that in this particular field the translator's is a subordinated role, leaving not much room for innovation.

Originally written by Fouad El karnichi on March 14, 2009 11:27 PM it is high time for the translator to be VISIBLE and his role in translation process/production recognised, unlike in the old times where interpreters and translators were invisible and hardly acknowledged by their MASTERS.

As a translator with also one popular novel translated and published I cannot but agree. Unfortunately, with a highly standardized language of certain fields and more and more inroads made by computers, it is clear that the divide between utilitarian and cultural texts will widen instead of being bridged and the bulk of translations, not to mention interpreting, will inevitably concentrate in the former and not the latter category. Yes, it is high time for the translator to be visible in literary translations, maybe even in subtitling or advertising/marketing. But no, the bulk of commercial translating, with a growing reliance on CAT and/or MT, will not differ from the old times when interpreters and translators were invisible. I agree on one difference, though: fees commanded by highly specialized and competent knowledge workers have to be commensurate with their expertise. As for bilingual secretaries whose duties include translation, wives of diplomats translating for their hubbies between receptions, and native speakers translating only because they are native speakers, i.e., 90% of translating population, no, I do not think that their role in translation process should be recognised more than it is now.

With best wishes

Jacek

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 15, 2009 5:23 AM Originally written by Harry Bornemann on March 14, 2009 6:56 AM The difference between theory and praxis. Many interesting ideas in this thread, but this one seems crucial to me when it comes to at least some part of business and technical translations (financial, legal, technical, medical, etc.) where the strict customer's requirements may in part override theory and confirm once again that in this particular field the translator's is a subordinated role, leaving not much room for innovation. Originally written by Fouad El karnichi on March 14, 2009 11:27 PM it is high time for the translator to be VISIBLE and his role in translation process/production recognised, unlike in the old times where interpreters and translators were invisible and hardly acknowledged by their MASTERS. As a translator with also one popular novel translated and published I cannot but agree. Unfortunately, with a highly standardized language of certain fields and more and more inroads made by computers, it is clear that the divide between utilitarian and cultural texts will widen instead of being bridged and the bulk of translations, not to mention interpreting, will inevitably concentrate in the former and not the latter category. Yes, it is high time for the translator to be visible in literary translations, maybe even in subtitling or advertising/marketing. But no, the bulk of commercial translating, with a growing reliance on CAT and/or MT, will not differ from the old times when interpreters and translators were invisible. I agree on one difference, though: fees commanded by highly specialized and competent knowledge workers have to be commensurate with their expertise. As for bilingual secretaries whose duties include translation, wives of diplomats translating for their hubbies between receptions, and native speakers translating only because they are native speakers, i.e., 90% of translating population, no, I do not think that their role in translation process should be recognised more than it is now. With best wishes Jacek

I agree with Fouad, although I do not believe translators and interpreters have any masters. A man is his own master.

At least in that we are similar to doctors working in hospitals, lawyers working in law firms and teachers teaching in schools. They are all masters to themselves.

All men are masters ot themselves: some just do not know about it.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on March 15, 2009 6:04 AM All men are masters ot themselves: some just do not know about it.

Fortunately that is also true for women and children. 

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on March 15, 2009 6:17 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on March 15, 2009 6:04 AM All men are masters ot themselves: some just do not know about it. Fortunately that is also true for women and children.  Maxi

I just got tired, Maxi, of saying all the time man and woman, his or her. I used the men noun in a generic sense.

I use "people".   

Maxi

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on March 15, 2009 7:30 AM I use "people".    Maxi

The United States Constitution uses men, so there is nothing wrong with men meaning people, in my view.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov The United States Constitution uses men, so there is nothing wrong with men meaning people, in my view.

 

Actually, the US Constitution does not contain the word "men" or the singular "man" at all.  The term used in the constitution is "person."

It is nonetheless true that the word "man" has long been used as a gender-neutral way to refer to humankind.

Originally written by David Kallans on March 15, 2009 9:24 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov The United States Constitution uses men, so there is nothing wrong with men meaning people, in my view.   Actually, the US Constitution does not contain the word "men" or the singular "man" at all.  The term used in the constitution is "person." It is nonetheless true that the word "man" has long been used as a gender-neutral way to refer to humankind.

What about All men are created equal from the Declaration of Independence. Isn't it a part of the Constitution?

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on March 15, 2009 7:33 AM [The United States Constitution uses men, so there is nothing wrong with men meaning people, in my view.

I am not certain what the constitution of a foreign country has to do with my personal preferences. 

I also do not go by "what people do" but what a thing may mean.  Historically "men" often meant people and women and children were not part of these people.  A man is an adult male human being.    Even when it was used generically, it often still did imply the same thing.  I prefer the word "people" and "person".

Maxi

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov   What about All men are created equal from the Declaration of Independence. Isn't it a part of the Constitution?

 

The Declaration of Independence is not part of the constitution.  It is a separate document, written in 1776, 11 years before the constitution was drafted in 1787.  While the phrase "all men are created equal" is probably the most famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence, no such sentiment was expressed in the constiution.  Indeed, the original constitution expressly indicated that men were not all equal; some (slaves) were only 3/5 as valuable as others.  It was not until the fourteenth amendment was adopted after the Cvil War that the idea of equality would attain constitutional status.  It would then take another hundred years, until the civil rights movement of the 1960s, for the theoretical promises of equality to be put into practical effect.

What about All men are created equal from the Declaration of Independence. Isn't it a part of the Constitution?

Were all people considered equal at that time, or was it a reflection of the mindset of that century?  When did slavery happen, when were women allowed to vote, what were the rights of children?  Obviously the country evolved since then, as all countries have (hopefully).  At the time of the charter, it was literally in its infancy.

Regardless, there are 195 official countries in the world.  This is not a site comprising only citizens of the United States so it does not make sense to quote the constitution of one of almost 200 countries to which we belong globally.  In fact, TC has its base in Canada, and as such:

www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html

The words "man" and "men" do not appear.  We see "everyone", "citizen", "member of".  All words are gender-neutral.

Um, are we on topic at all?

Maxi

Originally written by David Kallans on March 15, 2009 9:41 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov   What about All men are created equal from the Declaration of Independence. Isn't it a part of the Constitution?   The Declaration of Independence is not part of the constitution.  It is a separate document, written in 1776, 11 years before the constitution was drafted in 1787.  While the phrase "all men are created equal" is probably the most famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence, no such sentiment was expressed in the constiution.  Indeed, the original constitution expressly indicated that men were not all equal; some (slaves) were only 3/5 as valuable as others.  It was not until the fourteenth amendment was adopted after the Cvil War that the idea of equality would attain constitutional status.  It would then take another hundred years, until the civil rights movement of the 1960s, for the theoretical promises of equality to be put into practical effect.

Thank you David. For me the idea of All men created equal was always behind the American Constitution, so I thought it was mentioned there. I do not know the whole Constitution by heart..

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami Regardless, there are 195 official countries in the world.  This is not a site comprising only citizens of the United States so it does not make sense to quote the constitution of one of almost 200 countries to which we belong globally.

 

This may be true, but most of the constitutions of the world are modelled, either directly or indirectly, on the US constitution, so the US constitution is not merely one of several, but is rather the grand-daddy of them all.

Going back to the subject of this thread, I would like to know why do the test preparers and some other people take into consideration only the source language as the basis for the speed of  interpreting. I would be interested to see different results involving different pairs of languages with regards to how many words in the source language become how many words in the target language and how this is approached as far as the interpreting speed goes.

There is yet another problem that is of interest to me: how do you approach interpreting in pairs like German-English, simultaneous interpreting, where the verb, in German, is usually at the end of the utterance.

Dear Liliana!

Thanks for your feedback.

By the word' Master'  I was refering to  Translators or interpreters  in a specific era ( at a times when they were just working for the palace(as 'priveleged servants') or even at the times when the church were using translators to translate bibles......during the renaissance ect...at that time translator were' obedients' communicators  for these institutions -There is No wonder that the term 'faithful' / 'faithful to the source text' goes back to that era ).

However , nowadays , qualified /professional translators /interpreters are well protected and are their own masters and make their own decisions regarding the operational side of the industry ( processing , ethics,pricing).......Even translation -nowadys-enjoys the full status of being not only a profession but also a Discipline .

tks

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on March 15, 2009 5:17 PM I would be interested to see different results involving different pairs of languages with regards to how many words in the source language become how many words in the target language and how this is approached as far as the interpreting speed goes.

I have never done simultaneous interpreting outside the classroom but would like to rephrase your question, Liliana, and ask about a comparison between the number of speech sounds or syllables rather than words which are of different length in different languages. The business document I have in front of me has 11,000 words in Polish but 15% words more in English which is logical because of the articles which do not exist in Polish. At the same time, Wordcount shows the average length of a word in this document to be 6.6 characters in Polish vs. 5.1 in English, for a total number of characters in Polish (without spaces) which exceeds the total number of English characters by 12%. In other words, a bigger number of shorter English words translates into a document in Polish which is 12% longer. Now, how does that affect the speed of interpreting? You have to utter more words in English, but so what if the length of your utterance as measured by the number of characters is bigger in Polish? Has anyone measured, on the other hand, how those characters translate into speech sounds and syllables? Polish word szczwany, for example, consists of eight characters but only six sounds.

Jacek

Originally written by Harry Bornemann on March 14, 2009 6:56 AM The difference between theory and praxis.

Another fascinating topic in this respect would be to check to what extent, in real world, the translator has to comply with her customer's requirements, terminology and consistency-wise, in order to remain afloat. See one example in Post #171437 of how we simply cannot disregard the customer's wishes even if we know better.

Jacek

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 15, 2009 11:49 AM Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on March 15, 2009 5:17 PM I would be interested to see different results involving different pairs of languages with regards to how many words in the source language become how many words in the target language and how this is approached as far as the interpreting speed goes. I have never done simultaneous interpreting outside the classroom but would like to rephrase your question, Liliana, and ask about a comparison between the number of speech sounds or syllables rather than words which are of different length in different languages. The business document I have in front of me has 11,000 words in Polish but 15% words more in English which is logical because of the articles which do not exist in Polish. At the same time, Wordcount shows the average length of a word in this document to be 6.6 characters in Polish vs. 5.1 in English, for a total number of characters in Polish (without spaces) which exceeds the total number of English characters by 12%. In other words, a bigger number of shorter English words translates into a document in Polish which is 12% longer. Now, how does that affect the speed of interpreting? You have to utter more words in English, but so what if the length of your utterance as measured by the number of characters is bigger in Polish? Has anyone measured, on the other hand, how those characters translate into speech sounds and syllables? Polish word szczwany, for example, consists of eight characters but only six sounds. Jacek

For some strange reason they use words per minute in relation to the interpreting speed. You are right. It should be based on the number of syllables. Once when I was practicing for an exam I was speaking with a speed of about 140 word/minute in English and the bank teller was almost stunned but could not follow anything. People in everyday situations speak probably with a speed of about 80 words per minute in English. The speed required by some entities is 160 words per minute in English, I think, although I am not sure because they never specify it. The speed of an auction broker or a horse race announcer is about 400 words per minute. This is what they say, I have never checked it myself.

I agree with Jacek.

This a very important point to highlight : Seems that the translator is bound by the T's and Conditions of the Brief  and the Commissioner , plus other social factor (both linguistic and extra linguistic factors)...Its NO more JUST the ST or ST writer that -mainly orients/guides- the translator.Faithfulness to ST is one element inside the production/decision making chain.

The commisioner is  the one who pays the translation . He / she demands in the brief requests on his translations ( be it special terminology +use of a specific style +use of various verbal+non verbal strategies to address a specific adrresses/culture  ...ect . In this case the translator can inetrvene as a consultant and negotiate or give advice of some "cultural" issue the client might not be aware of -before translating ......or double check issue with the publisher if teh translator is unsure about some problems he /she encounters and does not want to proceed without consulting the commisioner

after all they -commisioners- pay the translation.This happens mostly in business , publishing ,technical, marketing , literary translations- Generaly.

This may be true, but most of the constitutions of the world are modelled, either directly or indirectly, on the US constitution, so the US constitution is not merely one of several, but is rather the grand-daddy of them all.

Can you elucidate on that through examples?  And doesn't the French Revolution fit in there somewhere?

Maxi

Originally written by Fouad El karnichi on March 15, 2009 10:19 AM I agree with Jacek. This a very important point to highlight : Seems that the translator is bound by the T's and Conditions of the Brief  and the Commissioner , plus other social factor (both linguistic and extra linguistic factors)...Its NO more JUST the ST or ST writer that -mainly orients/guides- the translator.Faithfulness to ST is one element inside the production/decision making chain. The commisioner is  the one who pays the translation . He / she demands in the brief requests on his translations ( be it special terminology +use of a specific style +use of various verbal+non verbal strategies to address a specific adrresses/culture  ...ect . In this case the translator can inetrvene as a consultant and negotiate or give advice of some "cultural" issue the client might not be aware of -before translating ......or double check issue with the publisher if teh translator is unsure about some problems he /she encounters and does not want to proceed without consulting the commisioner   after all they -commisioners- pay the translation.This happens mostly in business , publishing ,technical, marketing , literary translations- Generaly.

This is the point of skopos theory and other functional translation theories. It amazes me that it took hundreds of years to get to that point!

As for interpreting. My guess of the reason behind the wpm benchmarks is that theorists tend to look at the question from a cognitive perspective rather than from the perspective of the physical act of speaking. Given that ST wpm is one of the few variables that can be controlled for studies, it is the one they always talk about.

Originally written by Jonathan Downie on March 16, 2009 10:31 AM ...This is the point of skopos theory and other functional translation theories. It amazes me that it took hundreds of years to get to that point! ...

There must be a flaw in the Danish translation degree programs, for I have never, not once, come across the term 'Skopus Theory'.

So, here's an explanation, in the form of an article, for those of you also unfamiliar with this term. 

http://www.accurapid.com/journal/46skopos.htm

by Zhao Ning
English Department, Sanjiang University, China

Abstract

The Skopos theory posits that translation is produced for particular recipients with specific purpose(s) in a given situation. The maturing of the Skopos theory results in the dethroning of the source text and the de-mystification of "equivalence," foregrounding the significance and implication of "purpose" that contributes to the translation as a sort of social construction.

Theoretical background of Skopos

n 1980s, translation was increasingly conceptualized as cultural transfer rather than a linguistic operation. Translation is appreciated as socially-enacted communicative practices, which is oriented towards the function of the target text (Snell-Hornby 1990). Regarding translation as one type of social action, Vermeer (1989a) claims that translation is produced for particular recipients with specific purpose(s) in a given situation (Skopos). A translator accomplishes his/her translation assignment with such purpose(s) in mind. The specification by the client on the translator's task (commission) is treated as an essential prerequisite for the realization of Skopos. According to Vermeer (1989a), the goal of the translational action and the conditions under which the anticipated goal shall be attained are negotiated between the client and the translator. The translator assumes authority as an expert, who is consulted with and has right to decide what role the source text could play in his/her professional job. The target text is "functional" to fulfil the expectations and needs of target audience. Vermeer (1989b:20 in Nord 1997: 29) explains Skopos rule as follows: "[T]ranslate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function." ...

-------

And yet, the first time the term "skopos" appeared on TC Fora was in 2004...

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 16, 2009 11:53 AM And yet, the first time the term "skopos" appeared on TC Fora was in 2004...

Hmn...I did a search before I posted, but couldn't find any reference to the term.

Can you take me by the hand and lead me to the 2004 post where the term is used? 

Nanna

You may have mistyped it, dear Nanna...

Translatology = scatology?

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 16, 2009 12:05 PM You may have mistyped it, dear Nanna...

Right! If not for my hand in yours I would have committed hari kiri

Nanna

No problem.  It was my fault really, Nanna. I assumed that since skopos thoery is one of the few practical theories that most translators would have heard of it.  My bad. To be honest, all it really does is tell a lot of non-literary translators what they already know: to keep the client happy, give them the product they want and one that achieves their purpose.

For anyone who feels like researching it I recommend "Translation as a Purposeful Activity" by Christiane Nord. Oh and in reference to the post linked above my school did both theory and practice. Personally, i find skopos theory an ideal framework for justifying decisions to clients when I do something that they query.

Originally written by Jonathan Downie on March 16, 2009 12:36 PM  Oh and in reference to the post linked above my school did both theory and practice.

Oh, dear. There must be a near fatal flaw in the Danish educational system ...

Nanna 

Originally written by Nanna Mercer on March 16, 2009 12:45 PM There must be a near fatal flaw in the Danish educational system ...

Thank God he is not talking about elementary schools. You can always catch up later...

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 15, 2009 11:50 PM Originally written by Nanna Mercer on March 16, 2009 12:45 PM There must be a near fatal flaw in the Danish educational system ... Thank God he is not talking about elementary schools. You can always catch up later...

Grr.  I meant my interpreting school.  We have four hours a week of conference interpreting, four hours a week of translation and two hours a week of theory. We also had classes in revising/editing/summarising and in European politics. Study time (including extra time in the booth and essays, exams etc) probably accounted for about the same hours as classes if you were a dutiful student.

Personally, i find skopos theory an ideal framework for justifying decisions to clients when I do something that they query.

I must admit that I haven't a clue what skopos theory is.  I've jotted it down as "homework".

  However, I'm not sure about the idea of "justifying" decisions to clients.  If the situation warrants it, we may have a second look at a term to see whether another might be better or equally suitable.  I may explain to the client why a term I chose suits his or her best interests. But "justify" in my mind implies a role of judgement on the client's part which I do not think exists.  Did you mean it in that sense or another?

Maxi

I meant it in the same way that you discussed explaining the use of certain terms or phrasing.

As for finding out about skopos theory, the book I mentioned is the best all-round source. I also have two articles on the subject due out in the summer, the second of which will be online. The link will be posted as soon as I get it. I also recommend going to www.erudit.org and looking for META under the revues or Journals section. You will find lots of articles on skopos theory there. A third option is to go to http://scholar.google.com and search for "C Nord" her work deals almost exclusively with skopos theory.

Jonathan,

What do you make of that 2004 post?

Originally written by Werner Patels on October 29, 2004 7:22 AM The "theory" of translation is really quite simple: 1. Understand the source text. 2. Take the information contained in the source text and convey it in the target language while observing such aspects as style, proper terminology, register, etc. 3. To do this well, you need to be bilingual and bicultural (and you need to know something about the subject matter of the text). So, in a nutshell, the theory of translation can be condensed into these three elements. Equipped with these "guidelines", you start translating texts, and you keep practising until you get it right on all three. You can see why I don't need 30 different books on "translation theory" written by as many different authors. These "translatologists" (some of whom have never worked as translators for a living!) all write about the same three principles I listed above, but they all use different terms for the same things. For example, one author created the "Skopos theory", which basically says that the translated text must be in line with the "target audience" and the intended purpose of the source text. Other translatologists call it something else altogether. Gimme a break!

I think it is a gross over-simplification. Firstly, it assumes that translation theory should be exclusively concerned with textual operations. I am not so sure this is the case. Today, it covers teaching, the place of translation and translators in society, MT, TM, information processing and management, text-linguistics, cognitive linguistics and more. In most cases, all of these areas combine together to give a far bigger and more useful view than that post supposed.

Secondly, I would prefer another model of translation called The Glasgow Model (I invented it from others' theories and am currently using it in a translator's handbook). It would be in four parts rather than 3 and it goes thus:

1. Source text: you start with what is actually there on the page and must be able to analyse what is there, including the original purpose, original audience, the tenor, and attitudes of the original author.

2. Skopos: you need to know what the client wants from the translation. Since it is neither possible nor practical to "take [all] the information contained in the source text and convey it in the target language" then the skopos, or brief, set by the client or assumed, given the text type will guide exactly what you need to convey and how you need to convey it. More info on this can be found in Translation as a Purposeful Activity by Christiane Nord.

3. Strategies: With the skopos and source text in hand, you will then make certain global decisions as to how you will handle the text. This might be that you will decide to make the entire text more formal given the text type norms of the target culture. You might want to try to stick as close to original phrasing as the target language allows (for legal texts, perhaps) or you might aim to change main nouns into verbs. The choices are almost unlimited but the choice of strategies will be limited by the source text and skopos.

4. Techniques: On a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph of even (in a few cases) phrase-by-phrase or word-by-word level you will then make individual translation decisions. You might choose to add target culture equivalents to some source text terms (qualifications, political or legal terms for example) in brackets after the source term. You might wish to combine three short sentences into one and paraphrase them. You might want to follow the grammar of the original exactly in one particular sentence. It is at the level of techniques that the smaller decisions are made and it is also at this level that CAT software comes in handiest. The choice of techniques will, ideally at least, be limited by global strategies in order to fulfill the translation skopos.

This is my preferred model for the "text" side of translation as I am not that up on the sociological and other approaches. I would actually welcome feedback from other translators on the usefulness of the general model. I hope that answers your question.

I guess I break the mold a bit since I want to do my PhD, not for a career in academia, but as ongoing research to help professionals and clients in practical ways. I much prefer the idea of working as a consultant on top of my interpreting and translation work than being trapped in a university for the best years of my life. I think that we really could improve things by helping clients build better procedures and processes for translation and interpreting from training through to product delivery. That is what i want to help do and by continuing to spend the majority of my time actually interpreting and translating I would keep from the high-flung and useless theories people are all to familiar with.  

Originally written by Jonathan Downie on March 16, 2009 4:23 PM I hope that answers your question.

Too much going on right now for me to be able to say more than just thank you, Jonathan.

Since theory interests my former, pre-practical, academic mind, I would also welcome your comments on a thread which at one point caused here an uproar, i.e. RE: How deep the algorithm? (This is actually the title of a 2005 post where reference is made in passing to the skopos theory.) I found it interesting despite the colleagues' severe criticism. Fact is that it remains one of the 25 Most Active Threads on TC.

Jacek

Thanks Jacek. I will go have a look once I am finished my work for today. I am endeavouring to be a practising theorist (or should that be a theoretical practitioner?) but either way, I hope to get the best of both worlds.

I just read a lengthy article on skopos.  It seems to be using a lot of words to express simple common sense.  It begins by proposing that we are coming out of a period when things were done which I am not aware of ever having been done.

When I studied in the late 1970's, it was under seasoned veterans from various parts of the globe who took a very practical hands-on approach to translation assignments and translation.  Later I refreshed my craft and learned a great deal through the preparatory course of my assocation, with one-on-one feedback.  My translation processes is roughly governed by a framework of criteria that are fashioned out of the ATIO's model, but begin with client need and purpose. 

The theories that I have read so far are simply too obtuse and abstract.  I cannot find much of a practical application for them.  When I do part the fog, they say things that are common sense and hardly need stating.  Having said that, I'd be interested in reading your paper when it is done, Jonathan.  I am sure it will hold a lot more wisdom than that of a dusty professor in his or her towers.

Maxi

There has to be a difference between academia and real life, so to speak, Maxi. I have been a part of both, so I understand both sides...

Maxi, you would be surprised how long common sense takes to pierce the void of academia. What most of the skopos papers will allude to is that fact that for years and years (over a thousand, if you count Bible translation), translation theory has been all about free vs literal or other debates to the same effect. Even late last century, theorists could still get hot and bothered about "domestication" vs "foreignisation" and such like.

This is the reason i like skopos theory. Apart from Nord's translation types (which I find a bit useless) the rest is exactly what translators actually do, viz. give the client what they want, and if they can't, tell them gently why. Both of my papers are on Bible translation but the theory is language and purpose neutral. If you want, you are welcome to read the draft of the translator's handbook when it is done and send me comments. It is aimed at the whole range of translators from the very new to the well-experienced. Striking the balance is the hardest thing.

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 16, 2009 3:14 PM Jonathan, What do you make of that 2004 post? Originally written by Werner Patels on October 29, 2004 7:22 AM The "theory" of translation is really quite simple: 1. Understand the source text. 2. Take the information contained in the source text and convey it in the target language while observing such aspects as style, proper terminology, register, etc. 3. To do this well, you need to be bilingual and bicultural (and you need to know something about the subject matter of the text). So, in a nutshell, the theory of translation can be condensed into these three elements. Equipped with these "guidelines", you start translating texts, and you keep practising until you get it right on all three. You can see why I don't need 30 different books on "translation theory" written by as many different authors. These "translatologists" (some of whom have never worked as translators for a living!) all write about the same three principles I listed above, but they all use different terms for the same things. For example, one author created the "Skopos theory", which basically says that the translated text must be in line with the "target audience" and the intended purpose of the source text. Other translatologists call it something else altogether. Gimme a break!

Three times "amen"! Thanks for digging out this old post, Jacek, very apropos!

re. ["I would actually welcome feedback from other translators on the usefulness of the general model"]: none, translation theories mainly help theorists justify their "translatologist" salary as faculty members in academia or their fees as consultants (BTW, definition of a consultant: the guy who borrows your watch and then sells you the time of day). Follow the guidelines above in the old thread, along with a couple of other common sense rules that are simply good business and trade practices and prerequisites, and get to work: either you're cut out for the job for real in real life, or not... and then you can always become a theorist or a consultant!  (those who can, do, those who can't, teach - I forget who said that)

df

Dominique, as I said, I find that model a gross over-simplification. As I do the "if you can teach" chestnut. While i agree that tere are many models that are only useful if you run out of toilet paper, i do not believe that is reason for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The problem is that as long as professionals and academics fail to work together, both will suffer. The academics will suffer because the will go so far away from practice that their heads will become permanently dislodged up their own rear ends and the translators will suffer as it will become increasingly easy to become "stuck in a rut" as it were, becoming more and more used to old models. The old models might well work but what if they are not the best?

I would imagine that in the days before CAT we might have had much the same thoughts about computers halping us work. Oh come on, the "practical" people would have said, there is no way computers can ever be anything more than a place to store out work and add up our accounts. But then, theorists, programmers and a few translators found a way to do something useful and gradually people accept it. It might be the same in the future. There will come a time when theory becomes grounded once again and teaching is run on a practice + reflective theory model. It won't be just: here are your mistakes but here are your mistakes and a way of making sure they don't happen again. This is precisely why we need models and practical theory: for teaching, for explaining what we do to those who are not aware of what translation is and for explaining decisions to clients when they query them.

I am never likely to say to a client: I did this because a book told me so but armed with theory and I can say "I did this because in this context, this is more normal in English." Or "I changed the tone here because it makes your motto catchier." I might even say "I did this because it helpes yout translation work as a ..." It also means that i can explain to people why I will translate say a CV using different techniques than a contract or even a contract for someone to figure out their responsibilities differently from one which will be legalised.

Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on March 16, 2009 4:43 PM ...a dusty professor in his or her towers.

Originally written by dominique f. on March 16, 2009 5:00 PM theories mainly help theorists justify their "translatologist" salary as faculty members in academia or their fees as consultants (BTW, definition of a consultant: the guy who borrows your watch and then sells you the time of day).

I have to stress that in defending academia I was not referring to T&I programs but to my own good old days hinted at in:

Originally written by Jacek K. on January 19, 2009 1:38 PM healthy humanities departments populated by tenure-track professors who discuss books with adoring students in a cloistered setting – have largely vanished

It is practice that will put bread and butter on your table, but theories also help your brain grow...

Funnily enough, Maxi, my teachers were all seasoned translators and interpreters too. Also interestingly enough, theory has always had a big effect on translation whether it is realised or not. Luther's theories of translation affectd how he translated the Bible. The translators of the Authorised version in English also articulated their own theories, theories that they worked on and created while translating. In fact, the earliest theoreticiens were translators. Today, a great many theorists practice too. True, there are many who do not practice and suffer what I would call "brain in butt" syndrome. Unfortunately, academics are expected to write like academics and even the practical ones end up sounding like bored and boring theorists.

Most of the theory that I write and use on a daily basis was written by practitioners. Christiane Nord, currently the world leader in skopos theory, is a practicing translator and has written articles on using skopos in real translation. Hatim and Mason, arguably two of the world's top theorists of the text-linguistic and discourse analysis side of translation theory are themselves seasoned translators. Daniel Gile, Franz Pochhaker and Miriam Shlesinger, the big 3 of interpreting studies were all continuing to interpret, the last I checked, on top of their teaching duties. In fact the earliest interpreting theory (the "theorie du sens" theories) were written by some of the earliest simultaneous interpreters. I could go on to cite even more examples.

The point is that yes, there are still "philosopher-theorists" or psychologists who think they know about translation because they had to do some for an exam. There are still theorists whose books are as useful as matches in a gunpowder factory. My attitude to these theorists is the same as yours. However, really the question "did translators plying their craft have anything to do with theoreticiens" is moot. In many cases, they were the theoreticiens.

In answer to your teaching point, i must say that teaching implies some sort of theory. How else do you decide what is good and what is bad?

To be honest, academia has been its own worst enemy on this one. It is the fault of academia and not of the profession that the view of theory is so low. What we need is for theorists to start writing in ordinary language and to start writing from experience as much as from reading. Only then might those who have never read theory actually start to see the use in it.

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 16, 2009 4:38 AM Originally written by Maxi Schwarz-Bastami on March 16, 2009 4:43 PM ...a dusty professor in his or her towers. Originally written by dominique f. on March 16, 2009 5:00 PM theories mainly help theorists justify their "translatologist" salary as faculty members in academia or their fees as consultants (BTW, definition of a consultant: the guy who borrows your watch and then sells you the time of day). I have to stress that in defending academia I was not referring to T&I programs but to my own good old days hinted at in: Originally written by Jacek K. on January 19, 2009 1:38 PM healthy humanities departments populated by tenure-track professors who discuss books with adoring students in a cloistered setting – have largely vanished It is practice that will put bread and butter on your table, but theories also help your brain grow...

Agreed Jacek!

Originally written by Jonathan Downie on March 16, 2009 4:38 PM To be honest, academia has been its own worst enemy on this one. It is the fault of academia and not of the profession that the view of theory is so low. What we need is for theorists to start writing in ordinary language and to start writing from experience as much as from reading. Only then might those who have never read theory actually start to see the use in it.

Amen to this, I say.

Originally written by Catherine Gilsenan on March 16, 2009 8:09 AM Originally written by Jonathan Downie on March 16, 2009 4:38 PM To be honest, academia has been its own worst enemy on this one. It is the fault of academia and not of the profession that the view of theory is so low. What we need is for theorists to start writing in ordinary language and to start writing from experience as much as from reading. Only then might those who have never read theory actually start to see the use in it.  Thanks Catherine. However, as long as journals make academic terminology de rigeur, it will be a struggle. I might try "translating" some of it for more open and practical journals. Here's hoping I manage it. Amen to this, I say.

Originally written by Jacek K. on March 16, 2009 10:47 AM There has to be a difference between academia and real life, so to speak, Maxi. I have been a part of both, so I understand both sides...

I have been always looking for the essence: this is why I like linguistic theories which are concerned more with the universal behind the language. This is why I have always loved Chomsky, hermeneutics and the philosophical aspect of linguistics. As for practical aspect, I think I use more my intuition as far as practical interpreting and translation are concerned, of course based on the knowledge of the languages being the subject of these processes.

The linguistic knowledge I have acquired is stored somewhere in the subconscious.

Originally written by Liliana Boladz-Nekipelov on March 16, 2009 11:57 AM Originally written by Jacek K. on March 16, 2009 10:47 AM There has to be a difference between academia and real life, so to speak, Maxi. I have been a part of both, so I understand both sides... I have been always looking for the essence: this is why I like linguistic theories which are concerned more with the universal behind the language. This is why I have always loved Chomsky, hermeneutics and the philosophical aspect of linguistics. As for practical aspect, I think I use more my intuition as far as practical interpreting and translation are concerned, of course based on the knowledge of the languages being the subject of these processes.   The linguistic knowledge I have acquired is stored somewhere in the subconscious.

I think that is why I love good theory: it aims to try and explain what goes on subconsciously so other can learn it.

An interesting link from one of the world's top translation theorists on the topic:

www.tinet.org/~apym/on-line/translation/humanize.html

Hello Jonathan,

One aspect of translators that is elusive is improvement over time. Time is measured and dissected in just about every discipline. I think that one becomes a better translator (it's a reasonable hypothesis) over time. In other words, one's knowledge increases over time and one is better able to formulate one's sentences, etc. This is closely related to speed, also.

Another critical issue I find is target language knowledge. I found that the more I could speak a source language, the better I could translate from it into my target. So efforts at boosting source knowledge, especially the spoken language, add to improving one's renditions in the target. Conversely, bookish knowledge (from reading) also helps improve both.

And in this day and age, many young people are non-readers, therefore they are exposed to fewer narratives. Both, say, in the novelistic sense as in the legal or business sense. What I mean is that all disciplines have their narratives.  And I would add here, these speaking/reading exercises that help improve translation needn't be performed in a translation setting. One might go spend six months in a country of the source language, for example, and during that time, eschew contact with target speakers. When one returns from such a sojourn, the effects are felt down the line time-wise. Judging from my years spent answering translation questions, the biggest issue I see in terms of knowledge is that translators often have not interiorized their the major structures of their source language.

Just a few thoughts...

 One day machines will be as smart as human beings.

Never. What do you mean by smart in relation to a machine?

Originally written by Jane Lamb-Ruiz on March 21, 2009 6:48 AM Hello Jonathan, One aspect of translators that is elusive is improvement over time. Time is measured and dissected in just about every discipline. I think that one becomes a better translator (it's a reasonable hypothesis) over time. In other words, one's knowledge increases over time and one is better able to formulate one's sentences, etc. This is closely related to speed, also. Another critical issue I find is target language knowledge. I found that the more I could speak a source language, the better I could translate from it into my target. So efforts at boosting source knowledge, especially the spoken language, add to improving one's renditions in the target. Conversely, bookish knowledge (from reading) also helps improve both. And in this day and age, many young people are non-readers, therefore they are exposed to fewer narratives. Both, say, in the novelistic sense as in the legal or business sense. What I mean is that all disciplines have their narratives.  And I would add here, these speaking/reading exercises that help improve translation needn't be performed in a translation setting. One might go spend six months in a country of the source language, for example, and during that time, eschew contact with target speakers. When one returns from such a sojourn, the effects are felt down the line time-wise. Judging from my years spent answering translation questions, the biggest issue I see in terms of knowledge is that translators often have not interiorized their the major structures of their source language. Just a few thoughts...

Hi Jane,

On the point about narratives, modern text-linguistics now actually examines the narratives you are talking about. It has recently been realised that a translation can be 100% accurate in terms of "meaning" or "words" but can miss the mark but not taking into account these narratives. It can read fine as a text but not work as a contract or in the fashion it was meant to.

Target and source language knowledge are often overlooked, especially target language. People assume that because it is "their" language, they don't need to develop it. I would love to see studies on the difference between people who work at their TL and those who don't.

Yes, Jonathan...narratives are built through reading. So that reading literature or getting a business degree can both build richness of narratives.....insofar as every academic endeavour, the way I see it, is basically a story. Even texts written to read, for instance, contain narrative. Frankly, narrative for me is opposed to mathematics. Now, even math contains narrative when a mathematician presents a paper..or develops a theory...

But returning to the issue of time. At the ESIT in Paris, first year students are often told to go spend a year in the country of one of SLs. This "year" of course is time. So, presumably,  one way of developing narrative is time spent in country. So, perhaps, one can distinguish types of narrative that might be useful. 

I think time is vitally important. For instance, a 20-year old may not know enough of a language to interpret from it. BUT, by the time they reach 30, they may . Many simultaneous interpreters get their degrees much later than students in other disciplines. I do remember a case of a brilliant girl at the ESIT who finished her two years straight. They did not require her to spend a year abroad. But they didn't give her the diploma either. Because they decided she was too young. In other words, she was good enough to "get the meaning mostly right" but she didn't have the maturity to understand what she was really saying...interesting, huh?

As for working/working on TL (for NS).  Most people, as they start./study translation or interpreting, do it almost unconsciously....it is hoped. They are told, for simultaneous high-level interpreting, that they must be au courant of everything around them. Obviously, the more one reads in that setting the more one develops TL speciallized knowledge. Right? So, you are not really developing language knowledge ie structures of for instance. You are really developing area knowledge (concepts and vocabulary). One already has the language blueprint as it were. You just building different types of buildings...for example, you would already know even the trickiest aspects of "standard structure" albeit "instinctively".....as most interpreters have already finished university when they begin to study interpretation. In other words, the specialized knowledge conceptually gets plugged into existing knowledge blueprint...which is for a NS is pretty well set....Philosophically, I'm interested in the knowledge issue....that too has not been very much written about. And of course, in my case, I'm interested in how the unconscious operates in all this...