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