ETI 301
Descriptive Translation Studies
and Norms
Neslihan Kansu-Yetkiner
What is Polysystem theory about?


Polysystem theory was suggested in 1969
and 1970, sub-sequently reformulated and
developed in a number of later studies and
improved, then shared, advanced,
enlarged, and experimented with by a
number of scholars in various countries,
mainly by Even-Zohar).
In the Dictionary of Translation Studies
polysystem theory is defined as a theory to
account for the behavior and evolution of
literary system.

In polysystem theory a literary work is not studied in
isolation but as part of a literary system. In other words
literature is a part of social, cultural, literary and historical
framework. A literary system can influence other ones. It's
to say, the translated literature which is being imported to
a country can influence the native writings. These effects
can be more or less in according to some causes and
effects.

Snell-Hornby in her book Translation Studies an
Integrated Approach points to translation system within
the polysystem and writes that in this theory literary
translation is seen as one of the elements participating in
the constant struggle for survival and domination. It is
emphasized that translations play a primary, creative and
innovative role within the literary system. Hence, in this
approach, translation is seen essentially as a text-type in
its own right, as an integral part of the target culture and
not merely as a reproduction of another text (SnellHornby 1988:24)






As we know, the literature of every country consists of 'original'
writings and 'translated' writings.
Even-Zohar (1978: 193-194) gives three major cases when
translated literature can occupy the primary position in a country:
(a) When a polysystem has not yet been crystallized, that is to
say, when a literature is 'young' in the process of being
established;
(b) When a literature is either 'peripheral' (within a large group of
correlated literature) or ' weak, ' or both; and
(c) When there are turning points, crises, or literary vacuum in a
literature.
Think about TANZİMAT.
Gideon Toury and DTS



Early work(1970s) was within
polysystem theory. Sociocultural
study of lit. translated into Hebrew
between 1930-1945;
1980: In Search of a Theory of
Translation
1995: Descriptive Translation
Studies – And Beyond
DTS: proposed methodology


Focus is on description of translations, seen as
texts in their own right, which occupy a place
within the TL social and cultural system;
translation strategies employed are a result of
the position of Ts within the TC.
Translated texts exist as “replacements” of
specific ST in the receiving culture, so the idea
is to describe them, trying to identify possible
regular patterns (norms) that govern decisions
in translation. The aim is NOT to judge a TT as
correct or incorrect.
In other words, once a text is
published as the translation of
another text, it is, de facto,
accepted as equivalent to the ST.
So, translation equivalence, becomes
a fact, an empirical matter,
(Gentzler:128) to be analysed rather than
assessed against the ST for a
presumed or ideal correctness.
Three-phase methodology for
systematic DTS
1.
2.
3.
Situate the text within the target culture
system, looking at its significance or
acceptability.
Compare the ST and TT for shifts, identifying
relationships between ‘coupled pairs’ of ST
and TT segments, and trying to formulate
generalizations about the underlying concept
of translation. (1995: coupled pairs are
chosen ad hoc, i.e., they differ in different
case studies; flexible approach)
Draw implications for decision-making in
future translating. (Munday: 112)
NORMS of translation behaviour
The objective of case studies is to “make
generalizations regarding the decisionmaking processes of the translator and
then to reconstruct the ‘norms’ that have
been in operation in the translation.”
(Munday:113)
NORMS of translation behaviour
“Norms are options that translators in a given sociohistorical context select on a regular basis.”
(Baker quoted in Munday: 113)
 One of the concepts that has been used
differently within translation studies and whose
value has been both asserted strongly and called
into question, is the concept of norms.
 Both Gideon Toury and Theo Hermans have
contributed substantially to this debate and to the
development of the concept of norms in and for
translation studies.


Toury takes his definition of norm from sociology. He
defines a norm in the following way:
“the translation of general values or ideas shared by a
community - as to what is right and wrong, adequate
and inadequate - into performance instructions
appropriate for and applicable to particular situations,
specifying what is prescribed and forbidden as well as
what is tolerated and permitted in a certain
behavioural dimension […]. (Toury 1995: 55)
Norms can be reconstructed from:


Analysis of texts, which will reveal
regular patterns of behaviour, i.e.,
recurring correspondences between ST
and TT segments)
Explicit statements about norms by
translators, publishers, reviewers, etc.
(which can, however, be biased).

Bartsch (1987: xii) defines norms as ‘the social
reality of correctness notions’. That is, in each
community there is a knowledge of what counts
as correct or appropriate behaviour, including
communicative behaviour. In a society, this
knowledge exists in the form of norms. Norms are
developed in the process of socialisation. They are
conventional, they are shared by members of a
community, i.e. they function intersubjectively as
models for behaviour, and they also regulate
expectations concerning both the behaviour itself
and the products of this behaviour.



Bartsch (1987), who applied the norms concept to
linguistics, differentiates between product norms and
production norms, which, however, are closely related.
Product norms regulate what a product must look like
in order to be regarded as correct and appropriate.
They concern the correctness and the well-formedness
of linguistic expressions (i.e. linguistic norms as related
to the language system) as well as the correctness of
their use (i.e. communicative norms as related to
communicative behaviour).
Production norms concern the methods and
strategies by which a correct product can be achieved
(cf. the ‘operational norms’ in Toury (1995: 58).
Linguistic Norms in Translation Studies





When a more systematic study of translation began in
the second half of the twentieth century, it was very
much influenced by (applied) linguistics.
Translation was understood as a linguistic
phenomenon, as an operation performed on languages.
This operation was seen as a process of transcoding
between source language (SL) and target language
(TL), as illustrated by the following definition:
Translation may be defined as follows: the replacement
of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent
material in another language (TL).
(Catford, 1965: 20)
A translation norm in this context was defined as
translating a linguistic unit by its generally accepted
equivalent



The concept of norms is important in two respects
in linguistic approaches to translation.
On the one hand, they are concerned with the
linguistic norms of the two languages, i.e. how to
produce utterances and texts that are correct
according to the respective rules and norms.
On the other hand, the relations and regularities
between the two linguistic systems that were
discovered on the basis of contrastive analyses
were ‘translated’ into guidelines or rules for the
translator,mostly with prescriptive intent (cf.
frequently encountered formulations such
as‘translators must (not) ¼, should ¼’, etc.).



Translation procedures and similar guidelines,
however, were formulated in a rather general way
and gave the impression that they are applicable
throughout.
A chosen TL-form may well be correct according
to the rules of the language system, but this does
not necessarily mean that the text as a whole
appropriately fulfils its communicative function in
the TL-situation and culture. Since we do not
translate words or grammatical forms, but texts
with a specific communicative function, the
limitations of a
narrow linguistic approach soon became obvious.

Toury (1980: 53ff.) described three kinds
of norms: (1) preliminary norms,which
decide the overall translation strategy and
the choice of texts to be translated, (2)
initial norms, which govern the
translator’s decision to adhere primarily
to the source text or to the target culture,
and (3) operational norms, which control
the actual decisions made during the act
of translation. If it is accepted that norms
are central to translating, then their
nature and their function need to be
explained more systematically.
Toury (1980)
Toury defines norms as being central to the act and the event
of translating.
Norms are ‘a category for descriptive analysis of translation
phenomena’ (Toury, 1980: 57), or more specifically, norms
are ‘the translation of general values or ideas shared by a
certain community — as to what is right and wrong,
adequate and inadequate — into specific performanceinstructions appropriate for and applicable to specific
situations’ (Toury, 1980: 51).
Translational behaviour is The Concept of Norms in
Translation Studies contextualised as social behaviour, and
translational norms are understood as internalised
behavioural constraints which embody the values shared by
a community. All decisions in the translation process are
thus primarily governed by such norms, and not
(dominantly or exclusively) by the two language systems
involved.
Questions to be asked:




How can we establish which particular general concept of
translation prevailed in a particular community at a particular
time?
How does this concept compare to general concepts of
translation that were valid at another time and/or in other
communities?
Who are the norm authorities? Who introduced changes in
dominant norms, and why were they accepted?
Since translating is situated in time and space, any answer to
such questions implies a careful description of the situation
and the culture in which such norms obtain.
The initial norm determines the global approach of
the translator with respect to the following two
polar alternatives: the translator submits himself
or herself to the textual relations and norms
embodied in the source text (adequacy); or the
translator follows the linguistic and rhetorical
norms of the target language and culture
(acceptability).
Preliminary norms decide on overall
translation strategy and the choice
of text to be translated.
Operational norms control the actual
decision made during the act of
translation.
Operational norms direct decisions made during the
translating process with respect to specific levels.
Operational norms affect the matrix of the text, the
distribution of linguistic material, and actual verbal
formulation.
Matricial norms govern the existence of target language
substitute material, its location in the text, and textual
segmentation.
Textual-linguistic norms govern the selection of target
language material to replace source text material
(Toury 1995: 58-59).
Chesterman (1993)





Translational norms prevail at a certain period and within a
particular society, and they determine the selection, the
production and the reception of translations.
Based on the work by Toury and Hermans, Chesterman
(1993, 1997) differentiates between expectancy norms and
professional norms.
Expectancy norms refer to what the target language
community expects a translation to look like ‘regarding
grammaticality, acceptability, appropriateness, style,
textuality,preferred conventions of form or discourse and the
like’ (Chesterman, 1993: 17).
Professional norms govern the accepted methods and
strategies of the translation process, and they can be
subdivided into three major types: accountability norms,
communication norms, relation norms.
Andrew Chesterman’s T norms
(1997)








Chesterman’s norms (1997)
Expectancy norms – expectations of readers
– Allow evaluative judgements
– Validated by a norm-authority
Professional norms
– Accountability norm = ethical
– Communication norm = social
– ‘Relation’ norm = linguistic (between SL and TL)










How do we get from the norms to the text, and how do
we reconstruct norms from textual features?
What is the relationship between regular patterns in
texts and norms?
How do translators acquire norms, do they behave
according to norms, and are they conscious of their
norm-governed behaviour?
What happens if translators show some kind of deviant
behaviour?
Are translators themselves powerful enough to
introduce and change norms?
Are there translation specific norms, or more general
norms in society that also influence translational
behaviour?
What can sociological theories contribute to an
understanding of norms?
Do norms really exist, as social facts, or are they just
hypotheses?
Is the behaviour of translators indeed governed by
norms, or are they rather actively involved in the
maintenance of norms?
Horrid Henry-I
Other things I hate
Homework
Boring holidays
Walks
Fresh air
Health food
Bedtime
Greatest Victories
-Tricking Bossy Bill into photocopying his
bottom.
-Switching Christmas presents with Stuckup Steve
-Stinkbombing Moody Margaret’s Secret
Club.
Being older, bigger and cleverer than
Perfect Peter.
Nefret Etttiğim Diğer Şeyler:
Ödevler
Sıkıcı Tatiller
Yürüyüşler
Temiz Hava
Sağlıklı yiyecekler
Uyku zamanı
En Büyük Zaferler
-Buyurgan Bill’i kandırıp poposunun
fotokopisini çekmesini sağlamak
-Noel hediyelerini Kasıntı Stevenkilerle
değiştirmek
-Huysuz Margaret’in gizli kukübüne koku
bombası atmak
-Mükemmel Peter’dan daha büyük, daha güçlü
ve akıllı olmak.
Horrid Henry-II
Azılı Düşmanlardan Kurtulmanın Yolları (2007:114)
How to get rid of Evil Enemies
Catapult them into a moat filled with
piranha fish
Let crocodiles loose in their bedrooms.
Exile to an island with no TV.
Make them eat school dinners.
Dump them in snakepits.
Drop them in vats of glop
Azılı Düşmanlardan Kurtulmanın Yolları
Piranhalarla dolu bir hendeğe fırlatıp atmak
Yatak odalarına timsah bırakmak
Tv olmayan ıssız bir adaya yollamak
Okul yemeklerinden yedirmek
Yılanlarla dolu çukura atmak
Onları bulamaç kazanına atmak.