Product Code Database
Skopos theory (German: Skopostheorie) is a theory in the field of translation studies that employs the prime principle of a purposeful action that determines a translation strategy. The intentionality of a translational action stated in a translation brief, the directives, and the rules guide a translator to attain the expected target text translatum.
As a realisation of James Holmes’ map of Translation Studies (1972), skopos theory is the core of the four approaches of German functionalist translation theory that emerged around the late twentieth century. They were part of the development of skopos theory contributed by scholars of translation studies, categorised into four stages:
According to Vermeer, there are three possible types of purposes. First, a general purpose that a translator strives for, such as translating as a source of professional income. Second, a communicative purpose of a target text in a target circumstance, such as to instruct the audience. Third, the purpose of a translation strategy or approach, such as to exhibit the structural traits of the source language. The term ‘ skopos’ in skopos theory refers to the second type of purpose. The theory treats the source text as an "offer of information in a target culture" and this view is seen as a consequence of constructivist comprehension theories.
A clearer execution of the translational action—translation as a human action that thus possesses intention—can be achieved through the identification of its purpose. Consequently, this generates a translatum—the target text (outcome) of a source text.
Under this perspective, he determined that the purely linguistic approaches to translation then were flawed and the translation issues at hand would be problematic to solve. Thus, the general skopos theory was established as the foundation of functional theories, with reference to the existing action theory. Vermeer saw translation as an action like any other and as such, had to possess purpose ( skopos) under the action theory. In relation to this, Vermeer saw the act of translation as the production of text in specific target settings for specific purposes and people under specific circumstances.
A commission should comprise as much detailed information as possible on the following (1) the goal, i.e. a specification of the aim of the commission; (2) the conditions under which the intended goal should be attained (naturally including practical matters such as deadline and fee).The client will provide “as many details as possible about the purpose, explaining the addressees, time, place, occasion and medium of the intended communication and the function the text is intended to have”. By stating these information through written or spoken form, the translation brief is made explicit. However, when the client does not explicitly provide the detailed translation commission, probably due to the unfamiliarity with intercultural communication, the translator ought to negotiate and provide directions on whether the source text has to be translated and the type of target text needed to achieve the purpose, which is the skopos.
Under this framework, knowledge of the rationale behind a translation and the function of a target text are paramount for the translator to produce successful translations. Essentially, Skopos Theory rejects equivalence-based translation theories based on their focus on the source text, the purposes of the source text’s author or the effects of a source text on its readers as conclusive determinants in translations. Instead, the Skopos Theory suggests that translations should focus on the target culture and language illustrating the source text, their effects on the reader, and the original author’s purpose as decisive factors, rather than the effects and purposes of the source language.
1. A translatum is determined by its Skopos.The first and principal directive states that the target text will invariably fall back on the function of the translational action in any commission. The second directive highlights the importance between the relationship of the source text and target text to their functions in their respective linguistic and cultural contexts. Consequently, the translator is the key figure in this intercultural communication for the purposes of producing the translatum. The third directive mentions that a translatum’s function in its target culture may not necessarily be the same as in its source culture, emphasising on its element of irreversibility. The fourth and fifth directives reiterate the general Skopos “rules” concerning the manner of judging success of the action and information transfer. The former falls under the Coherence rule which is linked to internal textual coherence, and the latter, the fidelity rule which is linked to intertextual coherence with the source text.2. A translatum is an offer of information in a target culture and language concerning an offer of information in a source culture and source language.
3. A translatum does not initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way.
4. A translatum must be internally coherent.
5. A translatum must be coherent with the source text.
6. The five rules above stand in hierarchical order, with the Skopos rule predominating.
1. The Skopos ruleThe third rule, the Fidelity rule, is subordinate to the second rule, the Coherence rule, which in turn is subordinate to the Skopos rule.2. The Coherence rule
3. The Fidelity rule
Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The Skopos rule thus reads as follows: translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function.It presupposes other socio-cultural conventions and the orientation towards the source text as observed in previous translation theories. Instead, the Skopos Theory places emphasis on a top-down approach that underscores the target text.
A translation should be acceptable in a sense that it is coherent with the receivers’ situation.Nord went on to elaborate that:
A communicative interaction can only be regarded as successful if the receivers interpret it as being sufficiently coherent with their situation.In other words, under this rule, the receivers of the target text, as well as their cultural background and social circumstances, should all be taken into consideration as major factors to produce meaningful translations. This would allow the meaning in the content of the text to be conveyed in an accurate manner to the said receivers. Thus, under this interpretation, intratextual coherence would specify that a translation is only considered adequate if the receivers can understand the text and interpret it to be coherent with the communicative situation and culture.
The TT target should bear some kind of relationship with the corresponding ST source.While this rule is highly similar to the ‘faithfulness’ aspect in previous equivalence translation theories, one significant difference distinguishes them from each other. The Fidelity rule differs from ‘faithfulness’ as the latter is static and unchanging compared to the dynamic nature of the former, where form and degree of the translation changes depending on the translator’s interpretation of the source text. Thus, while the Fidelity rule only requires either maximal faithful imitations or minimal to no relevance to the source (or anything within this range), ‘faithfulness’ necessitates the maximum equivalence possible.
Another common issue observed in legal translation is the possibility of lexical gaps in terminology and the lack of corresponding phrasing or concepts between the source and target language and culture. Legal translation is culture-dependent and there may be specific conventions or concepts that are culture-bound and only exist in the source culture and not the target culture, hence Skopos Theory helps to set a standard for translators for the preservation of elements in their transfer from source to target text. Via the Skopos rule and the Coherence rule, the requirement that the target text is coherent for the target text receivers will help to inform translators on adjusting the degree of preservation they want such that this coherence is preserved.
Researching on the applications of Skopos Theory on Chinese law, scholar Liu Yanping demonstrates strategies such as shifting, omission, cutting, addition, combination and conversion, with an example of omission as follows:
Original legislation:
第六十八条English translation:
犯罪分子有揭发他人犯罪行为,查证属实的,或者提供重要线索,从而得以侦破其他案件等 立功表现的, 可以从轻或者减轻处罚;有重大 立功表现的,可以减轻或者免除处罚。犯罪后自首又有重大立功表现的,应当减轻或者免除处罚。
Article 68Original legislation:
Any criminal who performs such meritorious services as exposing an offence committed by another, which is verified through investigation, or producing important clues for solving other cases may be given a lighter or mitigated punishment. Any criminal who performs major meritorious services may be given a mitigated punishment or be exempted from punishment.
第七十二条English translation:
对于被判处拘役、三年以下有期徒刑的犯罪分子,根据犯罪分子的犯罪情节和 悔罪表现, 适用缓刑确实不致再危害社会的,可以宣告缓刑。
Article 72
A suspension of sentence may be granted to a criminal sentenced to criminal detention or to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years if, according to the circumstances of his crime and his demonstration of repentance, it is certain that suspension of the sentence will not result in further harm to society.
Liu describes the translation of the terms “立功表现” and “悔罪表现” as “meritorious services” and “repentance” respectively, omitting the translation of the noun “表现” (Eng: performance). The acts of meritorious service and repentance are forms of performance and thus, the translation of “表现” (Eng: performance) would be redundant. Liu also emphasises the importance of being aware of the differences in syntactic structures between the source and target language. This will allow the meaning of both the English and Chinese translations to be accurate and adequate.
/ref>
/ref>
A single version may also serve multiple functions, hence it is possible for multiple purposes to be identified for the same target text, but it is argued that there should be a hierarchy of importance. Andy Cheung, writing on the application of the theory to Bible translation, suggests that it is possible to possess the function of translating the Bible into English for everyday usage and have a sub- skopos of ensuring accessibility for Second Language English users simultaneously. Cheung raises the fact that while Psalm 84:3a could have been translated as "Birds find nooks and crannies in your house", the version used in The Living Bible is more suitable: "Even the sparrows and swallows are welcome to come and nest among your altars". The sub-skopos does not support the usage of Anglo-Saxon idioms and a less metaphoric description will be easier for Second Language English users to comprehend.
Additionally, with the tool of a translation brief, it provides translators with an explicit guideline discussed with the client. This pinpoints appropriate translation strategies that the translator can adopt, fulfilling the factor of ‘adequacy’ and the needs of the client. For example, if a client requires the target text to be informative, the translator can adopt a strategy that accurately translates technical terms subjected to the cultural norms practiced in the community.
Skopos Theory also does not dictate a specific principle to adopt for a translation commission, providing translators the decisive power to choose from a variety of strategies. Translators focus on the target text that takes precedence over the source text while being able to account for a variety of source texts that are translated “consciously and consistently” too. This establishes new statuses of the source and target text, their relationship, the standards of a translational action and the liability of a translator.
Another merit to the Skopos Theory is that under it, students are presented with opportunities to develop their creativity, pragmatic and analytical skills as they have the liberty to choose from multiple translation strategies depending on the purpose of the translational action, such as domestication or foreignization. This promotes innovations through the concrete statement of a function and it does not confine students to a single theory while sociocultural factors evolve in a globalised society.
In addition, Skopos Theory adopts a top-down approach where the emphasis on the source text has been downplayed and overshadowed by the target text. According to the second rule of Skopos Theory, the source text acts as the originator of information that gets assimilated into the target text as the offer of information in a target language and culture (link to the rules above). This shift towards the target text is at the expense of the source text which is depowered in its linguistic nature of stylistic features and consequently, disregarding the minor semantic features of the target text catered specially for the target reader. Koller states that in a translation proper, the source text is an indicator that allows the target text to be measured independently based on the purpose of the translational action. However, Skopos Theory does not take much account of the source text but treats the end (target text) as its means.
Another issue is that literary and religious text involve particularly expressive and stylistic language where translations cannot operate based on the Skopos Theory. For example, bibles consist of artistic properties that engage prophetic visions, oratorical principles and analogies such as parables. Delving into the purpose of the translational action and not touching on an underlying linguistic analysis may not necessarily achieve the intended aptitude of the target language. Thus, Skopos Theory is not fully applicable to the wide stylistic genre of literature that includes literary texts. As an enhancement, literary works can adopt the Polysystem Theory postulated by Even Zohar where social, cultural, literary and historical properties are considered.
Skopos Theory as a functionalist theory inherently oversimplifies the linguistic situation of a text and that poses some difficulty in surveying contexts comprehensively. Vermeer and Reiß assertively frame disparate types of text relations using a general framework of skopos (purpose). This leaves out the intricacies of the source language and sentence meanings such as the lexical, syntactic and stylistic properties. This may result in the translational action being considered as an adaptation rather than a translation as Skopos Theory is made to be suitable for any text with a stated purpose.
It is also debatable that not all actions have an intention and not all translations involve a purpose as observed in literary texts and art that are stylistically complex, unlike in political and business texts. However, Vermeer argues that a translational action without a purpose would not be considered as an action to begin with. Moreover, certain art will have the sole purpose of purely existing, for example, ‘art for art’s sake. Nevertheless, the application of Skopos Theory can still be applied to non-literary texts that have established purposes, fulfilling formal equivalence.
Finally, the possibilities of employing an array of strategies are multifarious thus it may bring about inconsistencies in ensuring that the target text functions in its intended way which meets the expectations in its target language. The factor of ‘loyalty’ introduced by Nord can reduce this limitation by examining “the interpersonal relationship between the translator, the source-text sender, the target-text addressees and the initiator”. Thus, this emphasises the ethical responsibility that a translator has in communicating clearly with his/her clients during a translational interaction, acting as a target text “author”.
|
|
