Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS)

Alexandra Assis Rosa

1. The name and nature of Descriptive Translation Studies 2. The Manipulation School 3. A methodology for describing translations 4. DTS and beyond o o o o o o o o
4.1 Describing and e plaining 4.2 A multidisciplinary approach 4.3 A target!oriented approach 4.4 Assumed translations 4." #$uivalence as a descriptive concept 4.% A three!stage methodology 4.& Translational norms 4.' (eyond DTS ) from norms to la*s

". +ritici,ing descriptivism -eferences

Handbook of Translation Studies, Volume 1 (2010) . D/01 12.12&"3hts.1.des1 4 2212)2213 5ohn (en6amins 7ublishing +ompany. 8ot to be reproduced in any form *ithout *ritten permission from the publisher.

Also known as the Polysystem Approach, the Manipulation School, the Tel-Aviv Leuven Axis, the Descriptive, Empirical or Systemic School, or the Low Countries roup, DTS correspon!s to a !escriptive, empirical, inter!isciplinary, tar"et-oriente! approach to the stu!y o# translation, #ocusin" especially on its role in cultural history$ This approach was #irst !evelope! in the early %&'(s, "aine! momentum in the %&)(s, *oome! in the %&&(s, an! still inspires several researchers seekin" to +!elve into translation as cultural an! historical phenomena, to explore its context an! its con!itionin" #actors, to search #or "roun!s that can explain why there is what there is, -.ermans %&&&/ 01$ Althou"h #re2uently e2uate! with the stu!y o# literary translation, especially in its early sta"es -see Literary Studies and Translation Studies 1, DTS has *ranche! out in several !irections inclu!in" technical translation, audiovisual translation or interpreting, amon" others$

1. The name and nature of Descriptive Translation Studies

3esponsi*le #or the name o# the !iscipline in En"lish as well as #or its most in#luential map, the Amster!am-*ase! American researcher 4ames S .olmes chose the name Translation Stu!ies, stressin" that it +woul! not *e wise to continue re#errin" to the !iscipline *y its su*5ect matter,, which woul! mean #ailin" to !istin"uish the territory #rom the map -.olmes %&))67(((/ %'89%':1$ Si"ni#icantly startin" with the wor! +science, an! a re#lection on the har! an! so#t sciences an! their relation to the emer"in" !iscipline, the seminal %&'7 paper entitle! +The ;ame an! ;ature o# Translation Stu!ies, also explains the choice o# +stu!ies, as a means o# explicitly a##iliatin" the !iscipline to the arts or the humanities$ As a #iel! o# pure research, Translation Stu!ies is then !e#ine! as an empirical !iscipline with the !ual purpose o# !escri*in" +the phenomena o# translatin" an! translation-s1 as they mani#est themselves in the worl! o# our experience, an!, *ase! on such !escriptions, o# #ormulatin" "eneral principles that allow one to *oth explain an! pre!ict translational phenomena -.olmes %&))67(((/ %'<1$ The map o# the !iscipline encompasses a #irst *inary !ivision *etween the *ranches o# Pure an! Applied Translation Studies -which inclu!es translation didactics, translation criticism, pro!ucin" translation ai!s an! !evisin" translation policies1$ Pure Translation Stu!ies are #urther su*!ivi!e! into two *ranches/ Descriptive Translation Stu!ies -with the aim o# !escri*in" the phenomena o# translation an! translatin"1 an! Translation Theory -with the purpose o# explainin" an! pre!ictin" translational phenomena, an! there*y pro!ucin" "eneral or partial theories1$ The *ranch o# DTS encompasses three main kin!s o# research, as su""este! *y .olmes$ Pro!uct-oriente! DTS #ocuses on the !escription o# in!ivi!ual translations, the comparative !escriptions o# several translations o# the same source text -either in the same lan"ua"e or in !i##erent lan"ua"es1 an! the !escription o# lar"er corpuses o# translation, which le! to the analysis o# corpora in Translation Stu!ies in the *e"innin" o# the %&&(s$ =unction-oriente! DTS researches contexts rather than translate! texts, consi!erin" the stu!y o# the #unction, in#luence an! value o# translation in the tar"et context, the mappin" o# translations an! the analysis o# the e##ects o# translation upon

the context, which has !evelope! into a #ocus on translation sociology, also un!er the in#luence o# Pierre >our!ieu an! other sociolo"ical mo!els$ Process-oriente! DTS aims at a systematic !escription o# what "oes on in the translator?s min! while translatin", which results in translation psycholo"y, *ut may also comprehen! the stu!y o# more conscious !ecision-makin" processes, the selection o# "lo*al strate"ies or the or"ani@ation o# translation services$ An a statement that woul! prove relevant #or the #orthcomin" evolution an! !iscussion o# DTS, .olmes hi"hli"hts the importance o# maintainin" pure Translation Stu!ies in!epen!ent o# any applie! "oal -%&))67(((/ %'<1$

2. The Manipulation School

An the %&'(s, a "roup o# scholars inclu!in" 3aymon! van !en >roeck -Antwerp1, Theo .ermans -Barwick an! Lon!on1, 4ames S .olmes -Amster!am1, 4osC Lam*ert -Leuven1, An!rC Le#evere -Antwerp an! Austin1 an! i!eon Toury -Tel Aviv1 carrie! out !escriptive research on translation, with a special #ocus on translate! literature, un!er the in#luence o# the Asraeli scholar Atamar Even-Dohar?s polysystem theory, as pu*lishe! in Papers in Historical Poetics -%&'&1$ Three seminal con#erences takin" place in Leuven -%&'<1, Tel Aviv -%&')1 an! Antwerp -%&)(1 also *rou"ht to"ether other participants whose names are associate! with this "roup, such as Susan >assnett -Barwick1, Eatrin van >ra"t -Leuven1, Lieven D?hulst -Leuven1, Dohar Shavit -Tel Aviv1, Maria Tymoc@ko -Massachusetts1 or Shelly Fahalom -Barwick an! Lon!on1$ Later recruits inclu!e Dirk Dela*astita -Leuven an! ;amur1, Saliha Parker -Astan*ul1 or Theresa .yun, amon" others -.ermans %&&&/ %71$ As a new !escriptive an! systemic para!i"m o# Translation Stu!ies, DTS is sai! to have emer"e! in the %&)(s !ue to the contri*ution o# these scholars$ The %&)0 volume o# essays entitle! The Manipulation of Literature an! e!ite! *y Theo .ermans heral!e! the new para!i"m #or the stu!y o# literary translation an! inspire! the !esi"nation The Manipulation roup or School #or a tar"et-oriente! approach, accor!in" to which +all translation implies a !e"ree o# manipulation o# the source text #or a certain purpose, -.ermans %&)0/ %%1, as a result either o# intentional choices ma!e *y the translator or o# tar"et system constraints$ Accor!in" to this "roup o# scholars, the !escriptive stu!y o# translate! literature has to *reak the presuppositions o#

the evaluative source-oriente! +conventional approach to literary translation,, *ase! on the supremacy o# the -naively romantic i!ea o# the1 +ori"inal, an! the assumption o# translation as a secon!-han! an! "enerally secon!-rate, error9prone an! ina!e2uate repro!uction thereo#$ Gther important lan!marks in this opposition to prescriptive, source-text oriente!, #ormalistic an! atomistic approaches to the stu!y o# translation also inclu!e the innovative i!eas previously pu*lishe! *y i!eon Toury in the volume In Search of a Theory of Translation -%&)(1, 4ames S .olmes? posthumous collection Translated! -%&))1 or 4osC Lam*ert?s works, later pu*lishe! in Functional Approaches to Culture and Translation -Dela*astita et al. 7((<1$ Theo .ermans? %&&& work Translation in Systems o##ers a-n alrea!y explicitly1 critical comprehensive review o# the main tenets an! !evelopments o# this approach$ Two important channels o# communication were create! in %&)&/ the scholarly 5ournal Target an! CE-T13A$ Target International !ournal of Translation Studies" create! *y 4osC Lam*ert an! i!eon Toury, provi!e! a channel #or the pu*lication o# articles pre!ominantly #eaturin" this approach to the stu!y o# translation$ Anitially name! CE3A, an! later CET3A, the special research pro"ramme set up at the Hniversity o# Leuven *y 4osC Lam*ert, o##erin" annual international intensive summer courses #or !octoral stu!ents since %&)& -#rom %&&' to 7((< these took place at Misano A!riatico, Ataly1, also provi!e! an a!!itional channel #or the !issemination o# DTS especially amon" youn"er scholars$

3. A methodolo ! for descri"in

translations

To take +the translate! text as it is, an! consi!er the #eatures un!erlyin" its nature -.ermans %&)0/ %79%81 re2uire! !evisin" a speci#ic metho!olo"y #or the comparative analysis o# source an! tar"et texts as well as o# their respective literary systems, as set out in 4osC Lam*ert an! .en!rik van van orp?s +Gn Descri*in" Translations, -Lam*ert an! orp %&)01$ >ase! on Polysystem Theory an! a!optin" a communicative approach

to translation, the authors point out the *asic parameters o# translational phenomena an! o##er a complex network o# relations *etween literary systems worth consi!erin" in a !escriptive stu!y o# literary translation$ This re2uires collectin" in#ormation on author,

text an! rea!er in each source an! tar"et system, so as to *uil! a scheme consistin" o# #our cate"ories/ preliminary !ata -on title an! title pa"es, metatexts an! "eneral translation strate"ies, lea!in" to hypotheses on the macro-an! micro-structural levels1I macro-level !ata -comprisin" in#ormation on text !ivision, titles an! presentation o# sections, acts, internal narrative structure, !ramatic intri"ue or poetic structure, as well as authorial comment, lea!in" to hypotheses on the micro-structure1I micro-level !ata -inclu!in" the selection o# wor!s, !ominant "rammatical patterns an! #ormal literary structures, #orms o# speech repro!uction, narrative point o# view, mo!ality, an! lan"ua"e levels, lea!in" to a reconsi!eration o# macro-structural !ata1I an! systemic context !ata -inclu!in" oppositions *etween macro-an! micro-levels, as well as intertextual an! intersystemic relations1$ Althou"h hypothetical an! partial, this systematic scheme, as the authors point out, shoul! ai! the consi!eration o# the systemic nature o# translational phenomena, an!, *y movin" #rom in!ivi!ual texts *y in!ivi!ual translators to lar"er corpora an! series o# pro*lems, shoul! allow #or the stu!y o# *oth in!ivi!ual an! collective translational norms, mo!els an! *ehaviour$

#. DTS and "e!ond

i!eon Toury?s contri*ution towar!s DTS, #eature! in his #escripti$e Translation Studies and %eyond -%&&01, which in turn *uil!s on some o# his previous works, is a central one, !ue to his emphasis on the nee! to promote !escriptive stu!ies/ +no empirical science can make a claim #or completeness an! -relative1 autonomy unless it has a proper descripti$e &ranch, -Toury %&&0/ %1$ Bith the o*5ectives o# an empirical science in min!, Toury calls #or +a systematic *ranch procee!in" #rom clear assumptions an! arme! with a metho!olo"y an! research techni2ues ma!e as explicit as possi*le an! 5usti#ie! within Translation Stu!ies itsel#, -Toury %&&0/ 81$ Antersu*5ectivity, compara*ility an! replica*ility are also aime! #or when !elineatin" a speci#ic metho!olo"y #or DTS$ E2uatin" Translation Stu!ies with what .olmes ha! calle! Pure Translation Stu!ies *ut a!optin" .olmes? su*!ivision o# Translation Stu!ies into Descriptive an! Theoretical Translation Stu!ies, it is on DTS that Toury #ocuses his attention$ .e !e#ines it as the stu!y o# what translation +DGES involve, un!er various sets o# circumstances, alon" with the 3EASG;S #or that involvement, -Toury %&&0/ %01,

an! stresses that the consi!eration o# the inter!epen!ency o# the three types o# !escriptive stu!y propose! *y .olmes -+#unction, process an! pro!uct-oriente!,1 is man!atory #or the purpose o# explainin" translational phenomena -Toury %&&0/ %%1$ Toury also re#ers to the reciprocal nature o# relations *etween DTS an! Translation Theory, since +care#ully per#orme! stu!ies into well-!e#ine! corpuses, or sets o# pro*lems constitute the *est means o# testin", re#utin", an! especially mo!i#yin" an! amen!in" the very theory, in whose terms research is carrie! out, -Toury %&&0/ %1$ .owever, it is DTS that nee!s !evelopin" with the purpose o# !escri*in", un!erstan!in" an! explainin" the re"ularities that are representative o# translational phenomena$ Toury?s most important proposals #or DTS are the !e#inition o# this approach as !escriptive-explanatory an! inter!isciplinaryI the !e#inition o# its su*5ect-matter, assume! translations as a result o# a tar"et-oriente! approachI the proposal o# a threesta"e metho!olo"y #or !escriptive stu!iesI the contextually motivate! re!e#inition o# e2uivalence as a !escriptive conceptI the #ormulation o# translational norms -a notion that is central to Toury?s position1 as the epitome #or a tar"et oriente! approachI an! the #ormulation o# theoretical -possi*ly universal1 laws o# translation *ehaviour as a "oal *eyon! !escriptive stu!ies -Toury %&&0/ 01$

4.1 Describing and explaining

An a reaction a"ainst speculative prescriptive stu!ies, DTS is !e#ine! *y Toury -%&&01 as havin" the "oal o# pro!ucin" systematic exhaustive !escriptions o# +what it JtranslationK proves to *e in reality, -Toury %&&0/ 871$ >y consi!erin" the inter!epen!ency o# translation as pro!uct, process an! #unction, an! *y relatin" re"ularities uncovere! *y such a !escription with #eatures o# the sociocultural context constrainin" them, DTS also aspires to *oth un!erstan! an! explain the !escri*e! re"ularities$ The i!enti#ication o# relations o# se2uence, correlation or cause *etween pro#ile an! context varia*les is also carrie! out with the purpose o# pro!ucin" more re#ine! #ormulations o# pro*a*ilistic theoretical laws, capa*le o# pre!ictin" what translation may *e un!er a "iven set o# circumstances$

4.2 A multidisciplinary approach

Althou"h the nee! to !evelop a speci#ic metho!olo"y #or DTS is always stresse!, such a metho!olo"y can only *e multi!isciplinary, "iven the systemic !e#inition o# the o*5ect, *ecause +translation *or!ers on too many provinces, -Mc=arlane %&08/ &81$ .olmes ha! alrea!y su""este! textual #eatures shoul! *e analyse! a"ainst lin"uistic contextuality, literary intertextuality an! sociocultural situationality -%&))67(((1$ Toury su""ests DTS shoul! #ocus on what translation is an! !oes, an! on the contextual reasons #or what it is an! !oes$ Althou"h inclu!in" micro-textual stu!ies, this approach clearly stresses the nee! to #ocus on the wi!er picture in or!er to encompass how translation -as pro!uct, process an! #unction1 is relate! to the sociocultural context in which it occurs$ Gnly a multi!isciplinary approach can aspire to accommo!ate the wi!e ran"e o# !i##erent phenomena that are *rou"ht to *ear on translation$

4.3 A target-oriented approach

Such a !escriptive stu!y +shoul! start #rom the empirical #act, i$e$ #rom the translate! text itsel#, -.ermans %&)0/ %81$ An what is one o# his *est-known #ormulations, Toury states/ +Translations are #acts o# tar"et cultures, -Toury %&&0/ 7&1$ Statements such as this have operate! a Copernican 3evolution *y reorientin" stu!ies on translation, which until then ha! concentrate! pre!ominantly on the source text as the yar!stick #or an evaluative analysis o# the tar"et text as a mere repro!uction thereo#$ Toury there#ore posits that the context #ramin" a translation is that o# the tar"et culture, an!, as such, the tar"et text must always *e interprete! as a result o# the constraints an! in#luences o# such a tar"et context, or as a cause #or the intro!uction o# chan"es into the tar"et system$ Such proposals #or DTS amount to a shi#t o# para!i"m #rom the a-historical prescription o# what translation shoul! *e to a !escription o# what translation is in a particular historical context$ As a conse2uence, attention is shi#te! #rom the comparison o# source an! tar"et text to the stu!y o# the relations *etween tar"et texts an! *etween tar"et texts an! their context, the tar"et culture$

4.4 Assumed translations

>ut Toury "oes even #urther in this tar"et-oriente! approach$ The !e#inition o# translation as the proper o*5ect o# stu!y is central #or DTS an! Toury relativi@es or +un!e#ines, -.ermans %&&&/ :<1 this concept *y makin" its !e#inition a result o# the sociocultural tar"et context$ Toury a!vocates an +overall culture-internal notion o# assume! translation,, pra"matically or tautolo"ically !e#ine!, some ar"ue, as +all utterances which are presente! or re"ar!e! as such within the tar"et culture, on no matter what "roun!s,, there*y makin" pseu!o-translations appropriate o*5ects o# stu!y too -Toury %&&0/ 879881$ This notion o# assume! translation posits three postulates/ the existence o# a source textI the existence o# a previous trans#er o# some source text #eatures to the tar"et textI an!, as a result o# this process, the existence o# a set o# relations associatin" the translate! text with its source text$ Such an approach !oes not exclu!e consi!eration o# the source text, *ut it !oes shi#t the emphasis to the tar"et text as pro!uct, to its #unction in the tar"et culture an! to the process lea!in" to its pro!uction$ As such, it also shi#ts the emphasis to the way the translator as a tar"et culture a"ent ne"otiates contextual constraints pertainin" to the tar"et culture, in its historical, "eo"raphical, social an! i!eolo"ical coor!inates$ Any !escriptive stu!y will conse2uently reveal the tar"et culture since a culture?s own sel#-!e#inition within intercultural relations is *etraye! *y the way in which translation !ecisions are ma!e$ Translation there#ore +is o# interest *ecause it o##ers #irst-han! evi!ence o# the pre5u!ice o# perception$ Cultures, communities, "roups construe their sense o# sel# in relation to others an! *y re"ulatin" the channels o# contact with the outsi!e worl!, -.ermans %&&&/ &01$ The position occupie! *y translation in the presti"ious canoni@e! centre or in the mar"ins o# the tar"et system will !etermine how translations are pro!uce! an! reveal power relations *etween source an! tar"et cultures$

4.5 Equi alence as a descripti e concept

DTS !iscar!s the tra!itional, a-historical, invariant, i!eal an! prescriptive concept o# e2uivalence, an! replaces it with a #unctional-relational, historical, varia*le, empirical an! !escriptive concept o# the translational relationship$ This ma5or shi#t is operate! upon the concept o# e2uivalence, tra!itionally !e#ine! a priori" when, instea! o# makin" the !e#inition o# translation !epen!ent on e2uivalence, Toury inverts the roles an! states that +a translation will *e any tar"et lan"ua"e text which is presente! or re"ar!e! as such within the tar"et system itsel#, on whatever "roun!s, -Toury %&&0/ 7'1$ A# text A is re"ar!e! as a translation o# text >, then, accor!in" to Toury, e2uivalence is the relationship *etween them, which will exhi*it the varia*le pro#ile !etermine! an! accepte! *y the tar"et context$ The relationship o# e2uivalence is there#ore presuppose!, an! any !escriptive stu!y will aim at pro#ilin" the varia*le #eatures a!opte! *y #unctional e2uivalence$ Anvertin" the tra!itional relationship *etween e2uivalence an! translation also operates a re!e#inition o# Translation Stu!ies, #or, instea! o# startin" with an a priori !e#inition o# e2uivalence, its pro#ilin" *ecomes the epitome o# the !escriptive process, once it is acknowle!"e! that +#eatures are retaine! an! reconstructe! in tar"et lan"ua"e material, not *ecause they are important in any inherent sense, *ut *ecause they are assigned importance, #rom the recipient vanta"e point, -Toury %&&0/ %71$

4.! A three-stage methodology

=or the purpose o# stu!yin" translations as cultural #acts, Toury presents a three-sta"e metho!olo"y/ #irstly, to i!enti#y an! !escri*e texts that the tar"et culture consi!ers to *e translationsI secon!ly, to con!uct a comparative analysis o# source an! tar"et texts, *y mappin" tar"et text se"ments onto source text se"ments -althou"h the intervenin" criterion un!erpinnin" such a mappin" remains a point o# contention1I an!, thir!ly, to i!enti#y re"ularities evince! *y translation shi#ts, an! to #ormulate "enerali@ations a*out norms o# translational e2uivalence, !e#ine! as the translational mo!els in #orce in the tar"et culture, an! i!enti#yin" implications #or #uture translation work -Toury %&&0/ 8<9 8&, %(71$ The translator is i!enti#ie! as a social-historical a"ent, whose ne"otiation o# contextual constraints or motivations as well as o# the prospective tar"et text #unction is

pre!ominantly reveale! *y the shi#ts a!opte! in translation, which, #or this reason, *ecome one o# the most important sources #or the stu!y o# translational norms$ Toury thus esta*lishes as a #irst-or!er o*5ect translate! texts an! corpuses o# translate! texts, which shoul! *e stu!ie! so as to uncover the inter!epen!encies o# pro!uct, process an! #unction in the tar"et cultureI a!!itionally, texts on translation are also accepta*le o*5ects #or !escriptive stu!ies, with the ca$eat o# their pro*a*le prescriptive nature$ >y statin" that it is the norms o# translation e2uivalence in #orce in the tar"et culture that !etermine, in type an! !e"ree, the e2uivalence a!opte! *y real translations, Toury i!enti#ies another #un!amental step #or the kin! o# !escriptive stu!ies he proposes$ The stu!y o# norms as a secon!-or!er non-o*serva*le o*5ect is instrumental #or ascertainin" how the #unctional-relational postulate o# e2uivalence is reali@e!$

4." #ranslational norms

Accor!in" to Toury -%&&0/ 089<:1, *ecomin" a translator implies learnin" to play a social role accor!in" to a set o# intersu*5ective translational norms in #orce within a "iven cultural environment an! applica*le to all kin!s o# translation$ These norms are !e#ine! +as the translation o# "eneral values or i!eas share! *y a community 9 as to what is ri"ht an! wron", a!e2uate an! ina!e2uate 9 into per#ormance instructions appropriate #or an! applica*le to particular situations, -Toury %&&0/ 0:9001$ As intersu*5ective elements, norms occupy the mi!!le "roun! o# socioculturally speci#ic constraints that vary in terms o# normative #orce or potency -*etween the poles occupie! *y rules an! i!iosyncratic *ehaviour1, an! also in time, in terms o# *oth #orce an! vali!ity$ Toury su""ests the consi!eration o# three types o# translational norms/ initial norms, o# semiotic not chronolo"ical priority -#avourin" a choice either #or a!e2uacy 9 !eterminin" a!herence to source culture norms 9 or #or accepta*ility 9 !eterminin" a pre#erence #or the norms o# the tar"et culture1I preliminary norms -"overnin" translation policy on the choice o# texts or text types to *e translate!, or re"ar!in" the !e"ree o# tolerance to in!irect translation which resorts to interme!iate texts1I an! operational norms -inclu!in" *oth matricial norms re"ar!in" the !e"ree o# #ullness o# translation, textual se"mentation an! !istri*ution, an! textual-lin"uistic norms

"overnin" the choice o# tar"et textual-lin"uistic material to replace the one #oun! in the source text1$

4.$ %eyond D#& ' (rom norms to la)s

An Toury?s wor!s/ +as soon as the applica*ility o# science to the complex pro*lems clustere! aroun! translation has *een accepte! as such, there is no reason why the #ormulation o# laws shoul! not mark the hori@on here too, -%&&0/ 70&1$ A!optin" the aims o# science, DTS purports to !escri*e translational phenomena in or!er to un!erstan! an! explain them, an!, *y i!enti#yin" re"ularities, to "enerali@e an! #ormulate pro*a*ilistic laws o# translational *ehaviour relatin" all varia*les #oun! relevant -Toury %&&0/ %<1$ Toury tentatively #ormulates two such laws$ Accor!in" to the Law o# rowin" Stan!ar!i@ation +in translation, source-text textemes ten! to *e converte! into tar"etlan"ua"e repertoremes, -Toury %&&0/ 7<)1, or, in other wor!s, si"ns that, *y virtue o# their occurrin" within a text, carry ad hoc si"ni#icance within it ten! to *e translate! as mere si"ns *elon"in" to the tar"et-culture?s repertoire, !e#ine! as the set o# co!i#ie! items awar!e! semiotic value *y a community$ Gr, in yet another #ormulation/ the network o# textual relations present in the source text ten!s to *e trans#orme! or i"nore! in translation, *ein" su*stitute! *y ha*itual tar"et repertoire options, or +the more peripheral this status Jo# translationK, the more translation will accommo!ate itsel# to esta*lishe! mo!els an! repertoires, -Toury %&&0/ 7'%1$ An a peripheral, less presti"ious position within the system, translation will ten! to replicate existin" mo!elsI in a central, presti"ious position, translation will *e allowe! to *rin" innovation into the system$ Accor!in" to the secon! Law o# Anter#erence, +in translation, phenomena pertainin" to the make-up o# the source text ten! to *e trans#erre! into the tar"et text, -Toury %&&0/ 7'01$ Alternatively, in a re#ormulation o# this law, takin" into account intercultural an! interlin"ual relations o# presti"e an! power, it is state! that +tolerance o# inter#erence -L1 ten!s to increase when a translation is carrie! out #rom a Mma5or? or hi"hly presti"ious lan"ua"e6culture, especially i# the tar"et lan"ua"e6culture is Mminor?, or Mweak? in any other sense, -Toury %&&0/ 7')1$

Approaches !esi"nate! as the cultural, i!eolo"ical, sociolo"ical, empirical, technolo"ical an! "lo*ali@ation turns of Translation Studies , are sometimes sai! to have su*stitute! DTS, especially #rom the %&&(s onwar!s -.ermans %&&&1$ .owever, research on translation oriente! *y key concepts such as laws -an! universals1, an! especially *y the in#luential concept o# translational norms, still *ears the mark o# this !escriptive approach 9 althou"h the appropriate name to *e a!opte! #or some o# these re"ularities o# translational *ehaviour, especially the term universals, remains a matter o# contention$

$. %ritici&in

descriptivism

Several researchers have a!opte! this !escriptive tar"et-oriente! stance towar!s the stu!y o# translation, re#rainin" #rom +value 5u!"ments in selectin" su*5ect matter or in presentin" #in!in"s, an!6or re#usJin"K to !raw any conclusions in the #orm o# recommen!ations #or Mproper? *ehaviour, -Toury %&&0/ 71, an! valuin" the !ia"nosis o# the role playe! *y translation in cultural history an! the importance o# consi!erin" interan! intra-cultural power relations an! i!eolo"y as part o# the analysis o# contextually motivate! translational phenomena$ .owever, DTS has *een su*5ect to criticism *ecause o# its positivistically importin" the "oals o# -exact1 sciences an! puttin" #orth mo!els *ase! on themI *ecause o# its not concentratin" enou"h on the relevance o# power relations an! i!eolo"y #or the consi!eration o# intercultural an! interlin"ual relations in empirical stu!ies o# translational phenomena -;iran5ana %&&71I #or not #ocusin" enou"h on the translator as an a"ent operatin" in a speci#ic set o# circumstances, or #or not consi!erin" #urther explanations #or translational *ehaviour !ue to its *ein" too strictly tar"et-oriente! -Pym %&&)1I or #or insu##icient sel#-criticism an! sel#-re#lexivity -Arro5o %&&)I .ermans %&&&1$ These criticisms are o#ten associate! with an a##iliation in cultural stu!ies, postcolonial stu!ies, cultural materialism, women?s stu!ies, 2ueer stu!ies, or a more "eneral political motivation to !raw attention to the ethical implications o# a merely !ia"nostic approach to translation instea! o# a politically motivate! stance "eare! towar!s prescriptive intervention, re"ar!in", #or instance, translator invisi*ility ->assnett an! Trive!i %&&&I Simon %&&<I Nenuti %&&01$ The !istinctions at stake seem to "o *eyon! the early *inary opposition *etween !escriptive an! prescriptive approaches

an! are currently !escri*e! as takin" place *etween early !escriptive approaches, current critical !escriptive approaches -reco"ni@in" the +pervasiveness o# interpretation an! values,1 an! committed approaches -+prescri*in" what translators shoul! !o,1 ->rownlie 7((81$ At is a #act that .olmes wrote a !e#ence o# pure research +pursue! #or its own sake, 2uite apart #rom any !irect practical application, -%&))67(((/ %'<1I that Toury claime! +it is no concern o# a scienti#ic !iscipline -L1 to e##ect chan"es in the worl! o# our experience, -%&&0/ %'1I an! that .ermans stresse! +JtKhe primary task o# the stu!y o# translation is not to seek to inter#ere !irectly with the practice o# translation *y layin" !own norms or rules, -.ermans %&&&/ <01$ >esi!es interpretin" such statements in terms o# a clear move away #rom tra!itional or current prescriptivism, other more contextuali@e! rea!in"s mi"ht also *e ar"ue! #or$ Gn the one han!, such statements were ma!e at a time when the !iscipline was still stru""lin" #or in!epen!ence, not only #rom pre!ominantly prescriptive approaches, *ut also #rom a #ocus on its applie! extensions -Toury %&&0/ 71, an! was also un!er pressure #or aca!emic reco"nition, there*y makin" the nee! to stress its status as an empirical -so#t6human1 science un!erstan!a*le$ Gn the other han!, the tar"et-oriente!ness o# DTS an! especially what has *een i!enti#ie! as perhaps Toury?s main le"acy 9 the concept o# norms, as a particularly operative theoretical inter#ace *etween translation an! context 9 has opene! up the possi*ility #or the consi!eration o# translation as a social activity, constraine! *y presti"e an! the power relations in #orce *oth within speci#ic tar"et culture situations an! within a network o# intercultural relations$ This has also ma!e it possi*le to consi!er the cultural role playe! *y in!ivi!ual translators an! their social, i!eolo"ical an! political intervention$ As such, the emphasis on contextuali@ation an! norms may *e interprete! as havin" pave! the way #or more critically, socially, i!eolo"ically an! politically intervenin" stances on translation practice an! on Translation Stu!ies$

References
Arro5o, 3osemary$ %&&)$ +The 3evision o# the Tra!itional ap >etween Theory an! Practice an! the Empowerment o# Translation in Mo!ern Times$, The Translator : -%1/ 709:)$ TS>

>assnett, Susan an! Trive!i, .arish -e!s1$ %&&&$ Postcolonial Translation Theory and Practice$ Lon!on an! ;ew Fork/ 3outle!"e$ >rownlie, Sio*han$ 7((8$ +Distin"uishin" Some Approaches to Translation 3esearch$ The Assue o# Anterpretive Constraints$, The Translator & -%1/ 8&9<:$ TS> Dela*astita, Dirk, D?hulst, Lieven an! Meylaerts, 3eine -e!s1$ 7((<$ Functional Approaches to Culture and Translation. Selected Papers &y !os' Lam&ert $ Amster!am an! Phila!elphia/ 4ohn >en5amins$ >oP TS> Even-Dohar, Atamar$ %&'&$ Papers in Historical Poetics$ Tel Aviv/ Porter Anstitute #or Poetics an! Semiotics$ .ermans, Theo -e!$1$ %&)0$ The Manipulation of Literature. Studies in Literary Translation$ Lon!on6Sy!ney/ Croom .elm$ TS> .ermans, Theo$ %&&&$ Translation in Systems. #escripti$e and System()riented Approaches *+plained$ Manchester/ St$ 4erome$ TS> .olmes, 4ames S$ J%&))K %&&:$ Translated! Papers on Literary Translation and Translation Studies$ Amster!am/ 3o!opi$ >oP TS> .olmes, 4ames S$ J%&))K 7((($ +The ;ame an! ;ature o# Translation Stu!ies$, An The Translation Studies ,eader, Lawrence Nenuti -e!$1, %'79%)0$ Lon!on an! ;ew Fork/ 3outle!"e$ TS> Lam*ert, 4osC an! van orp, .en!rik$ %&)0$ +Gn !escri*in" translations$, An The Manipulation of Literature$ Theo .ermans -e!$1, :7908$ Lon!on an! Sy!ney/ Croom .elm$ TS> Mc=arlane, 4ohn$ %&08$ +Mo!es o# Translation,$ The #urham -ni$ersity !ournal. :0 -81/ ''9&8$ ;iran5ana, T$ %&&7$ Siting Translation History" Poststructuralism" and the Colonial Conte+t $ >erkeley/ Hniversity o# Cali#ornia Press$ TS> Pym, Anthony$ %&&)$ Method in Translation History$ Manchester/ St$ 4erome$ TS> Simon, Sherry$ %&&<$ .ender in Translation Cultural Identity and the Politics of Transmission $ Lon!on an! ;ew Fork/ 3outle!"e$ >oP TS> Toury, i!eon$ %&)($ In Search of a Theory of Translation$ Tel Aviv/ The Porter Anstitute$ TS> Toury, i!eon$ %&&0$ #escripti$e Translation Studies and %eyond$ Amster!am an! Phila!elphia/ 4ohn >en5amins$ >oP TS> Nenuti, Lawrence$ %&&0$ The Translator/s In$isi&ility. Lon!on an! ;ew Fork/ 3outle!"e$

Related articles/ Applied Translation Studies, Audiovisual translation, Committed approaches and activism , Common grounds in Translation and Interpreting didactics (Studies), Corpora, Cultural approaches, Equivalence, olysystem theory and translation, Technical translation, Translation