Chritiane Nords Notion of Function Plus Loyalty

Chritiane Nords Notion of Function Plus LoyaltyINTRODUCTIONThe emergence of functionalist approaches to reading in the 1970s and eighties was quite revolutionary in that it marked the move from what Munday (2001 72) describes as the static linguistic typologies of edition shift, a term outlined by Catford (1965 73) as departures from nominal correspondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL, to a consideration of the over either function of the Target Text (TT) in the Target Culture (TC). However, these approaches restrain been criticised on various grounds. This paper investigates one of these criticisms and whether Chritiane Nords nonion of function plus doglikety adequately addresses the issue.SKOPOSTHEORIEAs a term, functionalism is used to refer to the aggregate of approaches to translation that focal point on the overall function(s) of a text or translation (Nord 19971). In other words, functionalism has been expressed or practised differently by different scho lars and voices. However, they all appear to have scoop upn inspiration from what Vermeer has called skopostheorie, the birth of which apparently marked the beginning of functionalism (Honig 1997 6).According to Vermeer (2004), the skopos of a translation is the goal or purpose , defined by the commission and if necessary adjusted by the translator (236) and this nonion of skopos can be applied in the translation process, the translation result as well as the translation mode (230). This skopos determines whether a text should be translated word for word or paraphrased or even adapted. As Nord (1997) puts it, the Skopos of a peculiar(prenominal) translation task may require a free or a faithful translation, or anything between these two extremes, depending on the purpose for which the translation is needed (29). Thus a single text can beget different translations according to the different translation apprizes provided.This approach was quite wise in that it, to a large exten t, addressed the eternal dilemmas of free vs faithful translations, dynamic vs formal equivalence, good interpreters vs slavish translators, and so on (Nord 1997 29). However, it has also trustworthy quite a number of criticisms. One of such attacks came from Pym (1996) who apparent motions the ability of functionalism to provide a basis for a professional ethics of translation. He then asks green goddess such a theory generate a way of discerning between good and bad purposes, between good and bad translation strategies? Or is its aim stainlessly to produce mercenary experts, able to fight under the flag of any purpose able to pay them? (2)Pym questions the apparent neglect of the ST, extravagant emphasis on the TT and the freedom skopostheorie gives the translator to produce any mixed bag of text as dictated by the translation brief, whether or not the said brief is a far cry from the intentions of the author of the seeded player text. In response to such criticisms, Nord ad ded the concept of devotion to functionalism.FUNCTION PLUS homageChritiane Nord maintains that the faithfulness principle is meant to account for the culture-specificity of translation concepts, setting an ethical limitation to the otherwise unlimited range of possible skopoi for the translation of one particular source text (20072-3). Loyalty is used to refer to the responsibility of translators, as mediators between two cultures, towards their partners namely, the source-text author, the client or commissioner of the translation, and the bum-text receivers (Nord 2001 185). It may also be seen as winning into account the intentions and expectations of all the partners in the communicative interaction named translation (195). Though the clients brief determines the skopos of the translation, it is not the only determining factor for the translation. The translator should be loyal to the ST author by ensuring that he not produce a TT that falsifies the authors intentions (Nord 2 00532). In other words, loyalty ensures some compatibility between the ST and the TT. The translator should also be loyal to the target auditory sense, who have some expectations of what the translations should be like, by apologizeing in a footnote or preface how they arrived at a particular meaning, the thought-process involved.Nord distinguishes loyalty from fidelity or equivalence. While she sees the former as an interpersonal relationship between the translator and his partners, the latter she sees as concepts used to refer to the linguistic or stylistic similarity between the source and the target texts, regardless of the communicative intentions involved (2001 185)HOW ADEQUATE?This section looks at the adequacy of Nords function plus loyalty principle to translation, especially in relation to Pyms accusation of skopostheorie producing only mercenary experts.In the first place, it checks the apparent freedom of the translator to produce any kind of translation in accordance with the clients brief. While function requires that the translation be modelled to fit into the brief provided by the commissioner, loyalty requires the translator to justify their choice of translation method by considering the interests of all the participants involved in the translation, not just that of the client. A translator should not produce a translation that goes contrary to the brief they also should satisfy the expectations of the target audience as well as not falsify the intentions of the author. So if the brief betrays the communicative intentions of the author, it is then the translators duty to draw the attention of the client to this apparent anomaly. Pym (2007 132) quotes Nord as saying that If the client asks for a translation that would mean being disloyal to either the author or the target readership or both, the translator should argue this point with the client or perhaps even refuse to produce the translation on ethical grounds. So the translator is not a mere mercenary since they do not accept whatever skopos is given them. Downie puts it this way With the addition of the notion of loyalty the translator is straight off ethically and professionally responsible to either observe the expectations their partners have of their work or to tell them why these expectations have not been met (2), This principle reduces the number of skopoi that could be generated for a single translation text.Two questions may be raised against the loyalty principle, one of which has been partly answered in Downies quote above namely is it everlastingly possible for every party to be made happy by the translator? According to Nord, the translator has the deterrent example obligation not to translate on a brief that will falsify the authors intention. If after explaining the situation to the client and the client insists on not modifying the brief to make up for the defect, the translator has the moral responsibility to refuse to do the translation. Downi e has already highlighted what the translator should do if the translation goes contrary to the expectations of the receiving audience. In Nords words, if the target culture expects the translation to be a veridical re increaseion of the original, translators cannot simply translate in a non-literal way without telling the target audience what they have done and why (1997 125). This increases the level of confidence the audience has on the translator and makes them more ready to accept the translation as of a good quality even if their (the audiences) expectations are not met.This raises the second question will the adoption of the documentary translation in situations where the source culture is markedly different from the target culture, seen in the additional explanations the translator has to make for the reader, not affect the reception of the work since the audience is aware that the text is not the original, but a translation? Though the reader might be unnatural by the re alisation, the style shows that the translator has some respect for the reader and will help build their confidence in the translator for taking the pains to explain their strategy and choices.One other issue the loyalty principle addresses is the supposed dethronement of the source text. This is also one of the bases for Pym accusation of translators as being mere mercenary experts since the ST may result in TTs with which it shares a very tenuous relationship. Loyalty insists that the communicative intentions of the author be reproduced in the TT. And this can only be achieved when a detailed analysis of the ST is done to appreciate its place in the source culture, temporally and spatially. Nord insists that the interpretation of a text goes beyond the linguistic, that it is a product of the many variables of the situation (time, place, addresses) in which it originated (1997 119), and that the analysis of extratextual factors such as author, time, place, or medium may shed some l ight on what may have been the senders intentions (125-6). The translator then does a similar extratextual study of the target situation to identify the expression that best reflects the authors intentions in the target situation. So in the main, the TT intentions are hinged on those of the ST.CONCLUSIONIt is axiomatic that a text is open to multiple interpretations, and translations. But Nords notion of function plus loyalty has indeed confine the otherwise arbitrary production of translation briefs and translations that are a far cry from the message of the ST. It also weakens the criticism that functionalism advocates a dethronement of the ST. However, the satisfaction of every party involved in the translation process is only but an ideal, not always practicable. But loyalty has made the translator more responsible and conscious of their translations and increased the confidence of other participants on the translator. Indeed if translators will adhere to this charge of being loyal, the problems of mistranslations will be greatly reduced.REFERENCESCatford, J. C. 1965. A Linguistic Theory of Translation. London Oxford.Downie, Jonathan. The End of an Era? Does skopos theory spell the end of the free vs literal paradigm? online Pneuma Foundation In depth resources http//www.pneumafoundation.org/resources/in_depth.jspHomig, Hans G. 1997. Position, might and practice Functionalist approaches and translation quality assessment. In Current Issues in Language and Society. Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 7 34.Munday, J. 2008. Introducing Translation Studies Theories and Applications. 2nd ed. London Routledge.Nord, Chritiane. 1997. Translation as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester St Jerome.Nord, Chritiane. 2001. Loyalty revisited Bible translation as a case in point.The Translator. Vol. 7 No 2, pp. 185 202..Nord, Chritiane. 2005. Text Analysis in Translation Theory, Methodology, and didactical Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. 2nd ed. Amsterdam Rodopi.Nord, Chritiane. 2007. Function plus Loyalty Ethics in Professional Translation. In Genesis Revista Cientifica do ISAG. Vol 6, pp. 7 17.Pym, Anthony. 1996. Material text transfer as a key to the purposes of translation. In Albrecht Neubert, Gregory Shreve and Klaus Gommlich (eds.) 1996, Basic Issues in Translation Studies. Proceedings of the Fifth international conclave Kent Forum on Translation Studies II, Kent/Ohio Institute of Applied Linguistics, 337-346.Pym, Anthony. 2001. Introduction The return to ethics in translation studies. The Translator. Vol. 7 No 2, pp. 129 138.Vermeer, Hans J. Skopos and commission in translational action. In L.Venuti (ed) The Translation Studies Reader. 2nd ed. New York Routledge, pp. 227 238.