Cover not available
Article published In:
Target
Vol. 20:1 (2008) ► pp.1–28

Skopos and beyond

A critical study of functionalism

 | PETRA Research Group, Universidad de Las Palmas, Spain
This paper deals with the main results of a systematic investigation (Martín 2005), supported by concordance analysis, of the metaphorical expressions found in Reiß-Vermeer (1984) and Holz-Mänttäri (1984), two works that in the 1980s established the theoretical foundations of German functionalism. Based on the cognitive theory of metaphor (Lakoff and Johnson 1980, 1999; Lakoff 1987; Johnson 1987; Lakoff 1993), the analysis led to the identification of two conceptual metaphors that played a crucial role in the articulation of German functionalism: the TRANSFER metaphor and the TARGET metaphor. The paper focuses on the main implications of the use of these metaphors and on the contradictions they create. A broadening of the functionalist theoretical framework is then proposed with the goal of overcoming these contradictions.
Keywords: translation, metaphor, cognition, functionalism, theory, model
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conceptual metaphors in scientific discourse
  • 3.Metaphors in Translation Studies
  • 4.Shifts and containers in functionalism: Remnants of earlier models?
  • 5.The metaphor of functionalism: Every action is directed towards a target
    • 5.1Does every action have an objective?
    • 5.2Assigning a single objective to each translational action
    • 5.3The end justifies the means
    • 5.4The reconstruction of the TRANSFER model
  • 6.Broadening of the theoretical framework of functionalism
    • 6.1A model of communication as construction
    • 6.2Cultural models instead of cultures
    • 6.3Situated and emerging translational action
    • 6.4Ethics and Translation Studies
    • 6.5Experientialism as a means of overcoming the subject/object opposition
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 26 May 2008
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/target.20.1.02mar
References (87)
References
Baldauf, Christa. 1997. Metapher und Kognition: Grundlagen einer neuen Theorie der Alltagsmetapher. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. [Sprache in der Gesellschaft, 24.]Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 2002. Consciousness emerging: The dynamics of perception, imagination, action, memory, thought and language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Advances in Consciousness Research.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, Richard. [1979] 1993. “Metaphor and theory change: What is ‘metaphor’ a metaphor for?” Ortony [1979] 1993 . 481–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brünner, Gisela. 1987. “Metaphern für Sprache und Kommunikation in Alltag und Wissenschaft”. Diskussion Deutsch 18:94. 100–119.Google Scholar
Chesterman, Andrew. 1997. Memes of translation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. [Benjamins Translation Library, 22.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Andy. 1997. Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
de Bono, Edward. 1971. Laterales Denken: Ein Kursus zur Erschließung Ihrer Kreativitätsreserven, tr. Margaret Carroux and Wolfgang Eisermann. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1991. Consciousness explained. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
D’hulst, Lieven. 1992. “Sur le rôle des métaphores en traductologie contemporaine”. Target 4:1. 33–51.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ericsson, K. Anders and Herbert A. Simon. 1984. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fernández-Duque, Diego and Mark L. Johnson. 2002. “Cause and effect theories of attention: The role of conceptual metaphors”. Review of general psychology. 6:2. 153–165.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Howard. 1985. The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre and Donald R. Gentner. 1983. “Flowing waters or teeming crowds: Mental models of electricity”. Dedre Gentner and A.L. Stevens, eds. Mental Models. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983. 99–119.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre and Michael Jeziorski. 1993. “The shift from metaphor to analogy in Western science”. Ortony [1979] 1993 . 447–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodenough, Ward H. 1964. “Cultural anthropology and linguistics”. Dell Hymes, ed. Language in culture and society: A reader in linguistics and anthropology. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. 36–39.Google Scholar
Guilford, Joy Peter. 1975. “Creativity: A quarter century of progress”. I.A. Taylor and J.W. Geztels, eds. Perspectives in creativity. Chicago: Aldine, 1975. 37–59.Google Scholar
Gutt, Ernst-August. [1991] 2000: Translation and relevance: Cognition and context. Manchester/Boston: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
Hallyn, Fernanded. 2000. Metaphor and analogy in the sciences. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halverson, Sandra. 2001. “An outline of a cognitive theory of translation”. EST Congress 2001. The Copenhagen Business School. 31.8.–1.9.2001. Copenhagen, 2001.Google Scholar
Harras, Gisela. 1978. Kommunikative Handlungskonzepte, oder: Eine Möglichkeit, Handlungsabfolgen als Zusammenhänge zu erklären, exemplarisch an Theatertexten. Tübingen. [Reihe Germanistische Linguistik, 16.]   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks-Jansen, Horst. 1996. Catching ourselves in the act: Situated activity, interactive emergence, evolution, and human thought. Cambridge: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo. 1985. “Images of translation: Metaphor and imagery in the Renaissance discourse on translation”. Theo Hermans, ed. The manipulation of literature: Studies in literary translation. London: Croom Helm, 1985. 103–135.Google Scholar
Holland, Dorothy and Naomi Quinn, eds. 1987. Cultural models in language & thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. [Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae B 226.]Google Scholar
. [1996] 2001. “Evolutionäre Translationstheorie”. Rupert Riedl and Manuela Delpos, eds. Die Evolutionäre Erkenntnistheorie im Spiegel der Wissenschaften. Wien: Wiener Universitätsverlag. Reprinted in 2001 in TEXTconTEXT 15:2. 245–281.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G. 1988. “Wissen Übersetzer eigentlich, was sie tun?” Lebende Sprachen 1:88. 10–14.Google Scholar
1992. “Von der erzwungenen Selbstentfremdung des Übersetzers—Ein offener Brief an Justa Holz-Mänttäri”. TEXTconTEXT 7:1. 1–14.Google Scholar
. 1995. Konstruktives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Google Scholar
Jääskeläinen, Riitta. 2000. “Focus on methodology in think-aloud studies on translating”. Sonja Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, eds. Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2000. 71–82.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark. 1987. The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. “Metaphor-based values in scientific models”. Lorenzo Magnani and Nancy J. Nersessian, eds. Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 2002. 1–19.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keesing, Roger M. 1987. “Models, ‘folk’ and ‘cultural’: Paradigms regained?” Holland and Quinn 1987. 369–393.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiraly, Donald C. 2000. A social constructivist approach to translator education: Empowerment from theory to practice. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Koskinen, Kaisa. 2004. “Shared culture?: Reflections on recent trends in Translation Studies”. Target 16:1. 143–156.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. [1979] 1993. “Metaphor in science”. Ortony [1979] 1993 . 533–542. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kußmaul, Paul. 2000. Kreatives Übersetzen. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. [Studien zur Translation, 10.]Google Scholar
Lachat Leal, Christine. 1998. “Análisis del concepto de contexto en la teoría de la relevancia”. Jose Luis Cifuentes Honrubia, ed. Estudios de lingüística cognitiva. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, 1998 11. 103–112.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1993. “The contemporary theory of metaphor”. Ortony [1979] 1993 . 202–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George and Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George and Rafael E. Núñez. 2000. Where mathematics comes from. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Liebert, Wolf-Andreas. 1995. “Metaphernbereiche der virologischen Aidsforschung”. Lexicology 11. 142–182.Google Scholar
Martín de León, Celia. 2005. Contenedores, recorridos y metas: Metáforas en la traductología funcionalista. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. [Studien zur romanischen Sprachwissenschaft und interkulturellen Kommunikation, 24.]Google Scholar
. 2007. “Modelos de coste-beneficio en traductología”. Wotjak 2007 . 255–266.Google Scholar
McElhanon, Kenneth A. 2005. “From word to scenario: The influence of linguistic theories upon models of translation”. Journal of translation 1:3. 29–67.Google Scholar
Meheus, Joke. 2000. “Analogical reasoning in creative problem solving processes: Logico-philosophical perspectives”. Hallyn 2000 . 17–34.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo. 1995. Lingüística para traducir. Barcelona: Teide.Google Scholar
. 1999. “Contra Sísifo: interdisciplinariedad y multiculturalidad”. Perspectives 7:2: Hispanic Translation Studies, Guest editors Ricardo Muñoz Martín and Frederic Chaume Varela. 1999. 153–164.Google Scholar
. forthcoming. “Benchmarking cognitive translatologies. (I) Theoretical prolegomena”. To appear in Translation and Interpreting Studies.
. 2007. “Traductología cognitiva y traductología empírica”. Wotjak 2007 . 267–278.Google Scholar
Newell, Allen and Herbert A. Simon. 1972. Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane. 1989. “Loyalität statt Treue”. Lebende Sprachen 34:3. 100–105.Google Scholar
. 1991. “Scopos, loyalty, and translational conventions”. Target 3:1. 91–109.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. “Traduciendo funciones”. Amparo Hurtado, ed. Estudis sobre la traducció. Recull aportacions presentades en les I Jornades sobre la Traducción: Teoria de la Traducción, organitzades pel Departament de Filologia de la Universitat Jaume I els dies 14 i 15 de maig de 1993. Castelló: Universitat Jaume I., 1994. 97–112. [Estudis sobre la traducción, 1.]Google Scholar
. 1997. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained. Manchester: St Jerome.Google Scholar
Núñez, Rafael E. 2000. “Conceptual metaphor and the embodied mind: What makes mathematics possible?” Hallyn 2000 . 125–145.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Núñez, Rafael E. and Eve Sweetser. 2006. “With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time”. Cognitive science 301. 1–49.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortony, Andrewed. [1979] 1993. Metaphor and thought. Second revised edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pöchhacker, Franz. 1994. Simultandolmetschen als komplexes Handeln. Tübingen: Narr. [Language in Performance, 10.]Google Scholar
Preiser, Siegfried. 1976. Kreativitätsforschung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Prunč, Erich. 2003. Einführung in die Translationswissenschaft Vol 11. Graz: Institut für Translationswissenschaft.Google Scholar
Pym, Anthony. 2004. “Propositions on cross-cultural communication and translation”. Target 16:1. 1–28.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinn, Naomi and Dorothy Holland. 1987. “Culture and cognition”. Holland and Quinn 1987. 3–40.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reddy, Michael J. [1979] 1993. “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language”. Ortony [1979] 1993 . 164–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rehbein, Jochen. 1977. Komplexes Handel: Elemente zur Handlungstheorie der Sprache. Tübingen: J.B. Metzler. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reiß, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. [1984] 1991. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Linguistische Arbeiten, 147.]Google Scholar
Risku, Hanna. 1998. Translatorische Kompetenz: Kognitive Grundlagen des Übersetzens als Expertentätigkeit. Tübingen: Narr. [Studien zur Translation, 5.]Google Scholar
. 2000. “Situated translation und situated cognition: Ungleiche Schwestern”. Mira Kadric, Klaus Kaindl and Franz Pöchhacker, eds. Translationswissenschaft: Festschrift für Mary Snell-Hornby zum 60. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Stauffenburg, 2000. 81–91.Google Scholar
. 2002a. “Cognitive foundations of translation: Three paradigms of cognitive science and their consequences for Translation Studies”. Seminar held in the Universidad de Granada, April 2002.Google Scholar
. 2002b. “Situatedness in Translation Studies”. Cognitive systems research 3:3. 523–533.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R. 2000. Razones para actuar: Una teoría del libre albedrío, tr. Luis M. Valdés Villanueva. Oviedo: Nobel.Google Scholar
Shannon, Claude E. and Warren Weaver. [1949] 1963. The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Simon, Gérard. 2000. “Analogies and metaphors in Kepler”. Hallyn 2000 . 71–82.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Suchman, Lucy A. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human/machine communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and beyond. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Turbayne, Colin Murray. 1962. The myth of metaphor. New Haven–London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ulmann, Gisela. 1968. Kreativität: Neue amerikanische Ansätze zur Erweiterung des Intelligenzkonzepts. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
Varela, Francisco J., Evan Thompson and Eleanor Rosch. [1991] 1993. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J. 1978. “Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie”. Lebende Sprachen 23:3. 99–102.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J. [1989] 1992. Skopos und Translationsauftrag—Aufsätze. Frankfurt: IKO: Verlag für Interkulturelle Kommunikation.Google Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J. 1990. “Texttheorie und Translatorisches Handeln”. Target 2:2. 219–242.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1996a. A skopos theory of translation (Some arguments for and against). Heidelberg: TEXTconTEXT. [Reihe Wissenschaft, 1.]Google Scholar
1996b. Die Welt, in der wir übersetzen: Drei translatologische Überlegungen zu Realität, Vergleich und Prozess. Heidelberg: TEXTconTEXT. [Reihe Wissenschaft, 2.]Google Scholar
Witte, Heidrun. 1992. “Zur gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung des Translators—Anmerkungen”. TEXTconTEXT 7:2. 119–129.Google Scholar
. 2000. Die Kulturkompetenz des Translators: Begriffliche Grundlegung und Didaktisierung. Tübingen: Stauffenburg. [Studien zur Translation, 9.]Google Scholar
Wotjak, Gerd, ed. 2007. Quo vadis Translatologie?: Ein halbes Jahrhundert universitärer Ausbildung von Dolmetschern und Übersetzern in Leipzig. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Hunziker Heeb, Andrea, Caroline Lehr & Maureen Ehrensberger-Dow
2021. Situated Translators: Cognitive Load and the Role of Emotions. In Advances in Cognitive Translation Studies [New Frontiers in Translation Studies, ], ► pp. 47 ff. DOI logo
Schlager, Daniela
2021. Translators’ multipositionality, teloi and goals. In Literary Translator Studies [Benjamins Translation Library, 156], ► pp. 199 ff. DOI logo
Sammut, Ivan
2018. The translation of EU trademarks – a special type of Intellectual Property translation . International Journal of Legal Discourse 3:1 ► pp. 133 ff. DOI logo
Łabendowicz, Olga
2018. The impact of AVT mode on audience reception. In Eye tracking and multidisciplinary studies on translation [Benjamins Translation Library, 143], ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz Martín, Ricardo
2016. Of minds and men – computers and translators. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 52:2 DOI logo
McAuley, Thomas E.
2015. Audience Attitude and Translation Reception. Babel. Revue internationale de la traduction / International Journal of Translation 61:2 ► pp. 219 ff. DOI logo
Martín de León, Celia & Maris Presas
2011. Metaphern als Ausdruck subjektiver Theorien zum Übersetzen. Target. International Journal of Translation Studies 23:2 ► pp. 272 ff. DOI logo
Schäffner, Christina
2011. Theory of translatorial action. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 2], ► pp. 157 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2010. Translation. In Handbook of Translation Studies [Handbook of Translation Studies, 1], ► pp. 378 ff. DOI logo
Halverson, Sandra L.
2014. Reorienting Translation Studies: Cognitive Approaches and the Centrality of the Translator. In Translation: A Multidisciplinary Approach, ► pp. 116 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2017. Reflections on Translation Theory [Benjamins Translation Library, 132], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.