Theory of translatorial action

Christina Schäffner
Table of contents

The 1970s saw the development of functionalist approaches to translation. Previous linguistics-based theories, which dominated from the 1950s to the mid 1970s, perceived translation mainly as transfer of meaning and tried to explain by which methods equivalence between target text and source text could be achieved. In contrast, functionalist approaches make the purpose which the target text is to achieve for its addressees in a target culture context their guiding principle. Translation is primarily understood as a form of human action in contexts and cultures. Functionalist approaches were initiated in Germany, in particular by Hans Vermeer (Skopos theory 1978), and further elaborated, among others, by Hönig and Kußmaul (1982), Nord (1997) as well as Reiss and Vermeer (1984).

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.


Holz-Mänttäri, Justa
1984Translatorisches Handeln. Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.  TSBGoogle Scholar
1986“Translatorisches Handeln – theoretisch fundierte Berufsprofile.” In übersetzungswissenschaft. Eine Neuorientierung, Mary Snell-Hornby (ed.), 348–374. Tübingen: Franke.Google Scholar
1988“Translation und das biologisch-soziale Gefüge ‚Mensch’.” In Translationstheorie – Grundlagen und Standorte [Studia translatologica A 1], Justa Holz-Mänttäri (ed.), 39–57. Tampere: Tampereen Yliopisto.Google Scholar
1993“Textdesign - verantwortlich und gehirngerecht.” In Traducere Navem. Festschrift für Katharina Reiß zum 70. Geburtstag [Studia translatologica A 3], Justa Holz-Mänttäri & Christiane Nord (eds), 301–320. Tampere: Tampereen Yliopisto.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G
1992“Von der erzwungenen Selbstentfremdung des Űbersetzers – Ein offener Brief an Justa Holz-Mänttäri.” TextconText 7: 1–14.Google Scholar
Hönig, Hans G. & Kußmaul, Paul
1982Strategie der Übersetzung. Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Koller, Werner
1995“The Concept of Equivalence and the Object of Translation Studies.” Target 7 (2): 191–222. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Martín de León, Celia
2008“Skopos and beyond. A critical study of functionalism.” Target 20: 1–28. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Newmark, Peter
1991“The curse of dogma in Translation Studies.” Lebende Sprachen 36: 105–108. DOI logo  TSBGoogle Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1997Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained. Manchester: St. Jerome.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Pym, Anthony
2010Exploring Translation Theories. London/New York: Routledge.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Reiß, Katharina & Vermeer, Hans J
1984Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Risku, Hanna
2004Translationsmanagement. Interkulturelle Fachkommunikation im Informations-zeitalter. Tübingen: Narr.  TSBGoogle Scholar
Schäffner, Christina
1998“Action (theory of ‘translatorial action’).” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, Mona Baker (ed.), 3–5. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Snell-Hornby, Mary
2006The Turns of Translation Studies: New paradigms or shifting viewpoints? Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Vermeer, Hans J
1978“Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie.” Lebende Sprachen 23: 99–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vienne, Jean
2000“Which Competences Should We Teach to Future Translators, and How?” In Developing Translation Competence, Christina Schäffner & Beverly Adab (eds), 91–100. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins  TSB. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Witte, Heidrun
2000Die Kulturkompetenz des Translators. Begriffliche Grundlegung und Didaktisierung [Studien zur Translation 9]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.  TSBGoogle Scholar