Institut für Übersetzen und Dolmetschen der Universität Heidelberg
Within the framework of the functionalist or "scopos" theory, the (intended) scope or function of the target text is the most important criterion for the translator's decisions. However, this is a general theory of translation, which is not concerned with the culture-specific conventions valid in a particular culture. Since conventions determine what readers expect of a translation, the translator has the responsibility not to deceive the users of his translation by acting contrary to the conventions without telling them what he is doing, and why. This responsibility is what I will refer to as loyalty. Loyalty is a moral principle guiding the relationships between human beings.
Every year, conferences on translational topics call for scholars from all over the world to discuss the question of what translation is or should be and how certain translation problems ought to be solved. However, although translatologists usually agree on more general issues, e.g. the importance of translation as such or the necessity of improving the often [ p. 92 ]deplorable quality of translations, there seems to be little consent as far as concrete translational "rules" are concerned. Wouldn't it be useful to have a sort of Magna Charta of translation which every translator could turn to in case of doubt?
[ p. 108 ]References
1972 “El puerto”/“Der Hafen”. Tránsito. Tres obras en un acto/Drei Einakter, ed. and trans. Erna Brandenberger. München: dtv 1972 63–107.
1978 “The Function of Translated Literature within a National Literature: The Example of Sixteenth Century Spain”. James S Holmes, José Lambert and Raymond van den Broeck, eds. Literature and Translation: New Perspectives in Literary Studies. Leuven: acco 1978 181–203.
Forthcoming a. “The Relationship between Text Function Meaning in Translation”. Marcel Thelen and Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk eds. Translation and Meaning, Part II: Proceedings of the Łódz Colloquium, September 1990MaastrichtEuroterm