From ‘Is’ to ‘Ought’: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation Studies

Andrew Chesterman
University of Helsinki
Abstract

Translation studies need to cater for both description and evaluation. This can be achieved via the study of translation norms. The norms governing translation are: (a) professional norms concerning the translation process (= norms of accountability, communication and target-source relation); and (b) expectancy norms concerning the form of the translation product, based on the expectations of the prospective readership. While general translation laws account for the behaviour of translators in general, normative laws describe the translation behaviour of a subset of translators, namely, competent professionals, who establish the norms. Normative laws originate in rational, normdirected strategies which are observed to be used by professionals. These laws are empirical, spatio-temporally falsifiable, probabilistic, predictive and explanatory.

Table of contents

Translation is increasingly seen as a process, a form of human behaviour. A theory of translation, therefore, should seek to establish the laws of this behaviour, as e.g. Toury has argued recently (1991; in press). "Law" in this sense may be glossed simply as "observable regularity". Such laws would be purely descriptive, giving an empirical account of actual translation behaviour. They would take the general form: Under conditions ABC, translators (tend to) do (or refrain from doing) X. I will refer to such laws as "general descriptive laws". This stress on a descriptive approach is no doubt partly due to the long tradition of confusion in translation studies, between descriptive and prescriptive aims.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

References

Austin, John L.
1962 How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bartsch, Renate
1987 Norms of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Delabastita, Dirk
1991 “A False Opposition in Translation Studies: Theoretical versus/and Historical Approaches”. Target 3:2. 137–152.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foot, Philippa
ed. 1967 Theories of Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul
1975 “Logic and Conversation”. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, eds. Syntax and Semantics, 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press 1975 41–58.Google Scholar
Harris, Brian
1990 “Norms in Interpretation”. Target 2:1. 115–119.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hermans, Theo
1991 “Translational Norms and Correct Translations”. van Leuven-Zwart and Naaijkens 1991 : 155–169.Google Scholar
House, Juliane
. 21981 A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Itkonen, Esa
1983 Causality in Linguistic Theory. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Jandl, Ernst
1966 Laut und Luise. Kassel: Olten.Google Scholar
Jodl, Friedrich
1918 Allgemeine Ethik. Stuttgart and Berlin: J.G. Cotta'sche Buch-handlung Nachfolger.Google Scholar
Levý, Jiří
1967 “Translation as a Decision Process”. To Honor Roman Jakobson, II. The Hague: Mouton 1967 1171–1182.Google Scholar
Lewis, David K.
1969 Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lörscher, Wolfgang
1991 Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation Strategies. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Nord, Christiane
1991 “Scopos, Loyalty, and Translational Conventions”. Target 3:1. 91–109.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Raz, Joseph
1975 Practical Reason and Norms. London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1964 “How to Derive ‘Ought’ from ‘Is’”. Philosophical Review 73. 43–58. (Rep. in Foot 1967: 101–114.)   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
[ p. 20 ]
Shlesinger, Miriam
1989 “Extending the Theory of Translation to Interpretation: Norms as a Case in Point”. Target 1:1. 111–115.   DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toury, Gideon
1980 In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.Google Scholar
1985 “A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies”. Theo Hermans, ed. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London: Croom Helm 1985 16–41.Google Scholar
1991 “What are Descriptive Studies into Translation Likely to Yield apart from Isolated Descriptions?” van Leuven-Zwart and Naaijkens 1991 : 179–192.Google Scholar
in press. “In Search of Laws of Translational Behavior” Albrecht Neubert and Gregory Shreve eds. Alternative Models of Translation in Teaching and Research: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Fundamental Questions of Translation Studies Kent State University
Ullmann-Margalit, Edna
1977 The Emergence of Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Leuven-Zwart, Kitty M. and Ton Naaijkens
eds. 1991 Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam—Atlanta, GA: Rodopi.Google Scholar
von Wright, Georg H.
1968 An Essay in Deontic Logic and the General Theory of Action. Amsterdam: North-Holland. [Acta Philosophica Fennica 21.]Google Scholar
Zalán, Péter
1990 “Zur Problematik von Normen und Übersetzen”. Reiner Arntz and Gisela Thome, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft. Ergebnisse und Perspektiven: Fest-schrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Narr 1990 55–58.Google Scholar