Page191
optedforbythetranslatorsrepresentedinthatcorpus.Thus,asHermansputsit
(1995:215–16),thisapproach‘liberatedthestudyoftranslationbyurging
researcherstolookattranslationsastheyhadturnedoutinrealityandin
history,notassomearmchaircriticthoughttheyshouldhaveturnedout’.
Toury(1978/1980a:53–7,1995:56–61)discussesthreetypesoftranslational
norms:initialnorms,preliminarynormsandoperationalnorms.Theinitialnorm
involvesabasicchoicebetweenadheringtothenormsrealizedinthesource
text(which,itisassumed,reflectthenormsofthesourcelanguageandculture)
andadheringtothenormsprevalentinthetargetcultureandlanguage.
Adherencetosourcenormsdeterminesatranslation’sadequacywithrespect
tothesourcetext;adherencetonormsoriginatinginthetargetculture
determinesitsacceptabilitywithinthatculture(cf.themorepoliticizednotions
offoreignizinganddomesticatingSTRATEGIES).Preliminarynormsconcern
theexistenceandnatureofatranslationpolicy(intermsofthechoiceofsource
texttypes,individualsourcetexts,authors,sourcelanguages,etc.)andthe
directnessoftranslation,i.e.aparticularsociety’stoleranceorintolerance
towardsatranslationbasedonatextinanintermediatelanguageratherthanon
thesourcelanguagetext(seeRELAY).Andfinally,operationalnorms
concerndecisionsmadeduring,ratherthanpriorto,theactualactoftranslation.
Tourydiscussestwotypesofoperationalnorms:(a)matricialnorms,which
havetodowiththewaytextualmaterialisdistributed,howmuchofthetextis
translated,andanychangesinsegmentation,forexampleasaresultoflarge
scaleomissions,and(b)textuallinguisticnorms,whichconcerntheselection
ofspecifictextualmaterialtoformulatethetargettextorreplaceparticular
segmentsofthesourcetext.
Translationalnormscanbeinvestigatedusingtwomainsources:textualsources,
namelythetranslatedtextsthemselves,andextratextualsources,i.e.the
theoreticalandcriticalstatementsmadeabouttranslationingeneralorabout
specifictranslations.
Toury(1995)offersanotherperspectiveonthenotionofnorms.Insteadofthe
competence/performanceframework,itispossibletoviewnormsfromasocial
angleintermsoftheirpotency:socioculturalconstraintsingeneralcanbeseen
aslyingalongacontinuum,withabsoluterulesatoneendandpure
idiosyncrasiesattheother.Normsoccupythemiddlegroundbetweenthese
twoextremes;seenfromthisangle,norms‘alwaysimplysanctions–actualor
potential,negativeaswellaspositive’(ibid.:55).Normsthemselvesinturnform
agradedcontinuum,withsomebeingstronger/morerulelikeandothersbeing
weaker,tendingtowardsidiosyncrasy.Thisgradationwillvarywithinagiven
socioculture,sothatanoverallweaktranslationalnormmaybealmostrulelike
incertaintypesoftranslation.Forexample,avoidingculturalsubstitutionasa
translationstrategymaybearelativelyweaknormtodayindealingwith
canonizedauthorsandtexts;butinCOURTINTERPRETING,thenormis
muchstronger:culturalsubstitutionissimplynotallowed.Theinterpreter
typicallyhasnolatitudetoreplaceanelementwhichheorshethinksmightbe
opaquefortheaudiencewithonethathasabroadlysimilarfunctioninthetarget
culture.Thisinjunctionislikelytorendertheoccurrenceofculturalsubstitution
highlyatypicalinacorpusofinterpretedutterancesincourt.
Otherscholarshavediscussednormsintermsoftheirpotency,makinga
distinctionbetweennormsandconventionsand/orbetweenconstitutiveand
regulatorynorms(Chesterman1993;Hermans1991,1993,1996;Nord
1991b,1997).Thedifferencebetweennormsandconventionsisthatthelatter
arenotbindingandonlyexpresspreferences.Intermsofthedistinction
betweenconstitutiveandregulatorynorms,theformerconcernwhatisoris
notacceptedastranslation(asopposedtoADAPTATION,forinstance),and
thelatterconcerntranslationchoicesatthelowerlevels,i.e.thekindof
EQUIVALENCEatranslatoroptsfororachieves.
Chesterman(1993)attemptstorefinethenotionofnormsfurtherby
distinguishingbetweenprofessionalnormsandexpectancynorms.Professional
normsemergefromcompetentprofessionalbehaviourandgoverntheaccepted
methodsandstrategiesofthetranslationprocess.Theycanbesubdividedinto
threemajortypes:accountabilitynormsareethicalandcallforprofessional
standardsofintegrityandthoroughness(seeETHICS);communicationnorms
aresocialandemphasizetheroleofthetranslatorasacommunication