Gideon Toury PDF

# Gideon Toury (born 1942) - Israeli scholar of translation and cultural studies associated with Tel Aviv University. - Collaborator of Itamar Even-Zohar, with whom he developed the polysystem theory and descriptive translation studies. - One of the pioneers of modern studies in the field of Transla...

# Gideon Toury (born 1942) - Israeli scholar of translation and cultural studies associated with Tel Aviv University. - Collaborator of Itamar Even-Zohar, with whom he developed the polysystem theory and descriptive translation studies. - One of the pioneers of modern studies in the field of Translation studies, alongside James Holmes, José Lambert, and André Lefevere. - Participated in the Leuven Conference in 1976, a historic translation conference. - His presentation at the conference served as the seed for his doctoral dissertation: **“Translational Norms and Literary Translation into Hebrew, 1930-1945”** (1977). - Published **“In Search of a Theory of Translation”** in 1980, where he identified translation norms governing the translator's decisions and placed them in a broader context. - Published **“Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond”** (Amsterdam-Philadelphia) in 1995. - Edited several collective volumes, including: - **Translation Theory: A Reader** (1980) - **Translation Theory and Intercultural Relations** (1981, co-authored with Itamar Even-Zohar) - **German Literature Before and After** (1982, co-authored with Chaim Shoham) - **Translation Across Cultures** (1987) - **Introducing Translation Theory: Selected Articles** (1991) - Has nearly 70 articles and chapters in collective works. - Editor of two international journals dedicated to translation: “Target” and “TRANSST.” - Member of the editorial board of the Benjamins Translation Library series. - Actively translates English and German literature into Hebrew. - Translated works by: - C.S. Lewis - F. Scott Fitzgerald - Ford Madox Ford - Günter Grass - Heinrich Böll - Peter Handke - Thomas Mann - Ernest Hemingway # Method of descriptive translation studies ## 1. Assumed translations and their acceptability - The first step in the study of a target culture is a set of texts, whether assumed or confirmed, to be translations. - Recognizing a text as a translation can be done for several reasons: - It can be explicitly presented as a translation. - It has certain traits commonly linked to translations in a given culture. - One knows that a text exists in another language and culture and may serve as a substitute for the given target text. - The third condition above is essential in situations where translations exist without being acknowledged. - Unlike the first two examples, the third situation requires a point of departure that may be unrepresentative of the target-oriented nature of the method. - Finding an equivalent in the target culture is a valuable tool for studying “foreign” texts. - Target-language texts can be studied as (assumed) translations irrespective of the existence of a source text. - This is not true for the reverse case - it is not possible to study a non-target language text as a translation if there is not a corresponding text in the target language. - The target text can be studied as a translation, but not the non-target text. - The initial step in the method is to assess the assumed translations and their components in terms of their acceptability in the target system. - The importance of acceptability is methodological. - Although it can be examined at any stage of the research, it is crucial when researching “foreign” texts. - Acceptability of a translation can be examined independently from its status as a translation; however, this is not the case when applying the methods to foreign texts. - The norms governing the construction of translations often differ from those of the original works. This makes it difficult to treat translations as independent texts. - Even when examining presumed translations as target-language texts, there is an inherent descriptive component to the study of the translation. - An example of the descriptive study of translation is the instance where the norms found in assumed translations are comparable to those of original texts, and the other is when differences are observed in the construction of texts. - The latter case is particularly important as it suggests the presence of recurring regularities that could be the result of the functionality of distinct (sub)systems. - Some initial differences can be categorized as the byproduct of a text’s formal connection to the source text. - This step allows the researcher to initially identify these connections based on the assumed translation, but they can also be observed in pseudo-translations. - The initial hypotheses regarding the connections between the assumed translation and the source language text may also be based on the belief that the target text is based on a language other than initially assumed. - The possibility also exists that the target text is drawn from multiple source texts in various languages. ## 2. Types of comparison at the initial stage - The initial stage of the research allows for several comparisons that can give a new perspective to the analysis of texts acceptability. - The source text is never directly involved in the comparison at this stage. - The comparisons help to highlight similarities and differences in the construction of texts across cultures and time periods. ## 3. Pointing out the appropriate source text - The study of acceptability requires a careful examination of assumed translations and their relationship to other components of their systems, as well as the systems themselves. - The role of the source text is not yet considered at this stage. - Identifying the appropriate source text is necessary to examine how the relationship between the assumed translation and a source text manifests itself in a target culture. - The researcher should carefully consider the nature of the source text and the way it is perceived in a given culture. - Multiple source texts might be relevant in a single instance, making it necessary to determine which source text is the appropriate one. - Identifying the correct source text is an important step and usually done during the research process. - For example, in the study of subtitles, the spoken version is the assumed source text. - However, the initial analysis should not be limited to the spoken version. - The subtitles can be influenced by the source text of the film itself, a script that may be an adaptation, or even a translation of a script in another language. - There are multiple versions of the source text, especially in the case of multiple language subtitles, and it is important to discover if there is any connection between these versions. ## 4. (Translation) solutions and problems (with the source) - The study of translation relationships can be facilitated by looking at the specific relationships between segments. - Each segment is identified and analyzed in isolation rather than in relation to the text as a whole. - This approach is helpful as it allows for the identification of the solutions to translational problems in a text. - The problems analyzed are reconstructed rather than given. - This approach is also useful as the same problem may not be recognized as a significant problem when comparing the same texts using a different set of translations. - This conclusion acknowledges the role of a specific translation in highlighting various issues that might not be noticeable otherwise. - Identifying the connection between the source and target text is often seen as the focal point of analyzing translations. - However, identifying such connections may be complex as there are numerous potential source texts that can be considered. - The same translation may be influenced by multiple source texts. - It is difficult to determine if a translated segment is connected to the source text or even if both segments exist at the same level in a comparative analysis. - Even though a segment is identified as a source text, the researcher should not assume that it will be recognized as a whole. - The source-text segment might be further subdivided based on the target text. - Once a set of segments is identified, they are compared to reach a conclusion about how the translator addressed the problem. - Determining the correct source text and the specific segment are crucial to a proper in-depth analysis. ## 5. The prospective approach and the retrospective approach using metaphor - The study of translation should avoid using methods and models borrowed from other disciplines without adaptation or refinement. - We should pay special attention to the difference between the prospective and retrospective approaches in translation research. - The perspective of the metaphoric approach illustrates this distinction well. - The metaphor is often seen as a key issue in translation that involves examining source text elements deemed metaphorical. - This approach often considers linguistic or textual criteria. - The process of identifying the metaphor is a key step as it often leads to assessing the adequacy of the resulting translation of the term. - However, these approaches often fail to recognize that a translated metaphoric term’s presence does not ensure that it will be recognized as a unit. - It is also important to note that a direct translation of a metaphoric term is not the only option; other options include translating the metaphoric term with a non-metaphoric term or completely omitting the term altogether. - There is a lack of recognition for the third possibility, the omission of a term, which is often seen as “less than ideal” or even a “failure.” - The emphasis placed on the “ideal” in translations is an issue with the approach as it represents a prescriptive and subjective stance. - The “failure” of translation is emphasized in this approach rather than the successes that can be observed. - The failure in this approach often stems from presumptions about what constitutes a successful translation rather than examining the actual translation. - The goal of the study should be to establish rules that are inherent to a specific corpus of translations and not to determine the correct approach to translation. - Despite the prominence of this approach, it is important to remain open to other possibilities when studying metaphors. - Additional elements can be added to the analysis that can expand our understanding of the process under study. - Exploring more possibilities, such as the presence of a metaphoric term with a non-metaphoric element, will lead to a clearer understanding of translation. - The study of the metaphoric element itself becomes irrelevant if it is not the focal point for the translator. - Further expanding the scope of the analysis to include cases where the metaphoric term is not in the source text but is present in the target text, will provide a richer understanding of the translation process. - This approach shows that the choice of whether or not to use a metaphoric term is based on a cultural norm that may dictate the use of a metaphoric term even when there is no textual justification for it. - The omission of the source-text term is not a failure but a function of the target culture’s norms. - The choice of one norm over another can be examined in comparison to other translation practices. - The concept of equivalence should not be seen as a given and should not be used as a factor to determine the success or failure of a translation. - Equivalence itself does not hold any value. Its relevance is tied to the ultimate understanding of the translation process and the factors that contribute to it — the factors that may limit the effectiveness of the translation. - Equivalence needs to be recognized as a process of continuous learning and adaptation, rather than a static concept. - There is a need to establish the network of translation relationships, both for individual segment and for the overall text, to better understand the specific ways in which the translation is understood and implemented. ## 6. revealing the hidden conception of translation - The primary goal of the proposed method is to identify the shifts in the concept of a translation. - However, the method may be unrealistic and complex to execute. - The focus on identifying shifts is important because shifts are inherent in the process of translation. - However, such an approach is overly negative as it focuses on what the translation does not share with the original text. - It is more relevant to identify the shared traits between the translation and its source text rather than list the differences. - It is vital to recognize that there is always an element of failure in the translation process, but it is equally important to acknowledge instances of success. - Failing to recognize that a translation may succeed in achieving a desired outcome can lead to inaccurate conclusions about the translation process. - The study of translation should not focus only on the concept of “adequate translation”, but rather on identifying the rules that prevail within a specific corpus while recognizing that these rules are not always explicitly stated. - Even when identifying shifts, it is important to recognize them as a step in the overall research process. - The broader goal is to develop a hypothesis that can be used to explain the translation process. - It is essential to establish a general understanding of the concept of translation that can be applied to individual texts, specific problems within the corpus, and the collective set of texts chosen for the study. - The analysis of the translation process involves examining the different types of relationships that exist between the source and target texts. - The primary concept of translation should not be equivalence, but rather invariance. - The goal is to identify shared traits rather than differences between source and target texts. - These traits can be established at different levels, from the lexical or grammatical level to the broader textual or functional level. - It is crucial to be consistent in applying a given category to both the source and target text. - The process of establishing translation relationships involves examining each text and its individual parts in relation to the wider context. - Within the context of a translation study, “equivalence” is not a single relationship between the target and source texts. - It is rather the collection of relationships that are recognized in a given culture. - The notion of “equivalence” is a theoretical construct, whereas the actual equivalences of a text are established via descriptive translation studies. - Descriptive studies assume that there is a relationship between the source and target text. The goal is to determine how this relationship manifests itself. - This means that the study should focus on the stability of the relationship between the two texts, such as identifying what remains unchanged and what has been transformed. - Equivalence itself is unimportant. - Its meaning lies in identifying relevant factors that contribute to understanding the overall process of translation. - Equivalence should be viewed as a continuous process of learning and adaptation rather than as a static concept. - It is vital to develop a comprehensive model of translation relationships that considers both the analysis of individual segments and the complete texts. - Identifying these relationships provides insight into how translations are perceived and implemented in the target culture. # André Lefevere (1946-1996) - Well-known scholar of literary translation, one of the founders of the modern school of Translation Studies. - Born in Belgium and studied at the University of Leuven. - Received his PhD from the University of Essex with the dissertation *Prolegomena to a Grammar of Literary Translation*. - Taught at the University of Hong Kong from 1973 to 1984. - Became a prominent scholar and theorist of translation throughout the 1980s. - He became one of the most important figures alongside Gideon Toury, James Holmes, and José Lambert. - Worked at the University of Texas at Austin from 1984, where he developed Dutch and comparative studies. - He was associated with the polysystem school during the 1970s. - In the 1980s and 1990s, he explored translation from a historical perspective. - He explored the role of non-literary factors in translation and redefined the concepts of “patronage” and “refraction.” - Published fourteen books, including: - *Translating Poetry: Seven Strategies and a Blueprint* (Assen-Amsterdam 1975) - *Literary Knowledge: A Polemical and Programmatic Essay on its Nature, Growth, Relevance and Transmission* (Assen-Amsterdam 1977) - *Translation, Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame* (London 1992) - *Translating Literature: Practice and Theory in a Comparative Literature Context* (New York 1992), - Co-wrote six collective volumes, including: - *The Art and Science of Translation* (Dispositio 1982, no. 7 [19-21], with K.D. Jackson) - *Translation, History and Culture* (London, 1990, with Susan Bassnett) - *Translation - History - Culture: A Sourcebook* (London 1992) - *Constructing Cultures. Essays on Literary Translation* (Clevedon - Philadelphia 1998, with Susan Bassnett) - Authored nearly 70 articles and chapters in collective works. - Translated ten books from French, Dutch, Latin, German and English to Dutch and English. - An active member of the American Literary Translators’ Association (ALTA). Lefevere’s main goal was to bridge the gap between translators and translation theorists.