I’ve been working hard on articles for the blog, and have lots of ideas for new articles. Now I just need to find the time to write them

Personally, I like to make it clear that I am a freelancer, not a translation agency, so my logo and website include my name. I’ve seen many translators try to give an impression that they are a bigger company than they really are, calling themselves “AAA Translations” etc. Is this a good idea? I don’t think so. I think our strength lies in our freelance, independent status. Otherwise, we are trying to compete with the big agencies, without the budget or support.

I recently gave a link in my brand, spanking new “Marketing Tips for Translators” newsletter allowing anyone to create and download a professional-looking logo for free online, without having to download or buy software. If you tried it out, let me know how it went by adding a comment below.

If you aren’t on my newsletter list yet, join here. The “logo” issue will arrive shortly.

My primary source for the study of Skopos theory is Vermeer’s chapter 19 on “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action” in the Venuti Reader. This chapter, while obviously one-sided as it was written by one of the originators of Skopos Theory, deals well with the main criticisms of the theory and is a good place to start in examining the overall concepts. I also refer to Jeremy Munday’s Introducing Translation Studies.

The title of this presentation is obviously facetious but my aim here is to present the bare nuts and bolts of the theory and established pros and cons as expressed by translation academics in a way that is, hopefully, very clear and easy to understand, for my own benefit more than any other reason. For that reason I will use bullet points and diagrams as well as text to attempt to clarify the concepts and present the information as I understand it.

The basic concepts of Skopos theory according to Reiss and Vermeer:

• all translation is action
• all actions have a purpose (Vermeer states that this is part of the very definition of action, 1986)
• the term skopos is a technical term for the purpose of a translation
• all actions lead to a result, new situation or event or possibly a new object
• the result of the translation process is the translatum (target text)

With the above in mind:

• the purpose, or skopos, must be negotiated with the client who commissions the action (commissioner), as knowing precisely what this aim is (and the “mode” (Venuti 2000: 227) in which it will be realised) is essential for the translator if she is to fulfil her task successfully
• the translator is the expert with regards to the action in question (translation), and experts are generally consulted for their advice on the matters on which they are considered experts. Therefore, the translator plays a vital role in the determination of the skopos, as she is the expert and knows more about the area than “outsiders” (Venuti 2000: 228). Experts are consulted because they have information and expertise that the person seeking consultation does not have, and their views are listened to.
• The commissioner may need to discuss and debate with the translator/expert until the desired skopos has been defined, but the translator as expert plays a vital role in this process. “It is thus up to (the translator) to decide, for instance, what role a source text plays in his translational action. The decisive factor here is the purpose, the skopos, of the communication in a given situation” (Venuti 2000: 228)

Now, taken at face value, these concepts might seem to be lacking depth. That was my first impression when reading about Skopos theory. Is an entire academic theory really necessary to state the obvious?

So let’s delve a little deeper to see how Skopos theory can be useful in practice.

Skopos theory is not merely deciding on the purpose (skopos) of translating an entire text. It is not merely knowing, for example, whether a text is going to used for an advertisement rather than an information sheet, or a legal contract in the SL country as opposed to a contract in the TL country (and legal system), which are the more immediately obvious ways a skopos can be useful in translation.

Skopos theory can also be applied to segments (parts) of the translation. “This allows us to state that an action, and hence a text, need not be considered an indivisible whole” (Venuti 2000: 28).

This is where Skopos theory gets interesting and where it made me, literally, sit up and pay attention. More on this later. For the meantime, let’s go back to the basic concepts.

We all know that simply “transposing” a text from one language to another is, more often than not, insufficient to produce a satisfactory translatum. Vermeer points out that the very label “source text” implies that the text is oriented towards its source culture “and it is this which ultimately defines its adequacy” (Venuti 2000: 229). [Aside, point for discussion: is it really the orientation to the culture that ultimately defines the text's adequacy?]

If we take the above as given, then it obviously follows that the adequacy of the TT also depends on its orientation to the target culture, and that…

…therefore, the source and target texts might be very different to each other, “not only in the formulation and distribution of the content, but also as regards the goals which are set for each, and in terms of which the arrangement of the context is in fact determined” (Venuti 2000: 229).

Now, you may be thinking, doesn’t that rather limit the potential of the translation to always being radically skewed towards the culture of the TL? Does that mean that application of skopos theory always means the translation will necessarily be very free and can not accommodate more “literal” translations?

Vermeer says no, because – and this is important – a translatum might also have the same skopos as the source text. I think an important part of skopos theory is not that is necessarily results in a “free” translation oriented towards the target culture, but that it allows for a “free” translation oriented towards the target culture as well as literal or faithful translations oriented towards the source culture, or a combination thereof.

This comes back, full circle, to Vermeer’s original view that it all depends on the skopos, and that the translator’s decision(s), possibly with input from the commissioner, of what this skopos is, both for the text as a whole and for smaller segments within the text, will affect the extent to which the TT is oriented retrospectively towards to the ST or prospectively towards the target culture (Venuti 2000: 229).

Ultimately, the “decisive criterion is always the skopos” (Venuti 2000: 229, emphasis mine).

Figure 2

I am curious to know if anyone else on the course thinks that this model, above, of orientation towards either SC or TC as dictated by the skopos reflects binary oppositions such as the “literal/vs free”, “semantive/communicative”, “word for word/sense for sense” debates

Here is an example of a legitimate skopos, according to Vermeer, in which the TT might not be oriented prospectively towards the TC:

Vermeer stresses time and again that “one must know what one is doing, and what the consequences of such action are, e.g. What the effect of a text created in this way will be in the target culture and how much the effect will different from that of the source text in the source culture” (Venuti 2000: 229). He goes on to refer once again to the definition of translation as action:

“

For an act of behaviour to be called an action, the person performing it must (potentially) be able to explain why he acts as he does although he could have acted otherwise. Furthermore, genuine reasons for actions can always be formulated in terms of aims or statements of goals…” (Venuti 2000: 229)

And isn’t that the entire reason behind studying translation theory? To be able to know, and explain to others clearly, why we choose to do what we do, the reasons for the decisions we take when translating? The ability to have something more concrete than “it just felt right” or “it sounds right” as an explanation for our choice of vocabulary, syntax, phrasing, idiom, imagery, metaphor?

So, to summarise, skopos theory involves:

1. a purpose being defined for the text as a whole, usually negotiated as part of the commission with the client (commissioner) and for parts of the texts (usually by the translator although they may refer to the client, but ultimately, as expert, the decision likes with the translator)
2. the decisions made while translation by the translator should all refer to this underlying purpose or purposes
3. as a result, the TT may differ dramatically from the ST, or it may not, depending on the skopos and the extent to which the TT is oriented retrospectively to the SC or prospectively towards the TC

Skopos theory also sets out some rules, which are listed hierarchically. The theory takes into consideration that it is not possible to fulfill all the rules, so while the translator should strive to attain all of them, in the event this is only partially possible, the rules should be followed in order of priority.

A translatum is determined by its skopos. Or in other words, a target text is determined by its purpose.
A translatum provides information in the TL and TC, that was originally provided in a SL and SC.
The function of the translatum in the TC is not necessarily the same as the function of the ST in the SC (this is referred to as “irreversibility”
The translatum must be internally coherent (coherence rule)
i.e. the “TT must be interpretable as coherent with the TT receiver’s situation” (Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 113), or “in other words, the TT must be translated in such as way that is is coherent for the TT receivers, given their circumstances and knowledge” (Munday 2001: 80, emphasis mine)
The translatum must be coherent with the ST (fidelity rule i.e. there must be coherence between the three points below)
- the translatum and the ST information received by the translator
- the way the translator interprets (decodes) this information
- how she encodes this information for the translatum’s audience)
The above rules are in order of priority with the skopos rule (1) predominating.

(Munday 2001: 80)

From this list, we can see clearly that the status of the TT (translatum) is elevated, whereas the ST is “down-played” as Munday describes it, or “dethroned” (as Vermeer terms it). In fact, the intratextual coherence is considered of higher priority that intertextual coherence (between ST and TT). Munday tells us this part of skopos theory has been very controversial, and while he doesn’t go into details about this, I assume it is because, until this theory, the source text has often been viewed as “sacred”. But does this “de-throning” of the ST actually mean it is not important? I don’t think so. The ST is as important for the SC as the TT or translatum is for the TC. I think that skopos theory elevates the status of the translatum rather than downplaying the status of the ST.

So, once again, does this part of the theory suggest that the translatum must necessarily veer drastically away from the ST, given its low priority (number 5 on the list of 6 rules)? My understanding is no… unless that it what the skopos requires. In fact, all the skopos theory dictates is that “one must translate, consciously and consistently, in accordance with some principle respecting the target text. The theory does not state what the principle is: this must be decided separately in each specific case” (Vermeer 1989/2004: 234).

My initial reaction and thoughts

Skopos theory seems to differ from other theories I have studied up to this point in that it is the only one, so far, to take into account the fluidity and flexibility that is required, and a reliance on the translator’s judgement as “expert” for decisions to made about the text and smaller segments within that text. I found myself getting extremely frustrated with other theories that seemed to be attempting to find a mathematical “if = then” equation that can be applied to texts and their translation. As critics of those theories have pointed out, there is too much overlapping, too many variables demanding on the fly decisions on the part of the translator to be taken to allow a linear view, or for boxes and charts to be created into which translational decisions and all their possible permutations can be neatly slotted.

Skopos theory merely provides a framework of understanding for the translator, which he or she can use in order to work in full awareness. It doesn’t attempt to prescribe solutions, or create equations. All this is left in the hands of the translator, the expert, to decide on a case by case basis, but always according to the skopos. This is why it can legitimately be called a theory, which is, according to one definition: “an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena”.

Skopos theory can apply to all and any circumstances translators may find themselves in. As Munday states, “an important advantage of skopos theory is that it allows the possibility of the same text being translated in different ways according to the purpose of the TT and the commission which is given to the translator” (Munday 2001: 80).

Another very important aspect of skopos theory is that “adequacy” (in fulfilling the skopos defined, explicitly or implicitly, in the commission) is the benchmark for a “successful” translation, not “equivalence”. This seems to make sense: after all, isn’t equivalence relative? Whenever I see the word “equivalent” I want to ask: equivalent to what, exactly? Skopos theory provides a framework which remains solid in all situations, for all texts (including, in my opinion, literary texts – see below).

Main criticisms of Skopos theory

Criticism 1: not all actions have an aim, therefore not all translations have an aim

Some critics maintain that some texts, for example literary texts, have no aim, therefore Skopos theory can only apply to commercial texts, not literary ones.
Personally I find it hard to take seriously the claim that literary texts have no purpose. I wonder if the authors of the literary texts in question would agree? I think that all text has a purpose, otherwise it would never have been written in the first place.

If we look at Vermeer’s defence of this objection, he reminds us that “purpose” can apply to a text in three ways:

• the goal of the translation process itself
• the purpose of the translatum (TT) rather than the process of translating
• the translation mode, and hence the function of this mode

(Venuti 2000: 230)

He also reminds us that the skopos may have sub-skopoi.

Returning to my personal views, I firmly believe that every text has a purpose or goal, and think it extremely short-sighted, not to mention presumptuous, to claim that literature or poetry has no such goal, not to mention insulting to the creator of such literature. As Vermeer points out (Venuti 2000: 231), even literature that has been created for pure aesthetic purposes (art for art’s sake) has a purpose – to create art! Art always has a purpose, even if that purpose is “merely” to be beautiful. Vermeer goes so far as to suggest that, perhaps, this objection is based on misunderstanding. He quotes Busch (1987: 7):

“Every work of art establishes its meaning aesthetically [...]. The aesthetic can of course serve many different functions, but it may also be in itself the function of the work of art.”

Vermeer then points out “Even the well-known “l’art pour l’art movement (“art for art’s sake” must be understood as implying an intention: namely, the intention to create art that exists for its own sake and thereby differs from other art…” (Venuti 2000: 231)

Even if we presume that the ST has no purpose, there will surely always be a purpose for its translation. Otherwise why would it be translated? All translation takes time, effort and usually money, it stands to reason there must be a goal, an intention behind such action. Which leads us on to Vermeer’s defence of…
Criticism 2: not every translation can be assigned a purpose

This objection ties in with the previous one and is also usually made in reference to literature. It stands to reason that the arguments above also apply to this objection.

However, Vermeer makes a point of answering three specific specifications of this criticism, namely

• the argument that the translator might not have a specific goal in mind, that they are simply translating what is in the ST and producing a TT
• the “claim that a specific goal, function or intention would restrict the translation possibilities, and hence limit the range of interpretation of the target text in comparison to that of the source text” (Venuti 2000: 232)
• the translator might not have any specific “addressee” in mind

Let’s look at each of these in more detail.

The translator might not have a specific goal in mind.
Vermeer counters that even an intention to merely translate the ST literally into the TT is a goal in itself, a skopos. My personal view is that a translator who simply translates words from one language to another, by rote, is likely to provide a poor translation, unless the translator is deliberately translating in this manner according to a skopos (be it consciously or subconsciously). So this objection rather shoots itself in the foot, in my opinion.

A specific goal could restrict the possibilities of interpretation
Vermeer points out (Venuti 2000: 232) that one possible skopos could be to preserve the “breadth of interpretation of the source text…how far such a skopos is in fact realizable is not the point here”. My understanding of skopos theory is quite the opposite: skopos theory actually offers enormous possibilities, and in fact allows a text to be translated in many different ways according to the skopos, which differs for different circumstances. This provides flexibility rather than restriction, and again I feel the critics are missing the point here.

Translator might not have any specific addressee or set of addressees (audience) in mind.
Vermeer claims that “even a communication “to the world” has a set of addressees”! He also goes on to point out that writers are always orienting themselves towards certain restricted groups of addressees, although this might not be on a conscious level. The problem is not “that there is no set of addressees, but that it is an indeterminate, fuzzy set. But it certainly exists, vague in outline but clearly present”. [aside: many guidelines for effective writing suggest that it is important to decide before writing who the target audience is, and write to that audience. In web writing this is known as an "avatar", which copywriters are encouraged to picture clearly in their mind before starting to write. Perhaps the suggestion here is that if there is no set of addressees, then a conscientious translator should define one or more, in their own mind at the very least, before translating.] Of course, a translation might ultimately be used for a purpose that was not originally intended, but I don’t think that is the point here. That could apply to any text or creation.

Criticism 3: introducing jargon does little to further translation theory.

This criticism smacks of straw-clutching to me. If protesting against the introduction of a few words (skopos, translatum etc) can be the basis of serious criticism, it suggests that there is little else to find wrong with the theory. Every theory I have read about so far has come up with jargon that many might consider synonyms for existing terminology, but which the originator of the theory seems to think refines a concept to the extent that a new term is necessary.

Criticism 4: “skopos theory does not pay sufficient attention to the linguistic nature of the ST nor to the reproduction of microlevel features in the TT.

Even if the skopos is adequately fulfilled, it may be inadequate at the stylistic or semantic levels of individual segments” (Munday 2001: 81). Munday suggests that this criticism is examined by Christine Nord with her model of translation-oriented text analysis, but I haven’t got to her yet. My view of this objection is that it can be answered in the fact that the skopos, as explained by Vermeer, may legitimately relate to smaller segments of the ST, not just the text as a whole. Therefore, the underlying concept of skopos as ultimate priority works, not just for the translatum in general, but for smaller decisions that the translator must make, including the finest details of lexis and semantics.

An important point Vermeer makes in relation to point c of Criticism 2, above, but I think it applies to all criticisms of Skopos theory in general, is that “true translation, with an adequate skopos, does not mean that the translator must adapt to the customs and usage of the target culture, only that he can so adapt. This aspect of the skopos theory has been repeatedly misunderstood…” (Venuti 2000: 234, emphasis mine).

It seems to me that the critics of skopos theory are frustrated that it (the theory) does not allow them to pigeon-hole the translation process into one box or another, yet I think this is precisely its beauty: its reliance on the intelligence, expertise and experience of the translator to make informed decisions as and when necessary according to the skopos. It is not a mathematical equation – everything hinges on the translator’s decisions as to what the skopos might be, and those decisions bring about an awareness of the text, the translations, the reasons behind all choices that will be made by the translator, so that he or she can act with awareness, knowledge of why do what they do. The skopos theory “merely states that the translator should be aware that some goal exists, and that any given goal is only one among many possible ones…the important point is that a given source text does not have one correct or best translation only” (Venuti 2000: 234).

Another important point to note is that the skopos might not be assigned by the commissioner but might be an internal note by the translator to herself (e.g. “I will translate this text as closely and literally to the original as possible”). That is, the translator and commissioner might and can be one and the same.

Another aspect of skopos theory is very practical, and concerns the commission. One might consider this, again, to be rather “obvious”, but Vermeer’s emphasis on this aspect of translation puts a great deal of power back in the translator’s court. All translation, he maintains, is the result of an initiative, be it of a third party (e.g. a translation client), or the translator herself.

He returns to the concept of translator as expert, and as such reminds us that the translator, the expert, decides whether the stated aim, and conditions under which the commission must be met (e.g. fee, deadline etc as well as the skopos) are feasible and possible. The translator should be able to negotiate all of these things with the commissioner, and make suggestions to the commissioner. After all, the translator probably knows more than the commissioner about the target culture. Vermeer places great value on the input of the translator.

I think that perhaps this is idealistic, but that should not take away from its validity. In reality, a commissioner might not be interested in the translator’s ideas as what the skopos might be, and there might not be time to spend days discussing back and forth between translator and commissioner as to the skopos, how the TT might be received in the TC, etc, etc. However, skopos theory is a theory, not regulations for use. (Vermeer in fact states that he understands that much of this is wishful thinking, but is something to strive for, Venuti 2000: 235) The underlying idea that it is the translator who ultimately decides if, how and when a commission is realizable remains valid in all cases (after all, it is the translator who decides whether or not they will accept the commission and at what rate – otherwise they can simply refuse the job). “The translator, as the expert, decides in a given situation whether to accept a commission or not, under what circumstances, and whether it needs to be modified” (Venuti 2000: 236).

To conclude, Vermeer argues, very convincingly I think, that all translations must be assigned a skopos, as the translator never translates “in a void” (Venuti 2000: 238), but always according to a given “purpose” (skopos) and commission. Not only that, but the theory is descriptive, in that it is merely describing what is already in existence. As Vermeer confirms himself: “the theory makes explicit and conscious something that is too often denied”.

Really interesting article in Italian about the problems of translating advertising and marketing materials, and the different approaches that must be taken in writing copy for the Italian and English-speaking markets.

Sarah

I just joined the list again today and am amazed to see there are now nearly 500 members! I am really looking forward to participating in the discussions again.

If you are a professional translator working in the it-en combination, you can join the group here.

Which documents might need a sworn translation?

• certificates of registration with the Chamber of Commerce
• deeds of incorporation
• deeds of sale for the purchase or sale of Italian property/real estate
• certificates of ownership
• divorce certificates
• marriage certificates
• death certificates, inheritance documents etc
• school and university diplomas
• driving licences
• wills
• rulings

How is a translation “sworn”?

In the case of court sworn documents, the translator must:

a) translate the document
b) take the original and the translation to the local Court of Justice (in my case that is Salò or the Court of Brescia). There are sometimes long queues, meaning the swearing of a one page document can sometimes take all morning.
c) sign an oath attesting to the accuracy and fidelity of the translation
d) present a “marca da bollo” revenue stamp of €14.62 for each four pages translated (with some exceptions that are exempt)

In some cases, the translation is for a legal document, which is sworn before a notary and the oath is part of both the original document and its legal translation. An example would be the deed of sale on property in Italy; in this case, the translator would need to be present at the signing (”il rogito notarile”) to interpret for the parties, and sign the deeds along with buyer, seller, notary and witnesses. In addition to the time spent translating the documents, the actual signing process before the notary usually takes at least two or three hours as all documents must be read aloud in both Italian and English, and the documents signed in front of witnesses.

How much does it cost and how long will it take?

My prices for court-sworn translations are as follows (please note that normal per word or per page translation rates still apply: these costs are in addition to standard translation rates, and prices shown do not include statutory VAT of 20%):

Translation cost +
Disbursements (revenue stamps, €16.42 each four pages)
€90 supplement for the first document
€50 supplement for each document thereafter, to be sworn at the same session.

For notarial documents and interpreting at the notary’s offices, with interpreter’s signature swearing authenticity of the translation, as required for public deeds such as atti di compravendita, wills, deeds of incorporation, mortgage deeds etc, my prices are as follows:

Translation cost +
Interpreting fee of €50 per hour
Signature (sworn) supplement of €50 per document

How long does it take?

Once the document has been translated, a few days might be necessary for the translation to be sworn in court as the relevant offices are only open on certain days. Notary appointments must be agreed with the notary and translator, and usually take at least two or three hours. For translation, allow around one working day for each 2000 words, unless you have agreed a burst rate for urgent translations.