Nord’s ‘Function plus Loyalty’ Concept

Ever since Post-structuralism and Reception-Aesthetics (also hit the hayn as Reader Response Theory) happened questioning the precise validity of fixing a textbook with one unitary and holistic reading, postalist burn downes to shift has been gaining ground among the reading theorists all over the world. With its roots in the Skopos guess as proposed by Hans Vermeer, these businessalist approaches has radically shaken up the till recently unquestioned fortress of the linguistic-models of edition and has revolutionized the way translation is practiced, assessed and consumed for all times.Christine Nord with her imagination of make for plus Loyalty has contributed much to this movement modifying it at the same time in an attempt to answer the rather common lit crits of arbitrariness and mercenary approach against the functionalist model. However, a discussion of the nitty-gritty of the functionalist approach is demand before we can proceed to discuss the effects of the int roduction of the concept of function plus committedness into the system.The Functionalist Approach to Translation Functionalist approaches to translation as theorized by Vermeer, Schaffner and Nord, in its most outspoken form claims to dethrone the ST. In the new model of translation, the representative does non focus on words, phrases or grammatical structures etc. in an attempt to find semantically equivalent words and phrases in the TL. Instead, the text is considered as a whole.It is a communicative occurrence that has occurred in the SL. The translators job is to carry out the same or similar communicative occurrence in the TL. A specific text in a specific situation and within specific cultural parameters performs a specific function. A good TT would be one which performs the same function in the target culture. (Schaffner, 19983) Thus, from re-production of a text, in the functionalist model, translation has come to be considered as the production of a text following certa in guidelines.A good translator, therefore, should take into account lexical, semantic, cultural, text-typological and other aspects with varying degrees of stress in each portioning to the theory of translation by which it is informed or according to the skopos or function of the translation.Function-plus-Loyalty Theory A basic description of the translation procedure as envisioned by Nord (1997 a 126-127) would run thus Translation is a service rendered to a knob by some expert in the process, in this case the translator. The client who tycoon be the rootage of the ST or a publisher or any group or agent interested in the translation approaches a specialist translator.Grasping the intentions of the client in commissioning the translation is of utmost importance for the translator, for on that truncated depends the setting up of the function of the translation. The client provides the translator with as many specific details as possible about the translations purpose. He brie fs the translator about the addressees, time, place, preferred medium, and the general function of the translation. This translation brief provided by the client thus specifies the kind of translation expected by the client. However, the translator, who is the expert in the translation process, has a far more(prenominal) important role to play.Nord explains that the translator studies the brief and advices on the viability of the translation project in accordance with the brief provided by the client. The translator also has to negotiate this brief with the client. However when the final brief, the result of negotiations has been arrived at the translator must ensure that the TT is loyal to the function set by this brief. Thus, while the translator is not bound to abide by the function provided by the original brief by the client, s/he must never deceive his or her client as to the function in accordance to which the translation is being done.Therefore the translator is required t o be loyal to the specifications of the client without violating the original functions of the ST to any complete(a) extent. This is what constitute Nords function-plus-loyalty model. Evidently, it serves a two-fold purpose. On the one hand it retains the freedom enjoyed by the translator in the functionalist model while on the other hand it makes the translator accountable to the client as well as the user/s of the translation.Criticism of Functionalist Approach The criticisms aimed against such a pragmatic approach to translation are rather obvious. The commonest among these are that translators translating to satisfy the needs of the clients can choke mercenaries (Schaffner, 1998 3). It provides the translators with the authority to misinterpret or misrepresent the ST to satisfy the cultural demands from translation in that society at that particular point of time, or to abide by the guidelines set by the agency commissioning the translation etc.As Schaffner points out, critic s of functionalist approaches to translation are of the opinion that the purpose (or function in Nords terminology) or what the users of the translation are expecting of it or what they will do with it cannot justify the means. That in the functionalist approaches, the ST is dethroned is other major criticism. As the role of the client is exaggerated, translators tend to become mercenaries who translate to please the readers and turn the book into a bestseller at the cost of the ST.It cannot be denied that the functionalist approaches accord a much higher position to the translator and the readers of the TT. As one of the foremost translation theorists, Schaffner words itNow that the functional appropriateness of the TT has become the yardstick for assessing the quality of translation, both the translators and the TT user(s) are assigned a higher status and a more influential role than is the case in more traditional approaches to translation. (19953)The question, as Honig puts it, is how one can make sure that translators are not arbitrary or self-willed in deciding the function of the translation how one can make sure that translators base their decisions for a certain translation-skopos on intersubjectively valid criteria. However, Nords function-plus-loyalty concept does deal with all these criticism to some extent and provides a fit reply to some of the criticism.Nords Reply to Criticism It is true that according to the basic framework of the functionalist theory, as proposed by Vermeer for instance, any skopos that will be convenient to the translator and serve his interests the best big businessman be chosen by him or her to justify the decisions taken in the process of translation. However, the freedom enjoyed by the translator is never absolute.There are various conventions, cultural, social and political those predetermine the translations function on behalf of the translator. For instance, in any society at any given point of time, there are disco urses present that shape what is expected of a translation and what might be accepted as a proper translation. These cultural traditions determine what degree of resemblance that must exist between the ST and the TT for it to qualify for a proper translation. Thus we see that a functionalist in approach or not, a translator is inevitably bound to his client or the users of the translation by means of these conventions.This is where Nords concept of loyalty comes in. With the concept of loyalty Nord binds the translator not only with his or her clients but also with the author of the ST. The author of the ST course expects the translator to function in certain ways. These are generally the conventions of translation prevalent in the Source Culture. Since, acting loyally according to Nord implies taking naughtily the responsibilities that a translator has not only to his client but also to the Source Author, the translator must negotiate the function of the translation with the sourc e author or the representatives of the same. In most cases the Source Author do not have any means of checking on the loyalty of the translator. This is why the translator should let the Source Author as well as his clients or readers know the norms according to which the translation is being carried out. S/he will not consciously violate the norms or the function of the ST in the original situation without informing the Source Author. In other words the skopos of the TT must be harmonious with the intentions of the ST author. If it is not so, the translator must be responsible enough to inform his clients accordingly.Assessing the Criticism in the New Light As Schaffner points out, the blame of being mercenaries on the functionalist translators, often result from a misinterpretation of the word function which is usually taken to be referring to the communicative functions of a TT in the target culture. However, as Christine Nords function-plus-loyalty concept ensures that the func tion in functionalist approaches to translation also involves issues like ST functions such as the informative of persuasive functions of a text. Loyalty to these is also necessary to make a translation functionally appropriate.Criticism of Nords Views However, certain functionalist critics like Venuti and Honig are not highly supportive of Nords function-plus-loyalty concept as it is. For instance, Honig says,Nord (199320) illustrates this with an example which seems to make loyalty a rather vague principle no author of a best-selling novel will intention to the translation becoming a bestseller, too. S/he will therefore not object to the translators-when translating the title of the book- using means which will make it likable for the target culture readership. Loyalty, it seems, means acting in the best interest of ones client which is more a matter of expediency than of honorable standards.Venuti, (1995 34) though he does not criticize Nord directly, provides yet another radica l view of the process of translation. He severely criticizes the recent Anglo-American trend of praising suaveness and naturalness in a translation. He points out that this expectation of the clients for fluency in translation actually acts towards subverting the ST.While acknowledging that there is a fundamental ethnocentric impulse in all translation (ibid. 47), Venuti calls for the translator to make an ethical choice for foreignizing rather than domesticating translation, downgrading the importance of readability and preserving or restoring the foreignness of a ST. However, this is in effect to suggest that disregarding loyalty to the client, the translator must stress on a specific ideology to determine the function of the translation.Assessment of Nords PositionThus, one might conclude that though Nords Function-plus-loyalty theory has not yet been able to completely resolve the problematic regarding translation fruitfully, it has certainly shown a new direction of developmen t for translation studies. As Umberto Eco points out in A Rose by Any Other Name, a translation can be basically of two types target-oriented and source-oriented. What Nords theory of loyalty does is to make every party (client, users, source-author etc) involved in the process of translation know what kind of a translation is being done. Surely, Ecos distinction of all translation into two types is rather simplistic, and as is evident from the earlier discussion, many more factors (ideological, cultural, financial etc.) are involved in the process of deciding the exact function of the translation.Surely, there can be a great number of in-between courses possible for the translator to choose from in addition to the two extreme categories. just now whatever the course chosen by the translator, Nords theory ensures that it is understandably delineated to both the reader of the translation as well as the author of the ST. The parameters, depending on which the translator makes his or her decisions in the process of the translation no longer, remain hidden from the public or from the scholars assessing the translation. And thus, though the functionalist translator is not completely exempted from the charge of being a mercenary (in the sense that s/he can still choose the skopos with financial gain in mind), s/he is at least partly exempted from the charge of being arbitrary.Whether, the translator chooses to adopt a domesticating or foreignizing approach is a question of ideology, aesthetics, socio-cultural expectations etc. and is negotiated openly and clearly on the table between the client, the translator and the author of the ST. But function-plus-loyalty theory ensures that whatever is the approach, it is not an arbitrary one adopted according to the whims of the translator. In the present day situation, where inter-cultural translation is becoming the lifeline for many a culture under immense pressure from forces of Anglo-American globalization, this accou ntability of the translator to his client, the source culture and the target audience is essential beyond any doubt.Works CitedHonig, H.J (1998). Position, cater and practice functionalist approaches to translation quality Christina Shaffner (Ed) (1998), Translation and quality. Clevedon Multilingualmatters.Nord, C. (2003). Function and loyalty in Bible translation. In M. Calzada-Prez (Ed.) Apropos of ideology (pp. 89-112). Manchester St. Jerome.Nord, C. (1991) Text Analysis in Translation. capital of The Netherlands Rodopi.Nord, C. (1997a). Translation as a Purposeful Activity. Manchester St. Jerome.Nord, C. (1997b). A functional typology of translations. Anna Trosborg (Ed) (1997). Text typology and translation. Amsterdam John Benjamins, 43-66.Schaffner, Christina (1998). From good to functionally appropriate Assessing translation quality. Christina Shaffner (Ed) (1998), Translation and quality. Clevedon Multilingualmatters.Vermeer, H. J. (2000). Skopos and commission in translati onal action (A. Chesterman, Trans.). In L. Venuti (Ed.) The translation studies reader (pp. 221-32). London Routledge.Venuti, Lawrence. (1995). The Translators Invisibility, A History of Translation. London Routledge.