Nord’s ‘Function plus Loyalty’ Concept

Ever since Post-structuralism and Reception-Aesthetics ( as soundly as cognise as Reader Response scheme) happened questioning the very validity of altering a text with one unitary and holistic reading, blend inalist approaches to interpreting has been gaining underfur among the edition theorists all over the world. With its roots in the Skopos possible action as proposed by Hans Vermeer, these pass awayalist approaches has radically shaken up the till recently noncontroversial fortress of the linguistic-models of deracination and has revolutionized the way interlingual rendition is practiced, assessed and consumed for all measures.Christine Nord with her concept of dish up plus Loyalty has contri simplyed much to this movement modifying it at the analogous time in an attempt to answer the rather common checks of arbitrariness and worldly approach against the blendalist model. However, a discussion of the nitty-gritty of the divisionalist approach is necessary for rader we can proceed to discuss the effects of the introduction of the concept of function plus trus tworthyty into the system.The Functionalist Approach to Translation Functionalist approaches to adaptation as theorized by Vermeer, Schaffner and Nord, in its most outspoken form claims to dethrone the ST. In the revolutionary model of version, the adapter does non focus on spoken language, 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 concomitant that has occurred in the SL. The voices job is to carry out the same or similar communicative occurrence in the TL. A special text in a special situation and within specific cultural parameters performs a specific function. A good TT would be one which performs the same function in the target socialization. (Schaffner, 19983) olibanum, from re-production of a text, in the working(a)ist model, t ranslation has come to be considered as the production of a text following legitimate guidelines.A good translator, therefore, should take into account lexical, semantic, cultural, text-typological and early(a) aspects with varying degrees of stress in each according 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 visualised by Nord (1997 a 126-127) would run thus Translation is a usefulness rendered to a client by some expert in the border, in this case the translator. The client who might be the author of the ST or a publisher or any group or agent fire in the translation approaches a specialist translator.Grasping the intentions of the client in burstering the translation is of utmost importance for the translator, for on that brief depends the place 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 briefs 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 anticipate by the client. However, the translator, who is the expert in the translation fulfill, has a far more than important role to play.Nord explains that the translator studies the brief and advices on the viability of the translation shed in accordance with the brief provided by the client. The translator also has to bring off this brief with the client. However when the final brief, the result of negotiations has been arrived at the translator essential ensure that the TT is loyal to the function set by this brief. Thus, com localise the translator is not bound to abide by the function provided by the original brief by the client, s/he essentialiness neer deceive his or her client as to the function in accordance to which the translation is being done.Therefore the translator is required to be loyal to the specifications of the client without violating the original functions of the ST to any gross extent. This is what constitute Nords function-plus- commitment model. Evidently, it dresss a two-fold purpose. On the one hand it retains the freedom enjoyed by the translator in the functionalist model while on the separate hand it makes the translator responsible to the client as considerably as the user/s of the translation. lit crit of Functionalist Approach The criticisms aimed against such a pragmatic approach to translation argon rather obvious. The commonest among these are that translators translating to satisfy the needs of the clients can become mercenaries (Schaffner, 1998 3). It provides the translators with the strength to misinterpret or misre deport the ST to satisfy the cultural demands from translation in that society at that particular point of ti me, or to abide by the guidelines set by the agency commissioning the translation etc.As Schaffner points out, critics 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 explain the representation. That in the functionalist approaches, the ST is dethroned is another major criticism. As the role of the client is exaggerated, translators carry 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 it in a flash that the functional appropriateness of the TT has become the yardstick for assessing the quality of translation, two the translators and the TT user(s) are assigned a highe r 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 literary 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 might be chosen by him or her to rid 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 prede termine the translations function on behalf of the translator. For instance, in any society at any given point of time, there are discourses present that establish 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 representation 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 by nature 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 seriously the responsibilitie s that a translator has not only to his client but also to the Source source, the translator must negotiate the function of the translation with the source 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 compatible 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, ofttimes 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 finis. However, as Christine Nords function-plus-loyalty concept ensures that the function in functionalist approaches to translation also involves issues interchangeable 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 corroborative 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(predicate) novel will object 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 appealing for the target culture readership. Loyalty, it seems, means acting in the b est interest of ones client which is more a matter of expediency than of estimable standards.Venuti, (1995 34) though he does not criticize Nord directly, provides yet another radical view of the process of translation. He severely criticizes the recent Anglo-American trend of praising fluency and pureness 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 Nor ds Function-plus-loyalty theory has not yet been able to completely break apart the problematic regarding translation fruitfully, it has surely shown a new direction of schooling for translation studies. As Umberto Eco points out in A Rose by Any Other Name, a translation can be essentially of two types target-oriented and source-oriented. What Nords theory of loyalty does is to make every society (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 midsection courses possible for the translator to choose from in addition to the two complete categories. But whatsoever the course chosen by the translator, Nords theory ensures that it is clearly 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 helper (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 accountability of the translator to his client, the source culture and the target audience is essential beyond any doubt.Works CitedHonig, H.J (1998). Position, designer 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. Amsterdam 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 translational action (A. Chesterman, Trans.). In L. Venuti (Ed.) The translation studies reader (pp. 221-32). capital of the United Kingdom Routledge.Venuti, Lawrence. (1995). The Translators Invisibility, A History of Translation. London Routledge.