Translation Universals.pdf - ymerleksi - home

52 Silvia Bernardini and Federico Zanettin
views of linguistics as the study of language in use underlying corpus linguistics,
as well as DTS views of translation research as the target-oriented,
situationally-constrained study of translation practices:
[...] a normal child acquires knowledge of sentences, not only as grammatical,
but also as appropriate. He or she acquires competence as to when to speak,
when not, and as to what to talk about with whom, when, where, in what
manner. (Hymes 1972:277)
Throughout the period of growth we are progressively incorporated into our
social organization, and the chief condition and means of that incorporation
is learning to say what the other fellow expects us to say under given circumstances.
[. . .] Most of the give-and-take of conversation in our everyday life is
stereotyped and very narrowly conditioned by our particular type of culture.
(Firth 1935:67, 69)
‘translatorship’ amounts first and foremost to being able to play a social role,
i.e. to fulfil a function allotted by a community [. . .] in a way which is deemed
appropriate in its own terms of reference. (Toury 1995: 53)
Quests for “universals” – cognitively-basic, situationally-unconstrained theoretical
constructs which lie at the basis of generative/typological approaches
to linguistics – would appear to be at odds with the very premises of this approach.
Although use of the term universal in DTS is generally qualified and accuratelyglossedtopointoutthatinfactitisageneraltendency,orwidespread
norm, that is postulated, rather than an absolute truth, it is nevertheless true
that at least half a century of linguistic research and theorization is attached to
the term “universal”, and this can hardly be swept under the carpet.
Accordingly, in this paper we shall attempt to steer clear of controversial
notions of universality, and aim, in more down-to-earth manner, to shed
light on (some) interrelations between parameters of situational and cultural
variation and patterns of linguistic usage as observable “in an adequate corpus
inscriptionum” (Firth 1956: 106). Our major concern here is that of evaluating
the adequacy of a corpus in the quest for norms and laws of translational
behaviour (Toury 1995:259–279), as a first, largely methodological step in
preparation for more ambitious quests.
We prefer the notion of law (as formulated by Toury: if X, then the
greater/the lesser the likelihood that Y [1995:256]) to that of universal, insofar
as laws may be proposed that describe widely – and even universally – followed
norms. Unlike universals, however, laws in social science are subject to conditioning
factors of various kinds, and as such would appear to be much more