Target 7 2 02kol

The Concept of Equivalence and the
Object of Translation Studies1

Werner Koller
University of Bergen, Norway
Abstract: Regardless of the approach one uses in the study of translating and
translations, it remains necessary to delimit the legitimate field of concern. I.e.
translations must be identified and described sui generis as the results of a text-
processing activity. From the linguistic and text-theoretical perspective this ob-
jective is fulfilled by the concept of equivalence; a translation is defined as a
secondary text that stands in an equivalence relation to a primary text. The range
of the equivalence-oriented approach and the possibilities it offers for systematic
description and explanation of translational phenomena are, however, limited. Its
problems and limitations become apparent not only in the context of historical
translation research, but also whenever interest focusses upon the text-productive
— i.e. ultimately creative — aspect of translation, as opposed to its reproductive
aspect, i.e. the linguistic-textual relationships between languages and texts as
these are deduced from regularities.
Résumé: Toute démarche traductologique suppose acquise la délimitation du
champ d'observation approprié: il convient d'identifier et d'analyser des traduc-
tions en tant que telles, comme les résultats d'un acte de production textuelle. A
cette visée correspond, du point de vue linguistique et textuel, le concept d'équi-
valence: une traduction est un texte secondaire qui est en relation d'équivalence
avec un texte primaire. Mais la démarche fondée sur le concept d'équivalence a
ses limites. Elles sont manifestes sur le plan historique, mais également lorsqu'on
insiste sur les aspects productifs et créateurs de la traduction, en les distinguant
de ses propriétés reproductrices, les relations linguistico-textuelles entre les
langues et les textes, qui sont engendrées par des régularités.
Target 7:2 (1995), 191-222. DOI 10.1075/target.7.2.02kol

ISSN 0924-1884 / E-ISSN 1569-9986 © John Benjamins Publishing Company
192 WERNER KOLLER
1. The Complexity of Translation

and the Variety of Approaches in Translation Research
The activity of translating and the products of this activity, translations, are
studied from various perspectives, in accordance with various theoretical
interests and aims, and with recourse to various methods: literary, text-theo
retical, philological, linguistic (including contrastive and psycholinguistic),
comparative and cultural-historical etc. This multiplicity of approaches is
reflected in a multiplicity of definitions which conceive of the process and
products of translation from the most diverse standpoints. A definition that
views translation from a philosophical-hermeneutic angle (e.g. Gadamer 1960,
Steiner 1975: Ch. 1) does not look the same as one concerned with the artistic-
aesthetic process involved in the reformulation and adaptation of poetic texts
(e.g. Kloepfer 1967: 126: Translation as "Dichtung der Dichtung"). Funda
mentally different from these is the narrow linguistic definition which regards
translation as a recoding, or substitution, of linguistic units on various levels
and which — in the context of machine translation — attempts to formalise L 2 -
L1-correspondences, either directly, by referring to surface structures, or indi
rectly, by means of an interlingua (see Blatt et al. 1985). Distinct from these are
definitions which place the aspect of bilingual communication, or respectively,
the linguistic-communicative characteristics in the foreground (e.g. Newmark
1981). Different yet again are definitions which focus on the act of translation
as the processing and reverbalisation of text (Wilss 1977:2), or which concern
themselves primarily with the function of original and translation in the
cultural context of the source and target languages, thus with translation as a
form of cultural transfer — as a cross-cultural event (see Reiß and Vermeer
1984, Vermeer 1986, Snell-Hornby 1988: 39ff.) — or with the status of the
translation in the context of the receiver culture (see the milestone work of
Gideon Toury).
In terms of these approaches, different theories of translation are not only
possible, but also necessary, if we are to do justice to translation in all its
complexity, with its wealth of facets: philosophical, poetic, semiotic, ethno
graphic, theological, literary-theoretical, computer-linguistic etc. 2 Under these
circumstances it is clear that the endeavour to establish an independent disci
pline with a discipline-specific methodology is bound to encounter difficul
ties. 3 In view of the intricacy of the translation phenomenon, it would seem
presumptuous to suppose that we might ever come up with the theory of
THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENCE 193
translation — a theory that could take care of "all translational phenomena"

and all aspects, i.e. the whole "gamut of theoretical, descriptive and applica
tion-oriented questions" (Wilss 1988: 18) [Trans. P.C.]. If our aim is to achieve
substantial theoretical and empirical insights, we will have to use both reduc-
tion (to determine the object of translation research) and abstraction (with
regard to the factors to be considered). It can seem all the more surprising,
therefore, that the study of translating and translations has, during the past
thirty to forty years, become so established and been institutionalised as an
autonomous discipline (Übersetzungswissenschaft, Translationswissenschaft,
Translation Studies, traductologie) at universities, in academic associations, in
numerous academic periodicals etc.4 If, however, we assume that not only
institutional-organisational reasons, but also considerations of content, play a
part in establishing translation studies as a discipline in its own right, then the
minimal requirement must be that these studies define their field of concern
and announce the aims of their inquiries — and this quite independently of
whether one places the discipline of translation studies between or beside or
even above other disciplines which have (more conventionally) taken an
interest in translating and translations.
2. The Need to Determine the Object(s)

of Translation Research
One of the paradoxes arising from the development of translation studies is

that, in a context of increasing theoretical awareness, the question of method,
or methods, presents itself with ever greater urgency, since the contours of
translation, as the object of study, become steadily vaguer and more difficult
to survey. The field of concern in which translation studies is supposed,
theoretically and empirically, to operate, has become, as it were, overgrown
and rank. Recent translatological approaches are characterised by their ten
dency to dismiss the material and terminological distinctions used in discuss
ing textual and semiotic transfer as secondary or irrelevant to translatology.
Thus Justa Holz-Mänttäri (1984: 78) notes that what is defined as 'translation'
or distinguished perhaps as 'paraphrase', is terminologically of secondary
importance. And Margret Ammann disputes the need for the material and
terminological demarcation of paraphrase, commentary, summary, adaptation
etc. with the following justification:5
194 WERNER KOLLER
The discussion of what to call the child seems to me futile.... On the basis of
modern translation theory [!] we can talk of "translation" when a source text
(of oral or written nature) has, for a particular purpose, been used as model for
the production of a text in the target culture. As translator I am also in a
position to judge when a source text is unsuitable as model for a target culture
text, and to propose to the client the production of a new text for that target
culture. (Ammann 1989: 107-108) [Trans. P.C.]
Thus it cannot be ruled out a priori that an utterly new text can count as a
translation: such a new text would in any case count as "yet another product of
translatory activity (in this case: consulting the client)". But what does the term
translatory imply, if it also refers to original text production? Or put another
way: if this is a case of translatory activity, then what in the field of text
production could ever constitute non-translatory activity? An example repeat
edly appealed to in this context is the "translation", or rather, the production, of
promotional texts, which are of course frequently not so much translated as
newly texted, and which thus represent a misleading example of translation:
The translator himself is often a new author of promotional material, e.g. for
the publications of public relations offices. (Sager 1986: 342-343) [Trans.
P.C.]
In this case the translator acts not as translator but as copywriter;6 s/he is no
more active as translator than is the poet who, having been commissioned by a
literary journal to translate a poem, concludes that this poem is untranslatable,
and thereupon suggests to the editors that they publish a poem of his/her own
in place of the translation — a poem which may even have been inspired by the
foreign model. Would this latter also constitute "a product of translatory
activity"?
If translation theory is to regard original text production as belonging to
its field of concern as well, or rather, if it doesn't strive to differentiate between
(original) text production and translatory text reproduction, then it falls into
just that "fundamental dilemma" (I would sharpen this to "that methodological
trap") which was pointed out by Wolfram Wilss:7
[Translation studies] must either grapple with a field of interest which is, in a
quite literal sense, limitless, or opt for a selective point of view. (Wilss 1988:
63) [Trans. P.C.]
A selective point of view 8 (and every science which considers itself empirical
is selective — which also means reductive and abstractional) presupposes that
the question concerning the discipline's object, or objects, can be both asked
and answered.9 Of course, this is not to claim that, despite fundamental

differences, translation shares no significant features with a range of other text-
processing activities, all of which proceed from a source text to a derived
(secondary) text (for example, the summarising of a text in another language,
the process of explaining or commentating on a text, or the adaptation of a text
for particular recipients).
For the subject of translation research the question of how the object is to
be determined is put most succinctly by asking what preconditions must be
satisfied for a text to be classified as a translation and to qualify as the object of
translation studies? Considering the multiplicity of theoretical approaches and
objectives, a single clear answer can hardly be expected, and the legitimate
field of concern will be marked out in different ways depending on which
factors and conditions — as these are specified in the next section — are taken
as the basis of abstraction.
With these reflections in mind we can see that the object definition of
Gideon Toury cannot be taken as valid without qualification — no matter how
simple and persuasive it might seem at first sight:
. . . a 'translation' will be taken to be any target-language utterance which is
presented or regarded as such within the target culture, on whatever grounds.
(Toury 1985: 20)
This object definition may well be meaningful and appropriate in the frame
work of research which — being primarily literary-comparative in approach
— concentrates on the status and function of translations within the system of
the target-language literature as a whole, since what we have here is the
hypothesis "that translations are facts of one system only" (Toury 1985: 19),
namely of the literary system of the target-language. With this hypothesis
guiding the process and methodology of research, it makes sense to regard so-
called pseudotranslations10 as the object of descriptive translation studies as
well. 11 For a linguistic approach which presupposes the existence of a primary
text (model) underlying the translation, this object definition is, however, not
appropriate. Needless to say, this doesn't preclude the possibility of one's
investigating a pseudotranslation for linguistic-stylistic traits which come
across as being "translated". Whether Toury's object definition does in fact
solve all problems for comparative studies is, nonetheless, a different question.
Thus, for example, when it comes to texts which are "unmasked" as transla
tions as a result of philological investigations (i.e. texts which for a long time
196 WERNER KOLLER
have not been regarded as translations), are they to be placed within the object-
scope of translation studies? And what about texts which are explicitly de
clared by their authors not to be translations but rather adaptations or re-
workings? Where, and in terms of what criteria, are the borders to be drawn?
(See Section 5 below.)
3. Translation from a Linguistic and Textual Perspective:

The Conditioning Factors, Double Linkage,
and the Equivalence Frameworks of Translation
From a linguistic and text-theoretical perspective, translation can be under

stood as the result of a text-processing activity, by means of which a source-
language text is transposed into a target-language text. Between the resultant
text in L2 (the target-language text) and the source text in L1 (the source-
language text) there exists a relationship, which can be designated as a
translational, or equivalence relation. Equivalence is a relative concept in
several respects: it is determined on the one hand by the historical-cultural
conditions under which texts (original as much as secondary ones) are pro
duced and received in the target culture, and on the other by a range of
sometimes contradictory and scarcely reconcilable linguistic-textual and ex
tra-linguistic factors and conditions:
- the source and the target languages with their structural properties, possi
bilities and constraints,
- the "world", as it is variously classified in the individual languages,
- different realities as these are represented in ways peculiar to their respec
tive languages,
- the source text with its linguistic, stylistic and aesthetic properties in the
context of the linguistic, stylistic and aesthetic norms of the source
language,
- linguistic, stylistic and aesthetic norms of the target language and of the
translator,
- structural features and qualities of a text,
- preconditions for comprehension on the part of the target-language
reader,
- the translator's creative inclinations and understanding of the work,
- the translator's explicit and/or implicit theory of translation,
- translation tradition,
- translation principles and the interpretation of the original text by its own
author,
- the client's guidelines and the declared purpose of the translation,
- the practical conditions under which the translator chooses or is obliged
to work.
Fundamental to any linguistic-textual approach in descriptive translation

studies is the assumption that translations are characterised by a double link-
age: firstly by its link to the source text and secondly by its link to the
communicative conditions on the receiver's side. This double linkage is central
in defining (and this means in particular: in differentiating) the equivalence
relation. The process of differentiating this double linkage, and of thereby
rendering it operational, is achieved by distinguishig between various frame-
works of equivalence; at this stage, (translational) equivalence merely means
that a special relationship — which can be designated as the translation
relationship — is apparent between two texts, a source (primary) one and a
resultant one.
The specification of the equivalence relation follows from the definition
of relational frameworks; its application presupposes that the relational frame
works be specified.12 Linguistic/textual units which differ in nature and range
are regarded as target-language equivalents if they correspond to source-
language elements according to the equivalence relations specified in a set of
relational frameworks. Target-language equivalents answer to translational
units in the source text; both the similarities and the differences between the
units of the source-language and their target-language equivalents result from
the degree to which the values assigned to the relational frameworks are
preserved.
From a linguistic-textual standpoint, the following equivalence frame
works are of particular significance:
1. the extra-linguistic circumstances conveyed by the text,
2. the connotations (with a multiplicity of connotative values) con
veyed by the text via the mode of verbalisation,
3. the text and language norms (usage norms) which apply to parallel
texts in the target language,
4. the way the receiver is taken into account (Empfangerbezug),
5. aesthetic properties of the source-language text.
198 WERNER KOLLER
These equivalence frameworks, which I shan't, on this occasion, eluci

date further,13 are based on theoretical and empirical studies concerned with
the heterogeneity of individual languages in their textual manifestation (more
precisely: individual European languages and most notably German). With
regard to the theoretical and descriptive objectives of certain inquiries within
the field of translation studies (including translation criticism) these equiva
lence frameworks both can and must be expanded upon, differentiated, refined
and modified, and, in particular, examined against concrete translational phe
nomena. The necessity of such an examination — and of the subsequent
theoretical work — is revealed by the fact that a number of meaning compo
nents can be accomodated in this model of equivalence frameworks only with
difficulty, or not at all. I have in mind here particularly the inter-linguistic,
intra-textual and socio-cultural meanings, which can become such a headache
for the translator of literary texts, since the use of commentary is for the most
part inappropriate (see Koller 1992: 267ff., 287ff.).
According to the approach discussed here, it is the source-language text,
in terms of its linguistic-stylistic structure and its meaning potential, which is
regarded as the fundamental factor in translation and hence in translation
studies. Due to the link that exists between the translation and the conditions
on the receiver's side, however, a linguistic and text-theoretical approach,
when describing and analysing translation samples, will also have to consider
the other factors that contribute to the production and reception of a transla
tion.14
In contrast to the (relatively) broad linguistic approach, as represented by
the author of this article, we find a number of (relatively) narrow approaches,
among them computer linguistics, as understood in the context of machine
translation research. It can, incidentally, be seen as an oddity of the translation
debate that I myself have occasionally been counted among this "hard linguis
tic core", against which a stand is taken in, for example, the volume edited by
Mary Snell-Hornby in 1986. This so-called "new orientation in translation
studies" pretends to be an answer "to the present disenchantment with purely
linguistic oriented translation studies" (jacket text) [Trans. P.C.]. The follow
ing description of translation is cited there as "Koller's definition of transla
tion":
Linguistically translation can be described as a recoding or substitution:
elements a1 a2 a3 . . . from the inventory of linguistic symbols L l are replaced
by elements b1 b 2 , b 3 . . . from the inventory of linguistic symbols L2. (Snell-
Hornby 1986: 13) [Trans. P.C.]
It must be stressed, however, that, within the framework of the respective

linguistic approach, this definition of translation is utterly legitimate and
fruitful, as shown by the results of research on machine translation, which are
of importance not only for descriptive linguistics but also for linguistic theory.
Nonetheless, I am given far too much credit for this definition: it appears in the
context of a chapter (in Koller 1972), which presents diverse approaches to
translation (of research as it stood at the end of the 60s!). 15
An approach which I understand to be narrowly linguistic is that of
Wolfgang Klein (1991), which concentrates on the semantic aspect and for
which the process of translation entails "nothing which need take us beyond
the study of language and of the use of language" (1991: 105); in Klein's
opinion translation studies as an independent discipline could possibly be
justified on organisational grounds but not on the basis of content. The ability
to translate is part of human linguistic competence, and once the scope of
linguistics has been broadened so far as to include a comprehensive account of
human linguistic competence, it should also be in a position to describe the
ability to translate:
The problems of translation studies, insofar as these are of a systematic nature
and thereby amenable to systematic scientific analysis, are the problems of
linguistics itself, and once the latter have been solved, then so have the
former. (Klein 1991: 122) [Trans. P.C.]
According to Klein, the "specific problems of translation" are of a genuine

linguistic nature and have to do with "the systematic relationship between two
texts which, in one respect, are the same (they express the same thing) in
another respect not (namely in terms of the means by which they express that
which remains the same)" (1991: 107) [Trans. P.C.]. In other words, the
problems of translation are open to description and explanation in a framework
of theories of meaning and contrastive linguistics. Klein's conclusion, how
ever, is somewhat sobering: since linguistics is still a long way from solving its
own problems, it cannot contribute much to translation studies.
My reason for regarding this approach as "narrowly" linguistic is that, by
confining itself to semantics,16 it acknowledges only one — albeit central —
aspect of a linguistic-textual nature, one which is a consequence of the link
between the translation and the source text and of the linguistic-stylistic and
textual properties of the target language. What remains largely ignored, how
ever, is the link that exists between the translation and the conditions of
communication in the target-language — a link which has immediate conse-
200 WERNER KOLLER
quences of a linguistic-textual nature and which must therefore be taken into

account by any (broader) linguistic approach. This in turn does not mean that
the semantic approach is not of vital significance for translation theory: if
linguistics succeeds in answering the questions which Klein asks about trans
lation, then it will indeed have solved a range of translation theory's most
fundamental problems.
4. Descriptive and Prescriptive Orientation,

Theory and Practice, Translational Phenomena
The linguistic and text-theoretical approach in translation studies regards itself

as strictly descriptive and in no way prescriptive. Nonetheless, questions
concerning the connection between the theory and practice of translation,17 or
those which query the value of translation studies for the corresponding
practical and didactic activities, are among the perennial favourites of journals
and conferences dealing with the subject.18 A requirement that has often been
more damaging than beneficial to both theory and practice is that a science
should let itself be guided by the demands of a particular practice; alterna
tively, that a science draw its legitimacy from its (documented!) usefulness for
a particular practice, and define its problems and solutions accordingly.19 No
matter how desirable it is for a theory to be able to claim an improvement or
assessment of practice, utility is in itself no guarantee of a theory's quality
(though it may well serve as motivation for theoretical work). 20 Moreover, it
cannot be the task of translation theory to tell translators how to translate, nor
to provide them with a theoretical — or worse, the theoretical — conception as
guideline for their practical work.21 In determining its object/objects, however,
it cannot get by without normative stipulations: it has to answer the question as
to which texts, as translations, belong to its field of study, and which do not. As
explained above, this normative stipulation (i.e. selection, as a precondition for
determining the object-scope) can take different forms.
The task of descriptive, linguistically and textually oriented translation
studies is to analyse, i.e. to describe, to classify and perhaps even explain the
empirical material which translators present in the form of their translations. In
this sense translation studies describe translational phenomena; in talking of
translation problems or difficulties, it does not claim to be dealing with the
linguistic-stylistic and textual phenomena which the translator experiences as
genuine problems in the course of his/her work. Naturally it is to be hoped that

the translator will recognise overlaps between some of his/her own problems
and those which preoccupy the academic discipline, and that the latter will be
of use to the teacher in organising, or at least reflecting on, his/her teaching
practice. The task of applied translation studies, however, is to identify,
describe and present in a didactic way those translational phenomena which
present difficulties in practice, i.e. difficulties for the translator. In this context
other methods will have to be employed,22 and the experience of the translator
and of the translation teacher will be of central importance (cf. Wilss 1992).
In cases where there exist different translations of one and the same text,
the translation comparison, i.e. the comparison of the translation with the
original, presents itself as an heuristic means to detect a posteriori translation
problems in the sense of translational phenomena: points where the transla
tions differ indicate at least a tendency towards translation problems. Even so,
this is obviously not a sufficient (nor necessarily reliable) means of identifying
problems. For translation studies the question arises: what method can be
found for establishing translation problems a priori and independently of the
number of existing translations, indeed, independently of whether any transla
tion exists at all? Basically this is no different from the question of translation
relevant text analysis.23
5. Problems and Limitations of the

Equivalence-Oriented Approach in Translation Studies
Like any other approach, the equivalence orientation in linguistic and text-
theoretical translation research has its limitations. Some of the problems
resulting from this are discussed in what follows.
5.1. Translation as "Linguistic-Cultural Craft":

The Equivalence Concept and Historical Translation Research
What is meant in saying (see Section 3) that equivalence and translation are
historically-culturally dependent and therefore relative terms? Basically, this
implies that one can only talk of translation where certain preconditions are
satisfied within the linguisitic and cultural community: the use of the equiva
lence concept presupposes that translation is already established in a culture as
202 WERNER KOLLER
a special form of text reproduction. What we are dealing with is a "linguistic-

cultural craft" of text reproduction which — consider for instance the situa
tion in German — has come about through centuries of linguistic/textual work
and theoretical reflection. In contrast to other results of text-processing activi
ties, translation is characterised by a highly specific linkage and commitment
to the source text, which the traditional discussion of translation theory at
tempts to capture in the concept of translation fidelity. Disputes about the
fidelity concept have shaped the history of translation theory: its use presup
poses that a linguistic and textual culture has reached a certain stage of
development — a stage at which the activity of translation can in itself play an
important role. 24
In Europe this development can be seen in connection with the emancipa
tion of the vernacular languages from Latin, i.e. with the rise of writing and
text cultures in the vernacular. Until far into the modern era, vernacular
languages were dismissed as "lingua vulgaris et illiterata"; Latin was Europe's
professional and literary means of communication, while vernacular languages
— perceived as irregular and uncultivated — remained, in their written forms,
the means of communication of the untrained and uneducated. Latin was the
language of the erudite and of poetic composition (consider the 16th century
development of a humanist new-Latin literature of international reputation).
"Translations" into German which didn't serve linguistic-didactic purposes
and didn't attempt either to reform German in a Latin mould or to lead the
German reader to the Latin text, had to make do with an "uneducated"
readership, which meant a popularisation of the models both from a linguistic-
stylistic point of view and in terms of content.
It wasn't until the turn of the 17th century that the linguistic-stylistic
preconditions, but also the conditions for reception, were suitable to provide
the point of departure for modern translation theory and a new practice of
translation. At that point German superseded Latin as a literary and profes
sional language, and a written form of German was established which found
application in all areas of communication. With Martin Opitz (1597-1639) this
written language proved a fully valid artistic medium; Justus Georg Schottel's
(1612-1676) grammatical works framed it with normative rules which sought
their legitimation not in the grammar and rhetoric of Latin but rather in the
regularities inherent in the German language as used by exemplary authors.
A milestone for translation theory was Friedrich Schleiermacher's (1768-
1834) treatise "Ueber die verschiedenen Methoden des Uebersezens" (1813)
in which he painstakingly contrasts as mutually exclusive the methods of
alienation (Verfremden) and germanisation (Verdeutschen). For poetic and

philosophic texts, translatability can only be achieved via a method of consist
ent alienation. Schleiermacher advocates a language of translation in its own
right, which always contains linguistic innovations, since the foreign tone can
only be made perceptible and conveyed through a divergence from the current
norm. Schleiermacher is convinced that translation has the task of invigorating
language and that the translator is duty-bound to be linguistically creative.
The antithesis which Schleiermacher brings into translation studies, and
his postulation of a translation language that modifies ordinary language in
order to ensure translational fidelity, belong to the concerns of every modern
translation theory. Disregarding attempts to find and define an intermediate
strategy, neither the 19th nor the 20th century has advanced to any fundamen
tally new position. In our century the majority would, I believe, agree that the
linguistic-stylistic possibilities of the German language are now so far devel
oped that an artificial translation language is no longer needed in order to do
justice to the autonomy of the original in translation. Even so, this is the case in
very general terms only: seen in detail, the differences between languages and
cultures together with language- and culture-specific idiosyncrasies are serious
enough to make translation, even between European languages, into a commu
nicative challenge. And since the linguistic norms and the conditions of
reception are constantly changing, changes also occur in both the communica
tive and the linguistic challenges. For this reason neither translation-theoretical
reflection, as reflection about translation fidelity, nor the practical task of
translation (nor, for that matter, the discussion of possible guidelines for that
practice) can ever reach a conclusion: every translated text already contains
within it the challenge of a new translation.
In sketching out the cultural and socio-historical conditions which under
lie the concepts of translation proper and of equivalence, one realizes that
research on translation history will have to operate with a different concept of
translation; it is self-evident to this discipline that not only translations but also
revisions, rewritings and adaptations of every kind must be taken into account.
According to Jürgen von Stackelberg (1984: x), translations, for the translation
historian, are all the more interesting the more clearly they differ from their
models. In his work on German translations and adaptations of English com
edies in the 18th century, Gerd Nover (1982: 23) observed that to confine one's
attention to the one or the other would be utterly inappropriate and also
impossible. In terms of the linguistic approach we can say that the more a
translation differs from its model, the more difficult it is to describe it in terms
204 WERNER KOLLER
of linguistic categories. The aim of descriptively, linguistically and text-

theoretically oriented translation studies is, after all, the description of regu
larities. 25 This also explains the discipline's (only partially warranted) reserve
with regard to literary texts, or, as the case may be, "artistic translations". 26
This reserve follows from the assumption that the degree of regularity and
standardisation is substantially higher in a technical text than it is in a literary
text. When one considers specialised terminology and standard syntactic cor
respondences, and not least translation procedures, which have become ha
bitual or partly habitual, the accuracy of this estimate will hardly be doubted
(cf.Wilss 1977: 131f.).27
5.2. Equivalence-Guided Text Reproduction

and Text Production in Translation
Linguistically and text-theoretically oriented translation studies have little

problem in dealing with translation as text reproduction in nuce:
Example 1
(a) På uppdrag av Svenska Akademien har undertecknade, som bildar dess
Nobelkomitté, äran att inbjuda Er att föreslâ kandidat(er) till Nobelpriset i
litteratur for 1994.
Im Auftrag der Schwedischen Akademie haben die Unterzeichneten, die das
Nobelkomitee der Akademie bilden, die Ehre, Sie hiermit einzuladen, einen
oder auch mehrere Kandidaten fur den Nobelpreis fur Literatur des Jahres
1994 vorzuschlagen.
On behalf of the Swedish Academy, we, the undersigned, who constitute its
Nobel Committee, have the honour to invite you to nominate a candidate (or
candidates) for the Nobel Prize for Literature 1994.
Au nom de l'Académie Suédoise, les soussignés, qui composent son Comité
Nobel, ont l'honneur de vous inviter à proposer un candidat {ou des candidats)
au prix Nobel de littérature pour l'année 1994.
(b) How to use this directory
Comment utiliser ce répertoire
Hinweise zur Benutzung
[ERASMUS directory]
The italicized words and syntagmata of Example 1(a) deviate in some way
from the original text. These differences can be described in terms of linguistic
categories and in the framework of the equivalence concept presented above.
The primary category is that of denotative equivalence, while textual- and

linguistic-normative equivalence ought to play a part in the addition of hiermit
and we, and in the translation of kandidat(er). The extent to which these
features — together with the additions auch, des Jahres and l'année —
represent regularities would have to be investigated through the analysis of a
representative corpus of translations and parallel texts. Much the same applies
to Example 1(b): the verbal constructions in English and French are rendered
in German, which prefers a succinct style (at least in certain types of texts),
with a German nominal phrase (still more condensed would be the compound
Benutzerhinweise).
Due to the linkage to the communicative conditions in the target lan
guage, the situation with regard to text reproduction and text production —
insofar as these are determined by the source text and guided by equivalence
— is, as a rule, considerably more complex than is the case in Example 1. If
translations are to be understandable, or rather, if they are to convey certain
values of the source-language text to the target-language reader, this cannot
but entail the application of text-revision methods. When we consider the
function of translation as this is conceived in everyday language, viz., what is
said in one language is to be conveyed to readers in another language, we find
that this can only be achieved with recourse to commentative translation
procedures. The resulting elements of text production serve to put across to the
reader of the translation the relevant meaning-potential of the source-language
text as adequately as possible. 28
Example 2
(a) Sie möchte nicht, daß ich je zu einer Tagung der GRUPPE 47 erscheine. (Max
Frisch, Montauk, 147)
She did not want me to attend meetings of the writers' group, GRUPPE 47.
(101)
(b) "Your frients haff gone upstairs", the German maître d'hôtel said. (Ernest
Hemingway, Fiesta, 174)
"Ihre Freunde sind raufgegangen", sagte der deutsche Oberkellner in sehr
schlechtem Englisch. (168)
- Your friends haff gone upstairs1, dit, en anglais, le maître d'hôtel allemand.
[Footnote 1: Vos amis sont montés (N.d.T.)]
the writers ' group is an addition, with which the translator attempts to convey
some culture-specific information to the English-American reader. (In this
way the translation is perhaps more readily understandable in the English
206 WERNER KOLLER
speaking world than is the original text for the German reader — a not
infrequent situation. Quite another matter is the translation-critical question as
to whether the addition is necessary.) Without doubt we are dealing here with
an element of text revision. As such, however, it is a case of text production
fully subordinated to the semantics of the original text: GRUPPE 47 and the
writers ' group, GRUPPE 47 refer to the same object. Supposing for a moment
that the English translation were the original text, a (back-)translation would
result in either a) . . . der Schriftstellergruppe GRUPPE 47, of b) . . . der
GRUPPE 47 (if the translator estimates the German reader's general knowl
edge as sufficient to render the explication superfluous).29
More complex, but fundamentally no different, is the relation between
text reproduction and text production in Example 2(b): the connotative value
of the functionary's English having a German accent, which is realised in the
original in objective language, is conveyed in German on the meta-communi-
cative level via the addition in sehr schlechtem Englisch. In the French
translation, the functionary's utterance is left in English, under the assumption
that the French reader will recognise the poor English of the maître d'hôtel
allemand on the basis of the form haff(frients appears in the French translation
with corrected spelling). In a footnote (with a remark that this is a note du
traducteur) we find the French translation. In this example as well, the addi
tions and footnotes — which we must here refrain from judging from a
translation-critical point of view — serve entirely to convey the meaning-
potential, i.e. the denotative and connotative values, of the source text. But for
a back-translation to result, in this case, in anything like the source-language
model, a much greater measure of creativity would be required of the transla
tor. 30
5.3. Borderline Cases:

Translation with Elements of Text Revision
The comparison of translations undertaken in the following example shows

that in the real world of translation, cases arise which, for the equivalence-
oriented approach, are not so easy to classify as were Examples 1 and 2, either
theoretically or in terms of a description of practice. On comparing these nine
translations of a passage from Henrik Ibsen's Wild Duck (in which the old
friends Hjalmar and Gregers meet again after many years apart), the first thing
that strikes one is how closely the translations [l]-[7] correspond:
Example 3
GREGERS. . . . Du ser godt ut. Du er naesten ble't fyldig og svær.
HJALMAR. Hm, svær kan man vel ikke kalde det; men jeg ser rimeligvis noget
mandigere ud end dengang. (Henrik Ibsen, "Vildanden" ["The Wild Duck"], 1884)
[1] Translation by Ernst Brausewetter 1887
GREGERS. . . . Du siehst gut aus. Du bist beinahe dick und fett geworden.
HJALMAR. Hm, fett kann man es wohl nicht nennen; aber ich sehe wahrscheinlich
etwas mànnlicher aus als damais.
[2] Translation by Marie von Borch 1887
GREGERS. . . . Du siehst gut aus. Du bist beinahe stark und voll geworden.
HJALMAR. Hm, stark kann man es wohl eigentlich nicht nennen, aber ich sehe
natürlich mànnlicher aus als damais.
[3] Translation by G. Morgenstern 1888
GREGERS. . . . Du siehst gut aus; bist fast voll und dick geworden.
HJALMAR. Hm, dick kann man wohl nicht sagen; aber ich sehe jedenfalls etwas
mànnlicher aus als damais.
[4] Translation by Georg Brandes et al 1901
GREGERS. . . . Du siehst gut aus. Du bist recht stark geworden.
HJALMAR. Hm, stark kann man das wohl nicht nennen. Aber naturlich seh' ich
mànnlicher aus als dazumal.
[5] Translation by Georg Brandes et al, modernised by Wolfgang Lange 1960
GREGERS. . . . Du siehst gut aus. Du bist sehr stark geworden.
HJALMAR. Hm, stark kann man das wohl nicht nennen. Aber natürlich seh ich
[6] Translation by Wilhelm Lange 1907
GREGERS. . . . Du siehst gut aus. Du bist beinah voll und dick geworden.
HJALMAR. Hm, dick kann man wohl nicht sagen. Aber naturlich seh ich etwas
[7] Translation by Hans Egon Gerlach 1958
GREGERS Gut siehst du aus. Du bist voiler geworden, beinahe ein bißchen dick.
HJALMAR. Hm, dick kann man wohl nicht sagen. Aber ich sehe naturlich etwas
[8] Translation by Bernhard Schulze 1965
GREGERS. . . . Du siehst gut aus. Bist schon ein wenig füllig und schwer geworden.
HJALMAR. Hm, das ist wohl ein biBchen übertrieben! Aber ich sehe naturlich
etwas mànnlicher aus als damais.
[9] Translation by Peter Zadek and Gottfried Greiffenhagen 1983
GREGERS. . . . Du siehst gut aus. Du bist ein biBchen voiler geworden. Zeigt auf
Hjalmars Bauch
HJALMAR. Mànnlicher. Meine Schultern sind auch stärker geworden.
208 WERNER KOLLER
In translations [l]-[7] Hjalmar rebuffs the statement that he is dick (fat) by

rejecting the expression dick as inappropriate. Translations [8] and [9] differ
markedly from this standard solution. In [8] the translation is made not so
much in accordance with the wording as with the speaker's intention (one
could also say, with the sense). A speaker who wishes to reject something said
by an interlocutor as not (entirely) appropriate, or as an exaggeration, can,
however, verbalise his/her intention in various ways: that's an exaggeration,
now you don't really mean that, I think you're overdoing it somewhat, that's
going a bitfar, that's not true (da übertreibst du aber, das meinst du doch wohl
nicht, da nimmst du den Mund aber ein bißchen voll, jetzt gehst du aber zu
weit, das stimmt nicht) etc. Do these utterances stand in an equivalence relation
to the statement in the original text which in a literal translation would be: Hm,
dick kann man wohl nicht sagen (Hm, you can hardly call it fat)?
According to Eugenio Coseriu (1978: 21) the task of translation is to
render not the same meaning (Bedeutung) but rather the same signification
(Bezeichnung) and the same sense (Sinn) via the medium (i.e. in effect via the
meanings) of another language. Concerning the remark from our example "Du
bist dick geworden", this would imply that, with regard to the word dick, we
are not dealing with the production of the same meaning, but rather with
sameness of signification:31 How does one refer to the same facts and circum
stances in another language in the same situation? (See Coseriu 1978: 21.)
Translations [l]-[7] adequately illustrate that the facts, as verbalised in the
original, can be translated into German with denotative equivalence, whereby
one is able to retain a wording close to that of the source text. The translation,
"das ist wohl etwas übertrieben", does not express the same thing as "dick
kann man wohl nicht sagen"; here Coseriu's obligatory criterion for transla
tion, the sameness of signification, is not fulfilled. The sense of the text, which
lies in a rebuff, is nonetheless preserved. Even so, since we find here only
sameness of sense but not sameness of signification, this passage does not
constitute translation in its proper sense, but rather an adaptation, in which the
bounds of translational reproduction have been overstepped. In the respective
translation, adaptive intervention is, however, only to be found at isolated
points: [8] is what can be called a translation with text-revisional elements.
The translation by Zadek and Greiffenhagen [9] goes a step further. The
statement "Du bist ein bifichen voiler geworden" is made more specific by
means of a stage-instruction which isn't apparent in the original; namely the
gesture with which Gregers points to Hjalmar's paunch. In other words, the
translation contains an additional element, one which is derived moreover
from a different semiotic system. One could even imagine the gesture being
used in the translation not merely to supplement the relevant passage of the
original text, but rather to replace it. Definitions of translation generally do not
embrace this kind of inter-semiotic transfer: my own, introduced above (Sec
tion 3), does not; neither does that of Coseriu, nor the one by Wilss (1977: 72),
which fixes translation as a "text-processing and text-reverbalisation process".
The translation of this passage by Zadek and Greiffenhagen evidently doesn't
show sameness of signification — something is written there which doesn't
feature in the original; nevertheless, there is a clear agreement in sense.
How does this hold in relation to the reply "Männlicher. Meine Schultern
sind auch stärker geworden" ["More manly. My shoulders are also broader
than they were"]? The entire reply — which appeared in the other translations
as "Hm, dick kann man wohl nicht sagen. Aber ich sehe natürlich etwas
männlicher aus als damais" — has now been drastically compressed to the
single word "Männlicher". Here too one can talk of contextual sameness of
sense: by using emphasis, pauses and gestures together with the word, the actor
can both rebut the insinuation that he has grown fatter and at the same time
assert that he is now more manly. Quite another matter is the interpolated
sentence "Meine Schultern sind auch stärker geworden", which raises the
question of whether the sense of the source text has indeed been preserved.
Fitting though it might seem that "broad/(?)strong shoulders" should serve as a
symbol of manliness, the connection is by no means compelling. The source
text neither describes the relevant circumstances nor contains the sense of this
addition: what we have here is an interpretation with a newly provided sense.
This is not to say that the new sense contradicts the sense of the original text.
The "innere Logik" that binds together original and translation is nevertheless
contingent. One could easily imagine other interpretative additions with a
different implicit logic. Why not "die Frauen sind ganz scharf auf mich" ["the
ladies are really crazy about me"], "ich treibe auch intensiv Sport" ["I also do a
lot of exercise"], "du solltest meinen Bizeps sehen, wenn ich Baume fälle"
["you should see my biceps when I chop down trees"], etc.?
In this passage — as in numerous others in the Zadek and Greiffenhagen
translation — neither signification nor sense is preserved; the original text has
been revised in translation. But in this version as well, the elements of revision,
210 WERNER KOLLER
of sense-creation and modification, appear singly and are embedded in a text

which can be viewed as translation proper. This example represents a border
line case of translation — but still of translation — with text-revisional
elements. 32 It ought to be immediately clear that the transition to a case of
revision with translated elements, as presented in the next example, is smooth.
5.4. Beyond the Limits:

Revision with Translated Elements
In our final example, confusion begins with the fact that, on the dust jacket of
the first edition (Zürich 1969), we read: "Play Strindberg, arrangiert von
Friedrich Dürrenmatt", whereas the inscription on the title page is: "Friedrich
Dürrenmatt. Play Strindberg. Totentanz nach August Strindberg". Compari
son with the original text and other translations immediately reveals that we
are dealing here with something different from Zadek and Greiffenhagen's
Wild Duck. The linkage of version (d) in Example 4 to the original text (a), as
presented in August Strindberg's Dödsdansen ["The Dance of Death"], and its
relation to versions (b) and (c) is qualitatively different from translations [8]
and [9] of Example 3: what we have in Example 4 is a revision in which only
occasional translated elements are recognisable as such.
Example 4
(a) Kapten Vill du inte spela litet för mig?
Alice (likgiltigt men icke snäsigt) Vad skall jag spela?
Kapten Vad du vill!
Alice Du tycker inte om min repertoar!
Kapten Och inte du om min!
(August Strindberg, Dôdsdansen, 1901)
(b) Kapitàn. Willst du mir nicht etwas vorspielen?
Alice, (gleichgültig, aber nicht mürrisch). Was soll ich spielen?
Kapitän. Was du willst.
Alice. Du liebst meine Repertoire nicht.
Kapitän. Und du nicht meines.
(August Strindberg, Totentanz. Übersetzt von Willi Reich, 1960)
(c) Captain. Won't you play something for me?
Alice, (indifferently but not snappishly). What shall I play?
Captain. Whatever you want.
Alice. You don't like my repertoire.
Captain. And you don't like mine.
(August Strindberg, The Dance of Death. Translated by H.G. Carlson 1981)
(d) E: Spiele was vor.

A: Was?
E: Was du willst.
A: Solveigs Lied.
E: Den Einzug der Bojaren.
A: Du liebst nicht mein Repertoire.
E: Du meines auch nicht.
A: Dann spiele ich nichts vor.
(Friedrich Durrenmatt, Play Strindberg. Totentanz nach August Strindberg,
1969)
In this work there are numerous passages which — regarded in isolation —

stand in an equivalence relation to the original text; but in the context of the
revised and reworked passages that have been provided with new sense, and in
the context of the overall sense of the Durrenmatt text, they acquire a different
status. In the "Bericht", printed as an appendix to the work, Durrenmatt speaks
furthermore of a reworking on the basis of a rough translation, which seemed
to him "more honest" than the "üblichen Strindberg-Bearbeitungen durch
Striche, Umstellungen, Textveränderungen und Textergänzungen" ["the usual
Strindberg adaptations in terms of cuts, rearrangements, alterations and addi
tions to the text"], which would in fact simply adulterate Strindberg. Neverthe
less, for the literary theorist, the question clearly remains as to whether
Durrenmatt's Play Strindberg (and incidentally also his Shakespeare adapta
tions) belong together with German language translations or with original
literature — or with both at the same time. 33
6. Summary
In Sections 1 to 4 the equivalence concept was presented in connection with a

designation of the object of translation studies from a linguistic and text-
theoretical point of view. The discussion proceeded from the assumption that
the complex phenomenon of translation must be investigated in terms of
different theoretical approaches, whereby the field of concern (the object's
scope) can be variously delimited. In terms of a linguistic and text-theoretical
aspect, a translation can be defined as the result of a text-processing activity by
means of which a source-language text is transposed into a target-language
text. Between the resultant text in L 2 (the target-language text) and the source
text in L1 (the source-language text) there exists a relationship, which can be
designated as a translational or equivalence relation. Equivalence is a relative
212 WERNER KOLLER
concept in several respects: it is determined by the historical-cultural condi

tions under which texts (including original as well as secondary ones) are
produced and received in the target culture, and by a series of linguistic-textual
and extra-linguistic factors and conditions which are partly contradictory and
frequently difficult to reconcile with one another. Of fundamental importance
is the translation's double linkage: first to the source text and secondly to the
communicative conditions on the receiver's side. The equivalence concept is
related to this double linkage; it is differentiated and rendered operational by
means of a range of equivalence frameworks. The translation's double linkage
implies that a linguistic approach which confines itself to the semantic aspect
will be too narrow. Whereas linguistic translation theory has the task of
explicating the equivalence concept against a background of linguistic
insights, linguistically-textually oriented descriptive translation studies are
concerned with the description, classification and explanation of translational
phenomena. The equivalence-oriented approach in translation research, as
illustrated by the examples in Section 5, has its problems and limitations. To
historical translation research, this approach seems of only limited utility, but
in the analysis of contemporary translations too we find borderline cases of
text reproduction and text production which present difficulties for systemati
sation, i.e. for the description of regularities.
Author's address:
Werner Koller . Germanistisches Institut, Universität Bergen . Sydnesplassen
9 . N-5003 BERGEN . Norway
Notes
1. In this paper I aim to summarise, develop, and critically examine concepts and theses
which I have presented in a number of publications during the years 1988 to 1993.I wish to
thank Magnar Brekke and Roald Skarsten for their useful comments, and Peter Cripps for
the translation. Quotations which have been translated for the purpose of this publication
are marked [Trans. P.C.].
2. This multiplicity of aspects and approaches is reflected not least in the fact that translation
studies seems to sire article anthologies like no other science. Indicative of the state of the
art is also the proliferation of new approaches: among the most recent are Gutt's relevance-
theory approach (1991) and the variational approach of Hewson and Martin (1991).
3. For Maurice Pergnier (1989: xiii), translation is "un phénomène beaucoup trop complexe et
diversifié, faisant appel à trop de données diverses, pour qu'ait pu se constituer en quelques
années — même en mettant bout à bout les connaissances fournies par la linguistique et les
autres sciences humaines — une théorie complète et unifiée".
4. Somewhat less edifying, however, is the more recent — and not infrequent — tendency of
these disciplines to deny one another's right to exist or to accuse one another of exagger
ated or even false scientific legitimacy. Wilss (1988: 18) is justified in warning against the
"totalitarian" temptation to "declare one's own theoretical approach as absolute", or
against "claiming a sole theoretical right", which does nothing to help the cause of
translation studies.
5. Such material and terminological demarcation in the field of translation and adaptation has
recently been a concern of Michael Schreiber (1993).
6. Or is the intention, perhaps, that everything the translator does in his/her professional
capacity (i.e. including the writing of reports on meetings, of foreign language letters, or of
summaries of specialist literature) is to be labelled "translatory activity"?
7. Compare with this the pertinent reflections of Anthony Pym (1992: 187-188), which arrive
at the following conclusion: "A pervasive and over-generous relativism does indeed
threaten to liquidate translation studies, simply by making it impossible to delimit the
phenomenal form of translations".
8. Strongly selective is Pergnier (1989), who advises against the use of literary texts and the
Bible as an empirical basis for translation theory, since these would represent only a
fraction of all translated texts. Rather, translation theory should be founded upon "the
typical case" — which would be, for instance, a technical text or an instruction brochure:
"Les principes généraux une fois établis à partir des autres types de traduction, disons plus
'ordinaires', peuvent servir à éclairer les caractères spécifiques de la traduction littéraire ou
biblique, mais non l'inverse" (xv). I would not, however, push the reduction that far:
certain aspects of translation can be clarified more directly — and in part only — via the
analysis of these types of text. If, on the other hand, the subject is primarily the linguistic-
contrastive aspect of translation, then there are good reasons to favour a limitation of the
object as conceived by Pergnier.
9. Cf. Burger and Imhasly (1978: Section 2.1), on the process of object constitution via
reduction and abstraction, which marks the outset of scientific work.
10. The texts in question are those which are seen or presented as translations although there is
no original text corresponding to them (see Toury 1984; 1995: 40-52).
11. By taking account of pseudotranslations, whereby the primacy of the orientation within the
receiver's literary system is most clearly revealed, translation studies does however en
cumber itself with considerable problems. Thus the question arises whether texts, such as
those which Valerie Worth (1988: 223-224) describes as follows, are to be regarded as
"pseudotranslations": " . . . some of the processes of translation may be deemed to interfere
with free composition without there being a written model to translate. That is to say, a
Renaissance writer composing in French, but with a strong background of Latin, may at
times produce a form in the vernacular which is in some way recognizably Latinate. For his
readers, one of the ways in which this Latinate quality may be identified is by its
resemblance to the style of translations. The author may or may not be consciously striving
after this kind of style, but his French text will suggest the presence of an invisible 'foreign'
model". From a terminological point of view, the choice of the term pseudotranslation
seems unfortunate, since it also encompasses (according to Radó 1979: 192-193) the entire
range of translatory "adaptations", i.e. for example "translations" which simultaneously
transpose a text into another genre (novel → stage version).
214 WERNER ROLLER
12. Such equivalence frameworks implicitly play a role wherever there is talk of stylistic,
pragmatic or functional equivalence, or of equivalence in terms of content, effect etc.
13. For a more detailed discussion see Koller (1992: Ch. 2.3. Differenzierung des Äquivalenz-
begriffs).
14. To regard language and text as the primary element of the translatory process does not in
the least mean that one overlooks "factors such as situation, function, recipients, culture
etc." (Nord 1993: 105) [Trans. P.C.]. Here a contrast is being set up which would have been
somewhat more pertinent when structuralist and generative theories had their heyday in the
60s (but which, even there, would not have done justice to the contemporary state of
inquiry). It does not, however, answer to the situation of linguistic studies as it is today.
15. The fact that I am repeatedly invoked by this one misquoted sentence, is something I'll
have to live with, however. What appears in the quotation in Snell-Hornby 1986 is not in
fact "inventory of linguistic symbols" (Sprachzeicheninventar), but rather "linguistic
inventory" (Sprachinventar) — and it would probably not be entirely straightforward, at
least from a linguistic point of view, to determine what a linguistic inventory is.
16. Another linguist concerned with the problems of equivalence and translatability, insofar as
these are confined to the semantic dimension, is Bertil Malmberg (1986), for whom the
basic problem both for linguistic models and for translation theory is "to make clear what
happens when a message structured according to one system has to be rendered as a
message differently structured, but under the assumption that the information conveyed by
the original is also conveyed by the translated version" (1986: 12).
17. Jean-René Ladmiral talks of the paradoxical, even scandalous, situation whereby traducto-
logie produces so much theory that translatologists are hardly able to digest it all, let alone
do practical work themselves. On the other hand the practitioners, i.e. the translators, are so
taken up with their practice, that they don't get around to reading theory. Be that as it may,
one point arising from these comments on the correspondence of theory and practice seems
to me worthy of note, since it invariably gives rise to debate: namely that Ladmiral (and
like him Newmark 1986: 48) is of the opinion that a translation theorist ought always to be
a practicing translator. Now, it can hardly be doubted that, for a translation teacher,
advantage will accrue from being as familiar with the practice of translation as with applied
and theoretical translation studies. For translation studies itself, however, this aspect is
irrelevant: the quality of theoretical and empirical work certainly doesn't depend on the
theorist's also being a practitioner (which isn't to say that theoretical perception won't be
improved by practical experience). Does the validity and quality of, say, the theory of
poetics really require the theorist to be involved in the relevant practice — for example the
writing of poetry? Surely not — which, once again, isn't to say that the literary theorist's
eye for certain aspects of the writing process won't be sharpened by work s/he him-/herself
does as a writer.
18. Important contributions to the topic of the function and status of translation theory in the
training of translators can be found in Bühler (1985). The need to raise the basic questions
and to convey the rudiments of translation theory to aspiring practitioners follows from the
fact that awareness of the the problems and procedures of translation is enhanced by means
of theoretical reflection. According to Holmes this is justification enough: "If translation
theory, even at its present state, can give us some more awareness of what we are doing as
translators and help us to think and become conscious of our activity, then I think it has
fulfilled an important role" (1988 [11977]: 98). Whether theory does in fact lead to an
improvement in practice is something which theory itself cannot answer; the case of
contrastive linguistics and foreign language teaching should give us pause for thought (see
note 19). But it can at least be assumed that the translator will feel more secure in his/her
practical work if able to explain, and where relevant defend, or, if necessary, come to a
reasoned revision of the solutions to his/her problems — and this not least because s/he is in
a position to consider the individual problem — the isolated difficulty — in a wider
systematic context.
19. One only has to think of contrastive linguistics. In its prouder days, those interested in the
discipline's legitimacy pointed to the demands and practice of foreign language teaching
when claiming that they could describe learning difficulties and predict and explain
sources of error. It was quite a while before anyone realised that this was a question which
could not be answered from a contrastive-linguistic standpoint, but rather only in terms of
the practice of foreign language teaching and the psychology (psycholinguistics) of foreign
language acquisition. With regard to this the opinion of Wolfgang Klein, who considers the
contrastive hypothesis to be false, is indeed sobering: "Learning difficulties and errors arise
where we encounter notable structural differences; yet such structures are often very easily
learnt. And inversely, learning difficulties and errors are also often to be noted precisely
where structures are very similar" (1984: 38) [Trans. P.C.].
20. Through his fusion of theoretical-descriptive and applied-prescriptive objectives, Gutt
(1990) has, in my opinion, done more harm than good to the interests of both practice and
theory (his own included, which must let itself be measured in terms of the claim expressed
in the following quotation): " . . . it is difficult to see how an inductive-descriptive approach
can deal adequately with the problem of evaluating translation since by nature it describes
what is rather than what should be. Yet the concern for quality control in translation seems
to be one of the driving forces behind the search for systematic accounts or theories of
translation: it is hoped that the explicit and systematic treatment of the subject matter will
make possible the setting of objective standards" (1990: 137). It is to be doubted whether a
systematic treatment of the translation phenomenon, or, for that matter, a translation
theory, can be based on what should be rather than on what, in a sense, is — i.e. on
translation as an empirical phenomenon. To my mind it is as if one were to found a modern
systematic grammar, or theory of grammar, not on the texts which exist in a language, but
rather on texts as they ought to be... And is it really the principal function of a well-
researched grammar to show authors how to write? Or do literary studies have a superior
aim of evaluating and improving the quality of literary works?
21. An example of the opaque tone sometimes used in this context is the so-called Skopos-
theorie. The following sentences from Reiß and Vermeer (1984) deserve some passing
consideration: "In the final analysis he [the translator] decides whether, what and how to
translate/interpret" (1984: 87); the translator "offers just so much information and in just
the manner which he considers optimal for the target-text recipient in view of his transla
tion of a source-text" (1984: 123) [Trans. P.C.]. Do these sentences refer to a given set of
translations, say in German, i.e. are they based on empirical investigations which justify
results of the type: The analysis of 1000 translations from English into German reveals that
in 95% of cases the important factor for the translation/interpretation was the respective
translator's decision as to what and how to translate/interpret? Or is the idea that: For a
translator/interpreter to translate well, s/he must decide what and how to translate? Is it an
empirical observation that a change of function of the target text with respect to the source
text is "der weitaus häufigste Fall" (1984: 45) ("by far the most common case") — which
the quantification "der weitaus hàufigste Fall" certainly seems to suggest? And how does
WERNER KOLLER
this observation fare beside the statement: "We claim that such a change of scope is the
usual case with texts of the type mentioned" (1984: 218) [Trans. P.C.]? A question which
can be put irrespective of the changes of scope/function or of the texts being discussed:
either the change of function is the most common case or it isn't. Furthermore, what
empirical data lies behind the claim that the satirical intention of Swift's Gulliver's Travels
is, for the contemporary reader, "now barely discernible", and that this text is "therefore
[read] today as the tale of a fantastic adventure" [Trans. P.C.]? Is this statement founded
upon inquiries into reception and upon specific translations? Lörscher (1988: 80f.) is well
justified in pointing out that, for functional models of translation, access to the field of
concern is not empirical but rather theoretical-speculative.
22. Process-oriented translation studies, which appeals primarily to psycholinguistics and

cognitive psychology, assumes an important role here. This discipline focusses on the
questions: What happens in the translator's head when s/he translates? How are translation
problems recognised? How are they solved? (See Krings 1986, Wilss 1988, Tirkkonen-
Condit 1991, Lôrscher 1991.)
23. In hisÜbersetzungswissenschaft: Probleme und Methoden (1977) [English version: The
Science of Translation: Problems and Methods (1982)], Wolfram Wilss defines the term
translation difficulty as follows: "Presupposing comprehension of the source-language
text, a translation difficulty exists wherever a one-to-one lexical, syntagmatic or syntactic
correspondence between source- and target-language text segments is not possible and
where substitutive translation procedures lead to clearly noticeable linguistic short
comings" (Wilss 1977: 202-203) [Trans. P.C.]. In other words, we can talk of a translation
problem in cases where, in the target language, no literal 1:1 correspondence can be
established to a particular source-language translation unit. Thus it should be possible to
determine translation problems a priori, namely on the basis of a description of the
structural divergences between L1 and L 2 . At the same time this would imply per
definitionem that there can be no translation problems where 1:1 correspondences do exist.
If this were the case one would hardly need translation studies in order to identify, describe
and explain translation problems, since this could be done with contrastive linguistics,
which undertakes the comparison of linguistic units on lexical and syntactic levels. But this
approach falls a little too short, as can be shown by a consideration of idioms (see Koller
1994). Consider, on the one hand, cases which, from a contrastive point of view, are
unproblematic — i.e. where there exists a 1:1 correspondence of idioms — and, on the
other, cases which in no way belong within the object-scope of contrastive linguistics —
here I have in mind idioms in the target-language text for which no model exists in the
source-language text: in the context of the translation, i.e. in terms of concrete occurrences
within the text and textual embedding, an example of either type can become a problem,
and hence an object of translation studies. The conclusion to be drawn from these remarks
is that translation analysis can proceed not only from problems rooted in the source text
which are investigated by text analysis in a way relevant for translation, but also (and,
methodologically speaking, perhaps even primarily) from problems related to the target-
language text (see Toury 1985). As Toury has it in his new book, Descriptive Translation
Studies and Beyond:
"The kind of problems which are relevant for a retrospective study are . . . reconstructed
rather than given: like the appropriateness of the source text itself, they have to be
established in the course of a comparative analysis rather than on the basis of the source
text alone, let alone its initial translatability into the target language in question. Conse
quently, what is identified as a problem vis-à-vis one pair of texts will not necessarily
emerge as a problem at all, much less so a problem of the same kind and magnitude, within
another comparative study, even if that other study only involves a different translation of
the same text.
What the last assertion implies is the claim that, under a retrospective observation, only
those facts of the source text are of significance which can be shown to have actually posed
a problem; and this status of theirs can only be established through a concurrent identifica
tion of the respective solution. To be sure, even if all potential difficulties established in a
thorough analysis of a (source) text itself are realized, facts which seem to present no initial
difficulty may nevertheless turn out to have constituted a problem under a reconstructive
observation, as exemplified, e.g., by the places where translators feel an urge to revise their
emerging texts as well as by the nature of the revisions themselves. Problem items of this
kind would go completely unnoticed, unless they are established 'in reverse'" (Toury 1995:
77-78).
24. For a more detailed treatment of the following, see Koller (1984).
25. In this regard, as Barchudarow (1979: 9) points out, it is precisely the "irregular" corre
spondences which usually present the greatest difficulties in the practice of translation.
26. And at the same time literary texts are, for translation studies, a fascinating object for
investigation, since — as Coseriu (1971: 185) asserts — poetic language represents
language in its full functionality.
27. The view that a science dealing with empirical phenomena (about which theoretical
statements are to be made) has the goal of establishing regularities in the way data are
related, is also taken up by Raymond van den Broeck (1981). In the context of the problem
which metaphors pose for translation, he writes: "All empirical phenomena are subjected to
the rule that, if one wants to theorize about them, they must be properly observed and
described. The assumption underlying any acquisition of scientific, i.e., intersubjective and
systematic, knowledge of a phenomenon is that certain relationships be laid open, that a
certain regularity be discovered. This regularity, in that it is not manifested by the
phenomena themselves, must be assumed, or constructed, by the student of the discipline,
whose proper task it is to state his assumptions about the character, the relations, the causes
and functions of the phenomena observed, by formulating them in the form of a hypo
thesis" (1981: 74).
28. In this context one must ask to what extent translation is a re-coding (Umkodierung) or a
new-coding (Neukodierung) (or a combination of both), or alternatively, what the connec
tion is between communicatively equivalent and communicatively heterovalent interpreta
tions (Kade 1968, Jäger 1975, Koller 1992: 95f., 199ff.).
29. Such examples make it clear how difficult it is to estimate the "cultural background" not
only of the intended reader of the original text, but also of the intended target-language
reader, and hence to work out translation strategies. Such an estimate may well be possible
for texts and readers belonging to our own time and cultural sphere, even if — at least
where literary texts are concerned — with significant limitations and reservations. With
regard to texts and readers of past times, it is likely to be very difficult. It is all the more
surprising, therefore, that Reiß and Vermeer can assert without the slightest reserve that:
"Homer's Iliad was the TV substitute of its day; one could identify with its 'brave heroes'.
What adult would do that today?" (1984: 104) [Trans. P.C.]. That is of course nicely put —
but, relevant to Homer's time, what does TV substitute really mean? Does the TV represent
true "normality", such that thousands of years of cultural history could be perused with the
218 WERNER KOLLER
aim of finding what served where as TV substitute? And as if that weren't enough, even the
consequence for translation strategy stands ready: "And if one translates as faithfully to
form as possible, the suspense is substantially reduced due to the unfamiliar hexameter"
[Trans. P.C.]. Hexameter as suspense-killer? "Jetzo kam ein Bettler von Ithaka, welcher die
Gassen / Haus bei Haus durchlief, ein weitberüchtigter Vielfraß: / Immer füllt' er den
Bauch mit Essen und Trinken und hatte / Weder Stärke noch Kraft, so groB auch seine
Gestalt w a r . . . . Dieser kam, Odysseus von seinem eigenen Hause / Wegzutreiben; er schalt
ihn und sprach die geflugelten Worte: / Geh von der Türe du Greis, daB man nicht beim
FuBe dich schleppe". Is this opening of the 18th book of the Odyssey less exciting — to us
modern readers (assuming there is such a thing as "the" modern reader) — on account of its
hexameters? And can't one — even as an "adult" — thoroughly identify with Odysseus —
even today, in the age of the TV?
30. These examples illustrate the unidirectionality of translation as a parole-phenomenon, in

contrast to the bidirectionality of langue-based correspondences, as these are described by
contrastive linguistics. Evidently, however, there are degrees of difference in unidirection
ality, which are likely to depend on, among other things, the genre of the text.
31. The terms sameness of signification (Bezeichnung) and of sense (Sinn), with which Coseriu
operates, seem to me to be too absolute; I would prefer to speak of agreement of
signification/sense.
32. We must ask ourselves whether and to what extent such revisional elements elude systema
tisation and hence the goal of descriptive translation studies, which is to describe regulari
ties.
33. For descriptive translation studies, texts of this sort prompt the question of whether, and in
terms of what criteria, they are to be treated as translations, and — if the answer is
affirmative — whether they really do qualify as "facts of one system only" (see Section 2).
References
Albrecht, Jörn. 1987. "Einfuhrung". Albrecht et al. 1987: 3-9.

Albrecht, Jörn et al., eds. 1987. Translation und interkulturelle Kommunikation. Frankfurt
a.M.-Bern: Peter Lang. [FAS Publikationen des Fachbereichs Angewandte Sprach-
wissenschaft der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz in Germersheim, A/8.]
Ammann, Margret. 1989. Review of Albrecht et al. 1987. TEXTconTEXT 4:1-2. 106-129.
Barchudarow, L. 1979. Sprache und Ûbersetzung: Probleme der allgemeinen und speziel-
len Übersetzungstheorie. Moskau: Progreß-Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.
Blatt, Achim, Karl-Heinz Freigang, Klaus-Dirk Schmitz and Gisela Thome. 1985. Compu-
ter und Übersetzen: Eine Einfuhrung. Hildesheim-Zürich-New York: Georg Olms.
[Hildesheimer Beitrâge zu den Erziehungs- und Sozialwissenschaften, 21.]
Broeck, Raymond van den. 1981. "The Limits of Translatability Exemplified by Metaphor
Translation". Itamar Even-Zohar and Gideon Toury, eds. Translation Theory and Inter-
cultural Relations. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, 1981. 73-
87. [= Poetics Today 2:4.]
Bühler, Hildegund, ed. 1985. Der Ubersetzer und seine Stellung in der Öffentlichkeit. Wien:
Wilhelm Braunmüller. [Kongreßakte. X. WeltkongreB der FIT.]
Burger, Harald and Bernard Imhasly. 1978. Formen sprachlicher Kommunikation: Eine
Einfuhrung. München: Kösel. [Schwerpunkte der Soziologie.]
Coseriu, Eugenio 1971. "Thesen zum Thema 'Sprache und Dichtung"'. Wolf-Dieter
Stempel, ed. Beiträge zur Textlinguistik. München: Wilhelm Fink, 1971. 183-188.
[Internationale Bibliothek für allgemeine Linguistik, 1.]
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1978. "Falsche und richtige Fragestellungen in der Ubersetzungs-
theorie". Lillebil Grähs, Gustav Korlén and Bertil Malmberg, eds. Theory and Practice
of Translation. Bern-Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 1978. 17-32. [Nobel Symposium, 39.]
Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1960. Wahrheit und Methode: Grundzuge einer philosophischen
Hermeneutik. Tubingen: Mohr. [The passage dealing with translation in: Hans Joachim
Strig, ed. Das Problem des Übersetzens, 2. Aufl. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buch-
gesellschaft, 1973. 402-409.]
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1990. "A Theoretical Account of Translation — Without a Translation
Theory". Target 2:2. 135-164.
Gutt, Ernst-August. 1991. Translation and Relevance: Cognition and Context. Cambridge,
Mass.: Basil Blackwell.
Henschelmann, Käthe. 1979. "Texttypologie und Übersetzen". Walter Mair and Edgar
Sallager, eds. Sprachtheorie und Sprachenpraxis: Festschrift für Henri Vernay.
Tubingen: Narr, 1979. 53-70. [Tubinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 112.]
Hewson, Lance and Jacky Martin. 1991. Redefining Translation: The Variational Ap-
proach. London-New York: Routledge.
Holmes, James S. 1988. Translated!: Papers on Literary Translation and Translation
Studies. Amsterdam: Rodopi. [Approaches to Translation Studies, 7.]
Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Helsinki:
Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. [Annales Academæ Scientiarum Fennicæ B, 226.]
Jäger, Gert. 1975. Translation und Translationslinguistik. Halle (Saale): VEB Max
Niemeyer. [Linguistische Studien.]
Kade, Otto. 1968. Zufall und Gesetzmäßigkeit in der Übersetzung. Leipzig: VEB Verlag
Enzyklopadie. [Beihefte zur Zeitschrift Fremdsprachen I.]
Klein, Wolfgang. 1984. Zweitspracherwerb: Eine Einfuhrung. Konigstein/Ts.: Athenaum.
[Athenaum-Taschenbucher Linguistik, 2171.]
Klein, Wolfgang. 1991. "Was kann sich die Übersetzungswissenschaft von der Linguistik
erwarten?" Zeitschrift fur Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik (LiLi) 21. 104-123.
Kloepfer, Rolf. 1967. Die Theorie der literarischen Ubersetzung: Romanisch-deutscher
Sprachbereich. München: Fink. [Freiburger Schriften zur romanischen Philologie, 12.]
Koller, Werner. 1984. "Ubersetzungen ins Deutsche und ihre Bedeutung für die deutsche
Sprachgeschichte". Werner Besch, Oskar Reichmann and Stefan Sonderegger, eds.
Sprachgeschichte: Ein Handbuch zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und ihrer
Erforschung. Berlin-New York: de Gruyter, 1984. 112-129.
Koller, Werner. 1988. "Die literarische Übersetzung unter linguistischem Aspekt:
Bedingungsfaktoren der Übersetzung am Beispiel Henrik Ibsens". Harald Kittel, ed. Die
literarische Ubersetzung: Stand und Perspektiven ihrer Erforschung. Berlin: Erich
Schmidt, 1988. 64-91. [Göttinger Beiträge zur Internationalen Übersetzungsforschung, 2.]
220 WERNER KOLLER
Koller, Werner. 1989. "Zum Gegenstand der Übersetzungswissenschaft". Reiner Arntz and
Gisela Thome, eds. Übersetzungswissenschaft: Ergebnisse und Perspektiven. Fest-
schrift für Wolfram Wilss zum 65. Geburtstag. Tübingen: Narr, 1989. 19-30. [Tubinger
Beiträge zur Linguistik, 354.]
Koller, Werner. 1992. Einführung in die Übersetzungswissenschaft, 4., vollig neu bear-
beitete Auflage. Heidelberg-Wiesbaden: Quelle & Meyer. [Uni-Taschenbücher, 819.]
Koller, Werner. 1993. "Zum Begriff der 'eigentlichen' Übersetzung". Justa Holz-Mänttäri
and Christiane Nord, eds. TRADUCERE NAVEM: Festschrift für Katharina Reiß zum
70. Geburtstag. Tampere: Tampereen Yliopisto, 1993. 49-63. [studia translatologica
A, 3.]
Koller, Werner. 1993a. "Das Problem der Ubersetzbarkeit — sprachliche, textuelle und
kulturelle Aspekte". To appear in the Proceedings of the International Conference
"Translation: Means of Communication and Creation", Ionian University, Corfu, 1992.
Koller, Werner. 1994. "Phraseologismen als Übersetzungsproblem". Barbara Sandig, ed.
EUROPHRAS 92: Tendenzen der Phraseologieforschung. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1994.
351-373. [Studien zur Phraseologie und Parömiologie, 1.]
Krings, Hans P. 1986. Was in den Köpfen von Ubersetzern vorgeht: Eine empirische Unter-
suchung zur Struktur des Ubersetzungsprozesses an fortgeschrittenen Franzosisch-
lernern. Tubingen: Narr. [Tubinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 291.]
Ladmiral, Jean-René. 1988. "Epistémologie de la traduction". Reiner Arntz, ed. Text-
linguistik und Fachsprache: Akten des Internationalen ubersetzungswissenschaftlichen
AILA-Symposions, Hildesheim, 13.-16. April 1987. Hildesheim-Zurich: Georg Olms,
1988. 35-49. [Studien zu Sprache und Technik, 1.]
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1988. "Modelle des Übersetzungsprozesses: Anspruch und Wirklich-
keit". Fremdsprachen lehren und lernen 17. 62-83.
Lörscher, Wolfgang. 1991. Translation Performance, Translation Process, and Translation
Strategies: A Psycholinguistic Investigation. Tubingen: Narr. [Language in Perform
ance, 4.]
Malmberg, Bertil. 1986. "Arbitrary and Motivated in Language and in Translation — a
Theoretical Introduction". Wollin and Lindquist 1986: 12-24.
Newmark, Peter. 1981. Approaches to Translation. Oxford-New York: Pergamon. [Lan
guage Teaching Methodology Series.]
Newmark, Peter. 1986. "Translation Studies: Eight Tentative Directions for Research and
Some Dead Ducks". Wollin and Lindquist 1986: 37-50.
Nord, Christiane. 1993. Review of Gabriele Harhoff. Grenzen der Skopostheorie... Target
5:1. 102-106.
Nover, Gerd. 1982. Die deutschen Übersetzungen und Bearbeitungen englischer Komodien
im 18. Jahrhundert. Frankfurt a.M.-Bern: Peter Lang. [Europäische Hochschulschriften
I, 462.]
Pergnier, Maurice. 1989. "Existe-t-il une science de la traduction?" Geneviève Contamine,
éd. Traduction et traducteurs au moyen âge: Actes du colloque international. Paris:
Centre National de la Recherce Scientifique, 1989. xiii-xxiii.
Pym, Anthony. 1992. "Translation and Material Text Transfer". Target 4:1. 171-189.
Radó, György. 1979. "Outline of a Systematic Translatology". Babel 15. 187-196.

Reiß, Katharina and Hans J. Vermeer. 1984. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translations-
theorie. Tubingen: Niemeyer. [Linguistische Arbeiten, 147.]
Sager, Juan C. 1986. "Die Übersetzung im KommunikationsprozeB: der Übersetzer in der
Industrie". Snell-Hornby 1986: 331-347.
Schreiber, Michael. 1993. Ubersetzung und Bearbeitung: Zur Differenzierung und Abgren-
zung des Übersetzungsbegriffs. Tubingen: Narr. [Tubinger Beiträge zur Linguistik,
389.]
Snell-Hornby, Mary, ed. 1986. Übersetzungswissenschaft — eine Neuorientierung: Zur
Integrierung von Theorie und Praxis. Tubingen: Narr. [Uni-Taschenbücher, 1415.]
Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam-
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Stackelberg, Jürgen von. 1984. Ubersetzungen aus zweiter Hand: Rezeptionsvorgänge in
der europäischen Literatur vom 14. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Berlin-New York: de
Gruyter.
Steiner, George. 1975. After Babel: Aspects of Language and Translation. New York-
London: Oxford UP.
Tirkkonen-Condit, Sonja, ed. 1991. Empirical Research in Translation and Intercultural
Studies. Tübingen: Narr. [Language in Performance, 5.]
Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of A Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute
for Poetics and Semiotics. [Meaning & Art, 2.]
Toury, Gideon. 1984. "Translation, Literary Translation and Pseudotranslation". E.S.
Shaffer, ed. Comparative Criticism VI. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1984. 73-85.
Toury, Gideon. 1985. "A Rationale for Descriptive Translation Studies". Theo Hermans,
ed. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London-Sydney:
CroomHelm, 1985. 16-41.
Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam-Philadel
phia: John Benjamins.
Vermeer, Hans J. 1986. "Übersetzen als kultureller Transfer". Snell-Hornby 1986: 30-53.
Wilss, Wolfram. 1977. Übersetzungswissenschaft: Probleme und Methoden. Stuttgart:
Klett.
Wilss, Wolfram. 1982. The Science of Translation: Problems and Methods. Tubingen:
Narr. [Tubinger Beiträge zur Linguistik, 180.]
Wilss, Wolfram. 1988. Kognition und Übersetzen: Zu Theorie und Praxis der menschlichen
und der maschinellen Übersetzung. Tübingen: Niemeyer. [Konzepte der Sprach- und
Literaturwissenschaft, 4L]
Wilss, Wolfram. 1992. Übersetzungsfertigkeit: Annäherung an einen komplexen über-
setzungspraktischen Begriff. Tubingen: Narr. [Tubinger Beitràge zur Linguistik, 376.]
Wollin, Lars and Hans Lindquist, eds. 1986 Translation Studies in Scandinavia: Proceed-
ings from The Scandinavian Symposium on Translation Theory (SSOTT) II, Lund 1-15
June, 1985. Lund: Gleerup. [Lund Studies in English, 75.]
Worth, Valerie. 1988. Practising Translation in Renaissance France: The Example of
Étienne Dolet. Oxford: Clarendon.
222 WERNER KOLLER
Texts
Frisch, Max. 1975. Montauk: Fine Erzählung. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.
Frisch, Max. 1976. Montauk. Translated by Geoffrey Skelton. New York and London:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Hemingway, Ernest. 1976. Fiesta. London: Grafton Books. [= The Sun Also Rises. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.]
Hemingway, Ernest. 1977 [1950]. Fiesta. Einzig autorisierte Ubertragung aus dem Ameri-
kanischen von Annemarie Horschitz-Horst. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Hemingway, Ernest. 1990 [1949]. Le soleil se lève aussi. Traduit de l'anglais par Maurice
Edgar Coindreau. Paris: Gallimard.
Ibsen, Henrik. 1884. Vildanden, skuespil i fem akter.
Ibsen, Henrik. [1887]. Die Wildente. Aus dem Norwegischen ubertragen von Ernst Brause-
wetter. Leipzig: Reclam.
Ibsen, Henrik. 1887. Die Wildente. Deutsch von Marie von Borch. Einzige vom Verfasser
autorisierte deutsche Ausgabe. Berlin: Fischer.
Ibsen, Henrik. [1888]. Die Wildente. Deutsch von G. Morgenstern. Leipzig und Wien:
Bibliographisches Institut.
Ibsen, Henrik. [1901]. Sämtliche Werke in deutscher Sprache. Durchgesehen und ein-
geleitet von Georg Brandes, Julius Elias, Paul Schlenther. Vom Dichter autorisiert. 7.
Band: Gespenster. Ein Volksfeind. Die Wildente. Berlin: Fischer.
Ibsen, Henrik. 1960. Die Wildente. Hedda Gabier. = Ibsen [1901], modernisiert von
Wolfgang Lange. Frankfurt a.M./Hamburg: Fischer.
Ibsen Henrik. [1907]. Dramatische Werke. Übersetzt von Wilhelm Lange. Zweiter Band:
Ein Volksfeind. Die Wildente. Rosmersholm. Berlin: Enno Quehl.
Ibsen Henrik. 1958. Die Wildente. Schauspiel in fünf Akten. Neu aus dem Norwegischen
ubertragen von Hans Egon Gerlach. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Ibsen Henrik. 1965. Dramen. Zweiter Band. Darin: Die Wildente. Ubersetzung: Bernhard
Schulze. Rostock: VEB Hinstorff.
Ibsen Henrik. 1983. Die Wildente, Hedda Gabier, Baumeister Solness. Deutsch von Peter
Zadek und Gottfried Greiffenhagen. Frankfurt a.M.: Fischer.
Strindberg, August. 1901. Dödsdansen.
Strindberg, August. 1960. Totentanz. In: Dramen. Neu ubertragen von Willi Reich. Reinbek
bei Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Strindberg, August. 1984 [1981]. The Dance of Death. In: Strindberg: Five Plays. Trans
lated by Harry G. Carlson. New York: New American Library.
Durrenmatt, Friedrich. 1969. Play Strindberg: Totentanz nach August Strindberg. Zurich:
Arche.

Target 7 2 02kol

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Target 7 2 02kol

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Concept of Equivalence and the

Object of Translation Studies1

Target 7:2 (1995), 191-222. DOI 10.1075/target.7.2.02kol

1. The Complexity of Translation

translation — a theory that could take care of "all translational phenomena"

2. The Need to Determine the Object(s)

One of the paradoxes arising from the development of translation studies is

and answered.9 Of course, this is not to claim that, despite fundamental

3. Translation from a Linguistic and Textual Perspective:

From a linguistic and text-theoretical perspective, translation can be under­

Fundamental to any linguistic-textual approach in descriptive translation

These equivalence frameworks, which I shan't, on this occasion, eluci­

It must be stressed, however, that, within the framework of the respective

According to Klein, the "specific problems of translation" are of a genuine

quences of a linguistic-textual nature and which must therefore be taken into

4. Descriptive and Prescriptive Orientation,

The linguistic and text-theoretical approach in translation studies regards itself

genuine problems in the course of his/her work. Naturally it is to be hoped that

5. Problems and Limitations of the

5.1. Translation as "Linguistic-Cultural Craft":

a special form of text reproduction. What we are dealing with is a "linguistic-

alienation (Verfremden) and germanisation (Verdeutschen). For poetic and

of linguistic categories. The aim of descriptively, linguistically and text-

5.2. Equivalence-Guided Text Reproduction

Linguistically and text-theoretically oriented translation studies have little

The primary category is that of denotative equivalence, while textual- and

5.3. Borderline Cases:

The comparison of translations undertaken in the following example shows

In translations [l]-[7] Hjalmar rebuffs the statement that he is dick (fat) by

of sense-creation and modification, appear singly and are embedded in a text

5.4. Beyond the Limits:

(d) E: Spiele was vor.

In this work there are numerous passages which — regarded in isolation —

In Sections 1 to 4 the equivalence concept was presented in connection with a

concept in several respects: it is determined by the historical-cultural condi­

22. Process-oriented translation studies, which appeals primarily to psycholinguistics and

30. These examples illustrate the unidirectionality of translation as a parole-phenomenon, in

Albrecht, Jörn. 1987. "Einfuhrung". Albrecht et al. 1987: 3-9.

Radó, György. 1979. "Outline of a Systematic Translatology". Babel 15. 187-196.

S-ar putea să vă placă și

From a linguistic and text-theoretical perspective, translation can be under

These equivalence frameworks, which I shan't, on this occasion, eluci

concept in several respects: it is determined by the historical-cultural condi