Microsoft Word 05 descriptions doc

function
.” For descriptive studies, the “function” of a translation is generally 
correlated with its position within its corresponding system, in accordance with an 
extended spatial metaphor. When we say that, within a given cultural system, a 
translation is relatively “
central
” or “
peripheral
” (or things in between), we effectively 
mean that its function is either to change or to reinforce (or things in between) the 
receiving language, culture or literature. The function here is what the text does in the 
system. For the purpose paradigm, on the other hand, the “function” of a translation is 
generally conflated into the 
Skopos
, the action that the translation is supposed to enable 
in a specific situation, just as the function of a source text is assumed to be the action in 
which the text is used (to teach, to express, to sell, etc.). Although both paradigms 
would claim to be “functionalist,” the term “function” means one thing in relation to 
systems theory (a position and role within a large-scale set of relations) and something 
else in relation to action theory (an action within a situation comprising various agents). 
There obviously must be common ground between the two usages, yet few theorists 
have actually sought it. Here is one way we might think about this relationship: On the 
surface, it would seem that the purpose of the translation, the 
Skopos
, varies with each 
translation situation. All the situations are different, yet they always occur within wider 
social and cultural constraints that limit and orient them. One should thus be able to 
connect some wider systemic function to the smaller situational function.
Skopostheorie
has remained relatively indifferent to top-down descriptivism, just 
as structuralist descriptive studies traditionally distanced themselves from the close-up 
dynamics of situations (
Lefevere
’s 1992 analysis of patronage being a significant 
exception). Both paradigms are strongly relativist; both refuse to see the source text as 
the only factor determining a translation. Yet they have long been looking in separate 
directions.
If there is a significant historical bridge between the two notions of function, it 
might lie behind the notion of norms.