reason why a descriptive approach to norms requires theoretical concepts. And that is
another reason why, in turn, the descriptive paradigm is full of theories.
Whenever theorists tell us about norms, we should ask exactly how they have
discovered those norms. If bottom-up, the empirical patterns may not all have equal
status as psychological or social facts. And if top-down, then we should ask where the
theorist found the categories of analysis, and why.
5.4.4 “Assumed” translations
Here is another theoretical problem that cuts to the heart of empirical methodologies. If
we set out to discover the historical and cultural diversity of translation norms, can we
pretend to be sure from the outset what is meant by the term “translation”? If so, exactly
what criteria should we use for collecting a set of things called “translations”? And if
not, how can we possibly avoid imposing our own translation norms on other cultures
and periods? This is one of the classical theoretical aporias that tend to worry
researchers in dominant Western cultures.
Toury’s solution to the problem has been to leave the defining to the people we
study. For him, “a ‘translation’ will be taken to be any target-language utterance which
is presented or regarded as such [i.e. as a ‘translation’], on whatever grounds” (Toury
1995a: 20). In other words, we wait to see what each culture and each period has to say
about what is or is not a translation. The solution is the operative concept of “assumed
translations,” which simply means that
Dostları ilə paylaş: