1. Uniwersytet Warszawski
Wвdгiał Neofilologii
Tomasz Stajszczak
Numer albumu: 255132
SKOPOS THEORY AS AN AID IN RESOLVING
CULTURE-RELATED DIFFICULTIES IN THE
TRANSLATION OF FUNCTIONAL TEXTS
Praca magisterska
na kierunku filologia
w zakresie filologia angielska
Praca wykonana pod kierunkiem
dr hab. Anieli Korzeniowskiej
Wвdгiał Neofilologii
Warszawa, maj 2011

2. 1
Oświadczenie kierującego pracą
OĞwiadcгam, że niniejsгa praca гostała prгвgotowana pod moim kierunkiem i stwierdгam, że
spełnia ona warunki do prгedstawienia jej w postępowaniu o nadanie tвtułu гawodowego.
Data Podpis kierującego pracą
Oświadczenie autora (autorów) pracy
ĝwiadom odpowiedгialnoĞci prawnej oĞwiadcгam, że niniejsгa praca dвplomowa гostała
napisana przeze mnie samodгielnie i nie гawiera treĞci uгвskanвch w sposób nieгgodnв г
obowiąгującвmi prгepisami.
OĞwiadcгam również, że prгedstawiona praca nie bвła wcгeĞniej prгedmiotem procedur
гwiąгanвch г uгвskaniem tвtułu гawodowego w wвżsгej ucгelni.
OĞwiadcгam ponadto, że niniejsгa wersja pracв jest identвcгna г гałącгoną wersją
elektronicгną.
Data Podpis autora (autorów) pracy

3. Streszczenie
Prгedmiotem pracв jest analiгa tłumacгenia tekstów użвtkowвch oraг wвstępującвch
międгв nimi konfliktów na tle kulturowвm, dokonana г perspektвwв teorii Skopos. Niniejsza
analiгa łącгв materiał teoretвcгnв г prгвkładami pochodгącвmi г praktвki, natomiast jej
celem jest ukaгanie prгвdatnoĞci гastosowania teorii Skopos w roгwiąгвwaniu wвżej
wвmienionвch konfliktów. Posгcгególne roгdгiałв pracв są odpowiednio poĞwięcone historii
teorii Skopos i гagadnieniom, które гostałв prгeг nią prгedstawione, pojęciu kulturв w
wybranych pracach badającвch proces tłumacгenia oraг prгвkładowвm opisom konfliktów
kulturowвch w różnвch tekstach użвtkowвch. W wвniku analiгв ustalono, iż tłumacгenie
tekstów użвtkowвch prгeprowadгane z perspektywy teorii Skopos umożliwia efektвwniejsгe
roгwiąгвwanie konfliktów na tle kulturowвm гe wгględu na Ğcisłв nacisk, jaki teoria ta
kładгie na uwгględnianie cгвnników definiującвch celowoĞć produkowanego tłumacгenia.
Słowa kluczowe
teoria Skopos, tekstв użвtkowe, konfliktв kulturowe, funkcjonalnoĞć, celowoĞć,
2
czytelnik docelowy
Dziedzina pracy (kody wg programu Socrates-Erasmus)
9.4 Translatoryka

4. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4
Chapter One: Skopos theory – a functional approach to translation ................................. 7
1.1 The origin of Skopos theory .............................................................................................. 7
1.2 The concepts of Skopos theory ....................................................................................... 12
1.2.1 Function, aim, purpose, and intention ............................................................... 12
1.2.2 The translation brief ......................................................................................... 13
1.2.3 Intertextual and intratextual coherence ............................................................. 14
1.3 Skopos theory and the translation of functional texts ....................................................... 16
1.3.1 Reiss‟s source text tвpologв ............................................................................. 16
1.3.2 Nord‟s amendment – a target text typology ...................................................... 18
1.3.3 Nord‟s classification of translations ................................................................. 20
Chapter Two: Culture in translation theory ..................................................................... 24
2.1 Defining culture from the perspective of functional translation ....................................... 24
2.2 The relation between the notion of culture and translation theory ................................... 29
2.2.1 Schleiermacher‟s dichotomy of translation strategies ....................................... 30
2.2.2 Humboldt and Jakobson – the relation between language and reality ................ 33
2.2.3 Nida‟s theory and the concept of culture .......................................................... 36
Chapter Three: Skopos theory, functional texts, and culture-specificity ......................... 41
3.1 Locating Skopos theory in practical functional translation .............................................. 42
3.1.1 The viability of a skopos-oriented approach ..................................................... 43
3.1.2 Skopos theory as a utility for practical translation ............................................. 45
3.2 Example studies on resolving culture-specificity issues within various domains of
functional texts .................................................................................................................... 48
3.2.1 Culture-specificity in user-manual translation .................................................. 48
3.2.2 Culture-specificity in translation for advertising ............................................... 51
3.2.3 Culture-specificity in translation for tourism .................................................... 54
3.2.4 Culture-specificity in legal translation .............................................................. 58
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 63
References .......................................................................................................................... 65
3

5. INTRODUCTION
Many a practising translator would agree that answering one specific question related to
translation requires as much effort as completing the most challenging assignments – how
should one go about translating in order to do it well? This enquiry seems to reappear
wherever translation is involved, whether it pertains to studies of literary works, translator
training, or even the moments when translators examine their newly assigned text for the first
time. Could it be the case that explaining how to translate well is difficult because there are no
practical means of accounting for the methods that enable successful translation? That is
unlikely, seeing as the question above does not in fact relate to anything abstract – many
ambitious literary works become translated, various institutions teach people how to translate,
and interlingual communication effectively takes place across the globe on an everyday basis.
Translation does work; it exists in practice and its results are tangible. It cannot be stated that
explaining what makes a good translation is difficult because translators cannot define their
methods and rely purely on luck and intuition. However, the sheer multiplicity of factors that
govern translation relate to the very same problem.
Languages are complex entities – their form is not only determined by their specific
grammar and vocabulary, but also by the reality in which they are used and the tradition and
history of the people who use them. Languages can express practically anything – from legal
notions to technical instructions to brief pieces of information on signs. Dealing with
languages, translation is greatly influenced by the very same diversity of factors. We translate
in order to communicate, and we do it for a variety of reasons, while the languages among
which we carry out this communication are not only different on account of their form but
also because of the varying cultural settings to which they belong. Skopos theory, whose
formulation is attributed to German translation scholar Hans Vermeer, is a framework which
combines the ideas of translation as a purposeful action and intercultural communication. The
following work investigates the application of Skopos-theory concepts to the translation of
various functional texts, thus constituting a combined study of theory and cases drawn from
practice. It is this author‟s belief that, as a framework specifically focused on both practice
and intercultural communication, Skopos theory holds potential for resolving translational
issues related to many culture-specific aspects of functional texts that belong to a variety of
4

6. fields. Therefore, the purpose of the presented work is to analyse the concepts of Skopos
theory and the notion of culture in translation, establish a connection between them and the
practice of functional-text translation, and indicate how translators may benefit from applying
a Skopos perspective to actual assignments. By exploring these issues, the work also seeks to
advocate Skopos theory as a prolific foundation for further methodological development in the
field of functional-text translation.
The analysis of Skopos theory begins in chapter one, which opens with general
observations on the discipline of translation studies and proceeds to describe those ideas
pertaining to translation which were formulated prior to the framework‟s emergence but
nonetheless strongly related to its overall assumptions. The chapter thus explores past ideas in
translation which directly or otherwise motivated the emergence of Skopos theory in the late
1970s. The following portion of the chapter describes some of the more prominent concepts
related to the framework. Notions such as aim, purpose, function, and translation brief are
explained and described as constant elements of the translation process. The final part of the
first chapter refers to ideas formulated by recognised translation scholars who also referred to
the concepts of Skopos theory in their works, namely Katharina Reiss, who formulated a
typology of source texts intended as an introduction of conceptual order into the subject
matter of translation and Christiane Nord who, questioning the functional merit of Reiss‟
typology, proposed a shift to the target text and accordingly reformulated the source text
categorisation. What is additionally mentioned in this portion of the work is Nord‟s tвpologв
of translation procedures, seeing as it is a notion which further encompasses the various tasks
that the translator encounters in the process of functional-text translation.
The second chapter of the work is devoted to the concept of culture in translation and
begins with an adaptation of the notion to the practice of functional translation. This is done
specifically for the purpose of providing culture with a definition which is both coherent and
relevant to the subject of this work. In order to confirm that the chosen definition is in fact
compatible with the functional approach, the first section is concluded with an attempt at
applвing it to the framework‟s general perception of functional translation, as presented in the
first chapter. What follows in the next section is an overview of selected considerations
pertaining to the notion of culture in translation which also relate to the idea of the
purposefulness of translation. Similarly to Skopos theory, the chosen discussions also display
that when it occurs, translation relates to the reality in which it takes place – Friedrich
Schleiermacher‟s two methods of translating, Roman Jakobson and Wilhelm von Humboldt‟s
5

7. thoughts on the relation between language and realitв, as well as Eugene Nida‟s notions of
formal and dynamic equivalence.
The third and final chapter of the work combines a display of Skopos theorв‟s
propensity for the further development of its conceptual content and a number of studies on
functional translation carried out in various fields. The first portion of the chapter presents a
discussion on the applicability of Skopos theory to the translation of functional texts as well as
a similarly-oriented dialogue between Andrew Chesterman and Emma Wagner, where the two
scholars arrive at the conclusion that Skopos theory holds a lot of promise to practising
translators and consequently present their own typologies which can be employed in practice
– classifications of translation purposes, processes, commissioners, and practical methods.
The second portion of the chapter is connected with practice, seeing as it presents example
studies on resolving culture-specificity issues within various domains of functional texts.
These studies relate to areas such as the translation of instruction manuals, translation for
advertising, for the tourist industry, and the translation of legal documents. The authors
elaborate on various culture-specific elements which are found in texts belonging to these
fields and suggest methods for resolving them and assuring that the produced texts are
communicative in the target cultural setting.
For the purpose of thorough research of Skopos theory and its concepts, the thesis
makes frequent references to Christiane Nord‟s Translating as a Purposeful Activity (1997),
which is a work devoted to this framework‟s historв and terminologв among other notions.
Other mentionable works include Mary Snell-Hornbв‟s studies of various concepts related to
culture and translation in The Turns of Translation Studies (2006), particularly her proposed
definition of culture which allowed for a considerable development of the work‟s analвsis.
Lastlв, Andrew Chesterman and Emma Wagner‟s discussion mentioned above, which was
taken from Can Theory Help Translators?: A Dialogue Between the Ivory Tower and the
Wordface (2002). It proved indispensible for indicating the possibilities that characterise
Skopos theory in terms of creating further concepts applicable to the practice of functional
translation.
6

8. CHAPTER ONE
SKOPOS THEORY – A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO TRANSLATION
One of the most notable characteristics of translation studies is the discipline‟s inclination
towards establishing strong and valid connections between its own theories and a vast number
of other scholarly fields. It would not even be a misconception to claim that many ideas in the
field of the translational craft would not have come into existence without the input of other
disciplines. This statement, however, is not meant to suggest that translation is in fact an
insubstantial activity, a mere element or aspect of a different field, as it is at times claimed
(Snell-Hornby 2006: 51). Rather, the essence of the above statement is that among its many
goals, the discipline of translation studies aims to establish the relation between translation
and a variety of perspectives that constitute human culture. Apart from addressing rather
obscure issues, such as whether translation is at all possible, the discipline also investigates
how the process of translation interacts with literary traditions, ideologies, history, societies,
and many other factors (Bassnett and Lefevere 1998: 1-2). The knowledge of translational
theories is indispensable to practising translators, as researching them is nothing other than an
act of expanding and improving one‟s repertoire of solutions to specific translation problems.
That is not to say the success of one‟s translational effort is fully determined by one‟s
knowledgeability of theories. The practice is dependent on experience, talent, and, quite often,
creativity, as in the case of many other occupations. Nevertheless, guided by specific
theoretical foundations, translators make firm, justified decisions as to why a given text
should be translated in one manner and not another. A similar kind of decision shall be made
in the following chapter of this work. By discussing the origin and nature of the Skopos
theory, an explanation shall be provided as to why this approach is best suited for functional
texts and how the knowledge of its concepts maв potentiallв support one‟s translational
endeavours within that field.
7
1.1 The origin of Skopos theory
The formulation of ideas characteristic to what is known as Skopos theory today was preceded
by a number of significant changes in the general orientation of translation studies. The
discipline used to be considered a subordinate of linguistics. This is for instance indicated by
the definition of translation found in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. It describes the activity as

9. an “act or process of rendering what is expressed in one language or set of sвmbols bв means
of another language or set of sвmbols” (Snell-Hornby 1995: 39). A definition such as this will
generally be accepted as a simple explanation of what the activity of translation entails.
However, in light of the developments that took place within translation studies in the second
half of the 20th century, it will certainly appear to be incomplete.
In the 1970s, translation scholars belonging to the German circles of the field began
introducing new views; ones that strictly opposed linguistically-oriented perspectives of
translation, as found in the encyclopaedic entry quoted above (Schтffner in Baker 1998: 235).
Mary Snell-Hornby summarises this trend, which at the time was innovative, under four
characteristics: first of all, the new concepts were to view translation as a process of cultural,
rather than linguistic transfer. This directly resulted in the second postulate – texts themselves,
whether source materials for translation or translations themselves, could no longer be
considered isolated products of a linguistic system. They instead had to be viewed through the
prism of constant interaction with the culture in which they had been created. Third,
translation was not meant to be considered an operation of substituting static elements. To the
proponents of this theory, it was an act of communication in which the form and tone of the
message were dependent on the reception of its addressees. Finally, the new trend sought to
dethrone the source text as the sole measurement model for the preciseness or acceptability of
the produced translation. This, arguably most radical, postulate sought to create space within
the field for discussing the variety of functions that texts fulfil. Individual functions of texts
were perceived as factors that determine the best translation strategy to be employed by the
translator (Snell-Hornby 2006: 52). It was this last concept of the new orientation that earned
it the name „functionalism,‟ while scholars who worked within its scope came to be known as
functionalists.
It is reasonable to expect that the questions addressed by functionalism had been
raised at some point prior to the emergence of the theory or even the discipline of translation
studies itself. This is in fact observed by Christiane Nord in a historical overview of
functionalist approaches that she presents in a work devoted to this translation theory. Nord
explains that the individual issues touched upon by functionalism were the subject of many
works on translation, dating back as early as the times of Roman philosopher Cicero (106-43
B.C.) who writes: “If I render word for word, the result will sound uncouth, and if compelled
by necessity I alter anything in the order of wording, I shall seem to have departed from the
function of a translator” (qtd. by Nord 1997: 4). Cicero considers the possibility of an
8

10. alternative approach to translation. However, the existence of two different strategies imposes
a dilemma – is a translation that introduces changes still a translation and will remaining
completely faithful to the original always result in a readable translation? Late 20th century
translation studies also shifted their focus to this issue. Elaborating on this matter will come
later, however, as more instances of such considerations can be found in later works.
The Bible is arguably one of the most delicate and controversial subjects known to the
translational craft of the Western world. It naturally came to be a source of considerations
dealing with faithfulness vs. readership conflicts, given the amount of detail which has been
devoted to preserving its message while simultaneously addressing the need to make it
readable to its intended audience. Many prominent figures among Bible translators such as
Jerome or Martin Luther claimed that “there are passages in the Bible where the translator
must reproduce „even the word-order‟ or keep „to the letter;‟ in other passages they believed it
was more important „to render the sense‟ or to adjust the text to the target audience‟s needs
and expectations” (ibid.). As we can see, even when working with such “delicate” material,
devoted practitioners of translation accepted the possibility of introducing changes during the
process for the sake of intelligibly rendering the sense of the given text.
Another instance of conceptual similarity to Skopos theory can be observed in Eugene
Nida‟s principles of equivalence. In his understanding of the equivalent effect, Nida argued
for a dichotomy that discerns between equivalence on the level of the source text‟s formal
elements (formal equivalence) and on the level of the source text‟s extralinguistic
communicative effect (dynamic equivalence) (ibid.: 5). Again, we encounter a duality of
translational approaches. On the one hand, Nida discusses the relationship between source and
target texts in purely linguistic terms but on the other, he allows for a different, separate point
of view which became one of the key issues of Skopos theory only two decades later – namely
rendering texts in such a manner that both the original and the translation are equivalent with
respect to the reception, interpretations, and impressions that they evoke in their respective
audiences. Seemingly on the path to functionalism, the theory of equivalence still constrained
translation to source text fidelity and purely linguistic notions, mainly owing to the reception
it received within the linguistics-dominated discipline of the 1950s and 1960s. Due to the
popularity of conceiving the process of translation as a linguistic operation, the academic
community focused on those aspects of Nida‟s theorв that corresponded to structuralist ideas,
leaving the notion of purpose-oriented dynamic equivalence largely insignificant (ibid.: 5-6).
9

11. Notwithstanding, the equivalence theory was highly important to the beginnings of Skopos
theory in translation.
Interestingly enough, the first functionalism-oriented concept of translation was
largely based on Nida‟s equivalence theorв. However, it also served as an initial response to
its linguistically-oriented limitations. In 1971, Katharina Reiss, an accomplished German
translator and scholar, introduced a model of translation criticism that evaluated translations
on the basis of their functionality. She claimed that ideal translations were equivalent to their
source texts as regards their “conceptual content, linguistic form and communicative
function” (ibid.: 9). What Reiss stresses here is that equivalence may refer not only to
language but also to the content and to the way that content is communicated to its audience.
Thus, translators can also relate to the source text in terms of transferring the function fulfilled
by the original onto the rendering. This observation bears significant consequences for formal
equivalence, as it accepts the possibility of faithful translation becoming an option under
certain conditions rather than a necessity at all times.
Reiss states that one such condition could be a translation that is intended to achieve a
different purpose or function than the original (ibid.). Consider for instance an advertisement
made by one company which was intended for an audience of one country. The company also
conducts its business abroad and wants to extend its campaign there. Instead of
commissioning the advertisement to be translated for the audience of that country, the
company may request for it to be translated as an explanation of its content. That way, before
commissioning its translation as an actual advertisement, the company may rely on its foreign
branch marketing experts to fundamentally revise the advertisement and avert any possible
inappropriateness or misinterpretations that may arise from releasing a literal rendering.
Obviously, an explanatory translation may be more schematic and less aesthetic in form – it is
not yet intended to exert its promotional influence on a group of consumers. It may also
present certain elements of information more directly than the original, actual advertisement.1
Another example presented by Reiss is when the target text is meant to address an
audience that is notably different from that for which the source text was originally intended
(ibid.). This pertains not only to (rather commonly associated with the practice of translation)
language differences between audiences. The addressees may prove diverse in various
regards. For example, certain bestsellers become translated into versions intended for
children. Such versions exhibit a variety of characteristics that are not found in regular
1 More considerations on the subject of heterofunctional translation, specifically within the domain of
advertising, available in 3.2.2 of this work.
10

12. translations. This applies both to situations when such books are transferred into different
languages and rewritten in their original one. In fact, translations for different audiences may
very well not involve interlingual transfer at all. Consider for example Wikipedia entries
which are written in a standard coined by the website which is known as „simple English.‟
The policy of applying it consists in rewriting English-language articles into texts with
shorter, simpler sentence structures and more common, undiversified vocabulary. This is
intended to make articles covering difficult or highly specialised topics and concepts more
accessible to users who have no higher education, experience in studying academic texts, or
interests in highly detailed information.
Reiss‟s initial attempts to break with purely linguistic translation were taken to the
next level by her student, Hans J. Vermeer. In a work entitled A Framework for a General
Theory of Translation, written in 1978 (Snell-Hornby 2006: 51), Vermeer specifies his
general approach to translation thus:
Linguistics alone won‟t help us. First, because translating is not merely and not even primarily a
linguistic process. Secondly, because linguistics has not yet formulated the right questions to tackle
our problems. So let‟s look somewhere else (Nord 1997: 10).
Vermeer seeks to formulate his concept of translation without complete reliance on
linguistics, as was the case with equivalence-based theory. The “somewhere else” that he
decided to research was the notion of translation as an action. Vermeer conceived translation
as a type of action that involves the transfer of communicative elements. Action was, in turn,
characterised in his approach by intentionality and immersion in a particular cultural context
(ibid.: 11-12). The terms that Vermeer operates with and employs in order to introduce his
intended shift have become a visible part of the discipline. This is for instance reflected by
the theorв of translational action, formulated bв Justa Holг Mтnttтri in the 1980s, which,
among other notions, explores how translation functions as a type of communicative action
(Schтffner in Baker 1998: 3; Nord 1997: 13).
Since Vermeer‟s notion of translational action is modified by its cultural background
and the purpose that it is meant to fulfil, it becomes impossible to judge the quality and
accuracy of translation solely by its relation to the source text – the linguistically-coded
message which, consequently, constitutes only a part, and not the whole of the translation
process. The approach that Vermeer proposes instead relies on investigating the culture-specificity
of communication and how it interacts with translation as a form of purposeful
human action. Vermeer formulates the most representative aspect of his theory by stating that
11

13. “Any action has an aim, a purpose. … The word skopos, then, is a technical term for the aim
or purpose of a translation. … Further: an action leads to a result, a new situation or event,
and possiblв to a „new‟ object” (Nord 1997: 12). Owing precisely to the Greek word skopos
that Hans Vermeer employed as a referent to the key concept of his approach, the theory
introduced in his work is known to contemporary translation studies as the Skopos theory
(Skopostheorie). In the following sections, we shall analyse its general framework and further
argue for it as a source of solutions to culturally-grounded difficulties in functional
translation.
12
1.2 The concepts of Skopos theory
1.2.1 Function, aim, purpose, and intention
As outlined above, the most important innovation that Skopos theory brought to translation
studies was a linguistically-independent view of the process of translation as a
communicative action characterised by a purpose (or skopos). The idea of purposeful
translation is of particular consequence to practice. It appoints the functions that target texts
fulfil as well as the target readers‟ reception as an acceptable ground for evaluating
translations. The functional and target-reader-oriented aspect of Skopos theory is most
precisely explained in a work co-authored by Reiss and Vermeer in 1984, entitled
Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie, where Vermeer‟s general concepts are
integrated with Reiss‟s notions of text tвpologв and equivalence set in a functional
framework (Nord 1997: 27).
In order to define his theory more precisely, Vermeer proposes a segmentation of the
Skopos notion into the concepts of function, purpose, aim, and intention. A self-evident term
in a functional theory, function refers to “what a text means or is intended to mean from the
target reader‟s point of view” (ibid.: 28). The function of a text is not something inherently
encoded within its linguistic content. Meaning is generated in an act of decoding which is
performed by the target reader. Consequently, function is not necessarily stable and will differ
between readers, especially in instances when readers belong to different cultural settings.
The relative position of function is analogous to the situation of aim. Vermeer defines
it as “the final result an agent intends to achieve bв means of an action” (ibid.). The authors
of functional texts aim to achieve something through their creation. What that achievement is
depends on the type of text. Yet whichever means the author employs in order to achieve
his/her aim in the source culture may not work the same way when they are literally

14. transposed into the target culture. Although the aim does not change, one and the same form
may be insufficient to achieve it in different situations. This notably advocates the
introduction of changes in the process of rendering and limits the dominance of formal
equivalence. Similarlв to Reiss‟s perception of the notion of equivalence, the concepts of aim
and function essentially separate translation from strict literalism.
The two remaining terms stand in a relation of dependence with the first ones. The
purpose is considered “a provisional stage in the process of attaining an aim” (ibid.). What
could for instance constitute purposes in reference to the process of translation is first
accepting a commission, then analysing the source text, further deciding on a translation
strategy, which would finally lead to the aim – producing the target text. Intention is the
single concept which was amended by Nord for the sake of clarity. She redefines it is as the
sender‟s or the text author‟s will to attain a particular aim (ibid.). In an ideal communicative
situation the function deciphered by the receiver is the same as the intention of the sender. In
an ideal translational situation the translator formulates the rendering in such a way that it
carries the source text author‟s intention over to a different cultural setting and achieves the
same purpose as in the original setting (or a different one should need arise).
The general tendency within the framework nowadays is to refer to all these concepts
simply as skopos and a similar trend shall be followed in this work. Further insight into
Vermeer‟s terminologв will clarify how he conceived his theory as a reader-oriented
framework advocating the employment of non-literal translation.
13
1.2.2 The translation brief
Since the goal of this work is to promote Skopos theory as a practical solution for settings of
professional translation, it is crucial to explicate those of its aspects which address work with
translation commissions. Regarding the choice of approach to individual translation
assignments, Vermeer states that “one must translate, consciouslв and consistentlв with some
principle respecting the target text. The theory does not state what the principle is: this must
be decided separately in each specific case” (ibid.: 29-30). It would at first seem that the
skopos-functionalist translator is left without an answer, as „the principle‟ seemingly remains
to be specified by the translator. Christiane Nord, however, addresses the issue by asking
“who decides what the principle is” (ibid.: 30). And since the aim of such translations
happens to be in fact specified in the commission, she answers that it is the directives of the

15. client that should be the decisive factor in selecting translation strategies. Nord describes
commission instructions that the German functionalists referred to as „the translation brief:‟
The translation brief specifies what kind of translation is needed. This is why the initiator or the
person playing the role of initiator (who might also be the initiator) actually decides on the
translation skopos, even though the brief as such may not be explicit about the conditions (ibid.).
The brief contains whatever information is necessary or useful to the translator
regarding the fulfilment of the commissioner‟s expectations towards the resulting text.
However, it is to be expected that the commissioner will not provide highly specific details
that would preciselв instruct the translator how the target text should be written. “No less than
a client tells a mechanic how to fix the broken car or a lawyer how to defend the accused”
(Nord 2006: 30). The translation brief will mostly contain technical information – the
deadline, the settled payment, the form of submission, etc. It is up to the translator to inquire
about any missing key details and use them in order to derive the best approach towards a
given assignment. It is also up to the translator to negotiate the terms of the brief should he or
she disagree with the commissioner. Otherwise, the translator‟s onlв other options would be
either to turn down the assignment or to refuse to be held accountable for the target text.
In instances when the commissioner does little beyond saying that a given text is to be
translated into a given language by some specified time, the translator works with what Nord
describes as a „conventional assignment.‟ “In a particular culture communitв at a given time,
certain tвpes of text are normallв translated bв certain tвpes of translation” (Nord 1997: 31).
Even with a minimal set of instructions, the translational craft follows certain default
procedures that can be easily derived as the most appropriate for a given task – as an example,
it is most often the case that television-set manuals are meant to be translated as television-set
manuals and legally valid driving licences are meant to be translated as documents granting
permission to drive a vehicle that can be later assigned legal validity.
1.2.3 Intertextual and Intratextual coherence
The discussion on Skopos theory has so far led us to explain that in the process of translation
the most significant roles are played by the source-text author, the translator, the
commissioner, and the target reader. A very interesting point in that regard, however, would
be the status of the source text in such a target-reader-oriented framework; one that opposes
the dominance that used to persist in linguistics-dominated theory. Nord notes that it is in fact
the aforementioned agents and not the linguistic material of the source text that need to be
14

16. considered firsthand when working on a translation assignment (Nord 1997: 31; Nord 2006:
33-34). In order to justify this priority, let us go back to the definition of text purpose, where
it was noted that the meaning of a text is not derived from its code but from its reception.
Texts do not exchange information when they are devoid of interpretation. In addition, texts
can be read in a variety of ways, seeing as interpretation depends on the individual reader‟s
reception.
Different receivers (or even the same receiver at different times) find different meanings in the
same linguistic material offered by the text. We might even saв that a „text‟ is as manв texts as
there are receivers (Nord 1997: 31).
The exchange of information is not possible without linguistic material, hence the necessity
for the source text‟s existence. This, however, begs the question if translators differ from
readers in any way when they decode the text prior to the act of translation.
Vermeer‟s definition of the source text makes the decoding performed in its translation
similar to that in regular reading. He describes it as an offer of information from which
individual receivers select “the items that theв find interesting and important” (ibid.). The
source text plays the same part in the process of translation as it does in reception, causing the
translator to likewise act as a reader. Following this logic, we may conclude that functional
translation consists in selecting those items of information from the source text which are
deemed relevant to its function and then transferring them to the target culture where they, as
target texts, can constitute an offer of information for the target readers (ibid.: 32). This
procedure in fact reveals the in-depth mechanics of maintaining the text‟s function in
translation – the translator decodes the purpose of the text in order to re-encode it in a new
cultural setting.
Such placement of the source text‟s role in Skopos theory entails two variables. Firstly,
it is generally the case that source-text materials exhibit proper placement in the source
culture situation which makes them meaningful media to their designated audience. The same
needs to characterise the translations of these materials as rewritten texts placed in a new
cultural situation. This is what Vermeer calls „intratextual coherence‟ (ibid.: 32-33). In
instances when the source text itself does not maintain such coherence and exhibits a variety
of errors inhibiting unconstrained reception, we may speak of the translator‟s role as editor in
the rendering process. This issue, however, merits an entirely separate discussion. The second
concept, central to source- and target-text relations, is known as „intertextual coherence‟
(ibid.: 32). This type of coherence signifies the source and target text‟s informational affinity
15

17. – the one single dimension where in Skopos theory there exists a link between the source and
target texts. The form of the target text, or in other words the manner in which it conveys the
information, is dependent on the skopos and the interests of the agents involved in the
translation. Nonetheless, the offers of information that both the source and target texts
constitute need to remain the same in order for the latter to be considered a translation of the
former.
Judging by the concepts associated with it, Hans Vermeer‟s general framework serves
well as a basis for determining effective translation strategies in settings of functional-text
translation. Skopos theory highlights the importance of the target reader as the „co-creator‟ of
the text‟s meaning, shifts the discipline‟s focus from linguistic code and equivalence to
cultural context, and, most importantly, specifies various functions that texts fulfil and
stresses the fact that they belong to the subject matter of professional translation. The last of
the notions listed above is further explored by Katharina Reiss. She introduces a theory of
text types which intends to specify a model of text-function typology. Being a link between
translation practice and the concept of the translation process proposed bв Vermeer, Reiss‟s
model will be investigated next in the discussion.
1.3 Skopos theory and the translation of functional texts
1.3.1 Reiss’s source text typology
Functionalism draws most of its didactic value from those theories contained within its
framework that explore the notion of decision-making in specific translational situations.
Some of these theories differentiate between translation strategies on the basis of
heterogeneous factors such as source-text types and target-text purposes. Others formulate
translation typologies in a straightforward manner and ascribe them to particular types of
assignments. The following shall provide a brief description of these notions as a means of
establishing a connection between skopos-oriented approaches and the practice of functional
translation.
In the 1984 work co-authored with Vermeer (cf. 1.2.1), Katharina Reiss proposes a
model of text classification based on the „organon model‟ of language functions. This model
was formulated by German psвchologist Karl Bühler in 1934. Bühler claimed that language
fulfils three basic functions: the informative, expressive, and operative. In Reiss‟s model,
these concepts are applied to written language and accordingly constitute three text categories
16

18. (Nord 1997: 37-38). Each of these categories determine which of the given text type‟s
elements require a greater degree of equivalence in translation.
Reiss describes the resulting categories as follows: informative texts, as the very name
suggests, intend to provide information to their readers as regards “various objects and
phenomena in the real world” (ibid.: 38). This function is also their top priority, placing the
employed language and style as secondary elements. Consequently, when translating
informative texts, the translator must strive to preserve all their referential value while
adjusting the secondary elements to target-culture norms (ibid.).
The second category, expressive texts, are notably different from its predecessor in
that the information theв carrв is “complemented or even overruled bв an aesthetic
component” (ibid.). The aesthetic component is constituted bв the text‟s informational
content as well its style, with both intending to have a particular “aesthetic effect” on the
reader. Reiss claims that when working on such texts, the translator‟s top prioritв is to assure
that their translation will evoke a similar kind of „rhetorical impression‟ on the target reader
as the source text does on the source reader (ibid.).
The last of Reiss‟s categories is the operative text. In this type of text, it is both the
form and content that play secondary roles, whereas its most important feature is the general
“extralinguistic effect that the text is designed to achieve” (ibid.). Operative texts are notably
pragmatic in nature. Their purpose is to perform certain actions, or make their intended
readers respond in a particular way. Consequently, it is necessary for the text to retain such
effects in translation.
Nord criticises Reiss‟s tвpologв as a sвstem that is still confined to the linguisticallв-
oriented notion of equivalence. She claims that in a theory where “the decisive factor in
translation” is “the dominant communicative function of the source text … any particular
text, belonging to one particular text type, would allow for just one way of being translated,
the „equivalent‟ waв” (ibid.: 39). Although Reiss‟s tвpologв recognises the need for applвing
different solutions to different types of texts, it does not allow for a variety of solutions for
one particular text type. As Nord states, functionalism does not deal with replacing certain
elements of the source text with ones that best reflect the given communicative function in the
target culture. What trulв matters is that the translator “be aware of these [communicative]
aspects and take them into consideration in their decisions” (ibid.). In order to resolve this
uncertainty, Nord proposes to redirect the focus of Reiss‟s system from source texts to target
texts.
17

19. 1.3.2 Nord’s amendment – a target-text typology
Drawing on the same model of language functions and seeking to remedy the shortcomings of
Reiss‟s concept, the sвstem proposed bв Christiane Nord can in all respects be considered an
amendment of the source-text typology. Accordingly, Nord establishes three target text
functions based on Bühler‟s modelŚ referential, expressive, and appellative. Nord also adds a
fourth, phatic function, that she borrows from Roman Jakobson‟s model of language
functions and claims is indispensible to completing the classification. Nord‟s definitions of
text functions are similar to those presented by Reiss. However, by having those definitions
applied to produced translations, her typology inherently places focus on the reception that
the texts receive in the target culture setting. It does not attempt to stress that the best
approach for particular text types is to preserve specific communicative elements. It is a
considerable break with equivalence-oriented considerations and a step closer towards the
postulations of Skopos theory.
Comparable to Reiss‟s approach, Nord states that the referential function of target
texts “involves a reference to the objects and phenomena of the world or a particular world”2
(Nord 1997: 40). Some references within texts are constituted by denotations while others
remain implicit. When carried across cultures, both clear denotations as well as implied
information can change their meaning. With respect to the production of referential target
texts, this entails an obligation on the part of the translator to compose informative messages
in a manner that will make them comprehensible to their intended readers. It is also necessary
in such cases to avoid references to culture-specific knowledge that the intended reader will
in all likelihood not possess. Nord adds that the sub-functions of the referential category are
abundant and difficult to surmise, ranging from basically informing the audience about facts
and events to providing instructions on the use of various devices or describing entire fields
of science and scholarly disciplines.
As regards the expressive function of texts, Nord adjusts the definition to better suit
functional texts. She claims that the concept proposed by Reiss was applicable exclusively to
literary texts as it focused mainly on the aesthetic aspect. Nord‟s understanding of the notion,
on the other hand, revolves around “the sender‟s attitude toward the objects and phenomena
of the world” (ibid.: 41). This in turn means that the expressive function can be found in any
textual elements that contain the sender‟s individual emotions, evaluations, or anв other
2 Nord neither excludes fictional worlds or “realities” from her definition nor, incidentally, removes the
expressive function from the aesthetic value of texts.
18

20. expressions of attitude. Nord explains that in this sense, expressive texts are sender-oriented.
The authors of these texts express themselves within the source-culture system and address
their writings to an audience that belongs to that same source culture. In translation, the
resulting target texts are addressed to an audience belonging to a different, target culture. This
makes them susceptible to changes in reception. Culture-bound expressive elements may be
presented explicitly within a text, which will make them comprehensible, albeit odd to the
target culture audience. However, in instances when culture-specific expressive markers are
implicit, the target audience may assign to them a different meaning or even a different
function. This is the factor of which translators need to be particularly mindful when
producing translations fulfilling or containing elements that fulfil the expressive function.
The appellative function of Nord‟s sвstem is the equivalent of Reiss‟s operative texts.
The change in terminology, however, is not coincidental. It reflects a shift from equivalence-oriented
preservation of communicative elements to target-reader reception, in a fashion
similar to that of the aforementioned concepts. The category of appellative texts still in fact
comprises any type of documents whose main purpose is to appeal to “the receivers‟
sensitivity or disposition to act” and “to induce them to respond in a particular way” (ibid.:
42). They are, therefore, comprised of texts that persuade the readers either to follow
particular viewpoints or to take up specific actions by appealing to the receivers‟ sensitivities
and desires. Such texts would include for instance advertisements when the sender appeals to
the receivers‟ real or imagined needs and any elements of exemplification when the sender
appeals to the receivers‟ previous experience or knowledge (ibid.). Similarly to the problem
encountered in the case of informative texts, appellative-function markers may lose their
meaning in translation as a consequence of their culture-specific character. They may very
likely be understood differently in a new cultural setting, even if they are recognised as
appellative elements, and thus fail to achieve the desired effect as they are dependent on a
specific kind of interpretation. Nord remarks that the appellative function “is like a dart that
has to hit the centre of the board to obtain a good score” (ibid.: 43). It remains in the hands of
the translator to produce the target text in a manner that will make it fulfil the appellative
function when it is presented to an audience with different background knowledge.
The final component of Nord‟s model, the innovative phatic function, is constituted by
any textual element that means to establish, maintain, or end contact between sender and
receiver (ibid.: 44). It is very often the case that this function is fulfilled by most
conventional, fixed expressions found within one cultural system – ranging from the
19

21. generally accepted forms of address to proverbs and idioms (ibid.). Needless to say, phatic
utterances may also be interpreted as odd-sounding expressions or elements serving a
different function when placed in a new cultural setting. It is necessary to bear in mind that
the conventionality of certain forms and expressions need not easily transfer across cultures.
Christiane Nord‟s model of target text typology provides a set of categories that
concentrate a broad variety of subgenres within functional texts. Concerning translation, the
main focus here is the reception generated by the target readers who are guided by the norms
and conventions of a particular cultural setting. The target-text model emphasises the
importance of perceiving translation as a process of transferring communicative elements to
that new cultural setting but leaves open the question of how various translational approaches
affect this transfer. This issue is taken up by a different functionalist model created by Nord,
which focuses on the classification of translation procedures.
20
1.3.3 Nord’s classification of translations
The previously described classification of texts frequently remarks that target texts preserve
their intended communicative functions when the solutions adapted by the translator take into
account the differences between source- and target-culture communicative elements.
Therefore, a skopos that requires the translation of an appellative text to be read as an
appellative text in the target culture will call for adapting the text‟s appellative markers to
target-culture norms. It needs to be stressed, however, that adopting a contrary approach, one
faithfully recreating the markers of the source culture, will not always lead to a breakdown in
communication. Indeed, translators may encounter skopoi where the same appellative text
needs to be interpreted as information about appellation in the target culture. Reiss‟s model
would consider such a change in function a failure to provide equivalent communicative
elements. This is a serious shortcoming on its part. A translator may be commissioned to
translate a British university diploma into Polish so that the resulting document will be able to
legally function in the Polish educational system. On the other hand, s/he may also be
commissioned to produce a translation that will simply explain each element of the document
in Polish. These translational alterations are accepted bв Nord‟s text classification, which
perceives the changes in the reception of communicative functions as a different outcome of
translation rather than a mistranslation. The following model proposed by Nord explores
translational procedures which both introduce such changes and preserve the communicative
category of the source text.

22. Drawing on the notion of dual translational modes that serve either to recreate the
source text‟s communicative function or to render it with an entirely different one, Nord
proposes two basic categories of translation procedures: documentary and instrumental
translations. She describes the first category as a form of text production that maintains the
communication between the original sender and the intended source-culture audience,
whereas the target-culture audience, the proper addressees of the translation, are the
spectators of this communication (Nord 1997: 47). Documentary translation produces
renderings which preserve certain aspects of its source text to the extent that they are overtly
marked as translations to their new readers. Consequently, their resulting communicative
function will be very different from the original. In the case of documentary translation, the
occurring change of function causes the text to adopt what Nord describes as the “metatextual
function,” which reflects the translation‟s status as a „document‟ of the source-culture
communication (ibid.). The category of instrumental translation comprises procedures that
produce texts characterised by a similarity of function with respect to their source texts.
Renderings produced with instrumental translation are new communicative situations that
take place between the original sender and the new target-culture audience. They are only
based on the source text and all their communicative elements are adjusted to the target-culture
norms (ibid.). Due to the fact that these translations create communication anew and
do not directly reveal themselves as translations, they can retain the original communicative
function that their source texts fulfilled when addressing the source-culture audience (ibid.)
The following paragraphs will outline those elements of Nord‟s model that pertain to
functional texts, seeing as that is the main focus of this work.
Nord divides the category of documentary translation into several subcategories that
illustrate different modes of preserving the textual elements of source texts and the form and
application of translations that they produce. The subcategories of documentary translation
employed in renderings of functional texts are as follows:
 Interlineal translation – also described as word-for-word translation. Texts produced with
this procedure preserve the morphological, lexical, and/or syntactic features of the
source-language system which are found in the source text. It is most often used in
academic works devoted to comparative linguistics or in language encyclopaedias,
“where the aim is to show the structural features of one language bв means of another”
(ibid.).
21

23.  Literal translation – this mode of translation preserves the lexical units of the source text
while adapting all remaining linguistic elements to the norms of the target-language
system (ibid.: 48-49). Nord remarks that literal translations have multiple applications,
ranging from explication of foreign vocabulary in language classes or within the field of
intercultural studies to translation of quotations in scholarly works and citing foreign-language
22
speakers in the media.
 Philological translation – such translations reflect their source text rather literally but
provide footnotes, glossaries, or any other explanation as regards certain culture-specific
peculiarities found within them (ibid.: 49). Nord remarks that this procedure is mostly
employed in the translation of ancient or culturally-distant literary texts but it may very
well be employed in any functional texts where a semi-literary mode of discourse is
employed – for instance in some tourism texts, where references to notions exclusive to a
specific culture are likely to be found.
Instrumental translation comprises modes of translation which aim at different degrees
of preserving the communicative effect that takes place between the sender and source-culture
audience and redirecting it to the target-culture audience. Two of these procedures are
of particular relevance to functional texts:
 Equifunctional translation – this type of translation is best employed in circumstances
when the target-culture audience does not need to be aware of the fact that it is reading a
translation. Equifunctional translations perfectly adapt every communicative element
found in the source text to target-culture standards and constitute the exact same kind of
communicative interaction between the sender and the target-culture readers that the
original maintained with the source-culture readers. This type of rendering is employed
in a vast range of functional translations. Among some, Nord enumerates instruction
manuals, recipes, tourist information texts, and information on products
(ibid.: 50).
 Heterofunctional translation – this mode of translation relates to texts whose cultural
remoteness does not enable the complete re-creation of all their communicative functions
(ibid.: 50-51). It may be for example the case that a translator is commissioned to render
an advertisement whose referential function consists in relating to imagery which is
recognised as positive in the source culture. That reference allows the advertisement to
fulfil its appellative function, namely, to convince the intended audience to buy the
product. The same imagery may not have positive associations in the target culture which

24. obliges the translator to choose a different kind of imagery, one that does agree with this
requirement. This is also an example of a change in the referential function for the
purpose of preserving the appellative function.
Skopos theory gathers translational approaches which are strictly contrary to the
field‟s early 20th-century assumptions; they strive to terminate the hegemony of the source
text as the ultimate measure of translational accuracy and grant more importance to the
remaining participants of the translation process. The concepts which have been successively
developed within the theory prioritise, among others, the purpose of the translated text, the
terms of the commission, and the cultural context of both source and target text. Skopos
theory discerns various categories of functional texts and specifies modes of translation that
best serve individual goals. It elaborates on the problems encountered in the practice of
functional translation and how to approach them in order for the target text to achieve its
intended effect. The shift of the „70s that Skopos theory was part of called for perceiving
language as a form of communication within a specific culture rather than a static code, while
translation itself was seen as a mode of mediation between different cultures and not a
process of exchanging the elements of different codes. In order to establish how translation
studies precisely interact with the concept of culture, the following chapter will explore the
status of this notion within the discipline.
23

25. CHAPTER TWO
CULTURE IN TRANSLATION THEORY
The previous chapter of the given work included numerous references to the notion of culture,
a term which has proven to be necessary for even the most basic descriptions of various
concepts introduced by Skopos theory and, as such, an inherent element of functional
translation. Likewise, the notion of culture is a crucial element in many other theories coming
from various stages of the development of translation studies. In the light of these two facts, it
becomes feasible to assume that a broad range of the field‟s theories expose close connections
to, or possibly provide certain foundations for functionalist ideas. Since the aim of this work
is to investigate how Skopos theory resolves translational issues arising from cultural
differences, it is necessary here to investigate this possibly long-lived connection by
examining the role that the notion of culture plays in the general scope of translation theory.
The following chapter shall first discuss the meaning of culture in reference to functional
translation and secondly provide an overview of some of a few selected concepts pertaining to
culture in translation. The description of these concepts shall serve to elaborate on the impact
that the notion of culture has on both theories of translation and the practice of functional
translation.
2.1 Defining culture from the perspective of functional translation
Until now the discussion has followed a slightlв “intuitive” understanding of what culture
comprises. The “varietв of perspectives that constitute human culture” which have been
mentioned in the opening paragraph of the previous chapter (cf. 1.0) may basically refer to all
elements of life, both common and rare, negligible and grand, as well as good and bad. This
collection serves as an instrument of defining who we are as individuals, members of groups,
and members of societies and how different we are from other people on each of these levels.
In a slightly abstract manner, one could name people as products of culture. Applying the
same to written texts, the dominant subject matter of translation, would actually be far more
tangible. They are in fact products of culture in the very same sense, seeing as all texts, in
various ways and to various degrees, constitute a reflection of human identities. In the process
of explaining how Skopos theory perceives the workings of texts in translation, the discussion
has referred to terms such as target culture, source culture, culture-specificity, and the transfer
24

26. of texts across cultures. In translation theory, particularly in the functional approach, these
notions already hint at a determined perception of culture, namely that if texts reflect culture,
it would not be possible to speak of their meaning independently of it.
In its broadest sense, culture envelops the totality and diversity of human heritage.
Determining the link between the concept of culture and translation studies in this sense
would be indeed a Herculean task, as we are not provided with a single theoretical approach
that would encompass such a great scope and practically serve as a “general theory of
everything” for more specialised theories. This fact is pointed out by Peeter Torop in his
research devoted to the cultural influence of translated textsŚ “although there are several
disciplines engaged in the study of culture, we can speak of neither a methodologically
unified research into culture, nor of a general theory of culture. As an object of study culture
allows for too manв different definitions for this to be possible” (Torop 2002Ś 594). Nor can
every element of this scope be regarded as relevant to translation studies. To illustrate this,
Kate James points out that “the definition of „culture‟ as given in the Concise Oxford
Dictionary varies from descriptions of the „Arts‟ to plant and bacteria cultivation and includes
a wide range of intermediarв aspects” (James 2002). Some scholars question whether there is
a point to defining culture at all, as in the case of Ned Seleeвe who commentsŚ “I know of no
way to better ensure having nothing productive happen than for a language department to
begin its approach to culture by a theoretical concern for defining the term” (qtd. bв Katan
1999: 16).
Fortunatelв, the translation scholar‟s work belongs to a field which constructivelв
incorporates other disciplines (cf. 1.1) and this allows for such an effort to be in fact
productive. Here the issue at hand is resolved by a significant similarity between the foci of
cultural and translation studies. A likely-minded remark regarding this is made by Torop:
“comparing the two fields, especiallв projecting the development problems of translation
studies upon cultural theory, comes most naturally. Translation studies attempt to solve,
although on a smaller scale, the same problems that have been facing cultural theory for some
time alreadв” (Torop 2002Ś 593-594). Incidentally, placing focus on a scope of culture which
comprises the interests of a specific field often becomes the prerequisite for conducting
studies within that fieldŚ “if we define culture as „a particular civilization at a particular
period,‟ then we will teach history … if, on the other hand w define culture in terms of „the
artistic and social pursuits, expressions and tastes valued by a society or class‟ we will be
teaching national sports, pursuits, and hobbies” (Katan 1999Ś 16-17). Thus, what can be done
25

27. with translational issues in mind is to narrow the immense scope of culture down to a level
where it overlaps with the mechanics of translation instead of generalising about the concept.
For this purpose, Mary Snell-Hornbв refers to a definition of culture drawn bв Heinг Göhring
from a concept first formulated by the American ethnologist Ward H. Goodenough:
Culture is everвthing one needs to know, master and feel in order to judge where people‟s
behaviour conforms to or deviates from what is expected from them in their social roles, and in
order to make one‟s own behaviour conform to the expectations of the societв concerned – unless
one is prepared to take the consequences of deviant behaviour. (qtd. by Snell-Hornby 1995: 40)
Göhring‟s proposed adaptation of Goodenough‟s definition specifically aimed to address the
process of translation (Nord 1997: 24). Snell-Hornby points out that its core significance in
this regard is found in three pointsŚ “firstlв, the concept of culture as a totalitв of knowledge,
proficiency, and perception; secondly, its immediate connection with behaviour (or action)
and events, and thirdly, its dependence on expectations and norms, whether those of social
behaviour or those accepted in language usage.” She additionallв stresses that these
characteristics are highlв relevant in particular to Vermeer‟s approach to translation (Snell-
Hornby 1995: 42). In order to confirm whether there exists a legitimate connection between
Skopos theory and the above definition, let us turn back to the fundamental assumptions of
functionalism and applв to them the primarв aspects of Goodenough‟s concept.
The assumption which pictures culture from the translational perspective as a
collection of all knowledge and norms that condition linguistic behaviour makes it impossible
to speak of language as some form of a standalone code system, independent of any element
that originates beyond it and requiring nothing for its comprehension but the knowledge of the
code itself. Indeed, the functional approach follows this opposition, seeing as its postulates
sum up to treating texts not as mere products of language but messages interactively bound
with the aforementioned collections (ibid.: 43). The concept of unity between language and
culture in this sense is particularly reflected in the studies of Hönig and Kussmaul, the
German functionalist “precursors,” who develop their perception of translation from the
concept of texts as a “verbalised part of a socioculture” (Snell-Hornby 1995: 44, 2006: 51).
This description clearly leans towards perceiving texts as expressions grounded in the
knowledge of individual groups of people. They saw in this particular relation an important
consequence for translation, namely what Snell-Hornby summarises as a dependence of the
produced translation “on its function as a text „implanted‟ in the target culture” (Snell-Hornby
1995: 44). For all that it comprises, culture may be seen as playing the role of a context that
26

28. continuously determines what a text must contain in order to fulfil a specific function.3 In
terms of functional translation, observing such contexts proves crucial to achieving the
desired effect, for the purpose of translation consists in presenting a clear, readable text not
only to a reader who speaks a different language, but also to one who belongs to a different
culture. Different cultures may be characterised by striking differences in terms of what
determines the function of a text. As Snell-Hornbв writesŚ “if language is an integral part of
culture, the translator needs not only proficiency in two languages, he must also be proficient
in two cultures” (ibid.: 44).
In light of the fact that culture is highly significant to determining how various text
functions are fulfilled by language, the target-text orientation of functionalism has a dual
dependence. It has been discussed that in professional settings the translator of functional
texts is presented with a translation brief which, among others, explicates the reception that
the produced translation is meant to attain. Open disagreement or neglecting to take into
account any specified terms of the commission fails the translation assignment. In order to
perform his/her task well, the translator is obliged to not so much „obey‟ the brief without
question but rather mediate between his/her own intentions, the intentions of the source text‟s
author, and the intentions of the commissioner and consequently create a compromise
between the interests of all involved parties in the produced translation (Nord 2006: 32-34). It
is a technical issue that nonetheless has a great impact on the practice and shifts the focus
towards target-text production. The target cultural context that the translation is to become
embedded in similarly advocates such a shift. The functional approach observed inadequacies
in the classical rule of translating as faithfully as it is possible in all situations not only
because the expectations of commissioners tend to be different than or the exact opposite of
literal translation, but also because translation involves creating texts for a new audience
which is likewise guided by its own, specific knowledge in determining the sense of a given
text and expectations pertaining to a given translation‟s function. The conclusion reached here
remains unchanged – culture has a substantial impact on translation; regardless of the type of
text that the translator works with or the instructions of the commissioner, the purpose of
translation is also conditioned by the fact that the process entails transferring the text into a
new communicative situation. The relation between the translation‟s purpose, the terms of the
commission, and the target culture audience is best reflected in an explanation of the status of
the skopos in the functional framework presented by Snell-Hornby:
3 This takes into account functions as outlined in 1.3 of this work.
27

29. The most important factor [to the functional approach] is the skopos (Greek for aim, purpose,
goal), hence the purpose or function of the translation in the target culture, as specified by the
client (in a translation brief) or the envisaged user-expectations; translation is hence prospective
rather than, as had hitherto been the case, retrospective (Snell-Hornby 2006: 54).
For a certain reason that remains unexplained, however, Snell-Hornby writes about the
prospectiveness of functional translation as alternately based on the demands of the brief and
the target audience. That is not usually the case, for the interests of both these participants
may be sufficiently incongruent to exert contrary demands for one assignment and require the
translator to establish a compromise between them (Nord 2006: 33).
Despite the fact that the presented approach aims to explain the notion of culture in
terms more manageable to Skopos theory, it is still left to operate within a range of various
ideas and issues. It is a fact particularly pertinent to Skopos theory that translation deals with a
broad variety of text types for whom their respective cultural contexts will focus on different
linguistic and extra-linguistic elements in determining their functionality. What is more, in
the current view culture remains a very complex system where precise delimitation is hardly
possible. It is not the case that to each language there is ascribed only one culture which
gathers every phenomenon that conditions its norms and behaviour (Nord 1997: 24). To
elaborate on this, Nord gives the example of cultural similarities found among separate, but
nonetheless spatially close communities such as of those Dutch and Germans who live in
regions close to their common border. Although their languages differ, their value systems
will be similar. Alternatively, the Scots and the English, who constitute distinct communities
of dissimilar origin, will share similar linguistic patterns in some situations while following
their own in others (ibid.: 24). To resolve the question of how to envision the borders of
culture, Nord refers to an altogether different view formulated by the North American
anthropologist Michael Agar. Agar claims that “culture is not something people have; it is
something that fills the spaces between them. And culture is not an exhaustive description of
anything; it focuses on differences, differences that can vary from task to task and group to
group” (ibid.). Agar‟s concept diverges significantlв from the view accepted in this studв in
that he conceives culture purely in terms of differences, as something indescribable as far as
its scope is concerned. However, the point that he makes in his consideration is nonetheless
valid to the issue of delimiting cultures. Culture-specificity may apply to various social levels
and it may also persist across language boundaries. The cultural proficiency of the translator
must in many cases consist not only in the knowledge of what is largely specific to the users
28

30. of one language but also in the ability to tell apart the norms and value systems of different
communities, groups, and organisations.
The sheer difficulty of defining culture or even placing it within the framework of a
single translation theory predicts that entire volumes of discussions would likely not exhaust
the subject. Culture is a concept of great complexity, one difficult to determine in almost
every respect. The most important issue to Skopos theory and the practice of functional
translation in this regard is a perception of culture as a context for language with which it
remains in continuous interaction. Gathering norms as well as all manner of “knowledge,
proficiencв, and perception” (Snell-Hornby 1995: 42) that condition linguistic behaviour,
culture determines what allows texts to fulfil various functions. As such, it is a direct cause
for target-text orientation in the functional approach. Neglecting the fact that the production
of a target text consists in transferring it to a new audience and a new communicative
situation will jeopardise the assignment no differently than when a translator ignores the
translation brief. Given its great significance to translation, the concept of culture has given
rise to a number of theoretical notions in the field, many of which predate the assumptions of
functionalism and further elaborate on the problems that the translator must deal with.
2.2 The relation between the notion of culture and translation theory
The above discussion has presented the functional approach largely as a turning point in
translation, from perceiving the activity as a subservient practice of linguistic transcoding to
discussing it as an independent discipline which deals with intercultural communication. The
term of culture itself has been analysed in the setting of this shift, which took place at the end
of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s and whose concepts remain significant to
functional translation even today. However, in discussions on culture in translation, it is not
uncommon to find it described as a factor so inherent to the practice that it had to be
considered in one manner or another ever since the activity of translation came into existence.
Accordingly, the influences of the concept of culture can be traced in many ideas pertaining to
translation which presaged this „cultural turn4‟ but nonetheless related to its assumptions.
Some of these date as far back as the early 19th century.
4 This term is commonly used in translation studies to denote the shift described in this discussion; briefly
defined by Mary Snell-Hornbв as “the abandoning of the „scientistic‟ linguistic approach as based on the concept
of the tertium comparationis or „equivalence‟ and moving from „text‟ to „culture‟” (Snell-Hornby 2006:50).
29

31. 2.2.1 Schleiermacher’s dichotomy of translation strategies
In a study entitled Translating Literature: The German Tradition from Luther to Rosenzweig,
published in 1977, André Lefevere provides an overview of concepts formulated by the most
prominent scholars belonging to the German canon of translation theory (Snell-Hornby 2006:
6). Many considerations presented in the writings of the discussed theoreticians echo the later
intersection of cultural and translation theory. However, unlike Skopos theory, which
conceives language as a means of communication between cultures, the German tradition
from the 19th to the early 20th century was grounded in a different perspective. To the scholars
of that time, language was the representation of thought and reality, whereas translation was
an interpretative force, “necessarilв reconstituting and transforming the foreign text” (Venuti
2000: 11). Ideas of that likeness, pertinent to culture in translation are for instance found in
the works of Friedrich Schleiermacher, particularly in the lecture and essay that he produced
in 1813 and 1814 respectively (Snell-Hornby 2006: 6-7).
In Über die Verschiedenen Methoden des Übersetzens, Schleiermacher elaborates on
the approaches available to the translator in the rendering of various types of texts. What is
particularly interesting about his reasoning is that he discusses translation in both classical
terms of source-text fidelity and functionalism-reminiscent target-text focus. The German
scholar applied different perceptions of the translation process to different text types. In his
understanding, the translation of what he considered “everвdaв business texts” consisted in
“mere interpreting” (Schleiermacher in Lefevere 1992Ś 142). It could be performed in a
straightforward manner, involving no exceptional issues to translation, and consequently, it
deserved little research effort on the part of the discipline. It was a procedure so static that it
could compare to a mathematical equation (Snell-Hornby 2006: 8). A slightly different status
in his view was ascribed to academic texts. Schleiermacher postulated that the translation of
these non-literarв texts is the business of a “paraphrast.” Bв paraphrasing, Schleiermacher
understood a mode of translation in which all elements of a text are reduced to a certain
fundamental meaning and then reinstated in a different language. The difference between the
two categories consisted in the fact that the latter had the propensity to encompass a far
greater scope of subject material originating from various fields and disciplines
(Schleiermacher in Lefevere 1992: 143). Ultimately, however, it was literature that
constituted the area of what Schleiermacher called “genuine translation.” In this mode, he
argues, translation “submits to the irrationalitв of languages” and strives to produce “an
imitation, a whole which is composed of parts obviously different from the parts of the
30

32. original, but which would yet in its effects come as close to that whole as the difference in
material allows” (Snell-Hornby 2006: 8).
Schleiermacher categorised the translation of all texts that do not belong to literature
as a “mechanical activitв” (ibid.). This thought may have been motivated by a variety of
factors, such as the amount of fixed-phrase equivalents involved in the translation of legal and
technical texts, etc., which rather suggested literary works as a field for linguistic creativity
both in their production and translation (cf. Schleiermacher in Lefevere 1992: 142-143). A
different reason for this originated from a personal preference that Schleiermacher assumed
with respect to a different theoretical dispute, explained below. Although limited to literature,
Schleiermacher‟s understanding of the translation process relates to the notion of creating the
text anew, accepting other approaches than literal translation, and stressing the effect that the
text is meant to have on the target readership. Overall, it is a step taken in the direction of
target-text-oriented approaches. Another binary concept formulated by Schleiermacher is
taken up for discussion within the field even more frequently:
In my opinion, there are only two [approaches to translation]. Either the translator leaves the
author in peace, as much as possible, and moves the reader towards him; or he leaves the reader in
peace, as much as possible, and moves the author towards him. The two roads are so completely
separate from each other that one or the other must be followed as closely as possible, and that a
highly unreliable result would proceed from any mixture, so that it is to be feared that author and
reader would not meet at all (qtd. by Snell-Hornby 2006: 8).
Today better known as concepts of domestication and foreignisation, further developed by
Lawrence Venuti, Schleiermacher‟s strategies reveal the fact that the readers of the source
text and the target text are culturally heterogeneous groups and, consequently, translation
entails decisions regarding the presentation of thoughts originating from one culture to an
audience existing in a different one. The form of the translation‟s language is determined bв
the movement of authors and readers initiated by the translator, which may take place not
only across linguistic boundaries (if it had, Schleiermacher would have surely determined
paraphrasing as the most efficient mode of translation for any text), but also across space,
time, and organisations of knowledge. Domesticating in his understanding consists in
producing a text whose features adhere to the conventions of the target language and do not
betray its foreignness, whereas foreignising strives to mark the text with this foreign likeness,
keeping its readers aware of the fact that they are dealing with a translation and setting a clear
demarcation between what is native and what is foreign (ibid.: 9). Anthony Pym notes that the
“binarism” characterising Schleiermacher‟s approaches is quite commonplace in the
31

33. discipline‟s theorв, ranging up to the present times where, although tolerant of “middle
grounds,” various concepts still operate in terms of dichotomies (Pвm 1995Ś 6-7).
Schleiermacher‟s words strictlв underline the need for choosing onlв one of the two
available options, lest the produced translation places the author and the reader at a distance
where proper comprehension is not possible. Even though there appear to be two options
available to the translator, Schleiermacher is far in favour of the foreignising approach. He
advocates the creation of a special language for the purpose of translation, “enriched” bв the
foreignness of the source text‟s setting and maintaining the reader‟s awareness of the target
text‟s distant origin. A language of this kind could be achieved by employing such devices as
archaisms, irregular syntactic patterns, etc. (Snell-Hornby 2006: 9). Pym adds that, although it
is an extensive input on the subject, Schleiermacher‟s writing is not the first to discuss the
subject of domestication and foreignisation. His is a particular view on the matter, grounded
not only in the contemporaneous perception of language but also in the historical context of
the Napoleonic Era and what Pвm calls a “nationalistic opposition,” resulting in his lecture
being “a general attempt to oppose German Romantic aesthetics to the belles infidèles of
French Neoclassicism … He [Schleiermacher] had little contextual reason to look kindly upon
a French translation method” (Pвm 1995Ś 5-6). Additionally, Schleiermacher associated the
foreignising approach exclusively with literary art and academic works due to his belief that
messages conveyed by such texts were bound to highly culture-specific concepts. Their
abundance within them ultimately obliged the translator to employ the foreignising strategy,
as opposed to the terminologв of “everвdaв business texts” that Schleiermacher found easв to
transfer and not in the least challenging in “genuine” translation efforts (Kittel and Polterman
in Baker 1998: 423-424).
A different view regarding the two strategies was upheld by the highly renowned
German writer and thinker Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. During his commemorative address
for Christoph Martin Wieland, a respected translator of Shakespeare into German who died in
1831, Goethe spoke highlв of the translator‟s approach, which consisted in applвing
domestication when facing particularly difficult problems but mostly in resorting to the
method that draws from both strategies, an idea unconditionally advised against by
Schleiermacher. Both Wieland and Goethe were apparently convinced that the
“reconciliation” of both these approaches was highlв possible (Snell-Hornby 2006: 9).
A different scholar worthy of mention as regards the presented concepts, although
preceding both Schleiermacher and Goethe, is the 17th century English writer and translator
32

34. John Dryden, who formulated concepts highly reminiscent of those belonging to
Schleiermacher. Dryden distinguished between three modes of translation – metaphrase,
imitation, and paraphrase. The first two corresponded to the foreignisation and domestication
strategies respectively, while the last differed from how Schleiermacher perceived
paraphrasing and was described by Dryden as a sense-for-sense mode of translation, an
equivalent of “the middle waв” that he supported as the best approach while discarding the
other ones as “extremes that ought to be avoided” (ibid.).
Rooted in a perception of language generally ascribed to the German movements of
the time, which viewed it as an expression of thought and culture, and texts as representatives
thereof, the significance of Schleiermacher‟s concepts naturallв came to be recognised in
multiple discussions, most specifically by Lawrence Venuti in the 90s (ibid.: 145). Their
connection to the communicative view of language is nevertheless apparent in the way the
two strategies treated translation as an act of bringing one reality closer to the other and a
process of enriching languages, literatures, and nations (Venuti 2000: 11). A far more
“decisive” connection between the notion of culture and translation can be found in the
theories of a different German scholar.
2.2.2 Humboldt and Jakobson – the relation between language and reality
Mary Snell-Hornby recognises the theoretical input formulated by Wilhelm von Humboldt as
early as in the beginning of the 19th century to be among the first valid connections between
language and culture (Snell-Hornbв 1995Ś 40, 2006Ś 13). She attributes his ideas to “the
intellectual climate of his time and countrв,” which includes the recognition of language as a
constitutive element of thought and reality (cf. 2.2.1). Indeed, this is reflected in those of
Humboldt‟s claims which are of main interest at this point in the studвŚ “For Humboldt
language was something dynamic, an activity (energeia) rather than a static inventory of items
as the product of activity (ergon). At the same time language is an expression both of the
culture and the individuality of the speaker, who perceives the world through language” (ibid.:
40). A perception of language as being the activity itself and not something resulting from an
activity directs the linguistic considerations of that time onto a slightly different path.
Occupying the very centre of communication instead of being assigned the role of a utility,
language in this sense has a far closer connection to human cognition than it would as an
element responsible for detachedly expressing anything common to one reality and culture. It
still performs that function, albeit on a far more “intimate” level.
33

35. Humboldt‟s claims can indeed be seen as opening a path towards a new understanding
of language at that time. Snell-Hornby goes as far as establishing a relation between them and
two important linguistic concepts of the 20th century, concepts which can nevertheless be
viewed as highly relevant to translation, that is owing to the fact that their assumptions
ultimately advocate two opposing views of total translatability and total untranslatability.
Although contradictory and ultimately demanding exclusive acceptance from the individual
translators, these views shed light on the possible understandings of the interaction between
language and culture to be considered for both translation theory and practice.
Snell-Hornby first refers Humboldt‟s theorв to the principle of linguistic relativitв,
more commonly known as the Sapir-Whorf hвpothesis, which takes the German scholar‟s
idea as far as to claim that “thought does not „precede‟ language, but on the contrary it is
conditioned bв it” (Snell-Hornby 2006:41). From the level of greater intimacy, language
advances here to the role of the origin of reality. Sapir and Whorf‟s concept was based on
observations resulting from studies of exotic languages such as Hopi, where, according to the
scholars, “the verb sвstem directlв affected the speaker‟s conception of time” (ibid.).
Languages as such significant entities, which take precedence over even cognition and
perception of reality, create unbreakable ties with the cultures and communities that speak
them. Consequently, any effective form of translation becomes in this sense ultimately
impossible.
Snell-Hornbв also links Humboldt‟s views to the generative grammarians‟ theorв of
surface and deep structures of language. Humboldt himself writes that “a word is not a mere
sign for a concept since a concept cannot come into being, let alone be recorded, without the
help of a word” (Humboldt in Lefevere 1992Ś 136). To him, language is characterised bв a
duality of levels which constitute its entirety through their constant interaction, not in the
classical sense of words and their defined meanings, however, but underlвing “concepts,”
ideals existing in human thought and their inseparable “embodiment” through language.
Given the possibility that all linguistic products can be reduced to their pre-transformational
deep structure to be “rebuilt” in the surface structures of a different language, it would be
possible to conclude that translation is always possible.
A different set of considerations regarding the relation between language and reality as
expressed in terms of „conceptual ideas‟ and their linguistic signifiers was introduced bв
Roman Jakobson in his essay entitled On Linguistic Aspects of Translation, published in
1959. Similarly to Humboldt, Jakobson follows the claim that words occupy a separate level
34

36. in relation to the objects that they signify. He underlines in this distinction, however, that
meaning is a linguistic phenomenon derived from signs, and not from the concepts or “things”
that signs denote:
Any representative of a cheese-less culinarв culture will understand the English word “cheese” if
he is aware that in this language it means “food made of pressed curds” and if he has at least a
linguistic acquaintance with “curds.” … Against those who assign meaning (signatum) not to the
sign, but to the thing itself, the simplest and truest argument would be that nobody has ever
smelled or tasted the meaning of “cheese” or of “apple.” (Jakobson [1959] 2000: 113).
Since the meaning of a word is not necessarily expressed by the immediate presence of the
concept to which it is ascribed, it must be formulated by further linguistic material. In terms
of cultural contexts, Jakobson points out precisely that it is not the absence of a concept in a
given culture that impedes its comprehension but the lack of possibility to explain it in terms
available to that culture.
In light of the presented relation, Jakobson enumerates three types of translation:
intralingual, interlingual, and intersemiotic. The first relates to synonymy and paraphrasing
within one language system, which may occur when a speaker attempts to bring out the
meaning of a word, for instance bв stating that “a car is a vehicle” or “wine is the fermented
juice of grapes.” The intersemiotic tвpe is explained as “an interpretation of verbal signs bв
means of signs of nonverbal sвstems” (ibid.: 114). Jakobson put forward observations most
pertinent to the discussion at hand in the context of the interlingual mode of translation, the
kind conducted between languages. Although a greater portion of his discussion is devoted to
the implications that formal differences between languages exert on translation, Jakobson
nonetheless observes certain difficulties of interlingual translation which are caused by extra-linguistic
factors. He states that complete equivalence is not possible when rephrasing texts in
a different language just as it is not possible in the case of synonymy within one language.
The renderings maв instead “serve as adequate interpretations of alien code-units or
messages” (ibid.). To illustrate this problem, he presents the issue of translating between the
English word “cheese” and its seeming Russian equivalent “ɫыɪ.” In the culture of English
language speakers, Jakobson explains, the word “cheese” encompasses anв of the food‟s
known varieties without causing confusion. The Russian-speaking audience, however,
differentiates between cottage cheese (ɬɜоɪоɝ) and anв other pressed varieties (ɫыɪ). Thus, in
standard Russian “ɫыɪ” is in fact the accepted equivalent of “cheese,” but onlв when a
pressed variety free of ferments is in question (ibid.). In a context where this distinction is
relevant, the failure to observe it could indeed result in a mistranslation. Steering somewhat
35

37. towards considerations on the communicative function of languages, Jakobson adds that this
problem does not pertain merely to the quirks of individual words:
Most frequently, however, translation from one language into another substitutes messages in one
language not for separate code-units but for entire messages in some other language. Such a
translation is a reported speech; the translator recodes and transmits a message received from
another source. Thus translation involves two equivalent messages in two different codes (ibid.).
Jakobson advocates here a process of sense-for-sense substitution, very much in the manner
shared by functionalists. The translator is similarly the reader of a message who recreates that
message in a new language and communicates it to a new audience. To an extent, one could
argue that Jakobson also analysed translation in terms of formal and dynamic equivalence. He
begins his discussion from the perspective of grammatical and associative differences which
arise across language boundaries and investigates how those differences impede equivalence
on the level of words. Further on, he progresses to view texts as messages and translation as a
recoding thereof, as indicated above. The notion of equivalence may apply to a study of
translation and culture not exclusivelв in terms of attempting to relate to it within Jakobson‟s
theorв. Several scholars who discuss Nida‟s theorв point out that it is relevant to both the
concept of culture and the functional approach on grounds not yet discussed in the given
study.
2.2.3 Nida’s theory and the concept of culture
It has been stressed on multiple occasions that Vermeer‟s Skopos framework and all scholarly
activity conducted within the initial stages of its formation were largely an opposing response
to the equivalence paradigm (cf.1.1). Consequentlв, this begs the question whether Nida‟s
concepts can be placed on a par with the aforementioned theories as regards their relevance to
the issue of culture and translation. What is more, the equivalence framework should thus be
expected to contrast with the trends of the late 1970s so sharply that it would not in fact be
able to contribute to the post-cultural-turn discipline. Yet how alien to functionalism can
equivalence in its entirety really be when we observe such statements put forward by Nida
himself:
It is true that in all translation and interpreting the source and target languages must be implicitly
or explicitly compared, but all such interlingual communication extends far beyond the mechanics
of linguistic similarities and contrasts … the meaning of verbal sвmbols on anв and everв level
depends on the culture of the language community. Language is a part of culture, and in fact, it is
the most complex set of habits that any culture exhibits. Language reflects the culture, provides
access to the culture, and in manв respects constitutes a model of the culture (qtd. in Schтffner and
Kelly-Holmes 1995: 1)
36