64 Descriptive translation studies and beyond

that time, it had a different, 'non-dated' position. By the same token, norm- governed behaviour can prove to have been 'avant-garde' only in view of sub- sequent attitudes towards it: an idiosyncrasy which never evolved into something more general can only be described as a norm by extension, so to speak (see Section 1 above). Finally, there is nothing inherently 'mainstream' about mainstream behaviour, except when it happens to function as such, which means that it too is time-bound. What I am claiming here, in fact, is that historical contextualization is a must not only for a diachronic study, which nobody would contest, but also for synchronic studies, which still seems a lot less obvious, unless one has accepted the principles of so-called 'Dynamic Functionalism' (for which, see the Introduction to Even-Zohar 1990⁷ and Sheffy 1992: passim).

Finally, in translation too, non-normative behaviour is always a possibility. The price for selecting this option may be as low as a (culturally determined) need to submit the end product to revision. However, it may also be far more severe, to the point of taking away one's earned recognition as a translator; which is precisely why non-normative behaviour tends to be the exception, in actual practice. On the other hand, in retrospect, deviant instances of behaviour may be found to have effected changes in the very system. This is why they constitute an important field of study, as long as they are regarded as what they have really been and are not put indiscriminately into one basket with all the rest. Implied are intriguing questions such as who is 'allowed' by a culture to introduce changes and under what circumstances such changes may be expected to occur and/or be accepted.

7. "There is a clear difference between an attempt to account for some major principles which govern a system outside the realm of time, and one which intends to account for how a system operates both 'in principle' and 'in time.' Once the historical aspect is admitted into the functional approach, several implications must be drawn. First, it must be admitted that both synchrony and diachrony are historical, but the exclusive identification of the latter with history is untenable. As a result, synchrony cannot and should not be equated with statics, since at any given moment, more than one diachronic set is operating on the synchronic axis. Therefore, on the one hand a system consists of both synchrony and diachrony; on the other, each of these separately is obviously also a system. Secondly, if the idea of structuredness and systemicity need no longer be identified with homogeneity, a semiotic system can be conceived of as a heterogeneous, open structure. It is, therefore, very rarely a uni-system but is, necessar- ily, a polysystem" (Even-Zohar 1990: 11).

NORMS IN TRANSLATION 65

5. Studying translational norms

So far we have discussed norms mainly in terms of their activity during a translation event and their effectiveness in the act of translation itself. To be sure, this is precisely where and when translational norms are active. However, what is actually available for observation is not so much the norms themselves, but rather norm-governed instances of behaviour. To be even more precise, more often than not, it is the products of such behaviour. Thus, even when translating is claimed to be studied directly, as is the case with the use of 'Thinking-Aloud Protocols' (see Chapter 12, Section 3), it is only products which are available, although products of a different kind and order. Norms are not directly observable, then, which is all the more reason why something should also be said about them in the context of an attempt to account for translational behaviour.

There are two major sources for a reconstruction of translational norms, textual and extratextual:⁸

(1) textual: the translated texts themselves, for all kinds of norms, as well as analytical inventories of translations (i.e., 'virtual' texts), for various pre- liminary norms;

(2) extratextual: semi-theoretical or critical formulations, such as prescriptive 'theories' of translation, statements made by translators, editors, publishers, and other persons involved in or connected with the activity, critical ap- praisals of individual translations, or the activity of a translator or 'school' of translators, and so forth.

There is a fundamental difference between these two types of source: Texts are primary products of norm-regulated behaviour, and can therefore be taken as immediate representations thereof. Normative pronouncements, by contrast, are merely by-products of the existence and activity of norms. Like any attempt to formulate a norm, they are partial and biased, and should therefore be treated with every possible circumspection; all the more so since -- emanating as they do from interested parties -- they are likely to lean toward propaganda and persua- sion. There may therefore be gaps, even contradictions, between explicit argu- ments and demands, on the one hand, and actual behaviour and its results, on

8. Cf., e.g., Vodicka (1964: 74), on the possible sources for the study of literary norms, and Wexler (1974: 7-9), on the sources for the study of prescriptive intervention ('purism') in language.