66 Descriptive translation studies and beyond

the other, due either to subjectivity or naivete, or even lack of sufficient knowl- edge on the part of those who produced the formulations. On occasion, a deliberate desire to mislead and deceive may also be involved. Even with respect to the translators themselves, intentions do not necessarily concur with any declaration of intent (which is often put down post factum anyway, when the act has already been completed); and the way those intentions are realized may well constitute a further, third category still.

Yet all these reservations -- proper and serious though they may be -- should not lead one to abandon semi-theoretical and critical formulations as legitimate sources for the study of norms. In spite of all its faults, this type of source still has its merits, both in itself and as a possible key to the analysis of actual behaviour. At the same time, if the pitfalls inherent in them are to be avoided, normative pronouncements should never be accepted at face value. They should rather be taken as pre-systematic and given an explication in such a way as to place them in a narrow and precise framework, lending the resulting explicata the coveted systematic status. While doing so, an attempt should be made to clarify the status of each formulation, however slanted and biased it may be, and uncover the sense in which it was not just accidental; in other words, how, in the final analysis, it does reflect the cultural constellation within which, and for whose purposes it was produced. Apart from sheer speculation, such an explication should involve the comparison of various normative pronouncements to each other, as well as their repeated confrontation with the patterns revealed by [the results of] actual behaviour and the norms recon- structed from them -- all this with full consideration for their contextualization. (See a representative case in Weissbrod 1989.)

It is natural, and very convenient, to commence one's research into translational behaviour by focussing on isolated norms pertaining to well- defined behavioural dimensions, be they -- and the coupled pairs of replacing and replaced segments representing them -- established from the source text's perspective (e.g., translational replacements of source metaphors) or from the target text's vantage point (e.g., binomials of near-synonyms as translational replacements). However, translation is intrinsically multi-dimensional: the mani- fold phenomena it presents are tightly interwoven and do not allow for easy isolation, not even for methodical purposes. Therefore, research should never get stuck in the blind alley of the 'paradigmatic' phase which would at best yield lists of 'normemes', or discrete norms. Rather, it should always proceed to a 'syntagmatic' phase, involving the integration of normemes pertaining to various problem areas. Accordingly, the student's task can be characterized as an attempt

NORMS IN TRANSLATION 67

to establish what relations there are between norms pertaining to various domains by correlating his/her individual findings and weighing them against each other. Obviously, the thicker the network of relations thus established, the more justified one would be in speaking in terms of a normative structure(cf. Jackson 1960: 149-160) or model.

This having been said, it should again be noted that a translator's behaviour cannot be expected to be fully systematic. Not only can his/her decision-making be differently motivated in different problem areas, but it can also be unevenly distributed throughout an assignment within a single problem area. Consistency in translational behaviour is thus a graded notion which is neither nil (i.e., total erraticness) nor 1 (i.e., absolute regularity); its extent should emerge at the end of a study as one of its conclusions, rather than being presupposed.

The American sociologist Jay Jackson suggested a 'Return Potential Curve', showing the distribution of approval/disapproval among the members of a social group over a range of behaviour of a certain type as a model for the representa- tion of norms. This model (reproduced as Figure 9) makes it possible to make a gradual distinction between norms in terms of intensity (indicated by the height of the curve, its distance from the horizontal axis), the total range of tolerated behaviour (that part of the behavioural dimension approved by the group), and the ratio of one of these properties of the norm to the others.

One convenient division that can be re-interpreted with the aid of this model is tripartite:⁹

(a) Basic (primary) norms, more or less mandatory for all instances of a certain behaviour (and hence their minimal common denominator). Occupy the apex of the curve. Maximum intensity, minimum latitude of behaviour.

(b) Secondary norms, or tendencies, determining favourable behaviour. May be predominant in certain parts of the group. Therefore common enough, but not mandatory, from the point of view of the group as a whole. Occupy that part of the curve nearest its apex and therefore less intensive than the basic norms but covering a greater range of behaviour.

(c) Tolerated (permitted) behaviour. Occupies the rest of the 'positive' part of the curve (i.e., that part which lies above the horizontal axis), and therefore of minimal intensity.

9. Cf., e.g., Hrushovski's similar division (in Ben-Porat and Hrushovski 1974: 9-10) and its application to the description of the norms of Hebrew rhyme (in Hrushovski 1971b).