68 Descriptive translation studies and beyond

Figure 9. Schematic diagram showing the Return Potential Model for representing norms: (a) a behaviour dimension; (b) an evaluation dimension; (c) a return potential curve, showing the distribution of approval-disapproval among the members of a group over the whole range of behaviour; (d) the range of tolerable or approved behaviour. (Reproduced from Jackson 1960.)

A special group, detachable from (c), seems to be of considerable interest and importance, at least in some behavioural domains:

(c') Symptomatic devices. Though these devices may be infrequently used, their occurrence is typical for narrowing segments of the group under study. On the other hand, their absolute non-occurrence can be typical of other segments.

We may, then, safely assume a distributional basis for the study of norms: the more frequent a target-text phenomenon, a shift from a (hypothetical) adequate reconstruction of a source text, or a translational relation, the more likely it is to reflect (in this order) a more permitted (tolerated) activity, a

NORMS IN TRANSLATION 69

stronger tendency, a more basic (obligatory) norm. A second aspect of norms, their discriminatory capacity, is thus reciprocal to the first, so that the less frequent a behaviour, the smaller the group it may serve to define. At the same time, the group it does define is not just any group; it is always a sub-group of the one constituted by higher-rank norms. To be sure, even idiosyncrasies (which, in their extreme, constitute groups-of-one) often manifest themselves as personal ways of realizing [more] general attitudes rather than deviations in a completely unexpected direction.¹⁰ Be that as it may, the retrospective estab- lishment of norms is always relative to the section under study, and no auto- matic upward projection is possible. Any attempt to move in that direction and draw generalizations would require further study, which should be targeted towards that particular end.

Finally, the curve model also enables us to redefine one additional concept: the actual degree of conformity manifested by different members of a group to a norm that has already been extracted from a corpus, and hence found relevant to it. This aspect can be defined in terms of the distance from the point of maximum return (in other words, from the curve's apex).

Notwithstanding the points made in the last few paragraphs, the argument for the distributional aspect of norms should not be pushed too far. As is so well known, we are in no position to point to strict statistical methods for dealing with translational norms, or even to supply sampling rules for actual research (which, because of human limitations, will always be applied to samples only). At this stage we must be content with our intuitions, which, being based on knowledge and previous experience, are 'learned' ones, and use them as keys for selecting corpuses and for hitting upon ideas. This is not to say that we should abandon all hope for methodological improvements. On the contrary: much energy should still be directed toward the crystallization of systematic research methods, including statistical ones, especially if we wish to transcend the study of norms, which are always limited to one societal group at a time, and move on to the formulation of general laws of translational behaviour, which would inevitably be probabilistic in nature (see Part Four). To be sure, achievements of actual studies can themselves supply us with clues as to necessary and possible methodological improvements. Besides, if we hold up research until the most systematic methods have been found, we might never get any research done.

10. And see the example of the seemingly idiosyncratic use of Hebrew ki-xen as a trans- lational replacement of English 'well' in a period when the norm dictates the use of u-vexen (Chapter 4, Section 3).

References

Ben-Porat, Ziva and Benjamin Hrushovski. 1974. Structuralist Poetics in Israel. Tel Aviv: Department of Poetics and Comparative Literature, Tel Aviv University.

Ben-Shahar, Rina. 1983. Dialogue Style in the Hebrew Play, both Original and Translated from English and French, 1948-1975. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [Ph.D. Dissertation. Hebrew]

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1975. "Decisions in Translating Poetry". Ha- Sifrut/Literature 21. 32-45. [Hebrew]

Even-Zohar, Itamar. 1990. Polysystem Studies. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, and Durham: Duke University Press. [= Poetics Today 11:1.]

Geest, Dirk De. 1992. "The Notion of `System': Its Theoretical Importance and Its Methodological Implications for a Functionalist Translation Theory". Harald Kittel, ed. Geschichte, System, Literarische Übersetzung / Histories, Systems, Literary Translations. Berlin: Schmidt, 1992. 32-45.

Harris, Brian. 1990. "Norms in Interpretation". Target 2:1. 115-119.

Hermans, Theo. 1991. "Translational Norms and Correct Translations". Kitty M. van Leuven-Zwart and Ton Naaijkens, eds. Translation Studies: The State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James S Holmes Symposium on Translation Studies. Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1991. 155-169.

Holz-Mänttäri, Justa. 1984. Translatorisches Handeln: Theorie und Methode. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

Hönig, Hans G. and Paul Kußmaul. 1982. Strategie der Übersetzung: Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen: Narr.

Hrushovski, Benjamin. 1971b. "The Major Systems of Hebrew Rhyme from the Piyut to the Present Day (500 A.D.-1970): An Essay on Basic Concepts". Hasifrut 2:4. 721-749. [Hebrew]

Izre'el, Shlomo. 1994. "Did Adapa Indeed Lose His Chance for Eternal Life?: A Rationale for Translating Ancient Texts into a Modern Language". Target 6:1.

Jackson, Jay M. 1960. "Structural Characteristics of Norms". Nelson B. Henry, ed. The Dynamics of Instructional Groups: Sociopsychological Aspects of Teaching and Learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960. 136-163. [abridged version in: Ivan D. Steiner and Martin Fishbein, eds. Current Studies in Social Psychology. New Yrok: Holt, Reinhart & Winston, 1965. 301-309.]

Sheffy, Rakefet. 1992. Repertoire Formation in the Canonization of Late 18th Century German Novel. Tel Aviv University. [Ph.D. Dissertation.]

Shlesinger, Miriam. 1989b. "Extending the Theory of Translation to Interpretation: Norms as a Case in Point". Target 1:1. 111- 115.

Snell-Hornby, Mary. 1988. Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins.

Toury, Gideon. 1980a. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics, Tel Aviv University.

Vodicka, Felix. 1964. "The History of the Echo of Literary Works". Paul N. Garvin, ed. A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure and Style. Georgetown University Press, 1964. 71-81. [Czech original: 1942.]

Weissbrod, Rachel. 1989. Trends in the Translation of Prose Fiction from English into Hebrew, 1958-1980. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University. [Ph.D. Dissertation; Hebrew]

Wexler, Paul N. 1974. Purism and Language: A Study in Modern Ukrainian and Belorussian Nationalism (1840-1967). Bloomington: Indiana University.