Response Paper on “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action” by Hans J Vermeer
“Function plus Loyalty” by Christiane Nord

Skopos Theory & Function plus Loyalty

The Skopos Theory propounded by Hans J Vermeer, foregrounds the translator as an “expert”, rather than one who only serves as a mediator between the source and the target text, while also denoting him/her as a decision maker throughout the translation process. Vermeer re-directs the attention from the source text to the target text, i.e. the translatum, which is determined by the purpose of a text, i.e. the skopos. The skopos theory emphasizes the pragmatic aspects of translation and is far from being restrictive in terms of the liberties it offers to the translator during the translation process contrary to the notion that a commissioner who acts as the main determinative for a “skopos” might look intimidating. Vermeer trusts the “competency” of the translator and expects “the commisioner”, who might as well be the translator himself, to do so too, and adjust the skopos for the target culture if necessary.

Vermeer regards translation as an offer of information which may diverge from the source text considerably, mainly in terms of their respective goals and the reconstruction of the source text elements. For Vermeer, an “intertextual coherence” between the two texts is essential to some degree, though determined by various kinds of “skopos” . To what degree this “intertextual coherence” can be preserved is left ambigious in Vermeer’s attempts to produce legitimate answers for the arguments against his theory. Purposefully or not, though it looks more like the former, his postulate that a translation realizes something “different”, not something “more” or “less” presents a dilemma since determining one possible goal and adherence to it, though it might be for the sake of preserving the breadth of interpretation of the source text, will inevitably result in “losses” or “gains” , in Anton Popovic’s terms, even in situations where the translator sets fidelity to the source-text as his/her primary goal.

The fact that Vermeer regards “fidelity” to the source text as one of the many possible and legitimate purposes but at the same time advocates the “intertextual coherence” no matter what skopos might be assigned to the translation task at hand, puts the skopos theory in an arbitrary realm whereby the legitimacy of the end-product is questioned and brought upon by Christiane Nord from the perspective of the translator’s “moral responsibility”. The main departure point for her objection against Vermeer’s notion of an adjustible fidelity, in other words a fidelity whose existence (or its lack thereof) depending on a certain skopos, consists of her concerns over keeping the purpose in line with communicating the intentions of the original author effectively, which she further develops into meeting the expectations of the target culture as well.

The term Nord introduces as “loyalty”, while dismissing the terms “fidelity” or “faithfulness” on the basis that they only offer a source and target text relationship, echos the “dynamic equivalence” theory that Nida proposes as rendering the mental intention of the author rather than translating the words, thus creating the same impact on the target reader as the source text does on its own reader. Her “function plus loyalty” approach, which she claims to show up Skopostheorie as an anti-universalist model since loyalty forces the translator to be aware of the culture–specific concepts of translation and respect the sender’s own communicative intentions, actually does not seem to clash with Vermeer’s skopos. On the contrary, Skopos denotes the translator as an expert in intercultural action who has the freedom to accept a commission or not, under what circumstances and whether it needs to be modified. In that sense, the example given by Nord as regards with the book called En Cuba, whose German translator produced a text which is nowhere near its original author’s intentions, could as well be a part of Vermeer’s article. The only difference is that where Vermeer does not prefer to denote a separate term, Nord fills the vacancy with her own. In my opinion, Nord’s attempt to clear away any traces of promiscuity in skopos theory through her “function plus loyalty” approach results in a clear-cut definition of the translator, who observes the intentions of the initiator, the target receiver and the author, thus painting an “ideal” translator model.

I think it would be relevant to reach a conclusion via Nord’s other argument concerning the possibility of cases where the loyalty may require the adaptation of certain translation units even against the author’s wishes. Her second example of the German translator’s decision of protecting a well-respected scholar’s reputation on foreign grounds raises the question of “Loyalty to who?”. While “Function plus Loyalty” approach expects a lot from the translator, it also presents him/her with a “moral responsibility”, which, ironically, puts the translator in a position where he/she will be the “scapegoat” no matter which direction he/she follows.