Katan David (2003). “Following the Translator’s Rite of Passage fromLocal Reaction to Global Perception” Rites of Passage: Rational/Irrational,Natural/Supernatural, Local/Global. 4/6 ottobre 2001, Atti del XX ConvegnoNazionale dell'Associazione Italiana di Anglistica Catania-Ragusa;Carmela Nocera, Gemma Persico, Rosario Portale (eds), Rubbettino:Catanzaro, pp.

Following the Translator’s Rite of Passage fromLocal Reaction to Global SensitivityPerception

IntroductionIn Tthis paper discusses a translator’s rite ofpassageintercultural competence in terms of a developmentalmodel of intercultural sensitivityinterculturaldevelopment, and purports that the rite itself entails asignificant and challenging change in belief and status.During the passage, in fact, translators change response toother cultures from an ethnocentric local reaction to amore global perception of difference, andon the way tobecomeing I wish to explore the connections betweentranslators’ beliefs about self, the other and theirapproach to translation. The rite of passage concerns thechange of status, or identity, as the translator moves frompersonal local reaction to global sensitivityperception. Areaction tends to associated with unmeditated response,emotion and (at times) opposition. Perception, on the otherhand, refers to insight or intuition, an ability orcapacity, and above all, awareness,Traditional discussion, from Cicero to Benjamin and beyond,regarding the translator has consistently concerned the taskof the translator. More recently, though, and particularlywith the rise of the ‘cultural turn’ (Baker 1996, Bassnett1991) in Translation Studies, discussion is now focussingon the identity, values and beliefs of the translator him orherself. One particular identity supported by a number ofscholars has centred on the need for a translator to bebicultural, intercultural or multicultura cultural

1

mediators (Bochner 1981; Katan 1996, 1999a, 1999b). (e.g.,Vermeer, 1978; Hewson & Martin, 1991, Snell Hornby, 1992,Katan, 1999). What this means is that a translator willhave developed “an intercultural mind - a mindset capableof understanding from within and without both one’s ownculture and other cultures” (Bennett et al, 1999: 28).AThe two basic approaches to translation can also be seenin terms of local reaction (, or text oriented), andorglobal perception (, or context oriented). The approachwill tend to depend on whether one believes language to be“a system to transfer thoughts or the meaning from one mindto another” or “a system for organizing thoughts to triggerresponses in others” (Hall 1976: 56, Boylan 2000:106)).Transference, or the conduit belief has been the dominantnorm. (1923),sdafter Malinowski2000: 106 1923

Traditional discussion, from Cicero to Benjamin and beyond,regarding the translator has consistently concerned the taskof the translator. More recently, though, and particularlywith the rise of the ‘cultural turn’ (Baker 1996, Bassnett1991) in Translation Studies, discussion is now focussingon the identity, values and beliefs of the translator him orherself. One particular identity supported by a number ofscholars has centred on the need for a translator to bebicultural, intercultural or multicultural (e.g., Vermeer,1978; Hewson & Martin, 1991, Snell Hornby, 1992, Katan,1999). One’s identity, and approach to tasks will depend onbeliefs, which are discussed below.

Modelling the translatorModelling now forms the basis of many cognitive disciplines(Katan 1999a: 92-93). The model of cognition, or beliefchange, as proposed here is, at best, a simplified and ,deleted, distorted and generalised representation of whathappens in reality;, and is The cognitive models I willdiscuss are based on the presupposition that a person’s

2

cognitive environment (map or model of the world) isconstructed through experience of the other, but may havelittle or nothing to do with the world outside his or herown environmental bubble (Cohen, 1xxxx). This experiencemay either be a result of direct individual experience,which is then generalised, or alternatively may be handeddown and internalised without question. Importantly, asChesterman points out “culturally transmitted ideas andpractices can become more powerful than purely geneticpressures” (Chesterman, 1997a: 6). Beliefs, also, whetherthey be about other cultures or about appropriatetranslation strategies have a habit of being interpreted astruths, which also tend to be thought of as being timeless.

Modelling the rite of passages Robinson (1997: 231) has suggested that Milton Bennett’s(1993) Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity(DMIS), which tracetraces an individual’s experience ofanother culture, “might usefully be expanded to includetranslation and interpretation”. In fact, I will use it to benchmark statements made bytranslator and interpreter scholars to exemplify. the typeof beliefs that lie behind the two basic approaches totranslation. Clearly, the individual statements cited below(taken also out of context) should in no way be thought ofas classifying the translators themselves. The commentsyshould, rather, be taken as examples of how one’s view ofthe world clearly affects deeply felt beliefs about the‘right’ or ‘correct’ way to translate the type of beliefsthat lie behind translation strategies. More importantly,the model highlights the rite of passage as a waystage tomulticulturality and towards a cultural mediator’s globalvision. Logical Levels model The first model proposed, adapted from the Logical Levelsmodel (see Katan 1999a, 1999b), suggests that beliefs about

3

identity, the world, and in particular about ‘the other’,are the powerhouse in developing strategies. Each of thesebelief levels will both

act on and be heavily influenced by the generally acceptednorms of the time: “descriptive of particular practiceswithin a given community” (Chesterton: 1997a: 54):

Modeling the rite of passagesThe DMIS, itself, is just one of a number of cross-cultural contact andconsequence models (Bennett 1998: 25-26). As Fantini (2000: 34) points out“each model usually reflects a particular orientation, e.g., chronologicalprogression, developmental sequences, psychological adjustments, or thestages and phases commonly experienced by intercultural sojourners”. Theseadjustments, it is suggested, can only take place as beliefs change throughexperience, learning and the acquisition of new skills and resources (notdiscussed here). I will assume, for sake of argument, that translators in someway will be ‘intercultural sojourners’..Modelling is the basis of many cognitive disciplines (Katan1999: 92-93). The models of cognition, or belief change, asproposed here are simplified, deleted, distorted andgeneralised copies of what happens in reality. Moreimportantly, as O’Connor (2000: 128) notes “a model is nottrue. A model can only work – or not”. With regard to rite of passage, Milton Bennett (1993) hasdeveloped an interesting Developmental Model ofIntercultural Sensitivity (DMIS). This model, like manysimilar models1 is based on what Bennett et al call “grounded

1 For this reason, it is common to explore intercultural competence in terms of the cross-culturalcontact and entry processes, the options available, the choices one makes, and the resultantconsequences. Cultural entry models often address some of these aspects. These include: “Stages inDeveloping an Intercultural Perspective” (Hoopes in Pusch 1979); “Seven Concepts inCross-CulturalInteraction” (Gochenour and Janeway 1993, p. 1); and “Six Stages from Ethnocentrismto

4

theory”. The authorsBennett They hypothisedhypothesisedsix discernable worldview states as a result of statementsabout cultural difference made by various groups of peoplesuch as exchange students, businesspersons and others.O’Connor (2000: 128) notes “a model is not true. A modelcan only work – or not”. These six states, do indeed appearto work not only at an intuitive level, but alsostatistically: According to Bennett et al (1999: 22) “tThesestates have since been “successfully replicated […] withextremely high interrater reliability [and] a factoranalysis showed that the statements about culturaldifference ‘loaded’ into categories according to DMIStheoretical prediction” (Bennett et al 1999: 22; Bennett et al1999: 22; see also Hammer, 1999). The stages (each with 2 or three levels) are as follows:

The ETHNOCENTRIC STAGES: 1. denial, 2. defence, 3. minimisationTHE ETHNORELATIVE STAGES: 4.acceptance, 5. Ethnorelativism” (Bennett 1993, p. 29). Each model usually reflects a particular orientation, e.g.,chronological progression, developmental sequences, psychological adjustments, or the stages andphases commonly experienced by intercultural sojourners.

Gochenour, Theodore and Anne Janeway. 1993. “Seven Concepts in Cross-Cultural Interaction:A Training Design,” (pp. 1-9) in Gochenour, Theodore, ed. Beyond Experience: TheExperiential Approach to Cross-Cultural Education. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.Hoopes, David. 1979. “Intercultural Communication Concepts and the Psychology of InterculturalExperience,” in Margaret Pusch, ed. Multicultural Education: A Cross-Cultural TrainingApproach. Yarmouth, ME: Intercultural Press.A CENTRAL CONCERN:DEVELOPING INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCEAlvino E. Fantini http://www.sit.edu/publications/docs/competence.pdf

5

adaptation, 6. integration

I have actually combined two models here to allow for animportant reversal in the cline, which does not, though,affect the stages. The model ‘W’ graph below is taken fromLevine and Adelman (1993: 41), while the added numbersrefer back to the Bennett model:

Both models were developed for people who have decided tolive and work immersed in another culture. Bennett (1993:30) is very careful, in fact, to note that “oppressedpeople may navigate the development of interculturalsensitivity differently from those in the dominant group”. Robinson (1997: 231), in touching on Bennett’s model,suggests that “these models might usefully be expanded toinclude translation and interpretation”. In fact, I willuse the model to benchmark statements made by translatorand interpreter scholars. This will, I believe, clarify thebeliefs that lie behind translation strategies. Moreimportantly, the model highlights the rite of passage as awaystage to multiculturality and towards a culturalmediator’s global vision

Stage 1 Honeymoon/Denial

6

Initial reaction to 'the other' begins as if the ‘other’did not exist as a separate world, though Bennett. (1998:34). is also careful to note that “oppressed people maynavigate the development of intercultural sensitivitydifferently from those in the dominant group”. it is thereaction of the tourist within his/her environmental bubbleCues taken from reality are interpreted according to anindividual or locally shared model of the world which is,at this stage, believed to be “central to all reality”(Bennett ibid1993: 30). Levine and Adelman’s ‘honeymoon’refers to what it is that attracts in a second language orculture. Bennett’s model (see Katan forthcoming) does notactually begin with ‘honeymoon’, Bennett’s model, on theother hand, begins simply but with cognitive naivety. Inhis model, at this stage, there is simply no response tothe other, as the differences are simply not, to useSperber and Wilson’s (1986: 42) term, ‘manifest’ . He isalso very careful to note that “oppressed people maynavigate the development of intercultural sensitivitydifferently from those in the dominant group”.Translators, not actually seeing or even reacting to theother’s cognitive environment, but engrossed in owninterpretationsat this level based on fulfilling our ownexpectationsare either students or the unwitting tend toproduce work that provideproviders of the stockcomic relieffor tourists for comedians and wry smiles from touristsinhotels and restaurants (see for examples,, Bryson 1990: 1,174; Dodds, 1995; Katan 1999a: 82, 84; Stewart 2000: 78-79).Clearly, any translator, worthy of the name, will be awareof ‘the other’, so translators should begin translating asstudents or professional at stage 2.

Stage 2: Defence

7

“What is Different is Dangerous”This is the title of HofHofestede’s (1991: 109) chapter(1991: 109) on orientation to perceived difference, and isthe first response to “Culture shock”: “the emotionalreactions to the disorientation that occurs when one isimmersed in an unfamiliar culture and is deprived offamiliar cues […]“ (Paige, 1993: 2). It is at this stage werealise that there is a difference; and hence that there isa real gap between our expected world and the world we aredealing with - and we can no longer deny the fact. The mostnatural reaction to difference in others’ behaviour,discourse patterns and value systems is to defend our own,particularly because the threat is felt at the level ofcore beliefs regarding what is ‘right’, ‘normal’ and‘correct’. This response is logically ethnocentric, the feeling beingthat my model of the world is the model of the world, andhence, any other model is not only wrong but is also adestabilising threat. Logically, then, the first defensivereaction tens to be one of Denigration – a level thatcoheres with the events of September 11th more than withtranslation. Bennett notes that “Denigration” of the target culture isthe first reaction to difference at this stage. It would behighly unusual to find translators willingly working andtranslating for a culture they actively feel hostiletowards, so we will move onto the next level.

SuperiorityThis second level in intercultural development “emphasizesthe positive evaluation of one’s own cultural status”(Bennett, 1993: 37), and is the form of ethnocentricdefence that many translator scholars and practitionerswork from. Very often, the feeling of superiority is benigntowards other cultures, and is backed by logical argumentsof ‘progress’, ‘development’, with the implicit assumption

8

that evolution following one's own culture path is the bestpath for all cultures. An example of this comes from Newmark’s’s (1993: 69)Paragraphs on Translation comments regarding thea translation ofa tourist brochure. He , entitles his contributioncomment d‘Jollity in Jesolo’, a seaside resort and close to Venice.He begins with the textwith a quote from a the touristbrochure advertising the resort:

“’We asked: Why Jesolo for your holidays?’ [...]‘Because’, the well-rounded beauty in theillustration replies, ‘Jesolo can be reached soeasily that my husband is able to come and see meevery week-end, and each time he finds me more andmore sun-tanned’. I assume this is a closetranslation of the Italian original, and, as it issexist, the translator should have left out thereference to the husband and confined him/herself toJesolo’s accessibility and its warm weather.”

Here, Newmark is suggesting that a translator shouldmanipulate the text to fit the his local domestic (andsuperior) culture. He presumes that his localinterpretation of the visual and verbal sign is universally(demeaning to women) is the only interpretation; and alsothat these signs should be replaced with a superior guidingbelief (i.e. non-sexist). Regarding his first point,because the translation is ‘sexist’. The generalized beliefunderpinning his statement is that a picture of a “well-endowed beauty” who spends the week suntanning herself, byherself, is doing this for her husband. A reader within theItalian context of culture or habitus would note thatanybody who can get away from the humidy and the heat ofthe Veneto region in the summer, does so and eithersojourns in the mountains or by the sea (Katan 1999:114).

9

Jesolo is the closest beach area to industrial Mestre, andthose that can (usually wives and children) take refugethere, while the (hardly sexist) husband has to remain intown and at work – till the weekend.As translators, we are tied to a source text, butwetranslators need “profound cultural knowledge” (Wolf1997: 127) to be fully aware of the context of culturebefore we they can begin to evaluate another culture’sways. As Wolf (1997: 127) says “what is required isprofound cultural knowledge gained by fieldwork”.Thisknowledge would have revealed the fact that it is anItalian family tradition for those who can (home-employedwives and children) to escape from the summer heat and thehumidity of the urban areas to the beach, and for thehusbands to join them when they can – at the weekend. Manypeople of both sexes, it transpires from the translation,enjoy the effects of the sun’s rays. Objectively, this maywell be dangerous for the skin but is not necessarily“wounding or demeaning to those whose sex, […] leaves themvulnerable to the raw power of words” (Bryson, 1994: 425).Secondly, and more importantly, Newmark believes thattranslators should censor text in accordance with thislocally imposed limiting belief.

ReversalAn interesting ‘option’ in the intercultural sensitivitymodel is the phenomenon of ‘reversal’. This still revolvesaround superiority, but in reverse. It is the “denigrationof one’s own culture and an attendant assumption of thesuperiority of a different culture" (Bennett 1993: 39).People in this position feel themselves to be, asexemplified by Venuti (1995: 291) “a nomad in my owncountry, a runaway from the mother-tongue”. The reasons maybe manifold, but generally involve “[…] a disavowal of all[C1] values and an embracing of unchanging [C2] values”(Milton 1993: 40). Venuti (1998: 10) explains: “it is this

10

evocation of the foreign that attracts me […]. Thispreference stems partly from a political agenda that isbroadly democratic: an opposition to the global hegemony ofEnglish”. BIn fact, bBoth Venuti and Newmark express the desire,through translation, to wish to redress thebalanceinequality and to intervene to help the morevulnerable cultures. Venuti (1998: 10-11) also sees thevulnerability in terms of the ethnocentricity oftranslation itself. The process is mainly one way, with thevast majority of translation being made out of English.Second: “the very function of translating is assimilation,the inscription of a foreign text with domesticintelligibilities and interests”. through translation;they also both view ‘the other’ from a Defensive position..Discussion of whether and how to curb (politicallyconvenient) market forces is indeed necessary. However,generalising about ‘the other’ and taking entrenchedpositions on the PC, master/servant core/periphery debateis a local rather than global way of reacting. The factthat 'the other' has more or less power, or tends todistort reality in a particular way can only really bediscussed when we have the fullest objective picturepossible of the other’s map of the world. The problem with the reversal response (superiority of theforeign culture) is that by ignoring the domestic culturevalue system we can create an unintentional strengtheningof negative stereotyping of the foreign (see also thedebate in Schäffner & Kelly-Holmes 1995: 32).

Stage 3: Minimization Danila Seleskovich, “a brilliant interpreter and writer”,stated that “Everything said in one language can beexpressed in another – on condition that the two languagesbelong to cultures that have reached a comparable degree of

11

development” (in Newmark 1988: 6). This is type of commentrepresents the final ethnocentric stage in the Bennett’smodel of intercultural sensitivity, and is the last topreserve the centrality of one’s own worldview. It overtlyacknowledges cultural differences, but suggests that thereis a “Golden Rule” (ibid: 41) above cultural differences, towhich all cultures should or do adhere to. The gapsthemselves are viewedthat these are (asparticularsuperficial) details not to be confused with ageneral universal similarities to which all people (andtheir texts) adhere to universalism in human behaviour,ways, beliefs and value systems. Newmark (in Schäffner andKelly-Holmes 1995, 80), for example makes the followingstatement:

I think there’s been an over-emphasis in going fromone culture to another […] travel literature,health, education; these are universal issues thatgo beyond culture. They’re sometimes dressed incultural clothes, but that’s as far as it goes. Paul[Kussmaul]’s point about the Anglo-Saxon versus theGermanic style of academic writing is far more auniversal question of good writing versus this kindof clouded kind of writing that you often get inacademic circles.

The “good writing” Newmark was referring to comesfrom the Classical Greek culture and focuses on,among other things, “restraint and clarity”. Thesenorms have also been incorporated into Grice’sMaxims of Cooperation. Much interest is now beingturned to the (non)universality of these Maxims (cf.Katan, 1999a: 197; Katan Straniero-Sergio 2001: 224-5; Pym 2000: 186). Chesterman (1997a: 58), in forexample, states fact, notes (1997a: 58) they thatGrice’s Maxims “must evidently be interpreted with

12

respect to particular cultures”, but then goes ontosay: “but I do not think that this detracts fromtheir universal applicability”. Chesterman He(1997b: 150) is even clearer on the Minimalists’“the Golden Rule” (Bennett 1993: 41): at aconference entitled Translation as InterculturalCommunication (1997b: 150): “I will stick my neck outand claim that clarity will survive as an ethicallinguistic value long after the postmodernisttextual anarchists are dead and buried”. . Hisposition is also criticised by Pym (2000:186)Newmark says much the same in Schäffner andKelly-Holmes (1995: 80).

Beliefs like these propagate and become self-fulfillingnorms, which, as Chesterman himself realizes (1997a: 6),become more real than reality itself; and indeed, it is noteasy to consider a rite of passage when no such passage isenvisaged.

Hence, it can be quite possible that cultural differencesor gaps are simply not regarded as relevant totranslationThere is a clear logical link between thisorientation and text-based (copying) translationstrategies. Danila Seleskovich, “a brilliant interpreterand writer”, says “Everything said in one language can beexpressed in another – on condition that the two languagesbelong to cultures that have reached a comparable degree ofdevelopment” (quoted in Newmark 1988: 6). The implicitsuggestion is that differences between cultures is not anissue, at least for similarly developed cultures.In the final analysis, translators who assume thatuniversalism can bring cultures together follow Bennett’sexpectancy norm (ibid: 42): “‘be like me’”.

13

Translation normsFor translators, transcendent universalism (Bennett’s term)is extremely attractive. We can have absolute, positivisttranslating solutions, “norms”, which tell translators “howthey ought to behave” (Hermans 1999: 8, italics in theoriginal). The clarity expectancy norm is based, forexample, on “the communication norm” (Chesterman 1997: 77,my italics) Translation norms tend to beare part and parcel of thenorms that make up the environment of our domestic map ofthe world; they are, as Hermans (1999: 9) points out,“inculcated as part of the process of socialization”. Theadaptation of the logical neurological levels model hasEnvironment as a habitus, rather than as the more classicalNLP a visible territory (O’Connor 2001: 28-29). Oneparticularly important environment for translators andinterpreters is the European Union, probably the mostimportant institution to publicly support the right of eachmember state to be heard and read in its own language. Theresult is that 3951 people translate or interpret EU textsor rather, “one person in eight at the Commission works forits language services” (europa.eu 2001) for a princely sumof €85,557,738,703 13.918.000.000 (1999 figures) which isequal to 0.8% of the total EU budget. Yet, within this habitus, is a surprisingly extreme versionof minimisation with regard to intercultural sensitivity,exemplified by the EU’s own mental classification of :

professions2 :

74.8 Miscellaneous business activities n.e.c. 749×74.81 Photographic activities 749474.82 Packaging activities 749574.83 Secretarial and translation activities 7499×

2 EU Document 3037/90, “Nace Rev 1”. The document is designed to provide a commonbasis for the statistical classification and analysis of economic activities withinthe EU.

14

If we look in more detail at the translators’ fellowtravellers, the list is depressingly clear – translatingand interpreting is text-based copying at the most localof levels:

74.83 Secretarial and translation activities This class includes: - stenographic and mailing activities: - typing - other secretarial activities such as transcribing from tapes or discs - copying, blue printing, multigraphing and similar activities - envelope addressing, stuffing, sealing and mailing, mailing list compilation, etc., includingfor advertising material - translation and interpretation

This class also includes: - proof-reading

Stage 4: of the What is important, from an interculturalpoint of view, is that these norms are entirely legitimateintraculturally within certain contexts, but do notnecessarily carry the same weight across cultures (Scollonand Scollon 1995:138; Katan 1999a: 195-199; 1999b: 417),for the simple reason that norms are determined byconstellations of values and beliefs about the world, whichcan never be same across cultures. If they were, then therewould be no gap, and no plural to the word culture. Interestingly, in the final analysis, there does tend to bea Golden rule, applicable across cultures, at this stage ofintercultural sensitivity. People who assume thatuniversalism can bring together cultures follow theexpectancy norm, as Bennett (ibid: 42) notes: “‘be likeme’”.

AcceptanceRespect for behaviour differenceAccording to the developmental modelDMIS, this next stage“represents a major conceptual shift from reliance onabsolute, dualistic principles of some sort to anacknowledgement of non-absolute relativity” (ibidBennett1993: 45). This is the rite of passage, where the

15

translator begins to perceive that his/her ethnocentricmodel of the world is not the only one, and that text-basedcopying, though possible, will not communicate the samemessage across cultures. TheThe translator’s model of theworld is now framed to include local contexts of situationand culture, in much the same way as Hasan’s (1992) HAPmothers contextualise their statements to frame theirapplicapility and Bateson corrects the classic error ofLogical Typing (Bateson, 1972: 180-193) with aninterpretative frame: culture (see Katan in print)..At this It is the first ethnorelative stage, and, as such,is extremely important for translators;, as “people “atthis stage begin to recognize differences in communicationstyle” (Bennettibid 1993: 45). As Nida (1997: 37) puts it:"Many translators believe that if they take care of thewords and grammar, the discourse will take care of itself,but this concept results from an insufficient understandingof the role of discourse structures in interlingualcommunication".

This also represents the first stage ofis clearly then thefirst stage at which translators accept the importance ofcontext and marks the beginnings of the ‘cultural turn’ anorientation towards the context ( Bassnett & Lefevre 1990:11). Kondo, a Japanese-English interpreter has writtencogently on intercultural communication,is extremely awareof the context of culture and frames of interpretation yetis aware of the conflictconstraints bound by theengenderedby the established norms of interpreting. In the end,though, he yields to the text-oriented norm: ,“interpreters can work essentially only with what has beenexpressed” (1990: 63). Nida, on the other hand, suggests Hesuggests that translators should manipulating e the texts,not only with regard to politeness markers and facethreatening acts but also with regard to the organizationof time, space and thought processes,not in favour of a

16

universal or superior rule, but simply in respect of thedifferent ways in which language each of which provide agap that the outsider reader cannot bridgedifferenttriggers and responses in others. – without the aid of the translator. He continues:

Intelligent secretaries in North America know how todelete overtly complimentary statements from Latins,and to add appropriate expressions of greeting andfriendship from their Nnorth American bosses.Otherwise Latinos will think that American businessmen will be reluctant to do business with Latinoswho appear to be too flattering and insincere.

Clearly, taken literally this recognition of differencesand wholesale acceptance of outsider discourse norms leadsto the form of domestication which Nida himself extolled:dynamic or functional equivalence (Nida & Taber 1969). As abible translator he has always taken the problem of readeruptake and the gap extremely seriously: "Reader responsecan never be identical to the original due to differenthistorical, cultural and environmental contexts" (1964:159).HoweverYet, according to Bennett, this stagelevel ofAcceptance is also one of indirection and experimentation -leading to time consuming and patchy worktranslatingindecisions. Translators . (rather than Nida’s biculturalsecretaries) As he says, there are nowill not yet have“developed ethnorelative principles for taking action”(Bennett, 1998: 28). Interestingly, the skopos theory,seems to fit very well into this stage:

“The [skopos] theory does not state what the principleis...The skopos theory merely states that the translatorshould be aware that some goal exists ... The important

17

point is that a given source text does not have one corrector best translation only” (.Vermeer (2000: 228). However, the problem in translation isthat, common to empathy (one of the principle guidelines atthis level), it is still a culture 1 projection of what thedifferences could be. At this stage, it is still difficultto feel certain about the exactitude of the behaviour-valueequation, and what the array of possible uptakes from theforeign text might be. For a number of successfultranslators, this stage will simply be an embarrassing orpainful memory, due to the well-intentioned translationgaffes produced; or simply to the inordinate time it tookto translate before really getting a feel for a text andhow it might be read. As Bennett (ibid1993: 54) puts it"judgement is paralysed by a plethora of equally valuablealternatives”. The translator, at this stage, cannot yetfully disassociate from his or her own value system, norcan s/he full associate with the other culture.

Respect for Value difference (or 7.1Depression) Value DifferenceDuring the ethnocentric stages, translators on thedevelopmental path to intercultural sensitivity stillbelieve that their own personal or locally shared hierarchyof values is the only valid system across all cultures.Yet, as Bennett (ibid: 49) points out, “relativity ofcultural values is central to intercultural difference. Atthis stage of development, there is the acceptance of thedifferent worldview assumptions that underlie culturalvariation in behaviour”. The It should also be rememberedthat this understanding of the logical an awareness of, andrespect for, the logical relationship between other-behaviour and other-value system is a essential if atranslator wishes to consider reader uptake (Katan 1999a:155-7).

18

crucial andto intercultural perception.in translatingpossible text meanings as well as contributing to atranslator’s well-being. equally hidden aspect of the gapbetween insider and outsider reading. A good example ofsignificant uptake differences comes from Tom Wolfe’sBonfire of the Vanities, set in New York. The price of almosteverything is clearly explained, for example:

Sherman McCoy: "Once you had lived in a $2.6 millionapartment on Park Avenue - it was impossible to live in a$1 million apartment! Naturally, there was no way toexplain this to a living soul".

[Kramer] carried a leather bag […] which screamed "I cost$500".

The use of technical costing is a perfectly standard way ofexplaining the value for some cultures. As Sapir (1994: 33)is quoted as saying in his lecture notes: “Only in Americanculture could the phrase ‘fifty-fifty’ have evolved, foronly here do we find such willingness to measureintangibles; expression must be quantitative.” Thequantitative expressions do not create a translationproblem at the level of behaviour (the previousdevelopmental level). Costing of products is normalbehaviour in most parts of the globe. Dollars can either betranslated into local currencies, or left as they are.Ranieri Carano, the Italian translator, has just slightlymodified the text, converting the numbers into letters,according to good local literary style:

Se uno ha abitato in un appartamento di Park Avenue da duemillioni e seicentomila dollari, gli è impossibile andaread abitare in un appartamento da un milione! Difficilespiegarlo a una persona qualunque.

19

[Kramer] portava una borsa di cuoio … che urlava: “Iocosto cinquecento dollari”

What happens, though, is that many outsider groups do notnecessarily appreciate the price being spelled out with somuch technical clarity, except in a purely commercialcontext between buyer and seller. The behaviour is pan-cultural, but at the higher levels of strategy (when andhow it is appropriate) and values (why, the meaning) thegaps are wide. Carroll (1988: 128-9), for example, explainshow Mediterranean cultures tend to value the Americanpropensity towards technical clarity: “Money. Someoneshould talk about money. ... the face of an American couldeasily be replaced by a dollar sign; a sign of 'incurablematerialism', of arrogance, of power, of 'vulgar',unrefined pleasure”. So, a translation of this particulartechnical sign which does not mind the value gap, onlyserves to strengthen the ethnocentric stereotype ofAmerican superficiality.i On a more day-to-day level, No less importantly,asaccording to Levine and Adelman (1983) point out,understanding the behavioural differences, such as thoseoutlined by Nida, without an understanding that there isalso aof the gap differencet between belief and valuesystems will, in the end, result in stress and alsodepression for the sojourner. This will be caused by theinternal conflict in the evaluation of insider Culture 2behaviour using outsider Culture 1 values. At thebeginning, I mentioned the translator who is attracted or atleast interested in 'the other'. The positive feelingtowards a second culture will not last long if a translatorsimply distorts the target text to take account ofdifferences in communication style.

i Another example of the impact of a translation which does not take account of thevalue gaps can be found in Katan (1996).

20

In fact, there are many writers (including insider writerssuffering from reverse culture shock) who, while professingtheir passion for a particular culture’s different way ofdoing things, cannot seeperceive, let alone respect, thedifferent logical values supporting the differentbehaviour. What they seerespond to, instead, is a conflictwith their own value system; for example, criticism of theobscurity of the Italian (see Katan 1999: 197) or thehypocrisy of politeness in English. as noted by As BeppeSevergnini (in ibid: 234). Though he is, a declaredAnglophile who and works for the Economist, put itwe canclearly see how his ironic comments belie a conflict withhis C1 value system: “the English language is deliciouslyhypocritical. It doesn’t force those who speak it to any ofthe embarrassing Italian frankness”. This comment, by theway, adds another nail in the coffin of Chesterman’suniversal belief infurther contextualises the universe ofose who believe that ‘“clarity’”. is an Englishcommunication style take note.One of the difficulties at this stage of interculturalsensitivity lies with the fact that values are part ofidentity. If we are able to respect different values (atthe level of values) then our identity will necessarily beaffected. Internalising multiple value systems can, ofcourse, lead to personality disorders. It is much lessthreatening, on the other hand, to denominalize the frozen“values” state, and to consider, instead, the experientialroots attached to “what a culture values”. We can respectthese without threat to our own identity. AHowever, at the Acceptance stage t this stage, thetranslator is attempting to enlarge his or her own culture-bound map of the world, rather than construct a separatemap to model the ‘“other’” system. With a separate model towork with, translators will be in the position to maketheir own moral, professional, ethical and translation

21

decisions; but to do so, they firstwhich means that theyneed to be capable of taking multiple positions.

8.Stage 5: Adaptation“...respect for the integrity of cultures, including one’sown” (Bennett, 1998: 28)

At this stage “new skills appropriate to different worldviews are acquired as an additive process” (Bennett ibid1993:52). I have discussed elsewhere the importance of theability to mindshift, and for the translator to be able tomove between various perceptual positions (1999a, 1999b).What Bennett (1998: 28) points out at this stage is thatpeople cane “use knowledge to intentionally shift into adifferent frame of reference”. The ‘cultural turn’ marked a series of reference shifts.isFwasocus shifted from formal fidelity to the originaltext, to “The ‘Death’ of the Author” (Arrojo 1997) andinterest in reader response. It marked the beginning of adiscussion on the translator’s status, and in particular,the translator’s (in)visibility (ibid, Venuti 1995, 1998).This entailed a new belief regarding the translator’s task,as Snell-Hornby (1988: 23) points out: “the starting pointis the exact opposite of that represented by thelinguistically orientated school [...]: not intendedequivalence but admitted manipulation”.

Here I simply wish to complete the Unified Field model introduced at thebeginning. The Logical Levels model, as I mentioned, will change parametersaccording to time; and in particular, beliefs will change according to one’sposition on the intercultural development cline. As beliefs change, so does everyother level.The model of the world as seen through the system of Logical Levels will alsochange according to perceptual position: the degree in which one is fullyassociated (and cannot perceive the other culture or the gaps) or disassociated(and can see the other culture and the gaps). How a translator will mind the

22

gaps depends, as we have seen, on the beliefs that are held at that moment inhistory. The final Unified Field model (adapted here) is as follows:

Core Values Generalised beliefs Translation strategies Individual translation decisionsOrientation to: about translator’s taskcommunication communication normsdifference the ‘other’hierarchy ideologies

8.1 EmpathyThe first level of adaptation is empathy, which is an attempt to understand byimagining what the other side of the gap must be like. The translator’sperceptual position changes with the realization of (to use Lefevere’s term) the“refraction”. However, the problem in translation is that, common to empathyitself, it is still an outsider’s projection of what the differences could be. At thisstage, it is still difficult to feel certain about the exactitude of the gaps, and whatthe array of possible uptakes from the foreign text might be. For a number ofsuccessful translators, this stage will simply be an embarrassing or painfulmemory, due to the well-intentioned translation gaffes produced; or simply tothe inordinate time it took to translate before really getting a feel for a text andhow it might be read. As Bennett (ibid: 54) puts it "judgement is paralyzed by aplethora of equally valuable alternatives”. The translator, at this stage, cannotyet fully disassociate from his or her own value system, nor can s/he fullassociate with the other culture.

8.2 PluralismAt this second level of Adaptation, disassociation andsubsequent association is complete. It is here that thetranslator satisfies “the requirement that understanding ofdifference must derive from actual experience within thatcultural frame” (ibidBennett 1993: 55). And it is at thisstage that a translator can be said to be “bicultural”,

23

Associate Time/Intercultural Sensitivity

Disassoci

with a minimum of two maps in one mind. Herman’s discussionof polysystem theory shows how translators are now muchmore prepared to look beyond the text to the system orsystem of systems it is part of. As he says (1999: 110),“it has benefited translation research by placingtranslation squarely in a larger field of culturalactivity”. But, as he rightly points out, it this field isstill vague and abstract. Also, as Bochner points out(1981: 12), knowing more than one culture is a necessary,but not a sufficient condition for cultural mediation,which is the next stage. What the translator still needs isa belief system which is ready to exploit specifictranslation competency skills (see Pym forthcoming) at thelevel of global perception rather than local reaction –which is the next level.

9.Stage 6: Integration/cultural mediation.At this stage, “One does not have culture; one engages init” (Bennett 1993: 52). Translators, as mediators, “seetheir identities as including many cultural options, any ofwhich can be exercised in any context, by choice at acertain stage” (ibid: 60).

9.1 Contextual EvaluationThe first level of integration is where “one attains theability to analyze and evaluate situations from one or morecultural perspectives […] the outcome of this action is ajudgement of relative goodness that is specific to someidentified context (ibid: 61). A translator is not only ableto mindshift and associate with both the ST source text andthe virtual TT target text (see Katan 1999a: 124-125), butis also able to take a third perceptual position (Katan &Straniero-Sergio 2001: 220-221; Katan forthcoming), whichis disassociated from both cultures. In this meta-position,they translators are “conscious of themselves as choosers ofalternatives” (Bennett ibid: 62), which fits with Pym’s

24

(forthcoming) discussion of competence: “the translationcompetence that interests us is thus a process of choosingbetween viable alternatives”.. There In Bennett’s model, there is a definite identitychange here. The translator is now a cultural mediator,(Katan a role I have discussed in 1999a, and 1999b) andhas a s. What is useful to point out here is the difference betweenthis stage and the previous ones. Here, the translator hasa suuopra-cultural clear aim or purpose (see also, Vermeers‘skopos’, 2000) and (unlike at the empathy stage). Theaimmission: is to improve crosscultural cooperation, andbuild trust and understanding between communities (Katan1999: ) is able to decide what is best according to theoptions available,. Translators are no longer paralysed bycultural relativity but can make decisions regarding anytext, which means that decisions can be made according towhat Pym (2000: 190) calls “an ethics of contextualizedhuman relations rather than a barrage of abstract universalrules”. ”quickly and with justified (ethical) confidence”(Pym 1992: 175). In short, as Pym puts it they havetranslational competenceThis, possibly surprisingly, isalso the essence of four out five of Newmark’s FivePurposes of translation (xxxx1993: 57-8). The fifth, by theway, regards language teaching. . The translator, nowconscious of the gaps is ready to mind them from a thirdposition, evaluating the best alternative context bycontext.

9.2 Constructive MarginalityThis final level is where Bennett, himself, places thecultural mediator at this level. T However, this stage isaThe person, here, has a meta-map of the world, over andabove any culture-bound mapslevel above cultures. A personat this level has no specific ”cultural” identity, andthere are. His or her identity contains no unquestioned

25

assumptions. As the heading title implies, marginalitybrings with it isolation. The reason has much to do withthebeliefs about ‘the other’ insider/outsider gap. Fellowinsiders trust each other partly because they have similarboundaries, and share the same gaps. A mediator, at thislevel, may help negotiate others’ gapscultural differences,but will have few of his or her own to share.

HoweverI believe, however, that once a translator hasreached mediation is equally possible at the contextualevaluation stage, a where a translator has already fullychanged status andas mediator is already capable fully ableto satisfy Taft’s (1981: 53) requirement that mediatorsare capable of “interpreting the expressions, intentions,perceptions, and expectations of each cultural group to theother […]“ . - rather than locally reacting to texts. (Taft1981: 53).

10. Mind the GapAn extension of this model, The Unified Field model (Dilts1990: 138), will be proposed after the has two interestingaspectsThe importance of a translator’s rite of passage inrelation to ‘the cultural turn’ and the changing statusrevolve principally around two changes : time andperceptual position. “Time” is in fact an essentialcomponent. Though a belief tends to be thought of aswithstanding time, very few do. In reality, as both themodel and common sense suggest, beliefs about the world dochange over time in response to a variety of factors,though rational argument is very rarely one of them. Thechange has more to do with the change in cognition, whichcan then help in opening up options towards theinterpretation of the surrounding reality (see Dilts 1990).

26

Mediators focus on the gaps between insider and outsiderreadingcultures looking for a win\win situation where thetarget reader is encouraged to stretch his or her map ofthe world to uptake up new notions within his or herpossible area of cooperation. With ethnorelativity thegaps between the two worlds are consciously reduced,whilst, on the other hand, the beliefs inherent in theethnocentric stages will tend to promote gap strengtheningstrategies.the culturessIn theory the mediator will manipulate thetext just enough for the outsider to gain an insight intothe insider world from just outside hers. The reader is, asit were, in the gap between the two worlds. In practice, ofcourse, it is utopia to suggest that a reader will be ableto uptake any significant differences as an insider would.If it takes a sojourner or translator years to movedevelopmentally from the honeymoon period to assimilation,the reader can hardly be expected, for example, toappreciate the politeness of Stefania’s request, betransported to an Italian bar and cognitively take up thetastes, smells and all-important culture-bound rituals thatsurround the early morning coffee during the reading of atext; but we may at least translate "minding the gaps”. Wecan partially reconstruct the request in the gap betweenCalvino’s world and that of an outsider. In the followingexample, Stefania is Italian, as is the coffee, and she isnot impolite: “She asked the waiter for an espresso,“thick, double and really hot”.

27

A model can only work – or not”. Statements resolve thefree/faithful debate and highlight the need for translatorsto pass from local to global …

Norm flouters, as Chesterman (1997: 54) points out,threaten normality, produce difference and are quicklyostracized or punished

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arrojo R., 1997, “The ‘Death’ of the Author and the Limitsof the Translator’s Visibility’, in Snell-Hornby M.,Jettmarové Z & Kaindl, K. (eds.), Translation as InterculturalCommunication, Amsterdam & Philadelphia, Benjamins, pp. 21-32.Baker, Mona (1996) ‘Linguistics and Cultural Studies.Complementary or Competing Paradigms in TranslationStudies?‘, in Angelika Lauer, heidrun Gerzymisch-Arbogast,Johann Haller and Erich Steiner (eds) Ubersetzungswissenschaft imUmbruch: Festschridt fur Wolfram Wilss, Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen,9-20.Bassnett Susan (1991) Translation Studies, London: MethuenBennett, M.ilton, J., (1993,) “'Towards Ethnorelativism':A Developmental Model of Intercultural Sensitivity”', in M.R. Paige, Michael, R. (ed.), Education for the InterculturalExperience, Intercultural Press, Yarmouth, Maine, :Intercultural Presspp., 22-73.Bennett M. J., 1998, “Intercultural Communication: ACurrent Perspective”, in M. J. Bennett (ed.), Basic Concepts ofIntercultural Communication: Selected Readings, Intercultural PressInc., Yarmouth, MA, pp. 1-34.Bennett J., Bennett M. and& W. Allen, 1999, “DevelopingCulture in the Language Classroom”, in R. M. Paige, D.Lange & Y. A. Yershova (eds), Culture as the Core: Integrating Cultureinto the Language Curriculum, Center for Advanced Research in

28

Language Acquisition, Working Paper 15, University ofMinnesota, (MI), pp. 13-46.Bochner S. (ed.), 1981, The Mediating Person: Bridges betweenCultures, Schenkman, Cambridge.Boylan, P., (2000,) "To Be or not to Be: Success or Failurein Intercultural Communication", in D.onal Lynch & A.drianPilbeam (eEds.), Heritage and Progress. From the Ppast to the Ffuture inIintercultural Uunderstanding., Bath: LTS/SIETAR, Bath, pp.106-116. Bryson, B., 1991, Mother Tongue: The English Language, PenguinBooks, London.Bryson, B., 1994, Made in America, Martin Secker and&Warburg, London.Chesterman, A.,ndrew 1997a, Memes of Translation; the Spread ofIdeas in Translation Theory, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and &Philadelphia.: John Benjamins.Chesterman, A., ndrew (1997b,) “Ethics of Translation”, inM. Snell-Hornby M., Z. Jettmarové Z & K., Kaindl, (eds),Translation as Intercultural Communication, Benjamins, Amsterdamand & Philadelphia: Benjamins, pp. 147-160.De Beaugrande, Robert and Dressler, Wolfgang. (1981) Text andContext, London: Longman.Dillon, George (1992) ‘Insider Reading and Linguistic Form:Contextual Knowledge and the Reading of LingisticDiscourse”, in M. Toolan (ed) Language Text and Context, Londonand New York: RoutledgeDilts, Robert (1990) Changing Belief Systems with NLP, California:Meta Publications.Dodds J., 1995, “All’antica commedia degli errori: OrCrappy English in Italian Restaurants”, RITT, 1, pp. 143-147.

European Commission Communication Team Translation ServiceEuropa.euhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/translation/en/eyl/en.pdf, lastvisited 04/04/02

29

Fantini, A. E., 2000, “A Central Concern: DevelopingIntercultural Competence, SIT Occasional Papers, 1, pp. 25-42.Hall E. T., 1976, Beyond Culture, Anchor Press/Doubleday, NewYork.Hall 1976 Frayn, Michael & David Burke (2000) Celia’s Secret: An Investigation,London: Faber and Faber.Hall, E.T. (1983) The Dance of Life, New York: AnchorPress/Doubleday.Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1989) Language, Context andText: aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective,Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hammer, M. R., 1999, “The Intercultural DevelopmentInventory: a Measure of Intercultural Sensitivity”, in S.M. Fowler & M. G. Mumford (eds.), Intercultural Sourcebook:Crosscultural Training Methods, Vol. 2, Intercultural Press,Yarmouth, ME, pp.61-79.Katan D., forthcoming, “When Difference is not Dangerous:Modelling Intercultural Competence for Business, in P.Cortese & D. Hymes (eds.), Textus, XXX, 2, Language in and AcrossHuman Groups. Hermans, Theo (1999) Translation in Systems: Descriptive and SystemicApproaches Explained, Manchester, St. Jerome.Hewson, L & J. Martin (1991) Redefining Translation: TheVariational Approach, London, Routledge.Hofstede, Geert (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,London: McGraw-Hill.Katan D. & Straniero-Sergio, F., 2001, “’Look Who’sTalking’: the Ethics of Entertainment and Talk ShowInterpreting”, The Translator, Vol. 7: 2, pp.3 213-238. Italo Calvino (1970) Gli amori difficili, Turin: Einaudi editore.Katan, D.,avid 1999b, “’What is it That’s Going on Here?’:Mediating Cultural Frames in Translation”, Textus II, pp.:409-426.

3

30

Katan D., avid (1999a,) Translating Cultures, an Introduction forTranslators, Interpreters and Mediators, St. Jerome Publishing,:Manchester.Katan D., avid (1996b, ) “The Translator as CulturalMediator”, Quaderno (Programma Sociologia Internazionale, SezioneRelazione Internazionali), Quaderno, n. 96 – 2, Gorizia: Istitutodi Sociologia Internazionale. pp. 1-11.

Katan, David (1996a) "Deedes and Misdeedes: the CultureBound Nature of Interpreting Meaning", in C. J. Taylor(ed), Aspects of English II, Campanotto, Udine. 121-140. Katan, David (1993) "Conversational Implicatures andTranslation Implications in 'Troilus and Cressida'", in G.Caliumi (ed), Shakespeare e la sua eredità, Atti del XV Convegno Nazionaledell'Assocazione di Anglistica, Parma, 22-24 Ottobre 1992, Edizioni Zara,Parma. 347-355. 12pp.Katan, David (1992) "Traduzione e significato pragmatico ne'I Morti'", Rivista internazionale di tecnica di yraduzione, 0: 111-119.Katan D. & Straniero-Sergio, F., 2001, “Look Who’s Talking:The Ethics of Entertainment in Talk Show Interpreting” inAnthony Pym (ed.) The Translator: The Return to Ethics, SpecialIssue, 2001: 2, pp. 213-238Kondo, M., 1990, 'What Conference Interpreters Should NotBe Expected to Do', The Interpreters' Newsletter, 3, pp. 59-65.Lefevre, A., & S. Bassnett, 1990, “Proust’s Grandmother andthe Thousand and One Nights: The ‘Cultural Turn’ inTranslation Studies”, in S. Bassnett and A. Lefevre (eds.),Translation, History and Culture, Routledge, London., pp. 1-13.Levine, D.eana , R. and & Adelman, M.ara , B., (1993,)Beyond Language: Cross-Cultural Communication, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ:. Prentice-Hall.Levinson, Stephen C. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity PressMalinowski, B., [1923] 1994 “The Problem of Meaning inPrimitive Languages”, in M. Janet (ed.), Language and Literacy inSocial Practice: A Reader, Multilingual Matters, London, pp. 1-10.

31

Newmark, P., aul (1993,) Paragraphs on Translation, Bristol:Multilingual Matters, Bristol.Newmark, P., aul (1988, ) A Textbook of Translation, PrenticeHall, Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.Nida E. A., (1997,) “The Principles of DiscourseStructure and Content in Relation to Translating”, in K.Klaudy and & J. Kohn (eds.), Transferre Necesse Est: Proceedingsof the 2nd International Conference on Current Trends in Studies ofTranslation and Interpreting 5-7 September, 1996, Budapest, Hungary,Scholastica, Budapest: Scholastica, pp. 37-42.Paige M, R., 1993, “On the Nature of InterculturalExperiences and Intercultural Education”, in M. R Paige,.(ed.), Education for the Intercultural Experience, InterculturalPress,: Yarmouth, Maine, pp.1-21.Pym A., 2000, “On Cooperation”, in M. Olohan (ed.),Intercultural Faultlines: Research Models in Translation Studies I. Textualand Cognitive Aspects, St. Jerome, Manchester, p. 181-1926.Robinson, D., 1997, Becoming a Translator: An Accelerated Course,Routledge,: London.Schäffner C.hristina and & H. Kelly-Holmes (eds.), (1995,)Cultural Functions of Translation, Clevedon: MultilingualMatters,. Clevedon.Scollon, Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon (1995) InterculturalCommunication: A Discourse Approach, Oxford: Blackwell.Snell-Hornby, M., ary (1988, ) Translation Studies: an IntegratedApproach, John Benjamins, Amsterdam and & Philadelphia:John Benjamins. .Sperber D. and & Wilson, D., 1986, Relevance, Blackwell,Oxford. Taft, R., 1981 “The Role and Personality of the mediator",in S. Bochner (ed.), The Mediating Person: Bridges between Cultures,Schenkman, Cambridge, pp. 53-88Venuti, L., awrence (1995, ) The Translator’s Invisibility – A Historyof Translation, Routledge, : London and & New York.Venuti, L., awrence (1998, ) The Scandals of Translation,Routledge,: London & New York.

32

Vermeer, Hans (2000) “Skopos and Commission inTranslational Action”, in The Translation studies Reader,Routledge: London, 221-232.Vermeer, Hans J. (1978) ‘Ein Rahem für eine AllgemeineTranslationstherie’, Lebende Sprachen 3: 99-102.Wolf, M.,ichaela (1997,) “Translation as a Process ofPower: Aspects of Cultural Anthropology in Translation”, inM. Snell-Hhornby, Z. Jettmarovà and & K. Kaindl (eds.),Translation as Intercultural Communication, John Benjamins, :Amsterdam and & Philadelphia, pp. 123-134.Vermeer, H. J., 2000, “Skopos and Commission inTranslational Action”, in L. Venuti (ed.), The TranslationStudies Reader, Routledge, London.

33