Translator, The Expert

Response paper on Hans J. Vermeer’s “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”

This response paper is on, as Vermeer states, “the short sketch” of his own Skopos Theory of translation. This theory, I think, is crucial to understand, to define and to improve many dynamics in applied translational works. Even this “short sketch” of his essential work deserves to be analyzed in many views as, for example, the role given to the source text (Vermeer 1989:222), the translator’s position in the process of intercultural communication (ibid), the relation between the purpose of a translational act, its serviceability and its targeted audience (ibid) and many others. His theory expands to other theories and comprises other theories’ approaches to the questions on, for instance, the task of translator, the definition and what is can be expected from a translated text or translatum.

My purpose, in this paper, is to discuss specifically the notion of “expertise” which, I think, plays a significant role in marking out the extent and the originality of his theory. Not only because this notion breaks the possible misunderstanding that Vermeer’s theory gives to the translator an unlimited freedom in his/her task, but also because it gives many insight about much of today’s general situation and applications in various fields related to translation.

The way Vermeer conceptualize the “expert” is as follows:

It is usually assumed, reasonably enough, that [experts] “know what is all about”; they are thus consulted and their views listened to. Being experts, they are trusted to know more about their particular field than outsiders. In some circumstances one may debate with them over the best way of proceeding, until a consensus is reached, or occasionally one may also consult other experts or consider further alternative ways of reaching a given goal. An expert must be able to say – and this implies both knowledge and a duty to use it – what is what. His voice must therefore be respected, he must be “given a say.” The translator is such an expert. (Vermeer 1989: 222)

According to Vermeer, the translator is or must be an expert. This expertise does not imply that the translator should be the one who defines the “purpose” of a translational task, because this decision is, at least theoretically, up to the “commissioner” (Vermeer 1989:229). Translator, here, is the one who knows how to “realize” this purpose, or the skopos (ibid). In this regard, the translator is not only the expert on the specific subject or content s/he is translating, but also on the target culture and the target audience because what s/he does is mainly a “transcultural communication” (Vermeer 1989:222).

This view is crucial when we consider today’s general application in various translational fields as literary publishing, scientific publishing, journalism, translations of legal texts and many others. In these fields, the necessity of the very existence of an editor, considered as the real (even, sole) expert on the subject in case, is one of the main actual debates. According to Vermeer’s theory, the translator does not need an editorial expert’s aid for his/her translational task to be achieved, because s/he is already the expert on this task and this expertise has a binding power on “matters of ethics” and “accountability” in his/her task (Vermer 1989:226).

At this point, remembering Immanuel Wallerstein’s approach in his work entitled “Concepts in the Social Sciences: Problems of Translation” would be practical. There, Wallerstein states that “a social science text utilizes concepts as the central mode of communication” and that “these concepts are not universally shared” (Wallerstein 1981:88). He also accordingly adds that “the translator must be someone not merely skilled in translation as a generalized technique but familiar with the literature of the subfield over a long period of time, and preferably someone with a direct interest in the material under discussion in the text” (Wallerstein 1981:89). Wallerstein, here, implies the need for translators “trained in both translation techniques and social science” (ibid).

In Vermeer’s approach, the scope of the possible contents subject to translation is far more general than Wallerstein’s. They are even unlimited. The problem of translator training appears, then, to be one of the main points to be discussed when a degree of “expertise” is expected from the translator. How the translator will be expert in many contents? If it is expected from him/her to be an expert in a single subject, will his/her task as a translator be limited only in the given subject? In such a case, should translator training programs aim solely at subjects who are already studied specific disciplines such as law, medicine, political sciences or who are experienced on different literary styles or writers? Such questions are worth to be debated to understand the expectation of “expertise” from the translator and to recognize the extent of his/her task as a translator.

REFERENCES

Vermeer, Hans (1989) “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action”, translated by Andrew Chesterman, in Lawrence Venuti (ed.) The Translation Studies Reader, London: Routledge, 2000

Wallerstein, Immanuel (1981) “Concepts in the Social Sciences: Problems of Translating”, in Marilyn Gaddis Rose (ed.) Translation Spectrum: Essays in Theory and Practice, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1981.