Further Reading
Pym, A. (2008) ‘On Toury’s laws of how to translate’, in A. Pym, M. Shlesinger and D. Simeoni (eds)Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies, Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 311–28.
Pym, A. (2010) Exploring Translation Theories, Abingdon and New York: Routledge, ch. 5.
Schäffner, C. (1998) ‘The concept of norms in translation studies’, Current Issues in Language and Society 5.1–2: 1–9.
Research projects
- Consider the position of translation in the polysystem of your own country. Would you say that it occupies a primary or secondary position? Have there been noticeable changes over the years? What might have caused these changes? As far as translated literature’s own polysystem is concerned, are there variations according to genre, SL, etc.?
- Look at the different case studies given in Toury’s Descriptive Translation Studies (1995). What elements do they have in common? What studies could you carry out to test or extend these findings?
- Analyse suitable ST-TT pairs and compare the results. How feasible are Toury’s proposed laws of translation and Chesterman’s S-universals and T-universals?
- Find other examples of studies which seem to support or challenge Toury’s laws of standardization and interference. Pym’s article ‘On Toury’s laws of how translators translate’ (Pym 2008, see Further Reading) discusses the commonplaceness and contradiction in the two laws through the concept of social conditions and translator risk-avoidance. What examples can you find to support or challenge this possible unification? What extra-linguistic variables seem to condition the laws?
- Read the various papers in Beyond Descriptive Translation Studies (Pym et al. 2008) see Further Reading. How far do they advance or modify Toury’s model?