Teoría de la Diversidad y de la Universalidad de los Cuidados Culturales:

As mentioned previously, this thesis will not attempt to cut the Gordian knot between equivalence-based and functionalist/descriptive approaches to translation. Instead, I will follow Byrne’s (2012:14) pragmatic advice and try to combine the best features of both equivalence-based and functional approaches with regard to STT. To do so, I will start from a very macroscopic perspective and refer to Hermans (1999:48-49) and Prunč

(2007:27), who both claim that the idea of an equivalence relation between source text and target text as a defining criterion of translation is a culture-specific notion that emerged in European intellectual life in the late 18th _{and early 19}th _{century. If we do not want our idea}

of translation to be a strictly culture-bound concept that has to remain agnostic towards other cultural notions of translation or to deny them their status of translation based on its own culturally shaped assumptions, we should probably discard the idea of equivalence being a definitional criterion of translation. Hence, we should also abandon any clear-cut

distinction between translation on the one hand and adaptation on the other. As Prunč

(ibid.:28) claims, quite rightly in my opinion, the concept of translation must be able to also accommodate those forms of translational action which yield a rather loose relation between ST and TT. At the same time, it cannot be denied that many professional translations in the European context exhibit a rather close relation to their source texts, possibly even more so in the case of STT, where a call for denotational invariance of content seems to be the norm (see 2.4.3 above). I would like to reconcile this fact with the more holistic stance taken above by proposing a prototypical approach to translation in the sense of Halverson (1998, 1999).15 _{STT as a prototype category could look like this:}16

15 _{See also Schreiber’s (2006) prototypical model of translation types.} 16 _{The figure was adopted from Halverson (1998:508).}

Figure 2: STT as a prototype category

Such a prototypical approach would, on the one hand, have the advantage of a fuzzy category boundary (as indicated by the dotted line), which would relieve us of the task of making a principled distinction between translation and adaptation. On the other hand, a prototype approach to translation acknowledges that there are asymmetries among the category members (as indicated by the cluster of instances in the centre), meaning that some members are more central to the category while others are more peripheral (Halverson 1998:510; Prunč 2004:263). We could then say that the central members in the prototype category of STT are characterized by invariance of (informative) function and therefore tend to exhibit a very close relation to their source texts at the denotational/content level. We could further say that this prototypically close ST-TT relation warrants the incorporation of the equivalence concept to theoretically capture this relation, with the theoretical value of this equivalence concept probably diminishing the closer we move toward the periphery of the category, where category members tend to exhibit a rather loose ST-TT relation.17

17 _{Halverson (2010a:16) points out that “prototypes vary across cultures and times” and that “the exemplars}

of translations that are found at any given time or place may be considered more or less prototypical, relative to the shared conceptualization of the relevant language community at the time” (a similar view is held by Chesterman 2004:43). This means that, in different cultures and at different times, the centre-periphery structure of prototype categories may be different from the one proposed here, where a close ST-TT relation is claimed to be located towards the centre of the category. This culture dependence of prototype categories makes sure that the prototypical approach to translation opted for in this study is reconcilable with the holistic stance on translation taken at the beginning of this section, and it should also alleviate concerns that a prototype approach will marginalize the “Other” and eventually “stifle research in translation studies”, as feared by Tymoczko (2006:20).

The equivalence concept used for modelling prototypical STT in the sense described above should be broadly compatible with

functionalist approaches, so as to make this account of STT compatible with more holistic perspectives on translation. Such a dynamic equivalence model which exhibits some affinity with the functionalist camp has been proposed by Schreiber (1993) and Albrecht (2005) and was applied to STT by Krein-Kühle (e.g. 2003, 2013). The model can be graphically presented as follows:

Figure 3: Albrecht and Schreiber’s equivalence model18

This model contains one important notion that has been largely ignored so far (adequacy) and one that has been used at a rather pre-theoretical level (invariance). Adequacy is a central notion of skopos theory, and its incorporation into the equivalence model above (although in a more moderate form) ensures the desired basic compatibility of this model with functionalist approaches. In skopos theory, adequacy refers to the relation between source text and target text that is established when the skopos of the translation is consistently followed in the translation process (Reiss/Vermeer 21991:139).19

18 _{The figure is based on Albrecht (2005:36).}

In the model above, adequacy guides the postulation and hierarchization of invariance requirements to be fulfilled in translation, which, according to Schreiber (1993), can lead to hierarchizations such as primacy of form, primacy of content, primacy of author intention

19 _{Both Albrecht and Schreiber adopt a narrower version of skopos and the adequacy concept. For Albrecht}

(2005:35), adequacy means adequacy to the function of the source text. He therefore rejects an important claim of skopos theory, i.e. that the skopos of a translation (relative to which adequacy is established) can be stipulated independently of the source text. Schreiber (1993:61) seems to follow a more target-text oriented approach since for him adequacy is related to the time, purpose and addressees of a translation (not its source text). However, Schreiber (ibid.:61-62) restricts the purpose or skopos of a translation to invariance requirements, while skopos theory explicitly allows for variance requirements, for example in the case of functional variance.

and primacy of effect. A high degree of equivalence would be achieved when there is an equally high degree of invariance with regard to the factors established prior to the translation.20

Based on this dynamic equivalence model and with specific emphasis on STT, Krein- Kühle (2013:5, boldface removed) defines equivalence as

The notion of invariance refers to “those elements which remain unchanged in the process of translation” (Bakker et al. 22009:269). The invariance concept was adopted from structural linguistics and is an integral part of equivalence-based theories of translation (Siever 2010:198). The concept, although widely invoked in translation studies and intuitively comprehensible, raises some quite fundamental ontological and epistemological questions. The difficulties associated with this concept are also recognized by Schreiber (1993:57), who introduces his notion of degree of equivalence to do justice to the fact that invariance requirements can normally only be fulfilled in an approximate

manner. I will address the issues involved in the invariance concept in more detail in 5.5, after having laid out the philosophical and cognitive linguistic underpinnings of the thesis.

[…] a qualitative complete text-in-context-based concept. It refers to the translational relation between a complete source text and a complete target text, both of which are embedded in a specific domain-related context, and implies the preservation of ST sense/intended sense or ‘das Gemeinte’ [what is meant] (the invariant) [...] in the TT using TL linguistic means, the best possible selection of which must have been achieved at the syntactic, lexical-semantic, terminological-phraseological, and textual levels. These levels are hierarchically interrelated and subject to pragmatic aspects […].

In line with the prototypical considerations above, Krein-Kühle posits the ST sense/intended sense21

20 _{There is an important distinction here between Albrecht’s and Schreiber’s approach. For Albrecht}

(2005:36), equivalence remains a definitional criterion of translation, while Schreiber (1993:55) uses the concept primarily as a measure of the quality of translations.

as the highest ranking invariant in the hierarchy proposed above. However, Krein-Kühle does not treat STT or translation in general as a prototype concept but rather follows the general equivalence approach in making a clear distinction between

21 _{With the notion of intended sense, Krein-Kühle does justice to Horn-Helf’s (1999:109-110) concerns that}

denotational invariance may not be desirable in the case of defective source texts. In non-defective scientific and technical texts, denotational meaning would normally equal referential meaning. In the case of such an ST defect, one would then move from the level of (denotational) sense to the level of (referential) intended sense in translation. This is taken to mean that the author intended to encode the referential meaning in the text but failed to do so (for whatever reasons), thus creating a rift between referential and denotational meaning which has to be remedied at the expense of the latter in translation.

translation and adaptation (e.g. Krein-Kühle 2013:4). The requirement concerning “the best possible selection” of “TL linguistic means” also indicates that Krein-Kühle understands equivalence as a qualitative and not as a definitional criterion of translation, situating her account of equivalence closer to Schreiber’s than to Albrecht’s approach. What is crucially important with regard to the above equivalence concept is that, although Krein-Kühle mentions “the preservation of ST sense/intended sense or ‘das Gemeinte’ [what is meant]”, this is not taken to mean that the level of meaning – whether denotational or referential – will always be the highest ranking invariant in STT since this hierarchization is “subject to pragmatic aspects”. With regard to these pragmatic aspects, Krein-Kühle (forthcoming) points out that her equivalence concept “subsumes adequacy [...] in terms of time, purpose and TL readership”, which is again reminiscent of Schreiber’s more target-text oriented approach to equivalence. And indeed, there are various cases where sociocultural or pragmatic differences between SL and TL cultures require another highest-ranking invariant than referential or denotational meaning if the translation is to serve the same function as the source text (see Reinart 2009:293). For example, in a specialized translation course, my students had to translate a technical description of wind turbines published by the US Department of Energy. The text was intended to inform an interested layperson audience about the general application of wind energy and contained the following information:

[The generator is usually] an off-the-shelf induction generator that produces 60-cycle AC electricity.

If the translation into German is to serve the same function as the original, the information

60 cycle would have to be changed to 50 Hz in German since the grid frequency in Europe is 50 Hz, whereas it is 60 Hz in North America. This difference in the frames of reference of SL and TL culture therefore requires a pragmatically induced shift of meaning that has to be theoretically accounted for. The meaning dimension should therefore be regarded as the primary invariant to be achieved in prototypical STT, while wider sociocultural or pragmatic factors may at every instance require a different hierarchization of invariance requirements.22

22 _{A more comprehensive discussion of socioculturally determined shifts of meaning in specialized}

I would like to very briefly recap the theoretical approach proposed here. We started from a very holistic perspective that does not make a principled distinction between translation and adaptation and thus allows for a plethora of possible relations between source text and target text. It was then argued that, from a prototypical perspective, certain members of the category of translation (or the subcategory of STT) may have a more central status (i.e. are more prototypical) than others, and that prototypical STT is characterized by invariance of (informative) function and therefore tends to exhibit a close ST-TT relation at the denotational/content level. This close ST-TT relation can be theoretically captured by the equivalence concept. Equivalence, as understood here, is not a definitional criterion of translation but it is rather used to make qualitative statements about the degree of invariance that is perceived to exist between certain dimensions of a ST-TT pair. The equivalence model developed by Albrecht and Schreiber and extended in the context of STT by Krein-Kühle was proposed for this purpose since it a) reflects the multidimensional nature of text by requiring a hierarchization of different invariant requirements and b) claims that the choice and hierarchization of these requirements is guided by adequacy considerations, which are ultimately derived from target culture concerns.23

Finally, I would like to point out that the insistence on a prototypically close ST-TT relation at the content level in STT is not only due to altruistic concerns about the greater This adequacy concept provides a – still somewhat tentative – interface with functional approaches to translation. Equivalence, in this model, comes in degrees, taking account of the fact that invariance requirements can normally not be fulfilled completely but only approximately. We thus have a flexible approach that does not claim to cover the totality of translation but “merely” prototypical STT as understood here. This equivalence concept and the corresponding invariance requirements allow for theoretically sound statements about the close ST-TT relation at the content level that is to be expected in STT, taking into account, however, that the meaning dimension is merely the primary and not the absolute invariant to be achieved in STT. Finally, the insight that these invariance requirements are ultimately guided by adequacy considerations ensures that the source text does not become an overly determinant factor in translation, that various target culture considerations can be incorporated and that there is a basic compatibility with functionalist approaches to translation.

23 _{Recall, however, that Albrecht understands adequacy as referring to the function of the source text, while}

good of STT. This issue is also stressed for reasons that are more associated with the specific epistemic aims of the present thesis pertaining to the analysis of explicitation and implicitation as indicators of text-context interaction. For any contrastive study of explicitation and implicitation, which, put quite simply, investigates implicit meanings in the ST that have been explicitly verbalized in the TT and vice versa, requires a rather close correspondence at the content level in order to yield meaningful results (although this is often not specifically acknowledged by the corresponding studies).24