Current Issues In Language and Society

ISSN: 1352-0520 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cils20

The Deficiencies of Skopos Theory: A Response to

Anna Trosborg

Peter Newmark

To cite this article: Peter Newmark (2000) The Deficiencies of Skopos Theory: A
Response to Anna Trosborg, Current Issues In Language and Society, 7:3, 259-260, DOI:
10.1080/13520520009615586

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13520520009615586

Published online: 23 Apr 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 9

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cils20

Download by: [Stockholm University Library] Date: 05 September 2017, At: 04:37
 The Deficiencies of Skopos Theory: A
Response to Anna Trosborg
Peter Newmark
Centre for Translation Studies, School of Language and International Studies,
University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 5XH
Anybody would agree that you need to know why you are doing something, as
well as what you are doing and how you are to do it, and that sometimes if you
get too involved, you tend to forget what your aim is. Hence the Bauhaus follows
Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 04:37 05 September 2017

the convolutions and intricacies of Art Nouveau. But to translate the word ‘aim’
into Greek, and make a translation theory out of it, and to exclude any moral
factor except loyalty, added on as an afterthought by Nord (e.g. Nord, 1997) to
Vermeer (who wrote that the end always justifies the means, (e.g. Vermeer,
1978), is pretending too much and going too far.
‘Although the distinction between “semantic” and “communicative” may
appear similar to the notions of “documentary” and “instrumental”, the two
approaches are widely different in their focus’, says Anna Trosborg (section
3.1.2). She is right there, but how are her readers/students to understand her,
when she makes no proper reference to me, my books or my other published
work in her lengthy and overly didactic, not to say prescriptive, lucubrations?
Her analysis of the distinction, however, is misleading: ‘documentary’ transla-
tion, which is Nord’s term, not Vermeer’s, reproduces, in some form or other, the
full content of the source text (ST), whilst ‘instrumental’ translation normally
only reproduces the part related to its purpose, the message. The distinction
appears futile, since all translation is instrumental. The distinction between
communicative and semantic translation, however, depends on the importance,
the purpose and the quality of the text, as well as other factors (see Munday, 2001:
45). Moreover, the ‘ultimate determiner’ in my model is certainly not ‘ST’ (I quote
Trosborg, Section 3.1.2). It is, as I have explained many times, in the books
Trosborg has ignored, one or more of the five universal non-cultural truths (to
which I also referred in the Debate).
Further, Trosborg appears to be unaware of any distinction between imagina-
tive (‘literary’) and factual (non-literary) translation, her own prose tending to
frequent repetitions and dead linguistic terms (‘commissives’, ‘representatives’,
‘declarations’) that do not serve translation. She selects the terms of Joos’s (1969)
scale of formality (a ‘consultative’ register, for instance, what is that? Trosborg
gives no illustrations), which preceded the turn of language towards increasing
informality, due to the spread of democracy, TV, the internet, etc. (e.g. an imme-
diate use of first names), that has taken place since that period. She is unaware of
the distinctions between degrees of formality, emotional tone and simplicity for
these distinctions see Newmark, 2000: 14f.). If her theory of good writing, such as
it is, with its slick or ‘crucial’ strategies, is based on Grice (who is not in her refer-
ences), she hardly flushes out or relates his principles to any text. Her reference to

1352 0520/00/03 0259-02 $20.00/0 © 2000 P. Newmark

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE & SOCIETY Vol. 7, No. 3, 2000

259
 260 Current Issues in Language and Society

‘epistemic modality’, without definition or example, is obscure and misleading,

as is her remark that ‘Translation Studies has changed from a preoccupation with
literature to a concern with general and specialised language’ (Section 3.1); she
seems merely to be betraying a prejudice against literature. In fact, writers on
translationare as concerned with literary as they are with non-literary language.
Lastly, in her litany of ST pointers, Trosborg omits punctuation marks, typo-
graphical modifications, illustrations, diagrams, which are so important as cohe-
sive factors, or as indications of emphasis, summarisation, doubt, irony, etc. In
her inadequate analysis of The Economist‘s style features for a translator, she
makes no mention of the illustration at the top of or in the middle of the page (as
published in the journal) that normally indicates the point of the article.
Downloaded by [Stockholm University Library] at 04:37 05 September 2017

In short, I think Trosborg’s formulas are dreary and include too many remarks
that are not worth making (such as ‘we should not expect theoretical models of
translation to solve all the problems …’. [in Concluding Comments] et patati et
patata), but as a preface to Halliday, I have no quarrel with it.

References
Joos, M. (1969) The Five Clocks. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Munday, J. (2001) Introducing Translation Studies. London: Routledge.
Newmark, P. (1978) The curse of dogma in translation. Lebende Sprachen 23, 99–102.
Newmark, P. (2000) Text Book of Translation. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Nord, C. (1997) Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained.
Manchester: St Jerome.
Vermeer, H.J. (1978) Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie. Lebende
Sprachen 23, 95–98.