7.4 Other models of descriptive translation studies: Lambert and van Gorp and the Manipulation School

With the influence of Even-Zohar's and Toury's early work in polysystem theory, the International Comparative Literature Association held several meetings and conferences around the theme of translated literature. Particu­larly prominent centres were in Belgium, Israel and the Netherlands, and the

120 Systems theories

first conferences were held at Leuven (1976), Tel Aviv (1978) and Antwerp

(1980).

The key publication of this group of scholars, known as the Manipulation

School or Group, was the collection of papers entitled The Manipulation of

Literature: Studies in Literary Translation (1985a), edited by Theo Hermans.

In his introduction, 'Translation studies and a new paradigm', Hermans

summarizes the group's view of translated literature:

What they have in common is a view of literature as a complex and dynamic system; a conviction that there should be a continual interplay between theoretical models and practical case studies; an approach to literary translation which is descriptive, target-organized, functional and systemic; and an interest in the norms and constraints that govern the production and reception of translations, in the relation between translation and other types of text processing, and in the place and role of translations both within a given literature and in the interaction

between literatures.

(Hermans 1985b: 10-11)

The link with polysystem theory and DTS can be seen to be strong and the Manipulation School proceeded on the basis of 'a continual interplay between theoretical models and practical case studies'.

A key point at that time was the exact methodology for the case studies. The paper by Jose Lambert and Hendrik van Gorp (1985), 'On describing translations', draws on Even-Zohar' s and Toury' s early work and proposes one such scheme for the comparison of the ST and TT literary systems and for the description of relations within them. Each system comprises a descrip­tion of author, text and reader. Lambert and van Gorp divide the scheme into four sections (Lambert and van Gorp 1985: 52-3):

1. Preliminary data: information on title page, metatexts (preface, etc.) and the general strategy (whether the translation is partial or complete). The results should lead to hypotheses concerning levels 2 and 3.

2. Macro-level: the division of the text, titles and presentation of the chapters, the internal narrative structure and any overt authorial comment. This should generate hypotheses about the micro-level

(level 3).

3 Micro-level: the identification of shifts on different linguistic levels. These include the lexical level, the grammatical patterns, narrative, point of view and modality. The results should interact with the macro-level (level 2) and lead to their 'consideration in terms of the broader systemic

context'.

4 Systemic context: here micro- and macro-levels, text and theory are compared and norms identified. Intertextual relations (relations with other texts including translations) and intersystemic relations (relations with other genres, codes) are also described.

Lambert and van Gorp (p. 47) accept that 'it is impossible to summarize all relationships involved in the activity of translation' but suggest a systematic

CASE STUDY 121

scheme that avoids superficial and intuitive commentaries and 'a priori judgments and convictions'. Like Hermans, they stress the link between the individual case study and the wider theoretical framework:

It is not at all absurd to study a single translated text or a single translator, but it is absurd to disregard the fact that this translation or this translator has (positive or negative) connections with other translations and translators.

(Lambert and van Gorp 1985: 51)

Since that paper was written, DTS has moved on, not least with Toury's 1995 work. Scholars such as the late Andre Lefevere moved away from polysystem terminology to consider the role of ideology and patronage in the system of translated literature. Pointers for future work in the theory of descriptive studies are given by Hermans:

The discipline generally, but the descriptive school in particular, urgently needs to take account of developments in some of the more vigorous intellectual and social movements of our time, including gender studies, poststructuralism, postcolonial and cultural studies, and the new interdisciplinarity of human sciences.

(Hermans 1999: 159-60)

We examine Lefevere's work and the contribution of these other movements to translation studies in chapters 8 and 9.

Case study

The text for this case study is the hugely successful children's book Ham¹ Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J. K. Rowling¹ and its translations into Italian (Harry Potter e la pietra filosofale²) and Spanish (Harry Potter y la piedra filosofaP). Following Toury's three-phase methodology, we shall:

1. place the TTs in their TT cultural systems;

2. 'map' TT segments onto the ST equivalents;

3. attempt to draw some generalizations regarding the translation strategies employed and the norms at work.

Comparing two translations of the same ST, albeit in different languages, allows findings to be checked and helps to avoid jumping to conclusions based on a single isolated study.

1 Both the Italian and Spanish TTs are presented and accepted as transla­tions, the translators' names and the original titles being published on the copyright pages. The Italian also has the translator's name on the title page. Both TTs are direct translations from English. Even though both target cultures have strong native children's literature traditions them­selves, the decision to select this book for translation is not surprising given its huge success in the UK and the USA where at one time it was the best-selling book in the country among both adults and children. The fact that the books are translations is not stressed, however. The