The basic rules of the Skopos theory : 1) The final version of the TT is determined by its skopos which means that the purpose of the TT is the main determinant for the chosen translation methods and strategies 2) The role of the ST in the source culture may be different to the role of the TT in the target culture. 3) The TT must take into account the receiver’s situation and background knowledge – it must be “internally coherent”. 4) The TT must be faithful to the ST – ST – “coherent “coherent with the ST”. Here ST”. Here the translator is the key, as the information provided by the ST must be determined, interpreted and relayed to the target audience. 5)a TT must be coherent with the ST, which means that there must be coherence between the ST information received by the translator, the interpretation the translator makes of this information and the information that is encoded for the TT receivers i.e. intertextual coherence 5) These rules are in order of importance, so skopos has the prime position (Munday, 2001, p.79)
If the commission falls beyond the scope of the specifications, that is if the translator is unable to produce the best possible TT available, then an “optimal” version should be agreed upon (Vermeer, 1989, p.236). Vermeer offers four definitions of the term “optimal”: - “one of the best translations possible in the given circumstances” - “one of those that best realize the goal in question” - “as good as possible in view of the resources available” - (as good as possible) “in view of the wishes of the client” (Vermeer, 1989, p.236). p .236).
In a later publication, Vermeer (1996: 12f) contextualizes skopos theory explicitly as a form of action theory. He sets out a number of axioms , now called, in English, “theses” 1. All acting presupposes a “point of departure”, i.e. an actor’s position in space and time, convictions, theories, etc., including their respective history. 2. All acting is goal-oriented. goal-oriented.
3. From a variety of possibilities [...] that action will be chosen which one believes one has the best reasons for choosing under the prevailing circumstances. The reason(s) may not be conscious for the actor. 4. Given the prevailing circumstances, an actor tries to reach the intended goal by what seem to him the/an optimal way, i.e., for which he believes he has the best overall reason(s). 5. Translating is acting, i.e. a goal-oriented procedure carried out in such a way as the translator deems optimal under the prevailing circumstances. 6. Thesis 5 is a general thesis valid for all types of translating [including interpreting]. 7. In translating, all potentially pertinent factors (including the source text on all its levels) are taken into consideration as far as the skopos of translating allows and/or demands. [Emphasis original] 8. The skopos of (translational) acting determines the strategy for reaching the intended goal.
However, Skopos has been criticised on several grounds. Firstly, it has been said that it does not apply to literary texts, because it could be considered that they serve no purpose. (Munday, 2001, p.81; Vermeer, 1989, p.230). If this were the case, then Skopos cannot claim to be a legitimate general theory for translation, as indicated by the title of Reiss and Vermeer’s 1984 publication. Vermeer argues strongly against this point by insisting that literary works are created with a specific goal in mind, even if it is reduced to the simplest “art for the sake of art” premise (Vermeer, 1989, p.231). The application of skopos to a literary text may, in fact, suppress some of the intended deeper levels of meaning that are open for reflection to readers of the ST. However, Vermeer counters this particular argument by claiming that if the reading of a literary TT on multiple levels is desired, it should be clearly stated at the time of the commission (Vermeer, 1989, p.232). From a linguistic perspective, Skopos has been condemned for being stylistically and semantically loose, as well as for not paying enough attention to TT micro-level features (Munday, 2001, p.81). It has e.g. been criticised for being too simplistic, and for not being a real academic theory. The reason why the skopos theory is not perceived as a real theory by some is that a real scientific theory must per definition be formulated as a hypothesis that can be empirically tested (Schjoldager 2008: 181). This is by some perceived as a problem because the skopos theory sets up prescriptions, however, these prescriptions have not been empirically tested, and they therefore merely describe ideals. Concluding remarks
It is seen that the main concern of the skopos theory is the function of the TT and the TT receiver. Skopos is established by the translator based on the translation brief. The skopos theory does not decide whether the translator should make a direct ST-oriented translation or a freer TToriented translation. It depends on the translation situation and the brief. On micro level, the theory does not provide the translator with any guidelines because these are different for each TT depending on the skopos. With the skopos theory as theoretical framework, it will be interesting to investigate whether the participants in the two empirical studies live up to its prescriptions.
