The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen 2 Differing norms in theatre translation 24 The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen 2.1 Deducing norms from a translation The aim of this chapter is to design a working model for assessing the hypothesised norm breach that a retranslation represents. This chapter will outline the choices the theatre translator has to deal with, as well as the ways he can possibly rank them. If the resulting hierarchy is different from his predecessor’s, it will be assumed that the new translation represents a norm breach. Further, this chapter is also concerned with the relationship of director and translator and with the impact on the audience of the norms expressed in the translation. In the field of Descriptive Translation Studies, translation is considered as norm-based behaviour. Norms are considered a form of socio-cultural constraint: they are intersubjective factors that are anchored between the two poles of relatively abso- lute rules on the one hand, and pure idiosyncrasies on the other (Toury, 1995: 54). Toury (1995: 58-61) posits that norms are active when a particular text is chosen for transla- tion (preliminary norm), when the translator decides on his translational strategy (initial norm) and also during the act of translating itself (operational norms). The operational norms, those governing the active translation process, can be divided into matricial norms and textual-linguistic norms.15 In this chapter, I will propose a perspective on norms that are active in three different phases: prior to and during the process of translating a theatre text, as well as during the reception of the text. This approach reflects an attempt to combine Toury’s basic distinction of norms with the findings of previous scholarship. It should be stressed here that my views are also very much informed by the findings that will be presented in the third chapter. The practical application of the different possibilities inferred from the translations that were studied in that chapter has determined the at- tention that I have given to the various particularities of theatre translation. Figure 1 gives a rough outline of the possible options for the theatre trans- lator. All aspects that I consider to be crucial in theatre translation have been given a certain position between source text and target culture. Although by necessity a simplification, the graph serves to visualise how the translator may have breached the norms of his predecessor. It will be used to act as an indicative summary of the transla- tors’ norms. Before turning to the theatre translator’s practical options with regard to the preliminary, matricial and textual-linguistic norms, the findings of previous scholarship will be discussed in order to appraise the choices a theatre translator encounters in his work, as well as the underlying poetics they can be related to. 2.2 Theatre translation as a particular area of translation studies Drama translation is a separate field of study within translation studies that has devel- oped from the idea that for a translation to be theatrical, the theatrical characteristics are to be transferred into the other language (George Mounin, 1967; Klaus Bednarz, 1969; Jiri Levy, 1969). 15 Hermans (1996) inserts an additional option between the preliminary and the initial norm: the choice to trans- late the text or to use another form of transfer (summary, adaptation, and quote). 25 The Breach andtheObservance-JanWillemThe Breach Mathijssen 26 Figure 1: Possible options of a theatre translator This diagram presents the options a translator has to consider when making a translation for the stage. The translator has to take a stance with regard to his attitude towards the original author (‘initial norm’, treated in section 2.3), what part of the original text he means to translate (‘matricial norms’, treated in 2.4), the extent to which he domesticates the socio-cultural contents of the original (‘situation’, treated in 2.5.2) and the extent to which he respects the literary construction of the original (‘intertext’, treated in 2.5.1). The attitudes in each category presented above are positioned on a gliding scale between the intention to be faithful to the source text and the intention to make a text that will fit in the target culture. The diagram is not exhaustive, as it is based only on the case studies in this dissertation and the findings of previous theory. The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen Van den Broeck (1986) calls the theatrical text dual in the sense that it is both a poetic-literary text and a text pertaining to the theatre.16 According to him, the trans- lator of a play is faced with the choice to either translate the play as a literary text, thereby identifying it with a single medium, the printed word, or to perceive it as a the- atrical text in the context of a theatrical production. In that case, the text is polymedial because it is identified with both text and with performance. He calls the first option ‘retrospective translation’ and the second ‘prospective translation.’ Hence it is possible to distinguish literary translations of a play from theatre translations. If the translator makes the choice to create a theatre translation, and only then, he will also have to consider the features that are typical of a theatre text. The notions of adequacy and acceptability (Toury, 1978) should therefore be understood in terms of the medium: a translation that is acceptable as a literary text can be different from a translation that is considered acceptable as a dramatic text; the impossibility of using footnotes on stage being the most obvious example. As a result of the idea that a theatre text is essentially different from a literary text, theatre translation theorists have identified a number of properties that are char- acteristic of theatre texts. Several studies centre on the notion of theatrical pragmatics as the key characteristic of a dramatic text. Hofmann (1980) proposes a trichotomous model for drama translation, distinguishing between an expressive, content and prag- matic level. For him, the variable of pragmatics, i.e. effectiveness on stage, is raised to an invariable. Assimakopoulos (2002), departing from the idea that translation is an act of communication, takes up Hofmann’s hypothesis and applies relevance theory (Gutt, 2000) to drama translation. He concludes that: “the choices to be made during the actual translation of a play are left to the translators themselves and their understand- ing of what is optimally relevant to their audience. (2002: 36-7) A problematical aspect of relevance theory is that the translator is supposed to communicate the translated ‘intention’ of the original author, which in the case of Shakespeare is very difficult to know. One major characteristic of theatrical pragmatics is the immediacy of the text.17 As Crystal has noted, “in drama, there is no narrative framework other than that provided by the language of the characters and by the visual setting in which they act. (…) The dialogue must do everything. (1997:75) In this respect, Assimakopoulos argues that An important aspect of […] a view of drama as a single-oriented act of com- munication is the simultaneity of communication between the performance on stage and the audience. The audience of a play cannot take its time to clarify or ponder upon what they have just listened to. Above all that, in a case where the members of the audience need to clarify something, they cannot intervene in the play and address the performers. It is therefore clear that the drama translator cannot resort to clarifying techniques that are accessible to other common types of translation practice [like the aforementioned foot- notes]. (2002:23) 16 See also Williams (1968: 170); Bassnett (1985: 90) and Anderman (1998: 71). 17 See Mounin (1969: 92) on drama as an act of single-oriented communication. 27 The Breach and the Observance - Jan Willem Mathijssen The pragmatic dimension of the theatre translation affects the acceptability of the translation within the context of the target culture differently from that of a literary translation. As a result of the immediacy of the text, the audience needs to recognise the culture-specific elements that are contained in a play; if not, they will suffer so- called “cultural gaps (Assimakopoulos, 2002: 19). The theatre translation is not only measured by socially and culturally deter- mined expectations in general, but also by expectations of the theatrical text in par- ticular (Bassnett, 2000: 101-3). The effect of the performance text depends greatly on how theatrical codes and conventions are dealt with. According to Wellwarth (1981), the translator’s job is to “recreate the original language’s meaning in the socially ac- cepted style of the target language.18 The encoded message of the play is not picked up when other, stronger codes are at work. For instance, the translator may see himself forced to subvert a play’s meaning and style in order to adapt it to a desired paradigm of entertainment (Fotheringham, 1984). Aaltonen (2000), in fact, claims that: Theatre texts, perhaps more than any other genre, are adjusted to their recep- tion, and the adjustment is always socially and culturally conditioned. Theatre as an art form is social and based on communal experience; it addresses a group of people in a particular place at a particular time. (2000: 53) As a result of the communal nature of the theatre, theatre translators will be especially prudent in their treatment of taboos, like sexually charged or politically deli- cate words and phrases. The expectancy norms can therefore have a strong impact on the translator’s choices.