Investigating Norms

Siobhan Brownlie

Introduction
This paper focuses on methods for investigating norms in translation research.
A researchers method for investigating norms should correspond to his or her
definition of what a norm is. For this reason I discuss in the first section
translation researchers uptake of the concept of norm (before going on to
examine methods of investigation). Because of my focus on method I consider
only theorists who have also discussed methods of investigating norms.
Interesting recent discussions of norms by authors such as Hermans (1996) and
Simeoni (1998) have therefore been left aside with the exception of brief
references to Hermans. Since the concept of norms is borrowed from
sociology, I take up the ideas of various sociologists and anthropologists in the
section on method, as well as discussing translation theorists. In the final
section I come to a conclusion as to the consistency of translation theorists
definitions of norms with their methods of investigation.

1. Norms in translation studies

Translation is a communicative act, more generally a social act, and therefore
involves shared ways of behaviour motivated by shared ways of thinking. A
translators behaviour is not entirely idiosyncratic; other actors involved in
translation such as editors, publishers and readers participate too in shared
notions about translational behaviour. Such shared notions have been termed
conventions, norms or rules.1
The concept of norms in translation theory was first mentioned by Ji
Lev (1969) and by Itamar Even-Zohar (1971), but has mainly been
propagated by Gideon Toury and his followers since the late seventies. Tourys
development of the concept of norm derives from his stance that translating
is a learned social activity:

translatorship amounts first and foremost to being able to play a social

role, i.e., to fulfil a function allotted by a community - to the activity, its
practitioners, and/or their products - in a way which is deemed
1
Making distinctions between the terms norms, conventions and rules is a
matter of terminological definitions which vary among different writers.
 Investigating Norms

appropriate in its own terms of reference. The acquisition of a set of

norms for determining the suitability of that kind of behaviour, and for
manoeuvring between all the factors which may constrain it, is therefore
a prerequisite for becoming a translator within a cultural environment.
(Toury 1995: 53; original emphasis)

Translational norms are a function of the environment where the translation is

undertaken, which is usually the target culture environment.
Toury takes his definition of norm from sociology. He defines a norm in
the following way:

the translation of general values or ideas shared by a community - as to

what is right and wrong, adequate and inadequate - into performance
instructions appropriate for and applicable to particular situations,
specifying what is prescribed and forbidden as well as what is tolerated
and permitted in a certain behavioural dimension []. (Toury 1995: 55)

For Toury norms are intersubjective factors which govern behaviour and which
ensure social order, producing regularity of behaviour. Norms are acquired
through socialization, and always imply sanctions. They lie on a graded
continuum between the poles of idiosyncrasies and rules. The norms
themselves form a graded continuum, some being stronger and thus more rule-
like, and others weaker. Norms can vary not only between cultures but within
cultures: there is absolutely no need for a norm to apply - to the same extent,
or at all - to all sectors within a society (Toury 1995: 62). There are also
competing norms within sectors. Toury suggests that a reason for the existence
of competing norms is that norm content changes over time but that older
norms do not just disappear. There will thus be a co-existence of mainstream
norms, previous sets of norms, and the rudiments of new ones (Toury 1995:
62). A further source of complexity noted by Toury is differently motivated
behaviour in different problem areas, for example within one translation. There
is also inconsistency of behaviour, and non-normative behaviour (errors,
deviation, etc.). Norms do not preclude erratic or idiosyncratic behaviour, but
such behaviour may be sanctioned (Toury 1995: 55); the very judgement of
behaviour as erratic depends of course on a notion of normative behaviour.
Norms have prescriptive force within a community, but for the
Descriptive Translation Studies (DTS) researcher, they are to be analysed as
objects of study. According to Toury, norms are pervasive in translation
practice, and also act prior to the actual event of translation. Toury sets up three
main categories of translational norms: preliminary norms, the initial norm, and
operational norms.
Preliminary norms are concerned with translation policy, and with

8
 Siobhan Brownlie

directness of translation, where translation policy refers to the choice of works

(of authors, genres, schools, etc.) to be translated, and directness of translation
refers to the tolerance for translating from a translation in another language
rather than from the ultimate source text (Toury 1995: 58).
The initial norm determines the global approach of the translator with
respect to the following two polar alternatives: the translator submits himself or
herself to the textual relations and norms embodied in the source text
(adequacy); or the translator follows the linguistic and rhetorical norms of the
target language and culture (acceptability). The choice of overall approach
does not preclude contradictory choices being made on a particular level or in
part of a text; however, Toury considers that any microlevel decision can be
accounted for in terms of adequacy versus acceptability. It is likely that in
practice the translation involves a compromise between the two poles or a
combination such as an adequate translation with certain reservations (Toury
1995: 56-57).
Operational norms direct decisions made during the translating process
with respect to specific levels. Operational norms affect the matrix of the text,
the distribution of linguistic material, and actual verbal formulation. Matricial
norms govern the existence of target language substitute material, its location
in the text, and textual segmentation. Textual-linguistic norms govern the
selection of target language material to replace source text material (Toury
1995: 58-59).
Toury considers that the aim of translation research into norms should
not be only to produce discrete norms, but to establish relations between norms
pertaining to various domains, such that a normative structure or model is
produced (Toury 1995: 66).
Other translation theorists who have discussed the notion of conventions
and norms, but who do not see themselves as following directly on from Toury,
are Christiane Nord and Andrew Chesterman. Nord uses the term convention
drawing on David Lewis and John Searles conception of convention. For
Nord conventions are not explicitly formulated or binding; they are a matter of
mutual expectations and preferences for certain patterns of regular behaviour
(Nord 1991: 96):

A regular behaviour R of members of a group G, who participate in a

repeatedly occurring situation S is a convention if a) everybody follows
R, b) everybody expects of everybody to follow R, and c) everybody
prefers following R. (Searle 1969: 43)

Nord distinguishes between two main types of translational conventions.

Firstly, regulative translational conventions which refer to the generally
accepted ways of handling certain translation problems below the text rank.

9
 Investigating Norms

Secondly, constitutive translational conventions which consist of what a

particular cultural community accepts and expects as translations (as opposed
to other forms of intercultural transfer). The sum total of constitutive
conventions forms the general concept of translation prevailing in a particular
cultural community. The constitutive conventions determine the regulative
conventions (Nord 1991: 100). Chesterman argues that Nords conventions are
in fact norms since their violation gives rise to critical comment (Chesterman
1993: 6), in other words the so-called conventions seem to be more than just
preferences, they seem to be fairly binding, which is a part of the definition of
norms adopted by the theorists discussed here. If we consider that we are
dealing with a continuum of normative force Hermans says that a
convention (preference) becomes a norm when it acquires a binding character
(Hermans 1996: 30) there is no absolute difference between convention and
norm.
Chestermans general definition of norms is the following: certain
behavioural regularities [...] accepted (in a given community) as being models
or standards of desired behaviour (Chesterman 1993: 4). Chesterman states
further that norms are validated by accepted usage and sometimes also by
authorities, and their breach gives rise to sanctions. Importantly Chesterman
takes a very different view from the general DTS approach of which Toury is a
key representative: Chesterman says that what we need to know is what makes
a good translation.2 Chesterman considers that society establishes norms for
translation behaviour based on the behaviour of individuals who are considered
to be standard-setting, and on notions of ideal texts. He thus postulates two
kinds of norms: professional norms and expectancy norms. Professional norms
are the norms constituted by competent professional behaviour.3 They govern
accepted methods and strategies of the translation production process.
Chesterman says that professional norms can be subsumed under three higher-
order norms: the accountability norm (a translator should act in such a way
that the demands of loyalty are met with regard to the original writer, the
commissioner, and the prospective readership); the communication norm (a
2
Chesterman argues that in a DTS approach the product of the translational
behaviour of an incompetent novice translator has the same status as the product
produced by a competent professional, since DTS refuses to incorporate evaluative
elements. It is correct that DTS avoids evaluation of good and bad translations;
however, this does not entail that all translations are given the same status. Tourys
insistence on the notion of contextualization means that all items are not to be
considered the same, as if they were of the same systemic position, the same
significance, the same level of representativeness of TC and its constraints (Toury
1995: 63).
3
Competent professionals are defined de facto by reference to a consensus of
opinion in the relevant sections of society.

10
 Siobhan Brownlie

translator should act in such a way as to optimize communication between the

original writer and/or commissioner and the prospective readership); and the
relation norm (a translator should act in such a way that an appropriate
relation is established and maintained between target text and source text)
(Chesterman 1993: 8-9). Chesterman postulates that professional norms are
themselves governed by expectancy norms, that is, what the readership expects
a translation (of a given type) and a native text to be like (Chesterman 1993: 9).
It is unclear whether Chestermans higher order professional norms are
based on textual studies or consultation of the people concerned. Similarly
Tourys claim that all translational phenomena can be accounted for by the
adequacy/acceptability dichotomy needs to be tested. In a descriptive approach
it would seem preferable to postulate only very general types of norms or even
simply the concept of norm, allowing detail to emerge from actual studies.

2. Methods for investigating norms

Since the concept of norm is borrowed from sociology, it is appropriate to
look to sociological and anthropological methods for investigating norms and
discussion of problems encountered in order to enrich our thinking in
translation studies. I shall therefore take up the ideas of various sociologists
and anthropologists, as well as the ideas of the translation theorists discussed in
the previous section.
Two main methods for investigating norms have been proposed:
observation of behaviour, and collection of verbal statements by actors. There
are various issues and problems involved in both procedures. In general we
need to acknowledge the question of interpretation. We are dealing both with
actors interpretations and researchers interpretations. With regard to
researchers interpretations in ethnology Holy and Stuchlik state that the
researcher must in any case start out with analytical (and probably
ethnocentric) concepts for gathering and ordering data, and that the possibility
of distortion derives rather from researchers disregarding the provisional nature
of their concepts, in other words being unwilling to abandon a priori
definitions (Holy and Stuchlik 1983: 33). Researchers thus must not substitute
their own ideas and notions for those of the people they are studying. This
necessitates sharing knowledge with the community being studied. The
researchers theoretical metalanguage and expression is of course distinct from
that of the everyday language of the actors studied.
Most importantly there is always a looseness of fit between a state of
affairs and any natural language account of it. According to Garfinkel, as
recounted by Heritage, social scientists bridge the gap between the data and the

11
 Investigating Norms

data-as-evidence through interpretations. Interpretative processes are indeed

operative at every stage of sociological research. Through these processes
common-sense knowledge of social organization is built into reasonable
findings as a constitutive feature of those findings. There may be different
possible interpretations of the same data, and interpretations will be chosen to
correspond with different research interests and expectations, and with the
researchers understanding of the context (Heritage 1984: 166; 175-176). Any
formulation by a researcher is thus not the same as the actual functioning of
practices. This point is made by Pierre Bourdieu who objects to the tendency of
some researchers to propose their model of reality as the reality of practice
itself, for example in attributing to a rule formulated by a researcher a causal
force in subjects (Bourdieu 1980). Hermans applies Bourdieus ideas to norms,
differentiating between the act of observing a norm and the discursive
formulation of the norm:

the linguistic formulation of a norm [...] is different from its directive

force in effectively guiding actions in particular situations. In practice,
following a given set of norms may be a matter of disposition, of
acquired habit, indeed of habitus in Bourdieus sense of a durable,
transposable disposition. (Hermans 1996: 34)

2.1. Observation of behaviour

Finding out about norms from behaviour is not an easy task due to the
complexity of human activities: there is a great deal of variety and irregularity
of behaviour. In the face of diversity, irregularity and indeterminacy what
needs to be looked for as evidence for a rule or norm is conformity on the
whole. Cheal suggests that this can be determined by quantitative descriptions
but there must also be repetition of correct performances on consecutive
correct occasions for some period of time. The limited range of behaviour in
conformity with a norm is the background against which errors and deviations
are to be interpreted (Cheal 1980: 40; 43).
Holy and Stuchlik point out that many actions can be considered to be
the manifestation of normative notions, and in fact it is essential to study
behaviour, since behaviour may be the only manifestation of a norm, if the
norm is part of the vast amount of taken-for-granted expectancies which would
not be made explicit in verbal statements. Holy and Stuchlik say that by
observing actions (and accompanying statements) and by accounting for them
as meaningful (meanings being shared by the actor and others), the researcher
should be able to infer the notions guiding these actions. To test the validity of

12
 Siobhan Brownlie

the inferred notions, the researcher should be able to duplicate performances

successfully, and predict behaviour for a particular situation (Holy and Stuchlik
1984: 68).
Like Garfinkel, Cheal suggests that since lack of conformity to rules
produces certain reactions including shock, such reactions can be an important
form of evidence for the existence of rules. Cheal says that reactions may be in
the form of attempts to repair the situation, the actor finding acceptable reasons
for abandoning the rule, and various forms of shock reactions and sanctions
from others (Cheal 1980: 42).
In order to find evidence for norms, Toury relies mainly on actual
translations, which are products of translators behaviour. He says that norms
are active in the translation process, but since this process is unavailable to us,
we need to look at its products in order to reconstruct norms. Similarly to
Cheals conformity on the whole, Toury proposes the principle of regularity:
regularities of phenomena in the translated texts serve as evidence of normative
forces:

Inasmuch as a norm is really active and effective, one can therefore

distinguish regularity of behaviour in recurrent situations of the same
type, which would render regularities a main source for any study of
norms as well. (Toury 1995: 55)

Toury assumes a distributional basis for the study of norms in that the more
frequent a phenomenon, the more likely it is to represent a more basic
obligatory norm. If the phenomenon is less frequent it is likely to represent a
weaker norm, and it may serve to define a smaller group of people (Toury
1995: 65-69).
Nord also proposes the analysis of existing translations as a means of
investigating conventions. She thinks that the most useful method for finding
out about concepts of translation from analysis of translations is through
multilingual comparison of translations. She considers that this is best done not
by starting at a general level, but by looking at concrete translation problems
whose solutions tend to be determined by regulative conventions. By
comparing translations of the same original into various languages we observe
different ways of dealing with particular source text features, for example
personal proper names. From the translation practices generally adopted for
dealing with these features, we may be able to infer more general constitutive
conventions in the different target cultures (Nord 1991: 105). The value of this
procedure is dubious however, since it is only in relation to a specific target
language or even target text that a source text feature constitutes a problem.
Chesterman of course advocates the study of the work of competent
professional translators, which is taken to embody norms by definition. He

13
 Investigating Norms

reminds us of the provisional nature of statements about norms. Chesterman

suggests a method of hypothesizing norms starting with predictions of certain
behaviour, which are then verified by actual behaviour, but the hypotheses may
still be falsified at a later time or by more data (Chesterman 1993: 16).
2.2. Verbal statements by actors
Since in order to follow a norm the actor must have some kind of knowledge of
it, it would be necessary for the researcher to find evidence of this. Since
actors notions are not directly accessible to an observer, according to Cheal
the most direct way we can know them is through actors own accounts of their
behaviour (Cheal 1980: 45). In sociology the collection of verbal statements
generally takes the form of interviews with actors. In investigating norms, the
researcher would be interested in statements about what actors consider to be
approved behaviour.
However things are not at all easy, since there is a gap between
statements about norms and norm-governed behaviour, not only with regard to
the observers statements as we have discussed, but also with regard to the
actors statements. Actors may not be able to articulate the rules they follow. A
person may distinguish between right and wrong ways of doing things in
practice, but not be able to formulate a general rule. Particularly for knowledge
which is taken for granted and routines which are known unconsciously there
may be difficulties formulating rules. Anthony Giddens at one point says there
is no major barrier to formulating implicit knowledge discursively, and actors
will usually be able to explain most of what they do. However, elsewhere
Giddens specifies with regard to rules that a verbal statement of a rule is an
interpretation which is not the same as the rule used in application (Giddens
1984: 6; 21). Others argue that there is a fundamental difference between
explicit and implicit knowledge, between representations and knowledge
embodied in practice, such that passing from the latter to the former is bound
not only to be difficult, but must involve a change of state. Bourdieu says that
just as a researcher cannot express the reality of practice, nor will an agent be
able to do so when asked to reflect on his or her practice since the agent then
becomes an observer:

Du seul fait quil est interrog et sinterroge sur la raison et la raison

dtre de sa pratique, il ne peut transmettre lessentiel, savoir que le
propre de la pratique est quelle exclut cette question. (Bourdieu 1980:
152)

The actual processes of implicit knowledge must remain opaque to

introspection. The actor as well as the researcher can only propose models of

14
 Siobhan Brownlie

description.
The actors purpose or reason for making a particular statement needs
also to be considered. Actors may not give the real reasons for their behaviour
because they consider it private, have problems facing certain of their feelings,
or as part of the process of constructing their experiences. The loose fit
between a state of affairs and a natural language account of it permits and
motivates the circumstantial elaboration of the account; actors may be seen to
design their accounts with respect to a range of situational considerations and
exigencies. Social scientists show awareness of such factors when they
determine the objectivity or bias of particular evidences. Further problems with
collecting verbal statements are the following: in one interview only a small
segment of total knowledge is given; statements might not be representative of
the population; statements are indexical so that background information such as
conditions may remain implicit; and statements may not be general, only valid
for particular situations, or they may be too general (Cheal 1980: 46; Heritage
1984: 177; Holy and Stuchlik 1983: 55; 68).
One alternative to relying on actors own formulations is for the
researcher to present actors with a formulation of their activities. The problems
are that the technique requires that the actor understand the formulation, and
most importantly the actor may be influenced by the researcher who is a good
communicator (Cheal 1980: 47-48). The issue of the influence of the researcher
also applies to interview questions: it is impossible for the researcher to
formulate questions which do not reflect his or her own assumptions or
particular theory, such that the people studied may be forced into adopting a
quasi-theoretical attitude, possibly modifying their own notions. It must be
added that the very act of questioning is an artificial situation in that it removes
notions from areas of discourse in which they are functional, and from
processes of which they are an integral part. In order to get around this Holy
and Stuchlik suggest that situated spontaneous conversational utterances are
preferable, or at least questions which are about a specific situation. This can
take the form of asking questions about or observing reactions to a created or
natural context independent of the actors own performances, possibly
involving the imputation of sanctions. However, with regard to this last
suggestion actors may not always correct others: there may be a norm of
toleration, such that norms may only apply to a restricted group, or people may
not correct others so as not to disturb social encounters (Holy and Stuchlik
1983: 61; 64; 67). We can see that there are many possible techniques and
pitfalls in verbal data collection. The researcher has to be aware of potential
problems, and address the problems which arise in each particular situation.
Sociology places great importance on and offers us a rich variety of
techniques for obtaining actors verbal statements, usually oral accounts, in
order to discover norms. Translation studies has not placed much emphasis on

15
 Investigating Norms

obtaining actors oral statements, but has proposed the use of written
statements about translation as a means of discovering norms. As well as
translated texts themselves and inventories of translations4, Toury proposes
various kinds of metadiscourse as a second main source for reconstructing
norms:

semi-theoretical or critical formulations, such as prescriptive theories

of translation, statements made by translators, editors, publishers, and
other persons involved in or connected with the activity, critical
appraisals of individual translations, or the activity of a translator or
school of translators, and so forth. (Toury 1995: 65)

However, Toury considers that such pronouncements are biased and partial and
should be treated with circumspection:

[...] they are likely to lean toward propaganda and persuasion. There
may therefore be gaps, even contradictions, between explicit arguments
and demands, on the one hand, and actual behaviour and its results, on
the other, due either to subjectivity or naivete, or even lack of sufficient
knowledge [...]. On occasion, a deliberate desire to mislead and deceive
may also be involved. Even with respect to the translators themselves,
intentions do not necessarily concur with any declaration of intent [...]
and the way those intentions are realized may well constitute a further,
third category still. (Toury 1995: 65-66)

However, Toury says that normative pronouncements can be studied as a

reflection of the cultural constellation in which they were produced. This
would involve comparing such normative pronouncements with each other and
with patterns revealed by the study of translations (Toury 1995: 66). This
procedure comes closest to a sociological approach which works with both
observation of (products of) behaviour, and statements by actors.
At one point Chesterman too advocates a kind of combination approach
for studying norms. He says that the study of ethical codes for professional
translators can be supplemented by studying how these norm-giving translators
actually do behave (Chesterman 1993: 18).
As for Nord, she does not suggest any articulation between different
methods of investigating norms. Other than looking at the translations, Nord
lists the following means for finding out about norms. Reviews of translated
works are not very helpful in general since they often contain little reference to

4
Analytical inventories of translations can be used in order to adduce Tourys
preliminary norms.

16
 Siobhan Brownlie

the fact that the works are translations. Theoretical and methodological
statements on translation written by theorists or practitioners are more helpful,
but it may not be clear whether these are conventional or personal prescriptive
views. Input from users is suggested as another means, although their
comments may be fairly vague. Nord thinks that the most interesting statements
are those made by translators about their own work, although she says we must
realize that translators may not feel it necessary to comment on their
translations unless they feel that readers might expect something else (Nord
1991: 103-105).

3.The normal and the normative: comparing methods

of investigation
Observation of behaviour as outlined above consists of noting what normally
occurs (we shall call this the normal). On the other hand, in collecting verbal
statements the aim is to find out about norms in the sense of peoples notions of
approved behaviour (we shall call this the normative). The difficulty in
distinguishing the normal and the normative probably arises because the two
are not unrelated, and because the term norm can be used with both senses
separately or simultaneously.
Frederick Schauer notes that the terms norm and rule have both a
descriptive and a prescriptive sense. He proposes an interesting explanation of
why the terms encompass both senses:

the use of the same words to refer to descriptive and prescriptive modes
might be a linguistic holdover from an ontology in which the active
hand of God was thought equally responsible for guiding our behaviour
and establishing the regularities of existence. (Schauer 1991: 15)

Schauer suggests further that although it is necessary to distinguish descriptive

and prescriptive rules, they do have something important in common in that
they both involve generalizations and therefore probabilistic conclusions and
over- and under-inclusiveness (Schauer 1991). The intertwined relation
between the normal and the normative can be understood in different ways. In
Garfinkels understanding of social norms, norms are both constitutive and
regulative. They are constitutive of the circumstances since they provide for the
intelligibility of developing the scene as normal, and also for the visibility of
other alternative courses of action (deviations from the norm); they also
provide regulative constraints on behaviour (Heritage 1984: 107-133).
If we do not consider the distinction between convention and norm to be

17
 Investigating Norms

fundamental, we can say that in both Nords and Chestermans definition of

norm (convention), the normal and the normative are combined: norms
(conventions) are (strong) preferences for certain patterns of regular behaviour
(Nord 1991: 96; Chesterman 1993: 4). In Toury however, the relationship is
one of conditioning: approval (the normative) is expressed in regular behaviour
(the normal) (Toury 1995: 55). To be consistent with all of these definitions, a
method for investigating norms, should capture the normative as well as the
normal. Chesterman considers that society establishes norms based on the
behaviour of competent professionals, in other words theirs is approved
behaviour; since Chesterman only studies competent professionals, his method
captures the normative (even though the definition of competent professional
is problematic). Nord and Toury do not impose such constraints on their
methods. They both propose the study of textual corpus regularities as a source
for the investigation of norms without stipulating who the translation work
must be done by, although Toury does take into account the position of the
translation(s) as an explanatory factor. As we have seen, studying textual
regularities is Tourys preferred method of investigating norms. For both Toury
and Nord, the normative is a vital part of the definition of a norm; the method
of investigation in which the normal is taken to indicate norms implies that the
normal is equated with the normative.
Regularities in behaviour do not however necessarily indicate that
normative forces are at play; tracing regularities does not tell us what induced
the regularities. As well as being a result of habits, regularity could be due to
chance, or other influences. Jay Jackson stresses that normal behaviour has to
be distinguished from normative behaviour:

It is important to distinguish between parallel responses to the same

environmental conditions and behaviour that is normatively regulated by
shared feelings of approval and disapproval. (Jackson 1965: 304)

We need more than factual data concerning behaviour as evidence of normative

force. A method of studying translations based on textual regularities can
rightly be used towards establishing descriptive generalizations, but is not
sufficient for establishing norms since we do not know about normative force
from regularities alone.5
We can only find out about normative force in the form of notions of
approval from actors statements. Nord mentions the use of actors statements,

5
Taking textual regularities as indicators of the normative is akin to taking what is
as what ought to be. This conflicts both with the sociological model where the
ought to is a subset of the is (Chesterman 1993: 12), and with the philosophical
model in which the is and the ought to are incommensurable.

18
 Siobhan Brownlie

but only among a list of sources for the study of conventions. In view of her
definition of conventions, it would in fact be necessary to have evidence of
attitudes towards regular behaviour. Toury gives an inferior status to normative
pronouncements, considering them to be by-products and to be partial and
biased in contrast with the translations themselves which he considers to be a
much more reliable source of study since they are the primary products of
norm-regulated behaviour and can therefore be taken as immediate
representations thereof (Toury 1995: 65). Attributing verbal statements, which
are the only source of knowledge of notions of approval, such a low status is
however in direct contradiction with Tourys definition of norm as approved
behaviour. Toury has himself suggested the procedure of using normative
statements in correlation with translational data to investigate norms (Toury
1995: 66). Rather than being a less favoured procedure, I would suggest that a
procedure which takes into account normative statements is necessary in view
of the definition of norm adopted. Not only written statements can be used;
consultation of actors can be undertaken in studies of translational norms
involving living actors. There are of course various problems in consulting
actors as outlined above: in questionnaires or interviews with translators the
influence of the researcher can be diminished by not making detailed
suggestions or presenting norm hypotheses, but rather asking translators what
they consider to be appropriate behaviour for certain aspects of their translation
work. In any case we cannot say that the use of textual data (the translations
themselves) does not present any problems: there are the significant issues of
irregularity and variation.

4. Conclusion
Since translation researchers definitions of norms and conventions combine
the notions of regular behaviour and behaviour approved by the group,
methods of investigation of norms should capture both the regular and the
approved. Studying regularities alone is insufficient to adduce norms. Of the
general methods outlined above, the one which corresponds best to the
definitions of norms is the joint investigation of normative statements and
translational data proposed by Toury. In the face of the problems in both
observation of behaviour and verbal statements, the two types of data can be
mutually corrective.

References

19
 Investigating Norms

Bourdieu, Pierre
1980 Le sens pratique, Paris: Minuit.

20
 Siobhan Brownlie

Cheal, David
1980 Rule-Governed Behaviour, Philosophy of Social Sciences 10,
pp.39-49.

Chesterman, Andrew
1993 From Is to Ought: Laws, Norms and Strategies in Translation
Studies, Target 5:1, pp.1-20.

Even-Zohar, Itamar
1971 An Introduction to a Theory of Literary Translation, PhD thesis,
Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.

Giddens, Anthony
1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of
Structuration, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Heritage, John
1984 Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hermans, Theo
1996 Norms and the Determination of Translation: A Theoretical
Framework, in Romn lvarez and Carmen-frica Vidal (Eds.),
Translation, Power, Subversion, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
pp.24-51.

Holy, Ladislav and Milan Stuchlik

1983 Actions, Norms and Representations, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Jackson, Jay
1965 Structural Characteristics of Norms, in Ivan D. Steiner and
Martin Fishbein (Eds.), Current Studies in Social Psychology,
New York / Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp.301-309.

Lev, Ji
1969 Die literarische bersetzung Theorie einer Kunstgattung,
translated by Walter Schamschula, Frankfurt / Bonn: Athenum.

Nord, Christiane
1991 Scopos, Loyalty, and Translational Conventions, Target 3:1,
pp.91-109.

21
 Investigating Norms

Schauer, Frederick
1991 Playing by the Rules: A Philosophical Examination of Rule-
based Decision-making in Law and Life, Oxford: Clarendon
Press.

Searle, John
1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, London:
Cambridge University Press.

Simeoni, Daniel
1998 The Pivotal Status of the Translators Habitus, Target 10:1,
pp.1-39.

Toury, Gideon
1995 Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond, Amsterdam /
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

22