Skopos and Commission in Translational Action翻译行为的目的与委托

SkoposandCommissioninTranslationalActionHansJ.VermeerTranslatedbyAndrewChestermanSynopsisTheskopostheoryispartofatheoryoftranslationalaction.Translationisseenastheparticularvarietyoftranslationalactionwhichisbasedonasourcetext.(Othervarietieswouldinvolvee.g.aconsultant’sinformationonaregionaleconomicorpoliticalsituation,etc.)Anyformoftranslationalaction,includingthereforetranslationitself,maybeconceivedasanaction,asthenameimplies.Anyactionhasanaim,apurpose.Thewordskopos,then,isatechnicaltermfortheaimorpurposeofatranslation(discussedinmoredetailbelow).Further:anactionleadstoaresult,anewsituationorevent,andpossiblytoa“new”object.Translationalactionleadstoa“targettext”(notnecessarilyaverbalone);translationleadstoatranslatum(i.e.theresultingtranslatedtext),asaparticularvarietyoftargettext.Theaimofanytranslationalaction,andthemodeinwhichitistoberealized,arenegotiatedwiththeclientwhocommissionstheaction.Aprecisespecificationofaimandmodeisessentialforthetranslator.–Thisisofcourseanalogouslytrueoftranslationproper:skoposandmodeofrealizationmustbeadequatelydefinedifthetext-translatoristofulfilhistasksuccessfully.Thetranslatoris“the”expertintranslationalaction.Heisresponsiblefortheperformanceofthecommissionedtask,forthefinaltranslatum.Insofarasthedullyspecifiedskoposisdefinedfromthetranslator’spointofview,thesourcetextisaconstituentofthecommission,andassuchthebasisforallthehierarchicallyorderedrelevantfactorswhichultimatelydeterminethetranslatum.Onepracticalconsequenceoftheskopostheoryisanewconceptofthestatusofthesourcetextforatranslation,andwithitthenecessityofworkingforanincreasingawarenessofthis,bothamongtranslatorsandalsothegeneralpublic.Asregardsthetranslatorhimself:expertsarecalleduponinagivensituationbecausetheyareneededandbecausetheyareregardedasexperts.Itisusuallyassumed,reasonablyenough,thatsuchpeople“knowwhatit’sallabout”;theyarethusconsultedandtheirviewslistenedto.Beingexperts,theyaretrustedtoknowmoreabouttheirparticularfieldthanoutsiders.Insomecircumstancesonemaydebatewiththemoverthebestwayofproceeding,untilaconsensusisreached,oroccasionallyonemayalsoconsultotherexpertsorconsiderfurtheralternativewaysofreachingagivengoal.Anexpertmustbeabletosay–andthisimpliesbothknowledgeandadutytouseit–whatiswhat.Hisvoicemustthereforeberespected,hemustbe“givenasay”.Thetranslatorissuchanexpert.Itisthusuptohimtodecide,forinstance,whatroleasourcetextplaysinhistranslationalaction.Thedecisivefactorhereisthepurpose,theskopos,ofthecommunicationinagivensituation.SkoposandtranslationAtthispointitshouldbeemphasizedthatthefollowingconsiderationsarenotonlyintendedtobevalidforcompleteactions,suchaswholetexts,butalsoapplyasfaraspossibletosegmentsofactions,partsofatext.Theskoposconceptcanalsobeusedwithrespecttosegmentsofatranslatum,wherethisappearsreasonableornecessary.Thisallowsustostatethatanaction,andhenceatext,neednotbeconsideredanindivisiblewhole.Asourcetextisusuallycomposedoriginallyforasituationinthesourceculture;henceitsstatusas“sourcetext”,andhencetheroleofthetranslatorintheprocessofinterculturalcommunication.Thisremainstrueofasourcetextwhichhasbeencomposedspecificallywithtransculturalcommunicationinmind.Inmostcasestheoriginalauthorlacksthenecessaryknowledgeofthetargetcultureanditstexts.Ifhedidhavetherequisiteknowledge,hewouldofcoursecomposehistextundertheconditionsofthetargetculture,inthetargetlanguage!Languageispartofaculture.Itisthusnottobeexpectedthatmerely“trans-coding”asourcetext,merely“transposing”itintoanotherlanguage,willresultinaserviceabletranslatum.Asitsnameimplies,thesourcetextisorientedtowards,andisinanycaseboundto,thesourceculture.Thetargettext,thetranslatum,isorientedtowardsthetargetculture,anditisthiswhichultimatelydefinesitsadequacy.Itthereforefollowsthatsourceandtargettextsmaydivergefromeachotherquiteconsiderably,notonlyintheformulationanddistributionofthecontentbutalsoasregardsthegoalswhicharesetforeach,andintermsofwhichthearrangementofthecontentisinfactdetermined.(Theremaynaturallybeotherreasonsforareformulation,suchaswhenthetargetcultureverbalizesagivenphenomenoninadifferentway,e.g.injokes).Itgoeswithoutsayingthatatranslatummayalsohavethesamefunction(skopos)asitssourcetext.Yeteveninthiscasethetranslationprocessisnotmerelya“trans-coding”(unlessthistranslationvarietyisactuallyintended),sinceaccordingtoauniformtheoryoftranslationatranslatumofthiskindisalsoprimarilyoriented,methodologically,towardsatargetculturesituationorsituations.Trans-coding,asaprocedurewhichisretrospectivelyorientedtowardsthesourcetext,notprospectivelytowardsthetargetculture,isdiametricallyopposedtothetheoryoftranslationalaction.(Thisviewdoesnot,however,ruleoutthepossibilitythattrans-codingcanbealegitimatetranslationalskopositself,orientedprospectivelytowardsthetargetculture:thedecisivecriterionisalwaystheskopos.)Totheextentthatatranslatorjudgestheformandfunctionofasourcetexttobebasicallyadequateperseasregardsthepreterminedskoposinthetargetculture,wecanspeekofadegreeof“intertextualcoherence”betweentargetandsourcetext.Thisnotionthusreferstoarelationbetweentranslatumandsourcetext,definedintermsoftheskopos.Forinstance,onelegitimateskoposmightbeanexactimitationofthesourcetextsyntax,perhapstoprovidetargetculturereaderswithinformationaboutthissyntax.Oranexactimitationofthesourcetextstructure,inaliterarytranslation,mightservetocreatealiterarytextinthetargetculture.Whynot?Thepointisthatonemustknowwhatoneisdoing,andwhattheconsequencesofsuchactionare,e.g.whattheeffectofatextcreatedinthiswaywillbeinthetargetcultureandhowmuchtheeffectwilldifferfromthatofthesourcetextinthesourceculture.Translatingisdoingsomething:“writingatranslation”,“puttingaGermantextintoEnglish”,i.e.aformofaction…anactionasaparticularsortofbehavior:foranactofbehaviortobecalledanaction,thepersonperformingitmust(potentially)beabletoexplainwhyheactsashedoesalthoughhecouldhaveactedotherwise.Furthermore,genuinereasonsforactionscanalwaysbeformulatedintermsofaimsorstatementsofgoals(asanaction“withagoodreason”,asHarrasputsit).ThisillustratesapointmadeinanotherconnectionbyKaspar(1983:139):“Inthissensethenotionofaimisinthefirstplacethereverseofthenotionofcause.”3ArgumentsagainsttheskopostheoryObjectionsthathavebeenraisedagainsttheskopostheoryfallintotwomaintypes.3.1Objection(1)maintainsthatnotallactionshaveanaim:somehave“noaim”.Thisisclaimedtobethecasewithliterarytexts,oratleastsomeofthem.Unlikeothertexts(!),then,suchtextsareclaimedtobe“aimless”.Infact,theargumentisthatincertaincasesnoaimexists,notmerelythatonemightnotbeableexplicitlytostateanaim–thelattersituationissometimesinevitable,owingtohumanimperfection,butitisirrelevanthere.Asmentionedabove,thepointisthatanaimmustbeatleastpotentiallyspecifiable.Letusclarifytheimpreciseexpressionofactions“having”anaim.Itismoreaccuratetospeakofanaimbeingattributedtoanaction,anauthorbelievingthatheiswritingtoagivenpurpose,areadersimilarlybelievingthatanauthorhassowritten.(Clearly,itispossiblethattheperformerofanaction,apersonaffectedbyit,andanobserver,mayallhavedifferentconceptsoftheaimoftheaction.Itisalsoimportanttodistinguishbetweenaction,actionchain,andactionelement.)Objection(1)canbeansweredprimafacieintermsofourverydefinitionofanaction:ifnoaimcanbeattributedtoanaction,itcannolongerberegardedasanaction.Butitisalsoworthspecifyingthekeyconceptoftheskoposinmoredetailhere,whichweshalldointermsoftranslationproperasonevarietyoftranslationalaction.Thenotionofskoposcaninfactbeappliedinthreeways,andthushavethreesenses:itmayrefertothetranslationprocess,andhencethegoalofthisprocess;thetranslationresult,andhencethefunctionofthetranslatum;thetranslationmode,andhencetheintentionofthismode.Additionally,theskoposmayofcoursealsohavesub-skopoi.Objection(1),then,canbeansweredasfollows:ifagivenactofbehaviorhasneithergoalnorfunctionnorintention,asregardsitsrealization,resultormanner,thenitisnotanactioninthetechnicalsenseoftheword.Ifitisneverthelessclaimedthatliterature“hasnopurpose”,thispresumablymeansthatthecreationofliteratureincludesindividualmomentstowhichnogoal,nofunction,orintentioncanbeattributed,inthesensesketchedabove.Forinstance,assumethataneatrhymesuddenlycomesintoone’smind.(Thisissurelynotanaction,technicallyspeaking.)Onethenwritesitdown.(Surelyanaction,sinetherhymecouldhavebeenleftunrecorded.)Onecontinueswritinguntilasonnetisproduced.(Anaction,sincethewritercouldhavechosentodosomethingelse–unlessthepowerofinspirationwassimplyirresistible,whichIconsiderameremyth.)Ifweacceptthattheprocessofcreatingpoetryalsoincludesitspublication(andmaybeevennegotiationsforremuneration),thenitbecomesclearthatsuchbehaviorasawholedoesindeedconstituteanaction.SchillerandShakespeareundoubtedlytookintoaccountthepossiblereactionsoftheirpublicastheywrote,asindeedanyonewould;mustweactuallydenouncesuchbehavior(conscious,andhencepurposeful),becauseitwasinpartperhapsmotivatedbysuchbasdesiresasfameandmoney?Ourbasicargumentmustthereforeremainintact:eventhecreationofliteratureinvolvespurposefulaction.Furthermore,itneednotnecessarilybethecasethatthewriterisactuallyconsciousofhispurposeatthemomentofwriting–hencethequalification(above)thatitmustbe“potentially”possibletoestablishapurpose.Onerecentvariantofobjection(1)istheclaimthatatextcanonlybecalled“literature”ifitisart,andarthasnopurposeandnointention.Soaworkwhichdidhaveagoalorintentionwouldnotbeart.Thisseemsabithardonliterature,tosaytheleast!Inmyviewitwouldbesimplertoconcedethatart,andhencealsoliterature,canbeassignedanintention(andwithoutexceptiontoo).Theobjectionseemstobebasedonamisunderstanding.Nowadaysitisextremelyquestionablewhetherthereis,orhasevenbeen,anartwithoutpurpose.CF.Busch(1987:7):Everyworkofartestablishesitsmeaningaesthetically[…]Theaestheticcanofcourseservemanydifferentfunctions,butitmayalsobeinitselfthefunctionoftheworkofart.Buschpointsoutrepeatedlythatanobjectdoesnot“have”afunction,butthatafunctionisattributedorassignedtoanobject,accordingtothesituation.AndwhenGoetheacknowledgestathehastoworkhardtoachievethecorrectrhythmforapoem,thistooshowsthatevenforhimthecreationofpoetrywasnomerelyamatterofinspiration:OftenhaveIcomposedpoemseveninherarms,Countingthehexameter’sbeatsoftlywithfingeringhandThereonthebackofthebeloved.Eventhewell-known“l’artpourlart”movement(“artforart’ssake”)mustbeunderstoodasimplyinganintention:namely,theintentiontocreateartthatexistsforitsownsakeandtherebydiffersfromotherart.Intentionallyinthissenseisalreadyapparentintheexpressionitself.3.2Objection(2)isaparticularvariantofthefirstobjection.Itmaintainsthatnoteverytranslationcanbeassignedapurpose,anintention;i.e.therearetranslationsthatarenotgoal-oriented.(Herewearetaking“translation”initstraditionalsense,for“translation”withnoskoposwouldbydefinitionnotbeatranslationatall,inthepresenttheory.Thisdoesnotruleoutthepossibilitythata“translation”maybedoneretrospectively,treatingthesourcetextasthe“measureofallthings”;butthiswouldonlybeatranslationinthesenseofthepresenttheoryiftheskoposwasexplicitlytotranslateinthisway.)Thisobjectiontooisusuallymadewithreferencetoliterature,andtothisextentwehavealreadydealtwithitunderobjection(1):itcanscarcelybeclaimedthatliterarytranslationtakesplaceperforce,bythekissofthemuse.Yettherearethreespecificationsofobjection(2)thatmeritfurtherdiscussion:Theclaimthatthetranslatordoesnothaveanyspecificgoal,functionorintentioninmind:hejusttranslates“whatisinthesourcetext”.Theclaimthataspecificgoal,functionorintentionwouldrestrictthetranslationpossibilities,andhencelimittherangeofinterpretationofthetargettextincompositiontothatofthesourcetext.Theclaimthatthetranslatorhasnospecificaddresseeorsetofaddresseesinmind.Letusconsidereachoftheseinturn.a.Advertisingtextsaresupposedtoadvertise;themoresuccessfultheadvertisementis,thebetterthetextevidentlyis.Instructionsforusearesupposedtodescribehowanapparatusistobeassembled,handledandmaintained;themoresmoothlythisisdone,thebettertheinstructionsevidentlyare.Newspaperreportsandtheirtranslationsalsohaveapurpose:toinformtherecipient,atleast;thetranslationthushastobecomprehensible,intherightsense,totheexpectedreadership,i.e.thesetofaddresses.Thereisnoquestionthatsuch“pragmatictexts”mustbegoal-oriented,andsoaretheirtranslations.Itmightbesaidthatthepostulateof“fidelity”tothesourcetextrequiresthate.g.anewsitemshouldbetranslated“asitwasintheoriginal”.Butthistooisagoalinitself.Indeed,itisbydefinitionprobablythegoalthatmostliterarytranslatorstraditionallysetthemselves.Itissometimesevenclaimedthattheverydutyofatranslatorforbidshimfromdoinganythingelsethansticktothesourcetext;whetheranyonemighteventuallybeabletodoanythingwiththetranslationornotisnotthetranslator’sbusiness.Thepresenttheoryoftranslationalactionhasamuchwiderconceptionofthetranslator’stask,includingmattersofethicsandthetranslator’saccountability.b.Theargumentthatassigningaskopostoeveryliterarytextrestrictsitspossibilitiesofinterpretationcanbeansweredasfollows,Agivenskoposmayofcourseruleoutcertaininterpretationsbecausetheyarenotpartofthetranslationgoal;butonepossiblegoal(skopos)wouldcertainlybepreciselytopreservethebreadthofinterpretationofthesourcetext.Howfarsuchaskoposisinfactrealizableisnotthepointhere.c.Itistruethatinmanycasesatext-producer,andhencealsoatranslator,isnotthinkingofaspecificaddress(inthesenseof:JohnSmith)orsetofaddressees(inthesenseof:themembersofthesocialdemocratparty).Inothercases,however,theaddressee(s)mayindeedbepreciselyspecified.Ultimatelyevenacommunication“totheworld”hasasetofaddressees.Aslongasonebelievesthatoneisexpressingoneselfina“comprehensible”way,andaslongasoneassumes,albeitunconsciously,thatpeoplehavewidelyvaryinglevelsofintelligenceandeducation,thenonemustinfactbeorientingoneselftowardsacertainrestrictedgroupofaddressees;notnecessarilyconsciously–butunconsciously.Onesurelyoftenusesone’sown(self-evaluated)levelasanimplicitcriterion(theaddresseesare(almost)asintelligentasoneisoneself…).Recallalsothediscussionsaboutthebestwayofformulatingnewsitemsforradioandtelevision,sothatmanyrecipientsaspossiblewillunderstand.Theproblem,then,isnotthatthereisnosetofaddressees,butthatitisanindeterminate,fuzzyset.Butitcertainlyexists,vagueinoutlinebutclearlypresent.Andtheclarityorotherwiseoftheconceptisnotspecifiedbytheskopostheory.Afruitfullineofresearchmightbetoexploretheextenttowhichagroupofrecipientscanbereplacedbya“type”ofrecipient.Inmanycasessuchanaddressee-typemaybemuchmoreclearlyenvisaged,moreorlessconsciously,thanisassumedbyadvocatesoftheclaimthattranslationslackspecificaddressees.Thesetofaddresseescanalsobedeterminedindirectly:forexample,ifapublisherspecializinginaparticularrangeofpublicationscommissionsatranslation,aknowledgeofwhatthisrangeiswillgivethetranslatoragoodideaoftheintendedaddresseegroup.3.3Objection(2)canalsobeinterpretedinanotherway.Intextlinguisticsandliterarytheoryadistinctionisoftenmadebetweentextaspotentialandtextasrealization.Iftheskopostheorymaintainsthateverytexthasagivengoal,functionorintention,andalsoanassumedsetofaddressees,objection(2)canbeunderstoodasclaimingthatthisappliestotextasrealization;foratextisalsopotentialinthe“supersummative”sense,inthatitcanbeusedindifferentsituationswithdifferentaddresseesanddifferentfunctions.Agreed;butwhenatextisactuallycomposed,thisisneverthelessdonewithrespecttoanassumedfunction(orsmallsetoffunctions)etc.Theskopostheorydoesnotdenythatthesametextmightbeusedlater(also)inwaysthathadnotbeenforeseenoriginally.Itiswellknownthatatranslatumisatext“initsownright”,withitsownpotentialofuse:apointoverlookedbyWilss(1988:48).Forthisreasonnotevenpotentialtextscanbesetupwithnoparticulargoaloraddressee–atleastnotinanyadequate,practicalorsignificantway.Thisbringsusbackagaintotheproblemofthe“functionalconstancy”betweensourceandtargettext:Holze-Mänttäri(1988)rightlyinsiststhatfunctionalconsistency,properlyunderstood,istheexceptionratherthantherule.Ofrelevancetotheaboveobjectionsingeneralisalsoherfollowingcomment(ibid.:7):Whereistheneuralgicpointatwhichtranslationpracticeandtheorysooftendiverge?Inmyviewitispreciselywheretextsareliftedoutoftheirenvironmentforcomparativepurposes,wherebytheirprocessaspectisignored.Adeadanatomicalspecimendoesnotevadetheclutchesofthedissectingknife,tobesure,butsuchaprocedureonlyincreasestheriskthatfindingswillbeinterpretedinawaythatistranslationallyirrelevant.3.4Ihaveagreedthatonelegitimateskoposismaximallyfaithfulimitationoftheoriginal,ascommonlyinliterarytranslation.Truetranslation,withadequateskopos,doesnotmeanthatthetranslatormustadapttothecustomsandusageofthetargetculture,onlythathecansoadapt.Thisaspectoftheskopostheoryhadbeenrepeatedlymisunderstood.(Perhapsitisoneofthoseinsightswhichdonotspreadlikewildfirebutmustfirstbehushedupandthenfoughtoverbitterly,beforetheybecomeacceptedasself-evident–cf.Riedl1983:147.)Whatwehaveisinfacta“hare-and-tortoise”theory:theskoposisalways(already)there,atonce,whetherthetranslationisanassimilatingoneordeliberatelymarkedorwhatever.Whattheskoposstatesisthatonemusttranslate,consciouslyandconsistently,inaccordancewithsomeprinciplerespectingthetargettext.Thetheorydoesnotstatewhattheprincipleis:thismustbedecidedseparatelyineachspecificcase.Anoptimallyfaithfulrenderingofasourcetext,inthesenseofatrans-coding,isthusoneperfectlylegitimategoal.Theskopostheorymerelystatesthatthetranslatorshouldbeawarethatsomegoalexists,andthatanygivengoalisonlyoneamongmanypossibleones.(Howmanygoalsareactuallyrealizableisanothermatter.Wemightassumethatinatleastsomecasesthenumberofrealizablegoalsisoneonly.)Theimportantpointisthatagivensourcetextdoesnothaveonecorrectorbesttranslationonly.Wecanmaintain,then,thateveryreceptionorproductionofatextcanatleastretrospectivelybeassignedaskopos,ascaneverytranslation,byanobserverorliteraryscholaretc.:andalsothateveryactionisguidedbyaskopos.Ifwenowturnthisargumentaroundwecanpostulateapriorithattranslation–becauseitisanaction–alwayspresupposesaskoposandisdirectedbyaskopos.Itfollowsthateverytranslationcommissionshouldexplicitlyorimplicitlycontainastatementofskoposinordertobecarriedoutatall.Everytranslationpresupposesacommission,eventhoughitmaybesetbythetranslatortohimself.(Ishouldtranslatethiskeepingclosetotheoriginal…).“A”statementofskoposimpliesthatitisnotnecessarilyidenticalwiththeskoposattributedtothesourcetext:therearecaseswheresuchidentityisnotpossible.4ThetranslationcommissionSomeonewhotranslatesundertakestodosoasamatterofdeliberatechoice(Iexcludethepossibilityoftranslatingunderhypnosis),orbecauseheisrequiredtodoso.Onetranslatesasaresultofeitherone’sowninitiativeorsomeoneelse’s:inbothcases,thatis,oneactsinaccordancewitha“commission”.Letusdefineacommissionastheinstruction,givenbyoneselforbysomeoneelse,tocarryoutagivenaction–here:totranslate.Nowadays,inpractice,commissionsarenormallygivenexplicitly,althoughseldomwithrespecttotheultimatepurposeofthetext.Inreallife,thespecificationofpurpose,addresseesetc.isusuallysufficientlyapparentfromthecommissionsituationitself:unlessotherwiseindicated,itwillbeassumedinourculturethatforinstanceatechnicalarticleaboutsomeastronomicaldiscoveryistobetranslatedasatechnicalarticleforastronomers,andtheactualplaceofpublicationisregardedasirrelevant;orifacompanywantsabusinesslettertranslated,thenatureassumptionisthattheletterwillbeusedbythecompanyinquestion(andinmostcasesthetranslatorwillalreadybesufficientlyfamiliarwiththecompany’sownin-housestyle,etc.).Totheextentthattheseassumptionsarevalid,itcanbemaintainedthatanytranslationiscarriedoutaccordingtoaskopos.Intheabsenceofaspecification,wecanstilloftenspeakofanimplicit(orimplied)skopos.Itneverthelessseemsappropriatetostressherethenecessityforachangeofattitudeamongmanytranslatorsandclients:asfaraspossible,detailedinformationconcerningtheskoposshouldalwaysbegiven.Acommissioncomprises(orshouldcomprise)asmuchdetailedinformationaspossibleonthefollowing:(1)thegoal,i.e.aspecificationoftheaimofthecommission;(2)theconditionsunderwhichtheintendedgoalshouldbeattained(naturallyincludingpracticalmatterssuchasdeadlineandfee).Thestatementofgoalandtheconditionsshouldbeexplicitlynegotiatedbetweentheclient(commissioner)andthetranslator,fortheclientmayoccasionallyhaveanimpreciseorevenfalsepictureofthewayatextmightbereceivedinthetargetculture.Herethetranslatorshouldbeabletomakeargumentativesuggestions.Acommissioncan(andshould)onlybeblindingandconclusive,andacceptedassuchbythetranslator,iftheconditionsareclearenough.Thetranslatoristheexpertintranslationalaction;asanexpertheisthereforeresponsiblefordecidingwhether,when,how,etc.,atranslationcanberealized.Therealizabilityofacommissiondependsonthecircumstancesofthetargetculture,notonthoseofthesourceculture.Whatisdependentonthesourcecultureisthesourcetext.Acommissionisonlyindirectlydependentonthesourceculturetotheextentthatatranslation,bydefinition,mustinvolveasourcetext.Onemightsaythattherealizabilityofacommissiondependsontherelationbetweenthetargetcultureandthesourcetext;yetthiswouldonlybeaspecialcaseofthegeneraldependenceonthetargetculture;aspecialcase,thatis,insofarasthecommissionisbasicallyindependentofthesourcetextfunction.Ifthediscrepancyistoogreat,however,notranslationispossible–atmostarewrittentextorthelike.Weshallnotdiscussthishere.Butitshouldbenotedthatatargetculturegenerallyoffersawiderangeofpotential,includinge.g.possibleextensionthroughtheadoptionofphenomenafromothercultures.Howfarthisispossibledependsonthetargetculture.Ihavebeenarguing–Ihopeplausibly–thateverytranslationcanandmustbeassignedaskopos.Thisideacannowbelinkedwiththeconceptofcommission:itispreciselybymeansofthecommissionthattheskoposisassigned.Ifacommissioncannotberealized,oratleastnotoptimally,becausetheclientisnotfamiliarwiththeconditionsofthetargetculture,ordoesnotacceptthem,thecompetenttranslator(asanexpertininterculturalaction,sincetranslationalactionisaparticularkindofinterculturalaction)mustenterintonegotiationswiththeclientinordertoestablishwhatkindof“optimal”translationcanbeguaranteedunderthecircumstances.Weshallnotattempttodefine“optimal”here–itispresumablyasupra-individualconcept.Wearesimplyusingthetermtodesignateoneofthebesttranslationspossibleinthegivencircumstances,oneofthosethatbestrealizethegoalinquestion.Besides,“optimal”isclearlyalsoarelativeterm:“optimalundercertaincircumstances”maymean“asgoodaspossibleinviewoftheresourcesavailable”or“inviewofthewishesoftheclient”,etc.–andalwaysonlyintheopinionofthetranslator,and/oroftherecipient,etc.Thetranslator,astheexpert,decidesinagivensituationwhethertoacceptacommissionornot,underwhatcircumstances,andwhetheritneedstobemodified.Theskoposofatranslationisthereforethegoalorpurpose,definedbythecommissionandifnecessaryadjustedbythetranslator.Inorderfortheskopostobedefinedprecisely,thecommissionmustthusbeasspecificaspossible.Ifthecommissionisspecificenough,afterpossible