Adab e Schaffner (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2), pp.
277–302 (2001)
THE IDEA OF THE HYBRID TEXT IN TRANSLATION

REVISITED
CHRISTINA SCHÄFFNER & BEVERLY ADAB

School of Languages and European Studies
Aston University Birmingham B4 7ET, UK
E-mail: c.schaeffner@aston.ac.uk, b.j.adab@aston.ac.uk
Abstract: This concluding chapter provides responses to some of the issues raised in
the individual chapters, highlighting similarities and differences in the interpretation of the
concept of the hybrid text. The questions dealt with here concern the notion of hybridity and
the definition of hybrid text; the contexts in which hybrid texts emerge; the functions of hy-
brid texts; the various levels at which hybrid phenomena manifest themselves; the genres to
which the notion of the hybrid text applies; the effects of hybrid texts; and the status of a
hybrid text in Translation Studies. It is concluded that the phenomenon of the hybrid text
involves greater complexity than had initially been defined in the discussion paper. There-
fore, the original hypothesis is reformulated to account for the fact that hybrid texts are not
only the product of a translation process but that they can also be produced as original texts
in a specific cultural space, which is often in itself an intersection of different cultures.
Key words: hybrid phenomena, cultural space, multilingual environment, globalisation,
genre
THE DISCUSSION PAPER AS TEXT
As had been expected and hoped for, our invitation to respond to the hypotheses
laid down in the discussion paper produced different reactions, both agreement
and disagreement. Some respondents do agree with our definition of what con-
stitutes a hybrid text (Zauberga, Gommlich and Erdim, Bond, Tirkkonen-
Condit, and also Trosborg 1997 all used our definition); some find the notion
‘hybrid text’ valid and useful, but define it differently (Snell-Hornby, Simon,
Nouss); whilst others question the validity of our arguments (Neubert, Pym).
What all response papers clearly show is that one and the same text, i.e., our
initial document, triggered various ideas. The comments also reflect the fact that
the authors represent different strands within the discipline of Translation
Studies, that they have different conceptions of what a text is, and therefore of
what a hybrid text is or could be.
So the first question to ask is: can our discussion paper really be described
as ‘one and the same text’ for everybody? Clearly not, if we define a text from
the perspective of cognitive linguistics, i.e., not as a static unit with inherent
1585-1923 © 2001, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

278 CHRISTINA SCHÄFFNER & BEVERLY ADAB
meaning, but from a dynamic, procedural view. This means that meaning is not
in the text: on the contrary, readers assign meanings to a text within a specific
situation, with a specific purpose, and they do this on the basis of their back-
ground knowledge. Or, in the words of Reiss and Vermeer (1991), a text is in-
formation offered (‘Informationsangebot’). Seen from this perspective, it is ob-
vious that our discussion paper resulted in different ‘readings’ by scholars who
work within different translation ‘theories’, each interpreting our offer of infor-
mation (the discussion paper) within a somewhat different paradigm.
This concluding chapter is also evidence of a kind of ‘biased reading’,
since we, the editors of this collection of essays and authors of the discussion
paper, read the response papers against our own background, within our own
approach to translation, with the specific purpose of seeing how others under-
stood and reacted to our arguments in the discussion paper. In this concluding
chapter, we will not engage in a dialogue with each individual author, nor will
we take up all of their points and react to them on the basis of our original ideas
and assumptions. Rather, we will take up some issues that show up across the
response papers, show how they are related to each other or contradict each
other, and discuss these against the background of the diversity of the discipline
of Translation Studies. In relation to these same issues, we will attempt to high-
light similarities and differences in interpretation of the concept of the hybrid
text. These arguments will then lead to a concluding statement, linking back to
our starting point, i.e., the two hypotheses outlined in the discussion paper.
THE NOTION OF HYBRIDITY AND THE DEFINITION OF

HYBRID TEXT
Since the central issue of our discussion paper was the postulation of a hybrid
text, all respondents commented, more or less critically, on this notion. Zau-
berga’s argument points to the fact that hybridity is not a clearly defined phe-
nomenon, but that there are scales and degrees of hybridity. She introduces the
concepts of overt and covert hybrids, based on House’s distinction between
overt and covert translation (House 1981). Overt translations, highlighting the
source text features, can qualify as overt hybrids. Their covert counterparts try
to subdue the source text imprint, and may be called covert hybrids by analogy.
Such a distinction had not been considered in the discussion paper.
Simon and Snell-Hornby relate the notion of hybridity to aspects of con-
temporary cultural identities and to the increasingly mixed sites of contempo-
rary belonging. With this perspective they go beyond the aspect of translation.
Indeed, as Snell-Hornby argues, hybrid texts are not a result of translation, thus
explicitly taking issue with our hypothesis (A). The points raised by Simon and
Snell-Hornby are eminently reasonable and justified, and their arguments offer
Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

HYBRID TEXT IN TRANSLATION REVISITED 279
convincing evidence. There is more to be said about the emergence, function,

and structure of a hybrid text than what was said in the discussion paper. How-
ever, hybrid texts may also be the result of a process of translation, or
intercultural communication, so that our hypothesis (A) could perhaps be re-
formulated to read:
Hybrid texts, in addition to being products of text production in a specific cultural space,
which is often in itself an intersection of different cultures, can also result from a translation
process.
Tirkkonen-Condit’s argument, on the other hand, is very much in line with our
own ideas. This becomes obvious in her introductory comments:
Intercultural communication gives rise to the development of new text types and genres.
Particular stages of this development can be described as hybridisation. These are the stages
at which the new text types and genres are not yet fully established themselves as forms of
communication in a sociocultural setting: they manifest linguistic and rhetorical features
which are felt to be foreign.
This perception of hybridity therefore relates to TL user expectancy norms (cf.

Chesterman 1997) and depends on the intended TT purpose.
Given the existence of different scholarly traditions and affiliations, and
with the concomitant different research interests, it is not surprising that our
definition of a hybrid text (cf. hypothesis A in discussion paper) has not been
accepted by every respondent. Instead, alternative definitions have been pro-
vided. Simon defines hybrid texts as, “those which use ‘translation effects’ to
question the borders of identity”. She specifies ‘translation effects’ as
“dissonances, interferences, disparate vocabulary, a lack of cohesion, uncon-
ventional syntax, a certain ‘weakness’ in the mastery of the linguistic code”.
What strikes us is that these ‘translation effects’ seem to be interpreted in a
negative, critical way, as if they should be avoided. Such features are often
listed under the heading of ‘translationese’ – effects which were in fact
explicitly excluded from our definition of hybrid text. Simon herself does not
give an explicit negative evaluation, on the contrary, as becomes obvious in the
following quote, “The Satanic Verses relentlessly combines and transforms
elements of different cultural and linguistic provenance, enacting an aesthetics
of transformation”.
For both Snell-Hornby and Simon, a hybrid text occupies the space ‘be-
tween’ languages and genres. Its effects have to do with the mixing of codes,
generating a phenomenon whose existence can be of positive value for raising
awareness of identities.
In his definition of hybrid text, Nouss too is concerned with identities, but
in a slightly different way than Simon and Snell-Hornby. He argues: “The proc-

ess of hybridisation consists in the blurring of the very notion of identity.”

Taking up the point about textual features of hybrid texts in the discussion pa-
per, he goes on to say: “The only possibly registered feature is a structural one,
that is hybrid texts are composite and made out of heterogeneous features, spe-
cific to every hybridisation. In the case of translations those features will come
from both source and target cultures, and not by mere adoption of source culture
features.” We have to admit that in our discussion paper the focus was, perhaps
too emphatically, on the way in which elements from the source language and
source culture become obvious in the TT. The TT of course does have features
that originate in the target language and culture, and in a large number of cases
it would be expected that the TT should conform (often exclusively) to the rules
and norms of the target language and culture. We wanted to call a text a hybrid
text precisely because it also displays features of the source language and cul-
ture. It does so not in order to highlight source culture specific objects, facts,
events, etc. and not in order to give the reader an idea of a source language
structure or word, but for other reasons, which need to be identified.
Neubert opens his argument by saying that in principle, a target text cannot
but contain or even betray certain features of its other, prior identity, the source
text. These identifying features are responsible for a certain hybrid character of
any translation, past and present. But then he goes on to say, “Yet defining all
translations as hybrid texts is quite another matter. Although this feature is an
undeniable fact of their origin it is by no means always the main or distinctive
feature of their nature as translation, i.e., as a new and often integrated member
of the target text world. Asserting that translations are essentially hybrid texts
would make the origin of a translation the main defining criterion. This would
unduly constrain its function.” In his argument Neubert highlights a factor
which did not figure so prominently in our discussion paper, namely the origin
of a target text as a secondary text, as a text which is derived from an original
text, the ST. The idea of hybridity as related to the aspect of the TT’s origin is
also what Levy had in mind, and what Zauberga recalls in her response paper.
However, we are not concerned with this aspect, which would indeed ‘unduly
constrain’ the function of ‘hybrid text’, but rather with a particular group of
TTs.
Neubert’s following argument, “Rather than being a hybrid text a transla-
tion may exhibit ‘hybrid elements’, i.e., words and structures that betray their
origin in source language features”, is an argument we can accept, but only to a
certain degree. We would not speak of words and structures that betray (our
emphasis – CS & BA) their origin in source language features. What we have in
mind is rather a situation in which the translator has deliberately ‘transported’
or ‘introduced’ features into the target culture which do have their origin in the
source language and source culture (we want to put more emphasis on culture
than on language). Nor do we agree with Neubert’s subsequent argument, “One

may wonder, however, whether phenomena of this kind have not been better
characterised by interference in the literature”, precisely because the occurrence
of interference reflects the fact that the translator was unaware of the impact of
the source language (see Robinson 1995), whereas it is our intention to high-
light the awareness and consciousness of decisions made by the translator in
producing a TT, i.e., a hybrid text.
HOW DOES A HYBRID TEXT COME INTO BEING?
The origin of hybrid texts is an issue that has been commented upon by all re-
spondents. What is the motivation for their existence and/or their production?
Do they emerge naturally in the intercultural space, i.e., without the interfering
hand of a translator? Or are they products of conscious decisions taken by a
translator? And on what are such conscious decisions based?
For Gommlich and Erdim, hybrid texts are the result of a compromise be-
tween the two translation strategies of foreignisation and domestication, pro-
ducing a text “that is aesthetically appealing without having to be fluent and
transparent at all times”. Following Venuti (1995), they understand ‘fluent’ and
‘transparent’ as absence of any linguistic or stylistic peculiarities, as if written
by an original author.
Bond argues that “[h]ybrid texts, ... come about when the intent behind the
translation (rather than the text), whether defined by the author, translator, edi-
tor etc., justifies leaving an impression of ‘strangeness’ in the translated text
which can be directly attributed to real or imputed differences in conventions of
varying linguistic cultures”. This corresponds to what we had in mind with our
definition in the discussion paper. Bond sets the hybrid text apart from what he
calls a ‘mutant’, i.e., a translation which “aims at mimicking the spontaneous
prose of a native speaker of the culture(s) of the target language”. A mutant text
will thus appear home-grown in translation, but only through alteration of the
text, and/or through omissions and adaptations. The concept of a ‘mutant’ text
is arguably a useful addition, but it seems to us that Bond attaches a negative
connotation to it. Omissions, additions, adaptations may well be justified, in-
deed required, for the specific purpose which the TT is meant to fulfil, e.g., ac-
counting for different background knowledge of the TT audience, accounting
for different genre conventions in source culture and target culture. Seen from
this perspective, it becomes difficult to find criteria which would allow us to
separate a ‘mutant text’ from a TT which, despite showing similar surface fea-
tures as a mutant, would still be considered appropriately structured for its pur-
pose.

Zauberga’s examples show that the stimulus for the creation of hybrid texts
comes from society as a whole, i.e., in the case of Latvia, a changing, develop-
ing society, which still needs to adjust its traditional low self-image. As she ar-
gues, “The Latvian culture scene has often been perceived as defective, the Lat-
vian language pointed to as inferior (due to and by different invaders) and na-
tional self-assertion has been one of the major functions of Latvian transla-
tions”. Since Latvian translators wanted to contribute to the development of
their own language, they imitated structures of the languages from which they
were translating. In Zauberga’s words, “translations have mostly been on the
literal side.” This tradition is still obvious today, with the focus on imitating
Anglo-American discourse. We could ask, however, the following: when a low
self-image results in a distinct source-orientation, why then would the resulting
TT be called a hybrid text? Or should we perhaps make a distinction between,
on the one hand, the evaluation of a text by a translation scholar (who decides to
call a TT which reflects a distinct ST orientation a hybrid text), and, on the
other hand, the evaluation of a text by the audience (for whom the text may be
quite in line with what they expect a translation to look like). Zauberga herself
admits that hybrid translations may seem fully acceptable to the readership of
the receiving culture, “perceived as a distinct part of a different, distinct cultural
entity”. In other words, what may look ‘strange’ or ‘unconventional’ to the
translation scholar may look ‘chic’ or ‘modern’ to the readers. And it is not
translation scholars or language purists who influence the development of lan-
guage.
But there is another point in Zauberga’s argument on which we want to
comment. Speaking about ‘angular translations’, which can be taken as syn-
onymous with hybrid texts, she argues, “The translation serves as a document of
the past communicative act between the author and the source text recipient and
the target text recipient is conscious of reading a text that has been written to be
used in a different communicative situation.” This is a case which we would not
include under our notion of hybrid text. What Zauberga describes here is a kind
of ‘once removed’ text, i.e., a specific case of reading a translation of a ST
(Zauberga refers to Nord’s concept of ‘documentary translation’, cf. Nord 1997)
in the awareness that this text was originally produced for a different communi-
cative situation. What then would be the legitimate purpose of the TT? To be in-
formed about some fact or event or communicative situation in the source cul-
ture? We do not think that this is what Zauberga has in mind. She is thinking
rather of situations where the TT readers want to find information, stimulation,
instruction, etc. in the ST for imitating, applying, adopting the source culture
fact etc. to their own culture (at least this is our interpretation of Zauberga’s ar-
gument). Our understanding of hybrid text does not cover this specific case, and
we would hesitate to expand our definition accordingly.

As we have seen above, some of the respondents, notably Simon and Snell-
Hornby, do not link hybrid texts to translation, but define them as originally
produced texts within a specific intercultural milieu. All examples used by
Simon and Snell-Hornby are literary texts, and they seem to reflect a certain in-
security of belonging, of cultural identity. It is this belonging to a space between
cultures which according to Simon and Snell-Hornby leads to the emergence of
hybrid texts.
For Nouss, a “hybrid is an offspring of mixed origin, resulting from the en-
counter of different breeds or species”. He characterises the hybrid composition
as finding “its value or its essence in the very fact that it is composed of differ-
ent parts.” In his view, in all these cases of hybridity “the components are still
visible and it is the tension between them, not the resolution, which gives its full
value and its character to the alloying”. Applied to translation, we might ask: to
whom are the components still visible? Clearly, this would be the case for a
scholar who has the ST available for comparison with the TT. What, however,
becomes of the TT readers? In our discussion paper we argued that the TT
shows some features which appear ‘strange’ or ‘out-of-place’ to the reader, and
we based this on an assumed experience that the TT readers would have with
texts of the same genre in their own culture (or, on the other hand, it is the
‘strangeness’ of a text in a particular communicative situation in those cases
where a new genre is being introduced into the target culture). In our under-
standing, the TT readers themselves would not be in a position to see the com-
ponents which derive from the ST or the source culture: firstly, because they do
not have the ST available to compare it to the TT (and they do not normally
speak the source language either); and secondly, they are often not aware of the
fact that they are reading a translation (awareness of this fact will, of course, in-
fluence the way in which they read the TT and react to it).
Pym also stresses the aspect of cultural overlaps or borderlines when he
says that “the imaginary hybrid – the awareness of possible hybridisation – is
produced in a frontier space, as part of an exclusion of the other, as part of a
separation of identities”. This ‘hybrid space’ for him is “a space of text produc-
tion from within cultural overlaps” (which is different to Simon’s and Snell-
Hornby’s space ‘in-between’).
Neubert links the notion of the hybrid text to its function, with particular
attention to how it is evaluated. He says that “hybridity overestimates the target
reader. Perpetuating the notion that translations are surrogates that fail the qual-
ity of the original and miss the finer points of target discourse, hybridness ele-
vates the target patterns of expectation into normalcy, [...] Consequently, trans-
lations as hybrid texts are, or are close to, second-rate texts. They stand be-
tween cultures instead of constituting cultural phenomena of their own”. He is
correct in his argument that translations are often looked down on as being sec-
ondary, both in origin and in quality. But this is by no means what we said in

the discussion paper. On the contrary, we do want to regard them as ‘cultural

phenomena of their own’.
FUNCTIONS OF HYBRID TEXTS
Most respondents to the discussion paper speak of functions of a hybrid text in

terms of contributing to the emergence of new genres and discourses in the tar-
get culture (for example, Tirkkonen-Condit demonstrated that hybridisation
contributes to innovation and to the introduction of new features of language
and thought).
Neubert, however, also refers to the opposite effect when he says, “A much
more significant reason for hybridness can be the explicit intention on the side
of the translator to keep the target text aloof from textual integration into the
prevalent discourse of the target culture.” He develops this argument by refer-
ence to Venuti’s concept of resistant translation.
Bond illustrates four different functions of hybrid texts, more precisely,
“four reasons for leaving the terms of social discourse and the social sciences in
an incongruous or alien form: clarification, obfuscation, delimitation and con-
vergence”. For him, clarification is closely linked to the “need for contextualis-
ing political labels” (cf. his example of ‘Republikaner’). We agree with his ar-
gument, but we do not agree that the TT would be a hybrid text, at least not in
our understanding. Taken to its extreme, Bond’s argument would mean that
whenever a source language word (or concept) is taken over into the TT, the re-
sult is a hybrid text. We would argue, however, that it is precisely the purpose
of contextualising the concept that makes this translation strategy appropriate
and powerful (and the translator always has the possibility to add a gloss, or an
explanation). According to our perception, the presence of instances of a par-
ticular strategy in a TT does not in itself define the text as a hybrid.
Several respondents list dissemination of knowledge as one of the main
functions of hybrid texts. Gommlich and Erdim base their comments on thesis
(4b) of the discussion paper. They argue that in literary translation, the notion of
the hybrid text is “indispensable if the translation wants to contribute to dis-
seminating a less well-known culture through the language of a target culture”.
Thus, a translation, while contributing to disseminating knowledge can also
educate the TT readers. This emphasis on the positive role of translation in
contributing to understanding, tolerance, respect and co-operation between dif-
ferent cultures is in line with our own approach, underlying thesis (4b). Al-
though this is more an ideal, the history of translation shows that translations
and translators have also been used, or ‘misused’, for opposite purposes, e.g. to
justify crusades (cf. Delisle and Woodsworth 1995).

However, another question comes to mind, namely the direction of the dis-
semination: the movement described is mainly from lesser-known to major
cultures (this point also figures in Snell-Hornby’s argument). Nevertheless,
looking at statistical data about the amount of texts that are translated and which
languages are involved, it becomes obvious that it is also the case the other way
round, and predominantly so. A large number of texts are translated from Eng-
lish into other languages. This has nothing to do with the English language as
such, but is mainly a reflection of current dominance of the Anglo-American
(especially USA) political, economic, scientific-technological, and cultural life
(captured by the buzz word ‘globalisation’, cf. the contributions in Schäffner
2000). Should we not also speak of the ‘hybrid text’ for translations that con-
tribute to disseminating knowledge about dominant, and thus well known (or
better known) cultures through the languages of less known cultures? The pa-
pers in this volume do not explicitly argue about this point. All the same, this is
an issue that is probably closely related to the status and the self-image of the
target cultures concerned, and one which also raises the question of who the
initiator of a translation is (i.e., is the translation commissioned by a client in the
source culture or in the target culture?).
Newly emerging nations, or nations that are experiencing a shake-up of
their socio-political system, may be more willing to look to a dominant nation
(or culture) for guidance, including guidance as to communicative practices and
discursive structures. This guidance, however, will not affect all genres in the
same way and to the same extent. When a new genre is introduced into the tar-
get culture by way of translations, or when an existing but unimportant genre is
no longer considered to be ‘up-to-date’ and effective for the new conditions,
then such new genres will more readily be accepted (maybe at first by a specific
discourse community, and then later by the nation or culture as a whole), even if
they display ‘strange’ elements, or perhaps precisely because they do so – as
Zauberga illustrates with reference to the advertising genre in Latvia after
national independence. Literature, on the other hand, being more intimately
linked with the life of a culture, often exists as an established genre and may,
thus, be more resistant to changes (but cf. Macura 1990, who shows how Czech
literature in the 19th century created itself by analogy with the German model).
Again, it is probably due to economic and political reasons that we are
more inclined to use the term ‘hybrid text’ to describe translations from less
known cultures into English (or French, or German) than in relation to transla-
tions from English. It is no coincidence that what we call ‘less(er) known’ cul-
tures (itself a relative notion) are those cultures that for economic and/or politi-
cal reasons do not (yet?) have a dominant position in the world (e.g. the post-
colonial countries, or the new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe, cf.
Zauberga’s argument, “translation often takes place where two unequal worlds
collide”). A culture in the process of development or transition may be more

open to input from outside and also more willing (or tolerant) to accept texts
(including translations) which may look ‘strange’ from the perspective of the
linguistic system and discourse conventions of the receiving culture. Or more
critically, the developing culture is not yet mature enough to resist the influence
of the dominant culture.
A highly developed culture, on the other hand, may be more inward look-
ing and less inclined to accept anything which does not look familiar, which
does not conform to the conventions and structures to which they have become
used. In other words, they may be more ready to attach the label ‘hybrid’ to
such texts, including translations. More controversially, one could argue, that
the label ‘hybrid text’ attached to a translation from a lesser-known culture may
actually make the TT readers reject or turn away from the text instead of the
text contributing to educating the TT readers. More positively, or programmati-
cally, in the words of Simon: “While the hybrid text affirms the dividedness of
identity, often becoming an expression of loss and disorientation, it can also be-
come a powerful and emancipatory place for the writer to occupy.”
There is one more point in the argumentation by Gommlich and Erdim on
which we would like to comment. They say that “The function of a hybrid text
is necessarily different from the function of a source text.” However, they de-
velop this argument as a rejection of theories of translation that assume that
‘functional equivalence’ has, in general, to hold between an ST and its TT.
They do not specify which particular theories or scholars they have in mind, but
we would not want to accept this conclusion. Firstly, scholars working within a
functionalist approach to translation have explicitly stated that the function (or
purpose) of the ST & that of the TT can be either identical or different (cf. Reiss
and Vermeer 1991; cf. also ‘Funktionskonstanz’ and ‘Funktionsveränderung’ in
Hönig and Kussmaul 1982; & ‘equifunctional translation’ and ‘heterofunctional
translation’ in Nord 1997). Secondly, we would argue that a hybrid (translated)
text may indeed fulfil the same function in the target culture as the ST fulfilled
in its source culture. Advertising can be a case in point: as illustrated by Zau-
berga, the TT functions very well as an advertising text, despite (or due to) its
‘strange’ features.
However, we have to concede that our understanding of ‘function’ does not
seem to be the same as Gommlich and Erdim’s, cf. their statement, “Assuming
that the ultimate function of literature or any form of art is to make us feel what
it is to be human, new images will attune us to the infinite complexity of the
particular human situation as long as we can be educated into relating to them.”
Their understanding of ‘function’ is at a more abstract level than ours. When we
speak of function in the discussion paper we use it either in the sense of text or
genre function (cf. Bühler’s functions of language: description, expression, ap-
peal, and Reiss’ corresponding text types: informative, expressive, appellative,
cf. Reiss 1971), or as synonym for purpose, i.e., the purpose which a text is

meant to fulfil for its audience in a specific communicative situation (e.g., pro-
vide intellectual enjoyment, or provide information for solving a problem).
The aspect of different cultural traditions in regard to the imitation of for-
eign languages etc. is also taken up by Neubert. He supports our arguments in
the discussion paper about the asymmetry of translation processes (cf. hypothe-
sis 4b) when he says, “The politics and directions of translations, i.e., what is
translated and into which language, is due to power relations, which obtain both
in the source and the target societies.”
Bond too, is concerned with dissemination of knowledge, but not in the
sense of knowledge about a culture, but rather in the more specific sense of do-
main-specific knowledge for a group of people, in his case the field of social
thought and the social sciences. His argument is in a sense the opposite to ours
in the discussion paper, and also opposite to Gommlich and Erdim’s paper.
Bond’s concern is mainly with social science concepts. These concepts are both
embedded in the social thought of a particular culture (or cultural group) and
equally shaped by the language involved. He argues that attempts to render
alien conventions in a familiar way do lead to the creation of ‘hybrids’. By
saying that a TT which reads like a ‘normal’ text to its audience, because it in-
cludes concepts and structures which are familiar (i.e., which is a ‘fluent’ and
‘transparent’ text in the sense of Gommlich and Erdim) Bond introduces an ad-
ditional characterisation of a hybrid text.
We have to concede that with ‘strange’, ‘unusual’, and ‘out of place’ in our
definition in the discussion paper, we referred to explicit linguistic features of
the text. Bond brings in another dimension, the dimension of ‘out of place’ for
the conceptual framework of the discourse community of social scientists. In
other words, his argument goes beyond the level of the word, or concept, by
asking how a word that may have looked ‘strange’ in a TT influenced the de-
velopment of the social sciences and social and political discourses. His paper
stresses the effects a text may have on the readers, more exactly: the readers as
members of a specific academic discourse community. In this context, the func-
tion of a hybrid text is to contribute to the development of the academic disci-
pline.
Neubert extends the aspect of dissemination of knowledge to translations in
general when he says that, “the target culture takes almost everything up once it
is transmitted through translation(s). In this capacity of having been incorpo-
rated into the body of knowledge the content of translation becomes a very
strong factor that has the potential to enrich the host culture.” This may be true,
but again this is a fact which can only be established with hindsight, whereas we
wanted to try and capture the transition moment in describing and explaining a
hybrid text, in our understanding of the concept. Neubert himself seems to con-
cede this retrospective interpretation when he argues, “More usually translators
have facilitated the transfer of information, particularly new and hard to digest

ideas, by deploying a rich and varied inventory of translational procedures.” It

is precisely this “rich and varied inventory of translational procedures” which
we would like to identify more precisely, and even be able to link the choice of
a specific procedure to a given socio-historical context.
HYBRID PHENOMENA AT VARIOUS LEVELS
In our discussion paper, we defined the notion of hybrid at the level of the text
and the genre. That is, we related the concept of hybridity to established expec-
tations for a given genre within a specific ‘languaculture’ (Agar 1992, cf. also
Nord 1997). This perspective led us to focus on the role of text-internal and lan-
guage-related translation phenomena, together with considerations of genre
conventions. In the response papers, the notion of hybridity was applied to vari-
ous levels, including those of words or concepts, genres, and cultures. All these
levels are interrelated. Bond, for example, although focusing on concepts,
clearly shows that they have to be contextualised. They have to be embedded in
the relevant social science perspective, and they have to be related to the culture
in which they originate.
Zauberga discusses the genre (or text type, in her terminology) of adver-
tising, which has emerged as a new text type in post-Communist countries. This
makes it prone to being modelled on genre conventions of another language and
culture, and this is where translations play a decisive role.
Tirkkonen-Condit shows how the clash of different rhetorical norms results
in hybrid texts. Her example is project proposals that are written in English by
Finns for submission to the EU Commission. The rhetorical norms between
which the texts vacillate are: the Finnish rhetorical norm, the prototypical target
norm (= Anglo-American scientific rhetoric), and the hybrid target (= EU) norm
as the norm of the EU scientific community. Tirkkonen-Condit highlights an-
other highly important point in this respect, namely the case where the target
culture itself is not one clearly defined cultural entity. In her case, both the EU
and the Finnish academic communities can be regarded as target cultures and
this blurring of target cultures has consequences for the structure of the TT.
There is another important point which Tirkkonen-Condit brings into fo-
cus: the situation where the target culture itself is a kind of a mixed, or blurred,
culture (or: a hybrid culture). This is a case which we have not explicitly dealt
with in the discussion paper (but cf. hypothesis 4a), where we have indicated
such a scenario). It also brings in another aspect when we speak about ‘culture’,
in addition to the prototypical cases of clearly identifiable cultures (evident in
references to source culture and target culture, and ‘culture’ here normally un-
derstood in the sense of nation, or country) and also in addition to the sense of
culture as the space in-between (as argued about by Simon and Snell-Hornby).

This notion of a ‘hybrid culture’ could be said to apply to the EU scientific

community. Tirkkonen-Condit argues about a Euro-rhetoric which absorbs
rhetorical, lexical and even grammatical features from the various linguistic
communities which participate in its functions. What is the status of this EU-
rhetoric, of this EU-norm? Is it a hybrid norm which has become fully estab-
lished as a norm in its own right, and thus serving as a model for text produc-
tion, including translation? Or is it a kind of transitional phenomenon, which,
although accepted because it fulfils its intended function, is still seen as ‘defi-
cient’? Tirkkonen-Condit seems to support the second point, which would make
the notion of the hybrid text a methodological, or heuristic, tool (cf. her state-
ment, “The concept of hybrid text seems useful as a tool of describing the tran-
sition stages in which many conflicting discourse norms interact and coexist as
a result of growing internationalisation.”).
Pym and Zauberga, too, argue about EU-texts. Pym reflects on “texts that
are either overtly multilingual or at least multidiscursive, incorporating frag-
ments from various sources and various degrees of lingual competence”. All
three contributors highlight the acceptance of such texts, which we would call
hybrid texts, for their respective audience. For Pym, based on his own experi-
ence in translating texts for EU research teams, the ST would be a hybrid be-
cause it shows a mixture of languages and discourses. He argues that when such
a hybrid ST is to be translated, the resulting TT will be homogenised, i.e., the
TT will not show the same features of hybridity as the ST does. In other words,
dehybridisation takes place. Pym and Tirkkonen-Condit argue from different
perspectives. For Tirkkonen-Condit, the EU is the TT audience, the target cul-
ture, whereas for Pym, the EU text is the ST, which has to be translated for a
client in a target culture. Based on an example, Pym says, “From extremely het-
erogeneous sources I write an English that lives almost nowhere.” We are back
again to the problem of defining a culture, independently of whether it is a
source culture or a target culture. We have to admit that a culture is not a homo-
geneous entity, and a client may ask for a TT in a language which is not his or
her mother tongue, and which may not be the dominant language of the culture
in which he or she lives. Although we mentioned changing borders and over-
lapping spaces in the discussion paper (cf. hypothesis 2b), we have obviously
not addressed this problem sufficiently.
The view of multilingual institutions as cultural spaces for ‘genuine’ hy-
brids is also mentioned by Neubert, “Under the guise of internationalism genu-
ine hybrid forms and structures come into being. They reflect carelessness as
well as useful borrowing. But here again it is the linguistic medium that gets
hybridised. Yet the texts are not necessarily hybrid as well.”
We can see what Neubert is referring to with this point, but his terminology
is, in our view, not very precise. What would the difference be between the lin-
guistic medium and the text? By “linguistic medium”, is he thinking of lexical

and syntactic units and structures as elements of the linguistic system? But
surely the results of such borrowings, for example, would only be obvious and
visible in the text. Furthermore, is it not the text, rather than the linguistic sys-
tem, that is the medium of communication?
Zauberga’s argument that “the degree of hybridisation of the translated text
largely depends on the status of translations in the target culture and ensuing
translation conventions”, concerns translations at a higher level of abstraction,
which can be compared to the research which is conducted within Descriptive
Translation Studies, more particularly the work on norms (e.g., by Toury 1995,
Hermans 1998). Due to various social, and historically changing, factors, the
attitudes of different cultures to translations (as products) and translating (as
process) will differ. This is also reflected in the translation policy and industry
within a culture or country (e.g., how many texts are translated, what kinds of
texts are translated, from which languages into which languages?) and in the at-
titudes of readers towards translations and the expectations they have of what a
translation should look like.
Zauberga argues that although “the majority of translations made in mar-
ginal culture situations bear a great number of hybrid features”, they “do not
break the expectancy norm of the readership”. She provides examples of one
culture only, Latvia, but concludes that “parallels can be drawn with other small
nations”. She justifies this conclusion by saying “the general acceptance of for-
eignising strategies has been historically and socially conditioned”. Socially
conditioned yes, but we would hesitate to support her claim of “general accept-
ance”, which may be the case in literary texts, but this claim would need to be
substantiated by further evidence.
Zauberga’s understanding of culture is at a different level to that of
Gommlich and Erdim. In discussing the translation of a literary text, they say,
“What we observe here is, in fact, the extension of one culture into another
culture by way of creating a new aspect of the target culture brought about by a
new quality text, the hybrid text.” And further on, “Thus, the hybrid text is not
only a necessity for cultural transfer, understood as shifting information from a
source culture into a target culture, but rather for a transfer resulting in new
cultures and subcultures.” But what exactly are these ‘new cultures and subcul-
tures’? The community of readers of the TT? Do Gommlich and Erdim assume
that this group can be regarded as a homogeneous group, sharing ideas and val-
ues as a result of having read the TT? Their discussion remains vague on this
point.
Simon and Snell-Hornby too, are concerned with cultures, not with existing
ones, but rather with spaces between cultures which are in the process of being
formed and which take on their own identity and substance. This understanding
of the hybrid text as focusing on the space between adds a valid dimension. As
already admitted, the definition of culture has probably not been given the con-

sideration it deserves. In the discussion paper, we were mainly thinking of cul-

ture in the sense of an existing community of speakers, either at the level of a
nation state, or at the level of a specified discourse community (e.g., the dis-
course community of academics, or more specifically, the discourse community
of philosophers – as indeed taken up by Bond). That is, we more or less as-
sumed cultures to be entities with clear-cut borders. Simon and Snell-Hornby
remind us that culture, too, is a dynamic concept, and that we cannot assume
neat delimitations.
Discourse studies and textlinguistic research, too, have worked with the
notion of speakers being members of different communicative, or discourse
communities (‘culture’ may be substituted for ‘[discourse] community’, and in-
deed is so by some scholars). For example, a young, female British journalist
with a strong affiliation to the agenda of feminism and an interest in golf, will
be a member of the discourse community of journalists; she will also be a
member of the discourse community of feminists, and also, predominantly in
her spare time, of the discourse community of golf players. In each case, the
propositional content and the structure of the text and talk produced will be
characterised by specific features, although there will be overlappings. In addi-
tion, there will rarely be situations when a speaker will be engaged as a member
of all discourse communities at the same time, and there will hardly be any con-
flict which would make it difficult for the speaker to identify with a specific
community in each situation. This, however, is different in the case of the space
between cultures. Here it is the very fact of being in-between which could cause
a problem for identification, for defining a cultural identity or a sense of be-
longing. Simon discusses this problem from the perspective of the individual,
cf. “For these writers, dislocation creates distance between languages and mind-
sets, and enacts an economy of loss – the loss of spontaneous contact with one’s
inner self, of emotional immediacy and wholeness.” She calls this a “fractured
state of existence”. We would argue that, going beyond the level of the individ-
ual, this ‘problem’ may be turned into an advantage, in that this in-between is
defined as a new entity (and this is what Simon and Snell-Hornby both show).
This view highlights the process aspect, i.e., hybridity not as a feature of a
product (as we have said in our discussion paper), but as a process (this point
had also been argued by Séguinot, cf. Schäffner and Adab 1997:332f). In this
sense, then, a hybrid text is a characteristic phenomenon of an emerging culture
which is located, situated, in a space between. Two questions are linked to this:
Firstly, this space between need not be understood in a close local sense, i.e., it
need not be assumed that the two (or more?) cultures co-exist in the sense of
immediate neighbourhood. This is shown by Snell-Hornby with reference to lit-
erature from former colonies. However, we would argue, some kind of relation-
ship between the two cultures involved must exist, and we would need to define
it. This relationship may be spatial coexistence (as is the case in Canada), or it

may be a politically – and historically – determined one (as is the case with
former ‘mother country’ and former ‘colony’). Clearly, it would still not be the
case that any kind of relation between two cultures would constitute a “space in-
between” (it would not apply, for example, to the case of Latvia as described by
Zauberga). Saying that the space between cultures takes on its own identity
could also mean that this notion could be applied to all cases of supra-national
bodies (i.e., could the United Nations, or the European Union – at least hypo-
thetically – be described as the prototypical space between?). Would we gain
anything by extending the notion to these situations? We do not think we
would, because the notion of space in-between would lose its explanatory
power and not be an operable concept any more.
Secondly, when the space between cultures has taken on its own identity,
when it has become fully established and accepted, would we still speak of hy-
bridity? Or is hybridity only valid for the period of development, for emer-
gence? That is, will the feature ‘hybridity’ disappear once the new identity is
fully established? Does this mean that ‘hybridity’ is a transitional phenomenon,
as we have argued in the discussion paper (cf. hypothesis A4b)?
The aspect of culture is indeed a crucial one, and it is discussed by all re-
spondents, albeit from a slightly different perspective and with different weight
and importance attached to it. Neubert argues that “translations allow significant
glimpses into other worlds”, but “calling translation hybrids contributes very
little to a better understanding of intercultural communication”. In our view, this
argument only holds when a negative evaluation is assigned to the notion of the
‘hybrid text’, which is not what we say in the discussion paper. But we have to
agree with Neubert when he says “translated texts [...] have transformed the
ways and means of acting out one’s culture”, so that it is, “practically no longer
possible to distinguish rigidly between what is “one’s own culture and what is
provided, […] from other cultures by way of translation”. What we wanted to
highlight with our understanding of hybrid text is precisely that it may be possi-
ble to catch a glimpse of how such mergings develop, to freeze a stage in the
development of how certain textual or discourse features become accepted, to
provide a tool (i.e., the hybrid text) with which the emergence (and acceptance)
of new textual and discourse features can be described in statu nascendi. With
this focus we may again be in agreement with Neubert when he argues at the
end of his paper, “Integrating translation events into the historical context, both
synchronic and diachronic, would initiate an entirely new model for translation
studies. It may well be that translations as hybrid texts play a role in this new
paradigm of translation in history.”

TO WHICH GENRES DOES THE NOTION OF THE HYBRID

TEXT APPLY?
Various genres were dealt with in the response papers, mainly literary texts
(Zauberga, Gommlich and Erdim, Snell-Hornby, Simon, Nouss), and also ad-
vertising texts (Zauberga), religious texts (Pym), political texts (Pym, Neubert,
Tirkkonen-Condit, Zauberga), social science texts (Bond). The choice of the
genres speaks for itself – all these genres are more intimately linked to their
home cultures. Or, to use Neubert’s (1968) categories of ‘pragmatic translation
types’, these are all texts, or genres, that (a) are originally intended for the
source culture audience but then reach a new audience in a target culture be-
cause they are of interest to this target culture as well (as is normally the case
with literature), or (b) they are of interest to a specific community of people
who share a certain domain of knowledge and expertise (as is normally the case
with scientific texts).
Gommlich and Erdim argue that in literary translation, the notion of the
hybrid text is “indispensable if the translation wants to contribute to dissemi-
nating a less known culture through the language of a target culture”. This aim
justifies, even requires unusual and unfamiliar expressions, sentences and for-
mats, which in their view make up the nature of literary translation. Would this
mean then that the phenomenon of hybridity is typical of all literary translation?
Gommlich and Erdim do not make this claim, but it is implied by their state-
ment. In our discussion paper we have deliberately avoided any generalisation
because we think that it is the combination, the interplay of various factors that
determines the production of a TT, e.g., the purpose of the TT, the TT audience,
the genre, the specific instructions that were given to the translator by the cli-
ent/commissioner, the situation in which the TT will be used, etc. Since text re-
ception in the case of literature is a highly subjective and individual process, we
can legitimately say that a text may not be characterised as a hybrid text by all
readers.
There are mainly two aspects in the context of hybridity of literary texts.
Firstly, the ST is embedded in its own source culture (as in Gommlich and Er-
dim’s example), with this source culture (Turkey) being less known in the target
culture (USA). As a result, the TT readers may find (parts of) the text (content
and/or form) strange. In other words, the TT is a hybrid text. Secondly, the ST
itself shows features of hybridity because it reflects a hybrid source culture, or
its source culture is difficult to define (e.g. Snell-Hornby’s and Simon’s exam-
ples).
With the different genres taken up and discussed by the respondents to our
discussion paper, it is only in the case of literary and political texts that the ST
itself has been characterised as a hybrid text. In all other cases, e.g. advertising

and academic discourse, the notion of hybridity has been linked to the TT, i.e.,
to the product of a translation process. It may well be that the very context of
the production of (some) literary and political texts, i.e., the intercultural or su-
pra-cultural space, or the space in-between, makes them particularly prone to
features of hybridity. In such cases, where the ST can be called a hybrid text, a
translation process may indeed result in a dehybridised TT (as illustrated with
literary texts by Snell-Hornby and with political texts by Pym).
EFFECTS OF HYBRID TEXTS
Assuming the existence of hybrid texts as TT, i.e., as products of translation,

one question that has been taken up by the respondents is the question: what
happens with hybrid texts? Or, what effects do they have in and for the target
culture?
Zauberga shows that hybrid texts are welcomed and fully accepted by the
target culture thanks to their ‘strangeness’. In Simon’s case of the bi-lingual
culture, they are accepted despite their strangeness. As a result, hybrid texts
provide a model for new original texts in the target culture. Nouss argues the
opposite, i.e that a hybrid text can be rejected by a target culture.
Acceptance or rejection are related to the function a hybrid text is meant to
fulfil. In this context, Bond adds a valuable point which we have not mentioned
in the discussion paper. He says, “While rejection involves accentuating the
perception of the outlandishness of foreign custom, [...] absorption often takes
place unawares, when the conveyance of what is strange and new is perceived
of as the communication of objective truths.” Two modifications could be
made: firstly, ‘what is strange and new’ may also be perceived of as the com-
munication of another subjective idea, which is judged to be better, or superior
to the one of the readers (and which may be disguised as or elevated to the
status of objective truth). Secondly, absorption too may be a conscious process,
one the TT audience is aware of, as illustrated by Zauberga.
Bond introduces another point which we had not raised in our paper: what
happens when a hybrid text, i.e., a translation, is translated back into its lan-
guage of origin? Not necessarily the complete text, but it is a normal phenome-
non of international communication – maybe particularly in the fields of arts
and sciences, and in politics and diplomacy – that ideas are taken up and devel-
oped, and that they circulate at a supra-national or international level. Based on
his examples of philosophical discourse, Bond argues that, “a translation of the
hybrid into the language from which it originally issued may appear, too, to be a
hybrid”. He goes on to say that such dynamics are particularly conspicuous in
exchanges between varying and at times competing social and political cultures
with their respective discourses, engendering more profound understanding and

misunderstandings which in turn generate new ideologies and paradigms within

the social sciences. This is perhaps a different stage in the process of informa-
tion transfer, at one remove from our original concept, and may well be more
appropriately considered within the field of political ideology than that of
translation – although it came about as a result of a translation process.
Dissemination of knowledge, given as a main purpose of communication
both by Gommlich and Erdim and by Bond, is predominantly seen from the
perspective of the author, or sender. What needs to be added, then, is the per-
spective of the receiver(s), since the knowledge that is generated by a hybrid
text, may well be different from the knowledge the sender had in mind, and
from that interpretation which the sender expected to be shared with the mem-
bers of his or her own source community. But such differences in the under-
standing of a (hybrid) text, in no way mean the end of knowledge growth.
Bearing in mind what we have said above about the status of ‘text’ and the pro-
cess of text understanding and meaning creation, one could even argue against
Bond’s use of ‘misunderstanding’ here.
The debate about acceptance or rejection of a hybrid text is also linked to
the question of the temporal relativity of hybrid texts. As we have said in the
discussion paper (cf. hypothesis 4b), the hybrid text ceases to exist once it has
been accepted by the target audience and has been fully integrated into the dis-
cursive universe of the target culture. This hypothesis is supported by
Gommlich and Erdim. They say that a hybrid text is the carrier of unexpected
information, where ‘unexpected’ is true only for the first encounter. Once the
time and space constraints expire or are exceeded, the hybrid text may cease to
exist as such and either become fully integrated into the target culture or re-
jected as an ‘alienating’ text.
Based on his view of hybridity as crossbreeding, Nouss says that, “hy-
bridity loses its negativity and becomes an ontological category which should
be not dependent on cultural and socio-historical factors”. In our discussion pa-
per we did not give a negative evaluation of the hybrid text (at least this was not
intended, but it can obviously be ‘read into’ the text – cf. our arguments about
‘text’ above). We also agree with Nouss that “[t]here is no such thing as an
original purity (for texts or anything else) which becomes modified and yields
to impurity (hybridity being one example)”. However, what we want to argue is
that each translation event (in the sense of Toury 1995) takes place at a particu-
lar time and in a particular socio-cultural context. This also means that the ST is
interpreted in this context and that it is interpreted against the background of a
specific translation assignment. Admittedly the text is not pure, but neither is
the contextualised translation event, and as such both the ST and the translation
event are indeed dependent on cultural and socio-historical factors, as is the TT.

THE STATUS OF A HYBRID TEXT IN TRANSLATION

STUDIES
Do hybrid texts exist in reality? Almost all of our respondents have commented
on this question and have linked it to the aspect of translation.
Zauberga refers to Levy, who claims that the translator’s style always bears
the imprint of the source text, whether directly or indirectly. If we accept this
line of argument, then any text would be a hybrid text, and the notion itself
would become superfluous. However, as Zauberga shows, Levy’s focus is on
the linguistic systems, and a result may be compromise linguistic means in the
translation.
Simon, in discussing La fille à marier/The Marriageable Daughter, ques-
tions the very notion of translation when she says, “what if, […] the ‘original’
text is inhabited by more than one language? Can the translation of these texts
still be called translation?” Our answer would be ‘yes, it can be called a trans-
lation’, based on our understanding of translation as production of a TT which
is induced by a ST and which is intended to fulfil its specified purpose for its
clients. When the purpose of the TT requires specific account to be taken of
these features of the ST which Simon calls hybridity, then there are ways and
means to do so (e.g., using a similar mixture of two languages, which would
make the TT into a hybrid text – in our understanding – or providing explana-
tions about the characteristic features of the ST, e.g., in a translator’s introduc-
tory comment). Yet Simon challenges the whole traditional notion of translation
when she says, “Translation is generally considered successful when a text
crosses clearly defined linguistic and cultural borders to be ‘re-composed’
within another homologous milieu. What if these borders become porous and
the text itself plural? The hybrid text suggests […] that translation as we know
it may be tied to conceptions of cultural identity which are less relevant today.
Or that translation will come to circulate as much within cultural and textual
borders as between them.” This is definitely a valid and valuable statement, and
we have to admit that our arguments in the discussion paper encourage a read-
ing which sees translation in this more traditional sense. Defining a hybrid text
as an original text that has been produced in the space between cultures (cf. also
Snell-Hornby) opens up a whole new set of questions for translation and
Translation Studies which have not at all been addressed in the discussion pa-
per, but which deserve further study as an innovative approach to understanding
translation phenomena.
Nouss also rejects our characterisation of the hybrid text as a feature
and a product of contemporary intercultural communication. As he says, “On
the contrary, they provide the pattern for such exchanges.” This argument is
based on his understanding of translation which becomes clear in his statement,

“translation is not a transportation but a deportation, not a replacement but a

displacement.” When he argues that the function of a translation “is to reveal
that there are different languages” (what he calls the ‘translative text’), then it is
clear why he argues that “[t]ranslation ... offers a model of hybrid textuality”.
We agree that the history of humankind is inextricably linked to translational
activities, and this historical perspective is largely missing in our discussion pa-
per. We think that we share a lot of Nouss’ arguments, but we approach the
subject from a different perspective. We started from the objective need (or the
subjective wish) for intercultural (or trans-, or cross-cultural) communication,
and this need is met by means of translation. We are then particularly interested
in the text that has been produced as a result of a translation act and a transla-
tion event, particularly in the features of the textual format and linguistic struc-
ture. Based on the identification of specific textual features (which we charac-
terised – arguably vaguely – as ‘strange’, ‘out of place’) we attach the label
‘hybrid text’ to this TT. We would then try to identify, as a second step, the ef-
fects this text has on its addressees and how it fulfils its intended function (or
not); furthermore, in relation to this (or maybe as a third step), we would ask for
the reasons the translator may have had for coming up with the specific textual
format. It seems to us that Nouss is particularly interested in the interaction it-
self, and in the way a hybrid text contributes to this interaction precisely be-
cause it clearly shows signs of diversity. In other words, such textual signs of
diversity are to him a condition for intercultural communication, whereas for us
they are the outcome of the process.
To continue with this argument: Nouss says that, “[t]he translating text ex-
ists only in light of the translated text and the translated text has meaning(s)
within the history of the translating texts”. This is totally in conformity with
what we said above about the status of ‘text’. Nouss prefers ‘translating text’ to
target text because he wants to highlight “the necessary inachievement of the
process”. And he goes on to say, “the being of the original is a being-to-be-
translated and the being of the translation is a being-translated, a being-having-
been-translated. Thus neither of the two texts are ever present to themselves.”
We do not contradict the argument that a translation, i.e., a TT, is something
which can be called ‘necessary inachievement’. But we would nevertheless in-
sist on our focus on a TT as a product of a particular time, in a particular cul-
ture, fulfilling a particular purpose. Within this particular social-historical con-
text, within these specified or specifiable parameters, the TT can be seen as an
‘achievement’. The ‘same’ TT, i.e., ‘same’ in the sense of same format and
structure, will be a different text (text in the sense above) when placed into a
different social and/or historical context. So what we try to grasp by our de-
scription and explanation of a hybrid text (as a concrete text, not as an abstract
notion) is one ‘frozen’ form at a specific moment in a continuing process of de-

velopment. In other words, we catch a text in the process, making it static in a

dynamic process.
A similar counter-argument to our original hypothesis is put forward by
Pym who starts by saying that “non-translations are hybrids or at least promot-
ers of hybridisation”, and that translation can result in dehybridisation. Pym re-
calls a general assumption, often repeated when speaking about translation, that
a translated text marks a line between at least two languages and cultures, and
thus posits the separation and the possible purity of both. Regarding source and
target language and culture as separate entities which come into contact, among
others, by way of translation, underlies the understanding of translation as in-
terlingual and intercultural communication, which was also our starting point in
the discussion paper. One line of thinking (not pursued in our discussion paper)
would be to stick to this separation and purity and say (in a rather prescriptive
way) that a translation (i.e., the product) should conform to the rules and ex-
pectations of the target language and culture, or in other words, it should not
threaten the purity of the target language and culture. Our line of thinking, how-
ever, went the other way: we hypothesised that the target text did not conform
to the rules and expectations of the target language and culture, and deliberately
so, and that as a (initial) result the text may be perceived as threatening to the
‘purity’ of the target language and culture, thus causing a situation of contact
which is perceived as a conflict. So when Pym argues “[a]nd if imagined purity
is some kind of opposite of hybrids, […] translations help it rather than hinder
it”, he has read in(to) our discussion paper a wish for purity which we had not
intended.
Pym develops his ideas by linking them to arguments by Horace and
Schleiermacher who wanted “to preserve the ideal of belonging as non-hybrid”.
Pym calls this attitude, and indeed ‘all binary translation theory’ as ‘fundamen-
tally reactionary’. This argument leads on to the status of the source text, or in-
deed the status of any original text and can be developed in the following way:
would it be necessary to establish in each act and event of translation whether
the ST itself is ‘pure’ and in conformity with the SL rules and source culture
norms and conventions or not? Some translation scholars have discussed this
under headings such as ‘how to deal with mistakes in the ST?’, or ‘what to do
when the ST is written poorly?’, for example, Newmark (1991). Professional
associations have even set up guidelines for translators and commissioners alike
(e.g., Standard ISO 9000 – see The Linguist Vol. 37. N. 3. 1998:131). Associ-
ated questions would then be, for example, how much freedom does the trans-
lator have to correct mistakes, to use a higher style or register for the TT, or to
make other changes? Translation scholars who argue that translation is repro-
ducing the ST, both in content and in style, would give different answers to
those of scholars who work within functionalist approaches and who argue that

the purpose of the TT provides objective justification for any changes and/or
corrections should these be considered necessary.
We can also extend the argument to original texts in the target culture.
Very often it is argued, especially by textlinguistic and functionalist approaches
to translation, that a translator should look at parallel texts, i.e., original texts of
the target language of the same genre or texttype as the ST to be translated, in
order to find out what the genre or text-typological conventions are. The aim is
to produce a TT which is appropriately structured according to the target con-
ventions. But how can the translator be sure that the parallel texts he or she
studies are ‘pure’, i.e., that they really conform to the conventions of the target
language and culture? Within the field of text-linguistic approaches, a few com-
parative analyses of genres have been undertaken (e.g., Göpferich 1995, and the
contributions in Trosborg 1997), but there are not yet sufficient results, we do
not yet have a large number of genre profiles for two languages. One of the rea-
sons for this is obviously that not all original texts do indeed conform to the
conventions or a profile. As Wilss argues, “The classification of texts with a
view to establishing a correlation between text and text type makes sense, albeit
in a somewhat idealised fashion. However, it seems that, at least for the time
being, text-oriented TS, besides its attempt to discover text type-specific trans-
lation regularities, must be aware that a large portion of texts contains an ‘epi-
sodic’ element with stylistically more or less marked options. [...] The occur-
rence side by side of (rhetorically) obligatory and (stylistically) optional text
elements varies from text type to text type, and the translator has to proceed ac-
cordingly.” (Wilss 1996:21).
In his argument about assumed purity of original texts Pym does not fo-
cus on the text as such, linking on instead to the role and status of the translator.
He points out that translation theories have argued that translations can be con-
ceived of as being hybrids, “since that preserves the illusory purity of non-
translations as non-hybrids.” Translators are expected to be faithful, loyal, or
members of the target culture. Taking issue with this expectation, Pym says, “it
seems to me that translators, by the very nature of their plural competences, […]
are quite likely to live and work in the cultural overlaps or intersections marked
by hybridisation, in what I would like to call ‘intercultural space’”. For him,
translators, as people, are more likely to be hybrids than are the texts they pro-
duce. Bringing in the translator as a person, i.e., the human aspect, which we
did not consider in the discussion paper, opens up additional areas for research.
It might well be that the texts we would describe as hybrid texts, by sticking to
our definition (cf. hypothesis A), were produced by translators who can be
called hybrids in Pym’s definition. It may well be that such translators, because
they are more aware and conscious of cultural overlaps, differences, or peculi-
arities, are more likely to give expression to this awareness in the text itself (cf.

Simeoni’s (1998) concept of the translator’s habitus, which may be fruitful in

this respect).
Similarly to Simon and Snell-Hornby, Pym refers to the fact that hybridity
is not necessarily the result of a translation process, but a fact of the increas-
ingly intercultural nature of source text generation processes. As we have al-
ready said above, we do not deny that hybrid texts can come into being by
means other than translations. In the discussion paper, however, we wanted to
look at those texts that are indeed results of a translation process. It will be in-
teresting to compare features of hybrid texts (i.e., in our understanding) with
features of other ‘hybrid texts’ that are not translations in order to see whether
these features are identical, different, or more or less prominent in translations.
Such a comparative analysis would require large corpora (cf. Baker 1995).
Although supporting our arguments, Neubert rejects the very term ‘hybrid
text’ as ‘providing a wrong track’. He argues that “the ‘hybrid’ nature of any
translation may be caused by a great variety of objective and subjective consid-
erations. And it is the description and, possibly, explanation of the layered
structure of a particular target text that has to be aimed at. Against this desid-
eratum hybridity is but a surface phenomenon”. This is an interpretation which
we have to accept, based on our argument about the status of ‘text’ above, but it
is an interpretation which does not correspond to our original intention. We did
not intend to stop at the surface level of the text, identifying surface level fea-
tures and calling them hybrid, then maybe counting them and saying that a cer-
tain percentage of such features would justify calling the text as a whole a hy-
brid text. We did indeed intend to proceed to the next step as well, and try to
establish the ‘great variety of objective and subjective considerations’, or more
precisely, to specify the considerations which may have played a decisive role
in the particular socio-historical context in which the translation was performed.
CONCLUSION
In the comments from the respondents, it has become clear that the phenomenon
of the hybrid text involves greater complexity than had initially been defined in
the original discussion paper. One fact, stressed by several of the respondents, is
that hybrid texts are not only, or not necessarily the product of a translation pro-
cess. Our current world is characterised by an increasing globalisation and in-
ternationalisation of political, economic, cultural, etc. discourse practices. This
has led us to a reformulation of our first hypothesis (see above), and repeated
here:
Hybrid texts, in addition to being products of text production in a specific cultural space,
which is often in itself an intersection of different cultures, can also result from a translation
process.

We would therefore argue that the concept of the hybrid text is a useful one in
attempting to describe and understand particular phenomena of translation as
one form of intercultural communication. Furthermore, the same concept can
also be of use in seeking to identify features of texts produced in a multicultural
situation whether or not these are subsequently (to be) translated. Hybridity has
been shown to be a constituting characteristic of social interaction resulting
mainly from the contemporary globalisation of communication and from the ef-
fects of communication in spaces of fuzzy or merging borders, which in turn
affect cultural and linguistic identities.
Hybrid texts do exist, they are a feature of contemporary intercultural
communication. They come into existence either as original texts or as products
of translation. For the purpose of analysis, they are also (but not merely) a heu-
ristic tool. As such, they are a point of departure for describing specific features
of a text. What is clear, however, is that the concept of hybridity in texts can be
studied from a variety of perspectives, not only for their usefulness as a tool for
analysis of translated texts but also in the context of developing a greater under-
standing of intercultural communication and the way in which perceptions of
one culture are formed and perpetuated in another culture. The different con-
tributors have thus pointed to the need for further research in these areas, as
well as bringing fresh insights into how this concept can be used within Trans-
lation Studies.
References
Agar, M. 1992. The Intercultural Frame. Paper delivered at the LAUD Symposium. Duisburg:
March 1992.
Baker, M. 1995. Corpora in Translation Studies: An Overview and Suggestions for Future Re-
search. Target Vol. 7. N. 2. 223–243.
Chesterman, A. 1997. Memes of Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Delisle, J. & Woodsworth, J. (eds.) 1995. Translators through History. Amsterdam: Benjamins
and UNESCO Publishing.
Göpferich, S. 1995. Textsorten in Naturwissenschaft und Technik. Pragmatische Typologie –
Kontrastierung – Translation. Tübingen: Narr.
Hermans, T. 1998. Translation and Normativity. In: Current Issues in Language and Society Vol.
5. N. 1/2: 1–2.
Hönig, H. & Kußmaul, P. 1982. Strategie der Übersetzung. Ein Lehr- und Arbeitsbuch. Tübingen:
Narr. (4th edition 1991).
House, J. 1981. A Model for Translation Quality Assessment. Tübingen: Narr.
Macura, V. 1990. Culture as Translation. In: Bassnett, S. & Lefevere, A. (eds.) Translation, His-
tory and Culture. London and New York: Pinter. 64–70.
Neubert, A. 1968. Pragmatische Aspekte der Übersetzung. In: Grundfragen der Übersetzungswis-
senschaft. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift Fremdsprachen II, 21–34.
Newmark, P. 1991. About Translation. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Nord, C. 1997. Translating as a Purposeful Activity. Functionalist Approaches Explained. Man-
chester: St. Jerome.
Reiss, K. 1971. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Übersetzungskritik. Munich: Hueber.

Reiss, K. & Vermeer, H. J. 1991. Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie, 2nd edi-
tion (Linguistische Arbeiten 147), Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Robinson, D. 1995. The Translator’s Habit. London: Routledge.
Schäffner, C. (ed.) 2000. Translation in the Global Village. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Schäffner, C. & Adab, B. 1997. Translation as intercultural communication – contact as conflict.
In: Snell-Hornby, M., Jettmarova, Z. & Kaindl, K. (eds.) Translation as Intercultural Com-
munication. Selected Papers from the EST Congress – Prague 1995. Amsterdam: Ben-
jamins. 1997. 325–337.
Simeoni, D. 1998. The Pivotal Status of the Translator’s Habitus. Target Vol. 10. N. 1. 1–39.
Toury, G. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Trosborg, A. 1997. Translating Hybrid Political Texts. In: Trosborg, A. (ed.) Text Typology and
Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. 145–158.
Trosborg, A. (ed.) 1997. Text Typology and Translation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Ben-
jamins.
Wilss, W. 1996. Knowledge and Skills in Translator Behaviour. Amsterdam and Philadelphia:
Benjamins.
Venuti, L. 1995. The Translator’s Invisibility. London: Routledge.

Adab e Schaffner (2001)

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Adab e Schaffner (2001)

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2), pp.

THE IDEA OF THE HYBRID TEXT IN TRANSLATION

CHRISTINA SCHÄFFNER & BEVERLY ADAB

THE DISCUSSION PAPER AS TEXT

1585-1923 © 2001, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

THE NOTION OF HYBRIDITY AND THE DEFINITION OF

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

convincing evidence. There is more to be said about the emergence, function,

This perception of hybridity therefore relates to TL user expectancy norms (cf.

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

ess of hybridisation consists in the blurring of the very notion of identity.”

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

HOW DOES A HYBRID TEXT COME INTO BEING?

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

the discussion paper. On the contrary, we do want to regard them as ‘cultural

FUNCTIONS OF HYBRID TEXTS

Most respondents to the discussion paper speak of functions of a hybrid text in

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

ideas, by deploying a rich and varied inventory of translational procedures.” It

HYBRID PHENOMENA AT VARIOUS LEVELS

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

This notion of a ‘hybrid culture’ could be said to apply to the EU scientific

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

sideration it deserves. In the discussion paper, we were mainly thinking of cul-

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

TO WHICH GENRES DOES THE NOTION OF THE HYBRID

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

EFFECTS OF HYBRID TEXTS

Assuming the existence of hybrid texts as TT, i.e., as products of translation,

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

misunderstandings which in turn generate new ideologies and paradigms within

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

THE STATUS OF A HYBRID TEXT IN TRANSLATION

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

“translation is not a transportation but a deportation, not a replacement but a

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

velopment. In other words, we catch a text in the process, making it static in a

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Simeoni’s (1998) concept of the translator’s habitus, which may be fruitful in

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Across Languages and Cultures 2 (2) (2001)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen