Main Article Content



The concept of translation norm has occupied a prominent place in Translation Studies as a terminological challenge for scholars and the reflection of their research fields. The emergence and internalisation of norms is a natural consequence of the socialisation process since norms can be also used as evaluation criteria for certain social (permissible and acceptable) behaviours. However, the operation of norms in translation is hard to be observed: the objects of direct observation are products of the translation process and results of norm-governed translator behaviour. A question might be asked whether norms hinder or rather facilitate the process – a potential answer suggests the dependence of norm application on the translator’s experience and knowledge accrued as factors central for successful performance. These factors are manifested in the performance of professional translators and interpreters, therefore the article focuses initially on the concept of professionalism in translation and interpreting. This is followed by a brief introduction of the notion of norms positioned in the context of translating and interpreting legal texts. The article closes with the presentation of the survey conducted among translation and interpreting trainees.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite


  1. Bühler, Hildegund. 1986. „Linguistic (semantic) and extra-linguistic (pragmatic) criteria for the evaluation of conference interpretation and interpreters”. In Multilingua 5, 4:. 231 - 235.
  2. Chesterman, Andrew. 1993. “From 'is' to 'ought': translation laws, norms and strategies”. In Target 5/1: 1-20.
  3. Diriker, Ebru. 1999. "Problematizing the discourse on interpreting - A quest for norms in simultaneous interpreting". In TexTconTexT 132: 73-90.
  4. Fraser, Janet. 2000, “What Do Real Translators Do? Developing the Use of TAPs from professional Translators”. In Tapping and Mapping the Processes of Translation and Interpreting, ed. Sonia Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 111-119. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  5. Hermans, Theo. 1985. The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation. London and Sydney: Croom Helm.
  6. Hermans, Theo. 1991. “Translational Norms and Correct Translations”. In Translation Studies: the State of the Art. Proceedings of the First James s Holmes Symposium on Translation Studie, ed. Kitty M. van Leuwen-Zwart and Ton
  7. Naaijkens, 155-169. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Editions Rodopi B. V.
  8. Hermans, Theo. 1996. “Norms and the Determination of Translation. A Theoretical Framework”. In Translation, Power and Subversion, ed. R. Alvarez and M.C.A. Vidal, 93-110. Clevedon-Philadelphia-Adelaide: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
  9. Jopek-Bosiacka, Anna. 2006. Przekład prawny i sądowy. Warszawa: PWN.
  10. Kadric, Mira., Klaus. Kaindl and Franz Pöchhacker. 2000. Translationswissenschaft. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag.
  11. Kopczyński, Andrzej. 1994. “Quality in conference interpreting: Some pragmatic problems”. In Bridging the gap. Empirical Research in simultaneous interpretation, eds. Sylvie Lambert and Barbara Moser-Mercer, 87-100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  12. Kościałkowska-Okońska, Ewa. 2008. “Kryteria jakości w ewaluacji przekładu ustnego”. In Rocznik Przekładoznawczy 3. Studia nad teorią, praktyką i dydaktyką przekładu, ed. Ewa Kościałkowska-Okońska and Lech Zieliński, 105-117. Toruń: Wydawnictwo UMK.
  13. Kurz, Ingrid. 1989. “Conference Interpreting: User Expectations”. In Coming of Age: Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the American Translators Association, ed. D.L.Hammond,143-148. Medford/New Jersey: Learned
  14. Information.
  15. Kurz, Ingrid. 1993. „Conference Interpretation: Expectations of different user groups”. In The Interpreter’s Newsletter,5:13-21. Universita degli Studi di Trieste, SSLM.
  16. Marrone, Stefano. 1993. “Quality: A Shared Objective”. In The Interpreter’s Newsletter, 5: 35-41.
  17. Mesa, Anne-Marie. 2000. “The Cultural Interpreter: An Appreciated Professional. Results of a Study on Interpreting Services: Client, Health Care Worker and Interpreter Points of View”. In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, ed. Roda P. Roberts and Silvana E.Carr, 67-79. Amsterdam/ Philadephia: John Benjamins.
  18. Moser, Peter. 1995. Simultanes Konferenzdolmetschen. Anforderungen und Erwartungen der Benutzer. Endbericht, im Auftrag von AIIC. Wien: SRZ Stadt- und Regionalforschung.
  19. Pöchhacker, Franz. 2000. “The Community Interpreter’s Task: Self-Perception and Provider Views”. In The Critical Link 2: Interpreters in the Community, ed. Roda .P. Roberts and Silvana E.Carr, 49-65. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins.
  20. Pöchhacker, Franz and Miriam Schlesinger. 2002. The Interpreting Studies Reader. London/New York: Routledge
  21. Šarčević, Susan. 2000. New approach to legal translations. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
  22. Schäffner, Christina. 1999. Translation and norms. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
  23. Schjoldager, Anne. 2002. "An exploratory study of translational norms in simultaneous interpreting: methodological reflections". In The Interpreting Studies Reader, ed. Franz Pöchhacker and Miriam Shlesinger, 300-311. London: Routledge.
  24. Shlesinger, Miriam. 1989. "Extending the theory of translation to interpretation: Norms as a case in Point". In Target 1: 1: 111-15.
  25. Shlesinger, Miriam. 2000. "Interpreting as a Cognitive Process: How can we know what really happens?". In Tapping and mapping the processes of translation and interpreting: outlooks on empirical research, ed. Sonia Tirkkonen-Condit and Riitta Jääskeläinen, 3-15. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  26. Toury, Gideon. 1980. In Search of a Theory of Translation. Tel Aviv: The Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics.
  27. Toury, Gideon. 1995. Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  28. Wadensjö, Cecilia. 1998. Interpreting as Interaction. London/New York: Longman.