# data[].attributes.body
Since a translator’s job is inherently connected to at least two different cultures and the norms that govern them, when translating a text it is imperative that the translator decides which set of norms will have a higher influence on their work. The adequacy pole involves adherence to the source text’s norms, and the acceptability pole involves adherence to the target culture’s norms.

This decision can in many ways determine the final translation’s effect on its target audience. A more adequate translation would be better for introducing parts of the source culture, and would more effectively influence the readers by imposing them with what could very well be alien notions, ideas, expressions, or, simply, words. A translation that more closely leans towards the pole of acceptability, on the other hand, would be more effective at conveying the original text’s message, since it is always more easy to understand something when it is being explained in a way we are familiar with, without being distracted by new ideas, concepts, or words.

In the provided example, the first is a translation that leans towards adequacy and the second on is one that leans towards acceptability. Neither is agrammatical or incorrect, but one conveys the original text’s message more naturally, without introducing a very culturally specific expression that may otherwise distract the reader. And since this seems to be a news article, I would argue that the message should be conveyed in a way that both easily grasps the readers' attention as well as keeps them focused on the story.

# data[].attributes.body
Considering the task at hand, in connection with the ideas that Toury develops in his book, I am more inclined to choose the second option (acceptability pole) so as to accurately convey the intentions of the source text or testimony. The first version (adequacy pole), on the contrary, is of such fidelity to the original words that forces the reader to enter the original culture, perhaps causing a sense of confusion. As Toury mentions, it is an adherence to source norms.
Toury explains that translation is an activity of cultural significance, in which translators play a social role, and so therefore translation cannot be thought of in an abstract sense. As translators, we have to position ourselves in a certain context and cultural tradition, a norm system (as Toury calls it), and from that perspective attempt to convey the message which the source text intended as successfully as possible, by choosing to adhere to the pole of adequacy or the pole of acceptability, or a balanced combination or compromise of both. However, as discussed in class, a translator’s decisions will be governed or heavily influenced by norms that weigh on the activity of the translator and motivate their behavior (such as the “uomo pipistrello” translation for “Batman” during a particular social and political context).
To conclude, and taking into consideration that in the given example of the “breadwinner”, the acceptability pole would definitely be more suitable, I believe that, as mentioned, context and other factors play a key role in the approach a translator may choose. Therefore, one must not choose to adhere to the adequacy pole or the acceptability pole as a strict norm, but rather explore both alternatives and try to convey the original message as accurately as possible. As Toury defines, a translation will be any target language text which is presented or regarded (which includes all the micro level decisions that a translator may face in the process).

# data[].attributes.body
Gideon Toury explains that when we as translators perform under different conditions, we need to adopt different strategies and, therefore, we come up with different products. He also regards translation as a norm-governed activity which inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions (meaning, two sets of norm-systems on each level).

Moreover, Toury also states that a translator may subject him or herself to the original text, with the norms it has realized (adequacy), or to the norms active in the target culture (acceptability). He continues explaining that adherence to source norms determines a translation’s adequacy, whereas subscription to norms originating in the target culture its acceptability.

Taking into account the concepts of adequacy and acceptability explained by Toury, we could say that the first translation is a clear example of adequacy due to the fact that it seems that the translation matches exactly the same words of the original text. Therefore, as the translation is subject to the original text, I consider that the message of what the woman intended to say was not correctly conveyed.

Regarding the second translation, it is an example of acceptability due to the fact that it takes into account the norms of the target culture so that the message is delivered and understood correctly. The translator has the intention of delivering the same message the speaker wanted to give by adapting it to the culture of the target audience so that they can understand the message.

All in all, I consider that choosing the acceptability pole in this case would be the best decision due to the fact that it conveys the message in a clear manner.

# data[].attributes.body
Toury states that there are two possible and opposing approaches when translating: on one hand, we can refer to the “adequacy” of the translation, meaning that the elements (or norms) that belong (socially and culturally) to the source language may be included in the translation and thus making the reader of the translation approach the source culture; and on the other hand, we can talk about the “acceptability” pole, which involves leaving behind (or shifting) the elements of the source language and replacing those elements with others that are familiar to the target reader’s culture (target-oriented translation).

If we apply Toury’s concepts, we can say that the first translation tends towards the adequacy pole (it is subject to the original text) and the second translation tends towards the acceptability pole (it is subject to the norms or elements of the target language).
I believe that there are no rights or wrongs in this situation. The election of the translator concerning his or her approach must be based on his or her intentions: if s/he wants the text to sound natural to the target reader, then s/he should go for the second option (“he was the breadwinner for the family”) but if s/he believes that the words used in the source language symbolize something meaningful in that culture or society, it is worth considering a literary translation such as “he used to take them their fruit and their chicken”. Of course, this will not only depend on the wishes and intentions of the translator; there will also be other norms that may govern this choice (such as the requirements of the person(s) requesting the translation or the text-type where this translation is to be included, for example).

# data[].attributes.body
As Toury explains, translation is a norm-governed activity which will always involve at least two languages and thus two types of norm-systems. As translators we play a social role, meaning that we must be able to convey the message intended by the speaker or writer in their source language as its closest natural equivalent in the target language. We can see clearly how translation activities have a cultural significance and why translators must be well-prepared.

In the text provided, we can see a perfect example of what Toury calls the pole of adequacy (“[th]eir fruit and [th]eir chicken") and the pole of acceptability (“the breadwinner”). It is very clear why the pole of adequacy is not the best alternative in this case: it does not convey the message clearly and it will most likely lead to an inaccurate understanding of the phrase. A literal translation creates problems in a culture in the same way as the “Lamb of God” phrase from the Bible would be unfamiliar and symbolize nothing in the Eskimo culture, as Nida proposes when explaining the dichotomy between “formal vs. dynamic equivalence”. Conversely, the pole of acceptability proves to be the best option since the term “breadwinner” conveys the exact message that the speaker had in mind, proving to be its closest natural equivalent.

In spite of the above, we must bear in mind that most of the time translators come across texts in which the decision between the pole of adequacy, the pole of acceptability or a combination of both is not as “unchallenging” as this one.

# data[].attributes.body
As Toury writes in his book, translation activities should be regarded as having cultural significance. Translators performing texts under different conditions often adopt different strategies and ultimately come up with markedly different products. According to Toury, norms are the key concept and focal point in any attempt to account for the social relevance of activities because their existence are the main factor ensuring the establishment and retention of social order.

Translation inevitably involves at least two languages and two cultural traditions.  Thus, when faced with a translation, the translator has to make a basic choice (known as "the initial norm") to decide to go for an adequate or an acceptable translation.

The first translation is an example of the notion of adequacy. There is a breach in the message the author tends to convey because it leads to an inaccurate understanding. As Toury explains in his book, the persons-in-the-culture can often tell when a translator has failed to adhere to sanctioned practices.

The second translation follows the acceptability rule: The translator decides to adapt the text to the target language. Under this practice, the translator conveys the original meaning, which is that Santiago is the person who supports financially the family. The term "breadwinner" allows the audience to undestand clearly the message.

# data[].attributes.body
When comparing both translations, it is clear that the translators took two different approaches.  By using the term "the breadwinner," the translator applied the acceptability principle. If we consider the phrase "[th]eir fruit and [th]eir chicken," it is clear that the translator used the adequacy principle. In my opinion, in this case, when deciding to use the acceptability approach because the reader of the text will understand more easily the meaning of the text if the translator does not render a literal translation.
Translators consider many factors when rendering a translation (who will read the text, if the text will be published somewhere, among others.) One of those factors is what the client wants and expects of a translation. In this case, if the client expects a word-by-word translation, translators should be open to making that change or, if possible, try to speak to the client and explain the reason behind a particular choice and why that choice works better. If not possible, the translator may need to yield to the desires of the client.

All in all, the examples show that there are different ways to translate the same term, and it will depend on the approach the translator decides to use. However, context is not the only factor that will determine if a translator chooses the acceptability or the adequacy principle. Even if one is the most natural choice in the target language, what the client wants may make the translator change their approach.

# data[].attributes.body
It is clear that cultural significance plays a pivotal role in translation activities, as Toury states. This means that any translator must be aware of certain types of sociocultural or temporal constraints, among others, which shape the norms that must be considered by them when conveying a message.
Then, a translator must also decide which will be the approach to take when translating a text. As Toury explains, he or she may decide to adhere to the norms of the source text, and therefore he or she will also be subscribing to the norms of the source language and culture, which is known as the adequacy approach. However, Toury also suggests that a translator may go for the acceptability approach, where he or she will subscribe to the norms of the target culture.
In this regard, I personally believe that the best choice is to translate the given text as 'he was the “breadwinner” for the family', since my translation methods relate more to the acceptability pole. Further, the message Victoria gives is very clear: Santiago was the one providing for the family. So, this idea will be better understood if 'breadwinner' is used, since that term conveys the meaning that we want to express, in accordance with the norms of the target language.

# data[].attributes.body
As toury explains in depth, context is of the essence, and a translator must fulfill his/her role as an intermediary by enabling the recipient to understand the message of the emissor, that is, focusing first and foremost on delivering the message. The actual way in which the message is delivered comes a close second.

With that in mind, Toury proposes two opposite poles, the pole of adequacy and the pole of acceptability, as well as an in-between which covers a vast sea of possibilities to explore.

I do believe there is a time and place for everything, and depending on how the circumstances align, opting for the more rigid pole of adequacy can give birth to a successful translation, even though exploring the more flexible pole of acceptability, or the middle-ground, tends to be much more appealing.

However, the first translation is a perfect example of circumstances for the pole of adequacy not quite aligning, and the translation arising thereof comes out as clunky and unnatural. Thus, it fails to convey the message it sets out to.

The second translation, though, by being draped in the pole of acceptability, it conveys the idea of Santiago providing for his family much more elegantly, so in this case, it proves to be the superior choice by a mile.

# data[].attributes.body
In his book, Toury explains that translations are a norm-governed activity and that they inevitably involve at least two languages and two cultural traditions. The author further states that it is the job of the translator to choose which norms they are to subscribe, the ones that apply to the target culture or to the source language. In order to make such decision, context should and must be taken into consideration as it is a vital element.

The first translation is faithful to the words of the witness. It translates from one language into the other by using words that match in meaning and let the reader come into contact with the Peruvian Culture. In this case, the translator clearly chose the adequation pole, as Toury names it.  Although it is valid to use this pole, I think that it was not the correct choice to make since it may confuse a person that is not familiarized with Peruvian culture. As a consequence, the intention behind the woman’s words are not translated into the target language. In this context, I believe that understanding the true meaning behind “fruit and chicken” is of vital importance as it was a detail the witness must have added so that others could empathize with her and her cause.

On the other hand, the second translation is clearly influenced by the acceptability pole, where the translator tries to recreate the intentions of the speaker in a way in which the target audience may easily understand them. This pole is useful for conveying the witness’ intention to create empathy.

After taking into account the context and analyzing whether every individual within the target audience would understand the message in its totality, I think that choosing the acceptability pole is a much more friendly decision than using the adequation pole. However, if the aim of this translation were to share Peruvian customs, the adaptability pole would be more suited.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Toury, when faced with a text to translate, a translator  makes the choice between adequacy or acceptability. Or even the translator will decide to go for a combination or both extremes implied by the initial norm.

In the first translation “he used to take them their fruit and their chicken” the translator chose an adequate approach, which means he/she chose to subscribe to the norms of the source text and through them also to the norms of the source language and culture.

In the second translation “he was the breadwinner for the family” the translator chose an acceptable approach, which means he/she subscribed to the norms of the target culture.

Given the context of the translation, one would understand that the translator tried to keep it as literal and loyal to the original text as possible, and that is why decided to go for “take them their fruit and their chicken ''. If someone from the same culture reads the translation he/she may understand the reference that Santiago was the one that supported his family economically. But the misunderstanding may arise if someone that does not know about certain aspects of that culture reads that phrase and does not get the reference.

On the other hand, in the second translation the translator decided to shift from the source text and adopted a stance that would convey the original meaning but with a change of words that it is not so literal. So, anyone that reads that phrase would understand the important role that Santiago played in his family.

Toury explains that translation should be regarded as having a cultural significance, and that the translator plays a social role. So, in my opinion, the second translation may be a better decision because it guarantees that whoever reads that phrase (and in any context) may understand what it means and thus it communicates the meaning of the original text.

# data[].attributes.body
Broadly speaking, I am inclined to side with those who advocate for foreignization in translations, especially in the field of SPA>ENG translations, because there is an existing trend towards “domestication” that is deeply intertwined with the processes of globalization and  with the power and influence that the first world exerts on third-world or marginalized regions and their respective languages that we need to counteract (when appropriate.) Otherwise, we lose our linguistic heritage day by day. There is a proclivity to yield to the fashions, manners, and ways of speaking of those dominating high-and-mighty societies or cultures, to the detriment of those who lack the resources (mainly, financial ones) and who do not play a central role in the geopolitical arena. Those who wield power have a higher chance of disseminating or promoting the use of their languages and expressions all over the world. This is perhaps one of the reasons why English is nowadays the “world language,” the language of business, etc. I see this reflected when, for instance, a Spanish speaker uses English words in his/her everyday speech in Spanish-speaking environments. However, they do not use Spanish words in English-speaking environments. I attribute this to a centuries-old intersectional process of proselytization of the English language… and I dare guessing it is not even an intentional mental process, but it has been incepted. However, this kind of reading belongs to ideological beliefs (which sometimes have to be set aside.)

Notwithstanding the foregoing, in this case, I do not consider defending “the foreign” by delivering a literal or more word-for-word translation (as provided in the first alternative) worthy. Because this is a court decision, not a piece of art/literature where the text would profit from the interesting fact that in Peruvian households, they eat chicken and fruits (or that chicken is typical of Peruvian cuisine.) It could not be argued that in the second alternative there is a destruction of the underlying networks of signification, since the rendering conveys the meaning that her son was “the provider,” which is, I reckon, the focal point of the original statement. “Traer el pollo a la casa” may be classified as an idiom of the Peruvian jargon (within the boundaries of the Spanish language) and the term “being the breadwinner in the family” sheds some light on the meaning of it for English speakers. The aim of the wording of a court decision should be for as many people as possible to understand what happened in the case and what its outcome was, instead of providing entertainment (as one would most likely expect from a novel, for instance, trying to guess what the author tried to express.) It is worth reminding the existence of the plain English rule that is promoted by a vast number of linguists and lawyers (and even by governments through the enactment of statutes on the issue.) So, in this case, translating the source relevant extract in a more literal fashion would be plainly ridiculous. Letting the input language interfere with the target text here “in order to counter deculturation” would confuse the readership instead of making it easier for them to understand the judgment. If I was providing translation services for the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, I would certainly not adhere to the first translation alternative (for fear of getting fired.) Further, I allow myself to doubt whether the use of domesticating techniques is convenient when translating legal texts. Law is a specialized field, it speaks its own language (i.e., legalese.) In the instant case, the loss of the essence or gist of the original wording is the right approach (which would not be the case for literary translations, probably.) Of course, a choice of such kind is always contingent on the context, otherwise, we risk incurring a qualitative impoverishment of our productions.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Toury, translation is a norm-governed type of behaviour. In this sense, it involves at least two languages and two cultures and at least two sets of norm-systems on each level. This is why during the translation process, the translator has a basic choice to make, which constitutes the initial norm. This means that, when faced with a text, a translator makes a choice between adequacy or acceptability. The first translation can be regarded as an example of an adequate one given that it tends to subscribe to the norms of the source text, and through them also to the norms of the source language and culture. In this case, the result is a translation a little confusing because it does not covey exactly the same message of the original. When Victoria Margarita said: (…) “les llevaba [s]u fruta y [s]u pollo”, she wanted to express the idea that Santiago was the one who supported financially the family, in other words, that he was the breadwinner. But, when we read this translation we do not get this idea.

On the other hand, the second translation subscribes to norms and practices of the target culture, which means that the translator adopts the acceptability approach. In this case, the translator goes beyond the mere linguistic norms and takes into consideration the target culture and tradition.

In my opinion, in this context, the second translation conveys the same idea of the original message and the readers can understand how important was Santiago´s role in his family. For these reasons, I believe that the second translation works better.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that, given the context (which is of vital importance when beginning the translation process) of the statement made by Santiago's mother and the message that this person intends to convey, the second translation is more suitable. The first translation represents the notion of adequacy, and thanks to the literacy of the words used, we could be led to misinterpretations; we could infer from that paragraph that Santiago's primary role in the family was to bring chicken and fruit to his siblings and his mother, when in fact, if we take a closer look, it was just an example of something broader, or bigger.
The second translation accounts for acceptability, which means that there is a shift from the source text because the translator relies on usage in the target language and the translation is oriented to the receptor of the message.
The second translation better reflects the message that Victoria wants to convey. Using the word "breadwinner" in this context means that readers will know that Santiago had a very important function in the family, and that he cared a lot for his family. He was the person who supported them financially. If readers cannot infer Santiago's role in the family from the translation, his mother's message will not be appreciated as it should.
As Toury states, a translator plays a social role, and the norms that come into play when the translation process begins are meant for the translator to choose wisely between an adequacy-oriented approach, an acceptability-oriented one or maybe a combination of both, in order to communicate the message correctly.

# data[].attributes.body
Given the context of the phrase and the emotive message it was intended to convey, I believe that the adequate translation proposed in the first version does not clearly communicate the meaning of the original phrase.  In fact, the message can even be misconstrued and one can get the idea that the family lives upon fruits and chicken. The second translation, however, follows the principle of acceptability and takes into account both cultural traditions, the one from the source text and the one from the target text, thus successfully communicating the original message in a way that the recipient clearly understands the meaning of the entire expression.

# data[].attributes.body
Paying attention to both translations, we can say that the first one tries to keep the message as natural as possible by translating it using adequacy. This happens because we are facing a judicial context, where words can be literally used in order to retain the original meaning and words used by the person who expressed them. While, the second one tries to transmit the true meaning of the message, without adhering to the literal words.

From my point of view, it is important to say that the first translation does not communicate the message in its purest meaning. The main idea to be expressed here is that of "a person who keeps bringing food for his/her family" and not only fruit and chicken. Furthermore, if we translate the message in that way, we are reducing the deepest meaning of that utterance, which is, as mentioned before, the idea of being the family's breadwinner. If we only say "fruit" and "chicken", it can be understood that the family only eats that kind of food every single day and night.

To conclude, I believe that in this context and having this message in front of us, it is better (for us as translators) to translate it by applying the acceptability technique rather than the adequacy one, because the second one can create confusion among the people who speak the target language.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, the first translation does not convey the message of the original text because the phrase ' les llevaba su fruta y su pollo' does not mean that they used to eat fruit and chicken brought by Santiago every day. This phrase has a meaning that cannot be found in any dictionary. The phrase can only be understood if the translator knows the culture of the source language. In this case, 'les llevaba su fruta y su pollo' means that Santiago was the breadwinner (in Argentina, it means ' traer el pan a la casa') for the family. For this reason, the second translation is more accurate and can be easily understood by any reader of the target language. Gideon Toury states that if a translator decides to respect the norms of the source text ( its grammar, syntax, culture, etc), it may sound weird and foreign to readers of the target language. On the other hand, if a translator pays more attention to the message that the author wanted to convey, the final translation will be more natural and closer to the culture of the target language. I think it is important to understand that a translator does not repeat paragraphs from one language into another language. A translator must understand the foreign language at a grammatical and cultural level.

# data[].attributes.body
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos Caso Gómez Palomino Vs. Perú Sentencia de 22 de noviembre de 2005 (Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas)
a) Testimonio de la señora Victoria Margarita Palomino Buitrón, madre del señor Santiago Gómez Palomino. La testigo tiene 62 años de edad y vive con sus hijas y su hijo en la ciudad de Lima. Al enterarse de la detención y desaparición de su hijo Santiago Gómez Palomino, ocurrida el 9 de julio de 1992, no “sabía que hacer”. (...) Buscó a su hijo por todas partes: en la morgue, el Palacio de Justicia y los hospitales, y de nuevo, nadie le informó sobre su paradero. Acudió a “Derechos Humanos” y a “Personas Desaparecidas”. (...) . Sufre mucho porque su hijo era bastante cariñoso con ella y con sus hermanos, les llevaba “[s]u fruta y [s]u pollo”. No puede estar tranquila desde que su hijo está desaparecido y quisiera que encontraran su cuerpo para ponerle flores y poder decir “ahí está él”.
Consider these two translations and post your views and opinions on this mural:
She suffers a great deal because her son was quite affectionate with her and with his brother and sisters; he used to take them "[th]eir fruit and [th]eir chicken."
*    *   *
She suffers dearly because her son was very affectionate with her and his brother and sisters; he was the “breadwinner” for the family.

# data[].attributes.body
In his book "Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond", Toury states a series of norms that govern the "decision making process" of the translator and determine the type of equivalence between the original text and its translation. Toury considers that a translator is someone who plays an social role in a community, and his decisions are influenced by cultural norms or values that serve as a guide to understand the behaviour of a certain community.
Gideon Toury speaks of norms at three levels, preliminary, initial and operational. Broadly speaking, initial norms are related to the translator's decision about adhering to the norms of the source system or adhering to the norms of the target system.
On one hand, the first translation reflects what Toury described as "pole of adequacy", since the cultural element of the source text (“[s]u fruta y [s]u pollo”) is reflected in the translation by means of a mechanism called "transference", in its equivalent "[th]eir fruit and [th]eir chicken." On the other hand, the second translation clearly exemplifies the search for "acceptability" in the target pole. In other words, the translation is aimed at adapting the text to the structures and cultural context of the target language. In this way, "to be the breadwinner for the family" sounds more natural and familiar to the reader, who will understand without any doubt the idea that Victoria tries to convey about his missing son: he is the one who "feeds" his family, the one who supports his family financially. The reader clearly understands the importance of the role of Santiago within his family.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that in the case of Santiago's mother the second translation will be the most accurate. As translators or interpreters we do not know if the person who receives the message will know the real meaning of the statement "Su fruta y su pollo". We could think that this person is used to the peruvian culture and as a result, understands these sayings and the translation "their fruit and their chicken" using what Toury calls Adequacy. But, I think that as professionals we should always connect cultures, and that is what Toury describes as acceptabily, that is why I believe that " the breadwinner" is more accurate than "the person who used to take them their fruit and their chicken", because the receiver will understand what Santiago meant to his mother.

# data[].attributes.body
In the translation process, translators operate both as interpreters of the source text and producers of the target text. The creative process of reproducing the message contained in the source text in another language and for another culture entails the adoption of certain strategies that may imply either a source-text oriented approach (adequacy-oriented translation) or a target-text oriented approach (acceptability-oriented translation).

The two translations provided for the utterance les llevaba “[s]u fruta y [s]u pollo serve to illustrate the translation strategies mentioned above:

(1)    he used to take them "[th]eir fruit and [th]eir chicken is a source-text oriented translation, whereas

(2)    he was the “breadwinner” for the family is a target-text oriented translation.

Since the linguistic norms and cultural background of the recipients of the target text will inevitably vary, to a lesser or greater extent, from that of the producer of the target text, I believe we should think of translators as cultural mediators who need to satisfy the needs of both of them, and this can only be accomplished by adjusting the message accordingly so that it flows naturally in the target culture.

In this sense, I believe the second version to be more accurate. I do not think that the first version is completely incorrect; most speakers of English would probably understand, to a certain extent, the message that the translator is trying to convey. Still, this version falls quite short of the quality standards I personally believe a translation must meet, especially in terms of accuracy and readability. In the second version, there is a shift from the source text that makes the translation more precise and elegant.

# data[].attributes.body
When comparing both translations, it becomes clear that translators have a mainly social role and make a preliminary decision when they decide to embark on a new translation, as Toury states. On the first translation, the translator leaned towards the adecquacy approach, adhering to the norms of the source language and thus producing a text much more tied to the original. The second translation, on the other hand, leans towards the acceptability approach, taking a number of licenses in order to detach the text from the original and bring it closer to the target culture.

Neither translation can be said to be wrong however, since both translations can work with varying degrees of success in different contexts. It depends on the context as well as the client’s needs and wishes to produce a translation that is effective and suitable.

In the case of these translations, “breadwinner” is appropriate and conveys the same concept wonderfully, but it can be understood that, when dealing with legal statements, the client would prefer a more literal, attached translation. And in that case, it is the translator’s duty to shape the target language so as to fulfil said wish.