Chapter Two Literature ReviewBefore a thorough review of literature available on the topic, let’s examine two examples, 1) 爱护文物，人人有责 (The Great Wall, App 1)A: Everybody should protect cultural relics.B: Please help to protect the cultural relics.2) 美景深藏蔚竹庵 (Mount Laoshan, App 2)A: Beautiful sights are hidden in the Weizhu Nunnery.B: For beautiful sight, please come to Weizhu Nunnery.Example 1) is a public sign at Badaling. Example 2) is a public sign in the Mount Laoshan in Qingdao. The first example calls for travelers to protect the cultural relics; the second advices travelers to visit the sight. Version A of both examples may be proper if they are used elsewhere. However in scenic spots, they are not regarded as quite satisfactory. Version As did not arouse enough attention of target readers (foreign travelers). That is they fail to exert the same effect on a target reader as the original (source text) on a source text reader (Chinese traveler). Although version Bs are different from the original in sentence structure and tone, they read more attractive. And they almost have the same functions as that of the source text. According to different purposes, the above two examples can be translated in different ways. English public signs in scenic spots are in the service of target readers. Their reaction should be taken into prime consideration. Translations in functional approach can best serve target readers. So the functional approach to translation is the key theory discussed in this thesis.2.1 Review of the Functional ApproachChristiane Nord defines “functionalism” as follows,Functionalism is a broad term for various theories that approach translation in this way. Although what will call Skopostheorie has played a major role in the development of this trend; a number of scholars subscribe to functionalism and draw inspiration from Skopostheorie without calling them anything like “skopos”. We shall thus be looking at functionalism as a broad approach, trying to distinguish between its parts wherever possibleand necessary (Nord, 2001: 1)From what Nord defines in her book, we may understand that functionalism is a broad concept, pooling together a variety of scholars and theirs approaches to translation. Functional approach includes the German school with Katharina Reiss as the founder, British scholar Peter Newmark and his semantic vs. communicative translation as well as American scholar Eugene. A. Nida and his functional equivalence.In the German school the best known names are Katharina Reiss, Hans J. Vermeer and Christiane Nord. As founder of Skopostheorie, Reiss first established a general relationship between translation strategies and text functions. Reiss’s student Vermeer put forward the concept of Skopostheorie. He defines that every translation is directed at an intended audience, since to translate means “to produce a text in a target setting for a target purpose and target addressees in target circumstances”. (Nord, 2001: 12). Later on Nord put forward the rule of “Function plus Loyalty” with regard to the limitation of Skopostheorie and the problems of radical functionalism.Peter Newmark suggests three main textual functions: informative, expressive and vocative. Different text types require different translation strategies. Semantic translation is used for expressive texts; communicative translation is used for informative and vocative texts. Of vocative texts he put forward the focus of translation is the readership. In translating informative and vocative texts, the translator is supposed to produce a version which is readily acceptable and comprehensible to the readership both in content and language and he /she is justified to improve the original text if it is poorly translated. (Newmark, 1981: 42) This provides useful guidelines for the translation of public signs, which fall in to the categories of informative and vocative texts.According to Eugene Nida, the governing principle of dynamic equivalence is to “reproduce in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language, first in terms of meaning, and secondly in terms of style” (Nida and Taber, 2004: 12) He explains it is essential that the target text functions in the same manner as the source text. The target readers are able to respond to it in substantially the same manner as the source text readers respond to the original text.In the following passages, the German school and Peter Newmark’s theory would bediscussed in detail.2.2 The Functional Approach2.2.1 Katharina Reiss and Her Text Typology TheoryIn 1971, Reiss in her book Possibilities and Limits of Translation Criticism developed a model of translation criticism based on the functional relationship between source and target texts. To her target text should be equivalent to source text in terms of conceptual content, linguistic form and communicative function. From this point we can see that she still took equivalence as the basis. However, in practice “she knew that real life presents situations where equivalence is not possible and in some cases, not even desired. (Nord, 2001: 9) Especially, when the target is intended to achieve a purpose or function other than that of the original. “In such a situation, she thinks that the functional perspective takes precedence over the normal standards of equivalence. Then translation critic can no longer rely on features derived from source-text analysis but has to judge whether the target text is functional in terms of the translation context”. (Nord, 2001: 9)Reiss is also aware that it is the overall text type, rather than the subdivisions that decide the type of equivalence to be sought and the translation strategy to be followed. If the text function is to provide information, then content must be preserved at all cost, and any “flourishes of style” can safely be sacrificed to that purpose, so that the translation method will be “plain-prose”. When there is a conflict between the functions of the ST and the TT, Reiss uses an “author-adapted” translation method to produce the same or at least a similar effect.She further divides text into three main types as content-focused text, form-focused text and appeal-focused text. Reiss generalizes her typology theory in the following form, (Reiss, 2000: 26)language function representation expression persuasion language dimension logic esthetics dialoguetext type content-focused(informative) form-focused(expressive)appeal-focused(operative)Content-focused text emphasizes content and the form is comparatively less important. When such a text is translated, the original information should be retained as intact as possible and the linguistic form of the translation should be adjusted to the target language conventions. For expressive text, form plays a vital role. Authors of form-focused texts such as literary prose and poetry often employ some formal elements to attain the original aesthetic effect. They should use similar form in translation to produce corresponding impression. The third type is appeal-focused text. This type intends convey information or provoke certain reaction. The translation must undergo certain adaptation to match the target language and the target culture.However there is not a pure informative, expressive or persuasive text. Reiss states that “…a further point should be clarified. If we draw a distinction between content-focused and from-focused text, this is not to imply that content-focused text do not have a form. Just as there can be no form of communication without some kind of content, there can be no kind of content that does not have some form.” (Reiss, 2000: 28) This is quite applicable for C-E translation of public signs which fall somewhere between informative and evocative (operative) text.Reiss’s text typology shed light on C-E translation of public signs. As one of foreign publicity material, public signs are classified as both the informative and evocative (operative) texts. Typology theory is particular valuable for the translators of public signs. They are encouraged to shift from the locking chains imposed by source text. The translators can hold a balance while selecting appropriate strategies to cope with various translation problems.2.2.2 Hans. J. Vermeer and His SkopostheorieSkopos is a Greek word for ‘purpose’. According to Skopostheorie, the prime principle determining any translation process is the purpose (skopos) of the overall translation action. (Nord, 2001: 27)Skopostheorie first assumes that translation must be a purposeful human activity. The purpose has three explanations: the translator’s purpose; the communicative purpose of the translated text; and the purpose to reach by exploiting certain special translation method. Usually the communicative purpose is the main purpose of the translated text.Skopostheorie also defines an intratextual coherence and intertextual coherence. Intratextual coherence implies a translation should be acceptable when it is coherent with the norms of the target culture. A communicative interaction can only be regarded successful if the receivers interpret it as being sufficiently coherent with their situation. (Nord, 2001: 32) For intertextual coherence, a translation is expected to bear some kind of relationship with the corresponding source text. Intertexual coherence should exit between source and target text. (Nord, 2001: 32) Intertextual coherence is considered subordinate to intratextual coherence and both are subordinate to the skopos rule. (Nord, 2001: 33)The theory prescribes a mode of thinking that will allow the translator to explore new approaches to the task of producing a successful target text. The theory particularly emphasizes target-orientation of translation. And it also stresses the translation situation which always determines the translation strategies to be used.This rule is intended to solve the eternal dilemmas of free vs. faithful translation, dynamic vs. formal equivalence, good interpreters vs. slavish translators and so on. It means that the skopos of a particular translation task may require a ‘free’ or a ‘faithful’ translation, or anything between these two extremes, depending on the purpose for which the translation is needed. (Nord, 2001: 29)Skopostheorie bears on C-E translation of public signs. Nord points out that “a text is made meaningful by its receiver and for its receiver.” (Nord, 2001: 31) The reaction of target readers’ should be taken into prime consideration. That is translation of public signs should be target-reader oriented.2.2.3 Christiane Nord and Her “Functions plus Loyalty”Christiane Nord further develops functional theory in the early 1990s and puts forward a rule of “Functions plus Loyalty”.Nord indicates that “My personal version of the functionalist approach stands on two pillars: function plus loyalty. Function refers to the factors that make a target text work in the intended way in the target situation. Loyalty refers to the interpersonal relationship between the translator, the source-text sender, the target-text addresses and the initiator. (Nord, 2001: 126). She holds that the translator should be responsible bilaterally for the target reader aswell as the original author. The translator should respect the source text producer and try to adjust the purpose of the target text and the source text author’s intention. The notion of loyalty not only means conveying the content and style of the source text, but also proposes necessary adaptation based on the source text in order to achieve the intended function of the target text, such as in the case of pragmatic translation. (Chen Xiaowei, 2006: 17) The principle of loyalty limits the range of justifiable target-text functions for one particular source text and raises the need for a negotiation of the translation assignment between translators and their clients. (Nord, 2001: 126). Thus the loyalty principle reduces the probability of “radical” functionalism. It is also an answer to those critics who argue that the functional approach leaves translators free to do whatever they like with any source text.The combination of function plus loyalty further improved the Skopostheorie. It grants translators some liberty in the translation process to achieve the intended function of the target text. Meanwhile it also keeps them from going far away from the original author’s intention. Moreover, Nord also proposes her documentary and instrumental translation. Documentary translation and instrumental translation are different in their emphasis on the source text and the target text. The former focused on source text, translators try to keep the language features or culture of the source text in the translated version, so this strategy is used with the classic works or serious literature. The latter resembles domestication translation, which produces equivalent effect by cultural adaptation; the target readers generally can not feel the text is a translation. The criterion for judging whether it is documentary or instrumental translation is that “the target audience is supposed to be aware or not they are reading a translation” (Nord, 2001: 50)According to Nord’s theory, translators of Chinese public signs should always bear in mind the priority of target text readers. Public signs should be translated according to the specific target functions. However it does not mean that translators have the right to change the functions at will. Any translation, regardless of its different specific purposes, should be based on the source texts.2.3 Peter Newmark and His Semantic vs. Communicative TranslationPeter Newmark’s major contribution to functionalism is his semantic translation versuscommunicative translation. “Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original” (Newmark: 1981: 39)It is quite obvious that communicative translation focuses on producing similar effect on the target readers. On the contrary, semantic translation remains within the original language convention and culture. He proposes that semantic translation is used for expressive texts and communicative translation for informative and vocative texts. That is in translating expressive texts, the expressive components should be rendered completely, original culture tend to be transferred intact and even badly and/or inaccurately written passages must remain so. However, for informative and vocative texts, the translator should focus on the accuracy of message and the main function of the source text, trying to produce an equivalent effect on target readers.He also proposes that different texts require different translation criteria and methods. He points out that for informative and vocative text the core is the accuracy of information and the readership. Accessibility and comprehensibility of the translation is very important as the reader does not anticipate difficulties or obscurities and would expect a generous transfer of foreign elements into his own culture as well as his language where necessary. (Newmark, 1981: 39)Peter Newmark’s theory also shed light on C-E translation of public signs. The translator is supposed to use language forms which read naturally to the target reader and he/she is entitled to improve the original text if it is badly and/or inaccurately written. Public signs should not be translated mechanically without an eye to the effect of the target texts on the target readers. Newmark’s semantic vs. communicative translation share some similarities with Nord’s documentary vs. instrumental translation. Semantic and documentary translations remain with the original linguistic and cultural conventions, while communicative and instrumental translations are target language oriented. But their difference is also quiet obvious. Nord holds that the skopos of the translation determines the choice of translation strategies, while Newmark proposes that the choice of translation methods is determined by the source text. However in translation practice, the methods of translation are not determined by the functionof the source text, but that of the target text. Very frequently the translation involves substantial adaptation of the source text in order to achieve the intended function of the target text.2.4 Enlightenments of the Functional Approach on C-E Translation of Public SignsAccording to Newmark’s typology (Newmark, 1981: 15), the features of public signs can be summarized from the functionalist point of view in the following graph.Functional analysis of Chinese public sings and English public signsNotes:1. Cpb: Chinese public signs; Epb: English public signs2. Culture, “low” means there are not many culture elements in public signs.3. Politeness, “low” means the public signs which do not read polite.The above graph gives us a general idea of the features of Chinese public signs and English public signs from the functional approach. Chinese public signs and English public signs are both in the service of their respective target readers. For most public signs, the source text and the target text share the same functions, informative, evocative or a combination of the two. There are other public signs: the function of the target text is different from that of the source text. An evocative public sign may be translated into an informative one or vice versa.This is because Chinese and English are different in language conventions and cultural traditions. Chinese public signs and English public signs differ in the ways they appeal to their respective readers. The source text readers (Chinese travelers) are prone to be affected by flowery expressions; while the target readers (foreign travelers) prefer more concrete information.Chinese public signs are therefore more descriptive. The language used is ornate and figurative, containing many flowery expressions like idioms or poems or quotations of famous persons’ remarks. English public signs are more informative. They read simple and concise. The language is plain and factual. When translating Chinese public signs into English, translators are usually required to apply various translation strategies, such as literal or liberal translation or adaptation.The main point of Skopostheorie is: it is the prospective function or skopos of the target text, not the source text that determines the translation process. Translators of public signs should apply various translation strategies in order to produce a version that will arouse the same effect on target text readers as that of the source text does on the source text readers.2.5 SummaryIn this part the writer discusses functional approach and its enlightenments on C-E translation of public signs. Reiss’s typology, Vermeer’s Skopostheorie, Nord’s function plus loyalty and Newmark’s semantic vs. communicative translation are the key theories involved in this chapter. According to the functional approach, it is the intended function of the target text that determines the overall translation process including the selection of translation strategies. The source text can’t be neglected either, as it serves as the main source of information. Translators of public signs should be aware of the status of target text readers. And the translations should always fulfill the need of target readers. The following chapter further explores the features and functions of public signs, giving us an insight on how functional approach applied to C-E translation in this area.Chapter Three A Functional Analysis of Public Signsin Scenic SpotsThe functional approach fits better in public signs translation as discussed in the previous chapter. The definition of a public sign, its categorization and the features are mainly discussed in the following paragraphs from the functional perspective.3.1 Definitions of Public SignsPublic signs are also called public notices, slogans, the languages of public notices, expressions on public signs.According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English1a sign is “a piece of paper, metal etc. in a public place with words or drawings on it that gives people information, warn them not to do something etc. e.g. a road sign, a no-smoking sign.”A Pubic sign can be defined as a piece of paper, metal or billboard in a public place with words or drawings on it that provides information or arouse people’s attention.The counterparts of public signs in Chinese are: 公示语、标志、标示语、告示语、标语、标牌语、标识. The most widely used one is “公示语”.Public signs and other related definitions in Chinese are as follows,1) 标语：用简短的文字写出的具有宣传鼓动作用的口号。
