07.Functional Theories of Translation

Chapter 1:Main issues of translation studies:1. Jacobson’s categories of translation:a. Intralingual;b. Interlingual;c. Intersemiotic (verbal- non-verbal).2.History of the discipline:a. From the late 18th to the 1960s – grammar-translation method (replaced by communicative approach in the 1960s and 1970s);b.The USA 1960s –translation workshop concept based on Richards’reading workshops and practical criticism approach that began in 1920s; running parallel to this approach was that of comparative literature;c.The USA 1930s-1960s/70s – contrastive analysis;d.More systematic, and mostly linguistic-oriented, approach 1950s-1960s:i.J.-P. Vinay and J. Darbelnet (French/English);ii. A. Malblanc (French/German);iii.G. Mounin (linguistic issues of translation);iv. E. Nida (based on Chomsky generative grammar).v.James S. Holmes’“The name and nature of translation studies”is considered to be the founding statement of a new discipline.vi.Hermans Manipulation Schoolvii.Vieira Brazilian cannibalist school Postcolonial theoryviii.Venuti cultural-studies-oriented analysisThe Holmes/Toury map of translation studies1:Chapter 2: Translation theory before the 20th century:Traduttore, traditore = the translator is a traitorChapter 3: Equivalence and equivalent effect:In the 1950s and 1960s the place of circular debates around literal and free translation took the new debate revolved around certain key linguistic issues, among them those of meaning and equivalence, discussed by R. Jakobson in 1959. Over the following 20 years many further attempts were made to define the nature of equivalence.Jakobson:1.Meaning: the signifier=the signal of the signified (the concept).2.There is no full equivalence between code-units of different languages.3.So, we should substitute not words, but messages.4.Only p oetry is considered ‘untranslatable’ and requires ‘creative transposition’.Nida’s ‘science of translating (subjective):1.Meaning:a.Linguistic;b.Referential (dictionary meaning);c.Emotive (connotative).2.Ways of determining meaning:a.Hierarchical structuring (animal dog, cow etc);ponential analysis (grandmother, mother, cousin etc);c.Semantic structure analysis (spirit can mean demon, angel, god, ghost, ethos, alcohol etc)meaning depending on context.3.3-stage system of translation (Chom sky’s influence: deep/surface structure of a language):SL1 (analysis) X (transfer) Y (restructuring) TL24.Equivalence:a.Formal (form and content);b.Dynamic (equivalent response of: t2 reader on t2 as t1 reader on t1) (closest naturalequivalent).5.Correspondence in meaning must have priority over correspondence in style.6.Reader-based orientation.主要理论1：对等和等效（1950s－1960s）1．代表人物（1）罗曼雅各布逊A．描写了翻译的三类型：语内翻译，语际翻译和符际翻译B．提出语际翻译指用一种语言替换另一种语言种的整个信息C．强调对等的差异性（2）尤金奈达A. 提出形式对等和动态对等B. 提出著名的读者反应理论C. 他的理论以乔姆斯基的转换生成语法为基础（3）皮特纽马克A．提出语义对等和交际对等（4）韦内科勒A．区分了对应和对等B．描写了五种对等：外延意义，隐含意义，文本规则，语用及形式对等Newmark’s semantic and communicative translation:1.Replaces Nida’s division with semantic (resembles formal equivalence) and communicative(resembles dynamic equivalence) translation.2.Nida’s division inoperant if the text is out of TL space and time.3.Dynamic equivalence: are readers ‘to be handed everything on a plate’?4.Semantic translation differs from literal in that it ‘respects context’, interp rets and explains(metaphors). Literal translation is to be the best approach in both semantic and communicative translation. If semantic translation would result in an ‘abnormal’ TT or would not secure equivalent effect in the TL, then communicative translation should win out.Tertium comparationis, an invariant against which 2 text segments can be measured to determine variation.Chapter 4: The translation shift approach:1.Vinay and Darbelnet’s taxonomy:a)Direct (=literal) translation:(1).Borrowing(2).Calque(3).literal translation (word-for-word)b).Oblique translation:(4).Transposition(5).modulation6(6)..equivalence(7).adaptationc)The 7 categories operate on 3 levels:1.the lexicon2. 2.syntactic structures3. 3.the message 9context)4. 4.word order and thematic structure5. 5.connectors [cohesive links, discourse markers, deixis (pronouns anddemonstrative pronouns) and punctuation]d)2 possibilities:1.servitude (obligatory 4 and 5)2. 2.option (non-obligatory)2.Catford’s linguis tic approach (shifts)a.Distinction between: formal correspondence (a particular ST-TT pair) and textualequivalence (a pair of lgs).b.When the 2 concepts diverge, a translation shift occurs –a departure from formalcorrespondence in the process of going from the SL to the TL. There are 2 kinds of shift:1. A level shift (sth is expressed by grammar in one lg and by lexis in another)2. A category shift:i.Structural shifts; ii.Class shifts (word category); iii.Unit/rank shifts (sentence, clause,group, word, morpheme);iv.Intra-system shifts (systems are similar, but not always corresponding).3. van Leuven-Zwart’s microlevel/macrolever translation shifts:a.The comparative model (a detailed comparison of ST and TT and classification of allthe microstructural shifts within sentences, clauses and phrases);b.The descriptive model (a macrostructural model, designed for the analysis oftranslated literature)Chapter 5: Functional theories of translation:K. Reiss’s text typesNord adds to 3 types of language function a fourth ‘phatic’ function, covering lg that establishes or maintains contact between parties involved in the communication (e.g. greetings).Holz-Manttari’s translational action model for non-literary translations with1.its roles and players:a The initiator;b b.The commissioner (contacts the translator);c.The ST producer;d.The TTproducer;e.The TT user;f.The TT receiver.2.Content:a Factual information; b.Overall communicative strategy.3.Form: a.Terminology; b.Cohesive elements.J. Vermeer’s skopos theory: knowing the purpose and the function of translation is crucial (adequacy over equivalence).Ch. Nord’s translation-oriented text analysis:1.2 kinds of translation: a.Documentary translation(a)reader knows that he’s reading a translation;(b)Instrumental translation (a reader doesn’t know that).2.3 aspects of functionalist approaches particularly useful in translator training:a)The importance of the translation commission;b)The role of ST analysis;c)The functional hierarchy of translation problemsChapter 6: Discourse and register approaches:Halliday’s model of language and discourse b ased on systemic functional grammar (lg=communication):Influence:House’s model of translation qu ality assessment:1.Scheme for analyzing and comparing original and translation texts:Translation: a.Overt;b.Covert.Baker’s text and pragmatic level analysis:1.Textual function2.Cohesion3.Pragmatics:a.Coherence (depends on receiver’s expectations and experience of theworld);b.Presupposition (what the speaker supposes a listener shouldknow);c.Implicature (what the speaker implies).Hatim and Mason’s semiotic level of context and discourse:Text elements:1.Stable (translated fairly literally);2.Dynamic (not).Chapter 7: Systems theories:脚注：1.What is being written about.2.Who is communicating and to whom.3.The form of communication e.g. writtenEven-Zohar’s polysystem theory: a literary work as apart of a literary system in the social, cultural, literary and historical framework. It’s important [for choosing the translation strategy] if translated literature has a primary or secondary position in given literature.Toury and descriptive translation studies (DTS):1.Situate the text within the target culture system, looking at its significance oracceptability;2. pare the ST and the TT for shifts, identifying relationships between ‘coupled pairs’of ST and TT segments, and attempting generalizations about the underlying concept of translation;3. 3.Draw implications for decision-making in future translating.Norms of translation behaviour can be reconstructed from:1.The examinations of texts;2. 2.The explicit statement made about norms by translators, publishers, reviewers and otherparticipants in the translation actNorms:1.Initial norm (general translator’s choice):a.Subjection to source culture norms adequate translation;b.Subjection to target culture norms acceptable translation.2.Preliminary norms:a.Translation policy (text selection);b.Directness of translation (ST TT; ST t2 TT).3.Operational norms (the presentation and linguistic matters of the TT):a.Matricial norms (completeness of TT);b.Textual-linguistic norms (TT linguistic material).‘Laws’ of translation:1.Of growing standardization (tending to TT common options);2.Of interference (ST options transferred to TT, negatively or positively).Chesterman’s translation norms:1.Product or expectancy norms;2. 2.Process or professional norms:a.The accountability norm (an ethical norm);b.The communication norm (a social norm);c.The‘relation’ norm (a linguistic norm).Other DTS models:1.Manipulation School (‘a continual interplay between theoretical models and practical casestudies’);mbert and van Gorp – the scheme for the comparison of the ST and TT literary systems andfor the description of relations within them:a.Preliminary data;b.Macro-level;c.Micro-level;d.Systemic context (data compared andnorms identified)Chapter 8 "Varieties of cultural studies" examines Lefevere (1992), who treats translation as "rewriting" and identifies ideological pressures on translated texts. This chapter also looks at the writing of Simon (1996) on gender in translation, and at postcolonial translation theories which stress the part that translation has played in the colonization process and the image of the colonized (cf. Bassnett and Trivedi 1999).Lefevere (1992) treats translation as "rewriting" and identifies ideological and poetological pressures on translated texts. Translation functions are controlled by the following factors:1.Professionals within the literary system;2.Patronage outside the literary system:a.The ideological component;b.The economic component;c.The status component.d.If a-c come from the same source – patronage is undifferentiated; if not – differentiated.3.The dominant poetics:a.Literary devices;b.The concept of the role of literature.Simon compares the status of translation throughout the centuries to that of women’s and presents pro-feminist methods in translation.Postcolonial translation theories:1.Spivak: ‘translationese’ eliminates the identity of politically less powerful individuals andcultures.2. 2.Spivak: compares the status of translation throughout the centuries to that of colonies.3.Power relations : trans lation as the colonizer’s device used against the colonized.4.S. Bassnett and H. Trivedi’s translational linked to transnatio nal (translation=battleground).Brazilian cannibalism: the colonizers and their lg are devoured, their life force invigorating the devourers, who transform it according to their needs.The Irish context: postcolonialism in Europe.Chapter 9: Translating the foreign:the (in)visibility of translation: A. Berman’s ‘negative analytic’ of translation that prevents the foreign coming thr ough. ‘Deforming tendencies’:1.Rationalization;2.Clarification;3.Expansion;4.Ennoblement;5.Qualitative impoverishment;6.Quantitative impoverishment;7.The destruction of rhythms;8.The destruction of underlying networks of signification;9.The destruction of linguistic patternings;10.The destruction of vernacular1 networks or their exoticization;11.The destruction of expressions and idioms;12.The effacement of the superimposition of languages.‘Positive analytic’ = literal translation.Venuti:1.The invisibility of the translator in contemporary Anglo-American culture.2. 2.Domestication (dominant in connection with the translator’s invisibility) –‘the authortowards the reader’.3. 3.Foreignization –‘the reader towards the writer’ – resistancy – minoritizing (desirable).4. 4.‘Call for action’ –‘visibility’ + ‘foreignization’.Chapter 10: Philosophical theories of translation:Steiner’s hermeneutic1 approach to translation as ‘the act of elicitation and appropriate transfer of meaning’. The parts of the hermeneutic moti on:1.Initiative trust;2. 2.Aggression (penetration);3. 3.Incorporation (embodiment);4. pensation (restitution)Ezra Pound’s energy of language: translation as a tool in the cultural struggle, and the revitalization of the past.W. Benjamin’s task of the translator: translation gives the original ‘continued life’; pure language = coexistence of SL and TL; literal rendering of the syntax.J. Derrida’s deconstruction: capturing the meaning? No stability in the signified-signifier (meaning-sign) relationship; the opposition between SL and TL.1.Letter=Judaism=justice;2.Spirit=Christianity=mercy.Chapter 11: Translation studies as an interdiscipline:M. Snell-Hornby’s integrated approach.Harvey’s combination of linguistic analysis and critical theory.。

Introducing Translation Studies—Theories and ApplicationsName: Zhu MiClass: English 1122013/12/24Introducing Translation Studies—Theories and ApplicationsI.Main issues of translation studies1.1T he concept of translationThe term translation itself has several meanings: it can refer to the general subject field, the product or the process.The process of translation between two different written languages involves the translator changing an original verbal language into a written text in a different verbal language.—interlingual translationThe Russian-American structuralist Roman Jakobson in his seminal paper〞On linguistic aspects of translation’gave his categories as intralingual translation, interlingual translation and intersemiotic translation.1.2W hat are translation studiesWritten and spoken translations traditionally were for scholarship and religious purposes.Yet the study of translation as an academic subject has only really begun in the past fifty years, thanks to the Dutch-based US scholar James S.Holmes.Reasons for prominence: first, there has been a proliferation of specialized translating and interpreting courses at both and undergraduate and postgraduate level; second, other courses, in smaller numbers, focus on the practice of literary translation; the 1990s also saw a proliferation of conferences, books and journals on translation in many languages; in addition, various translation events were held in India, and an on-line translation symposium was organized.1.3A brief history of the disciplineThe practice of translation was discussed by, for example, Cicero and Horace and St Jerome;their writings were to exert an important influence up until the twentieth century.The study of translation of the field developed into an academic discipline only in the second half of the twentieth century.Before that, translation had normally been merely an element of language learning in modern language courses, known for the grammar-translation method.With the rise of the direct method or communicative approach to English language teaching in the 1960s and 1970s, the grammar-translation method fell into increasing disrepute.In the USA, translation was promoted in universities in the 1960s by the translation workshop concept. Running parallel to it was that of comparative literature.Another area in which translation become the subject of research was contrastive analysis.The continued application of a linguistic approach in general, and specific linguistic models such as generative grammar or functional grammar, has demonstrated an inherent and gutlink with translation. And it began to emerge in the 1950s and 1960s.—Eugene Nida1.4T he Holmes/Toury “map〞J’s〞The name and nature of translation studies〞was regarded as “generally accepted as the founding statement for the field〞. He puts forward an overall framework, describing what translation studies covers. It has been subsequently presented by Gideon Toury.Another area Holmes mention is translation policy, where he sees the translation scholar advising on the place of translation in society, including what place, if any, it should occupy in the language teaching and learning curriculum.“Translation policy〞would nowadays far more likely be related to the ideology that determines translation than was the case in Holmes description.1.5D evelopments since the 1970sContrastive analysis has fallen by the way side. The linguistic-oriented “science〞of translation has continued strongly in Germany, but the concept of equivalence associated with it has declined.Germany has seen the rise of theories centred on text types and text purpose, while the Hallidayan influence of discourse analysis and systemic functional grammar, which vies language as a communicative act in a sociocultural context, has been prominent over the past decades, especially in Australia and the UK.The late 1970s and 1980s also saw the rise of a descriptive approach that had its origins in comparative literature and Russian Formalism.The polysystemists have worked with a Belgium-based group and the UK-based scholars.The 1990s saw the incorporation of new schools and concepts, with Canadian-based translation and gender research led by Sherry Simon, the Brazilian cannibalist school promoted by Else Vieira, postcolonial translation theory.II.Translation theory before the twentieth century2.1“Word-for-word〞or “sense-for-sense〞Up until the second half of the twentieth century, translation theory seemed locked in what George Steiner calls a 〞sterile〞debate over the “triad〞of“literal〞, 〞free〞and “faithful〞translation. The distinction goes back to Cicero and St Jerome.Cicero said,〞…keeping the same ideas and forms…but in language which conforms to our usage…I preserved the general style and force of the language.〞He disparaged word-for-word translation.St Jerome said,〞…where even the syntax contains a mystery—I render not word-for-word, but sense-for-sense.〞2.2Martin LutherLuther follows St Jerome in rejecting a word-for-word translation strategy since it would be unable to convey the same meaning as the ST and would sometimes be incomprehensible.He focuses on the TL and the TT reader and his famous quote:〞You must ask the mother at home, the children in the street, the ordinary man in the market and look at their mouths, how they speak, and translate that way; then they’ll understand and see that you’re speaking to them in German.〞2.3Faithfulness, spirit and truthFlora Amos notes that early translators often differed considerably in the meaning they gave to terms such as “faithfulness〞, “accuracy〞and even the word “translation〞itself. Louis Kelly in The True Interpreter calls the “inextricably tangled〞terms “fidelity〞, 〞spirit〞and“truth〞.Kelly considers that it was not until the twelfth century that truth was fully equated with “content〞. By the seventeenth century, fidelity had come to be generally regarded as more than just fidelity to words, and spirit lost the religious sense and was thenceforth used solely in the sense of the creative energy of a text or language.2.4Early attempts at systematic translation theory: Dryden, Dolet andTytlerFor Amos, the England of the seventeenth century—with Denham, Cowley and Dryden—marked an important step forward in translation theory with〞deliberate, reasoned statements, unmistakable in their purpose and meaning〞.John Dryden reduces all translations to three categories: metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation. Dryden thus prefers paraphrase, advising that metaphrase and imitation be avoided. He is author-oriented.Etienne Dolet is TL-reader-oriented and sets out five principles in his 1540 manuscript The Way of Translating Well from One Language into Another〞:1.The translator must perfectly understand the sense and material of the original author,although he should feel free to clarify obscurities.2.The translator should have a perfect knowledge of both SL and TL, so as not to lessen themajesty of the language.3.The translator should avoid word-for-word renderings.4.The translator should avoid Latinate and unusual forms.5.The translator should assemble and liaise words eloquently to avoid clumsiness. Alexander Fraser Tytler has three general “laws〞or “rules〞:1.The translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work.2.The style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original.3.The translation should have all the ease of the original composition.2.5Schleiermacher and the valorization of the foreignWhile the 17th century had been about imitation and the 18th century about the translator’s duty to recreate the spirit of the ST for the reader of the time, the Romanticism of the earlynineteenth century discussed the issues of translatability or untranslatability.In 1813, the German theologian and translator Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote On The Different Methods of Translating and put forward a Romantic approach to interpretation based on the individual’s inner feeling and understanding.He first distinguishes two different types of translator working on two different types of text:1.the “Dolmetscher〞, who translates commercial texts;2.the “übersetzer〞, who works on scholarly and artistic texts.How to bring the ST writer and the TT reader together is the real question. He considers there to be only two paths open for the “true〞translator: Either the translator leaves the writer alone as much as possible and moves the reader toward the writer, or he leaves the reader alone as much as and moves the writer toward the reader.Schleiermacher’s consideration of different text type becomes more prominent in Reiss’s text typology. The “alienating〞and “naturalizing〞opposites are taken up by Venuti as “foreignization〞and “domestication〞.Additionally, the vision of a “language of translation〞is pursued by Walter Benjamin and the description of the hermeneutics of translation is apparent in George Steiner’s “hermeneutic motion〞.2.6Translation theory of the ninetieth and early twentieth centuries inBritainIn Britain, the 19th century and the early part of the 20th century focused on the status of the ST and the form of the TL.Francis Newman emphasized the foreignness of the work by a deliberately archaic translation.Matthew Arnold advocated a transparent translation method.2.7Towards contemporary translation theoryGeorge Steiner lists a small number of 14 writers who represent “very nearly the sum total of those who have said anything fundamental or new about translation〞, includes St Jerome, Luther, Dryden and Schleiermacher and also takes us into the 20th century with Ezra Pound and Walter Benjamin, amongst others.He covers a range of theoretical ideas in this period: We have seen how much of the theory of translation—if there is one as distinct from idealized recipes—pivots monotonously around undefined alternatives: 〞letter〞or “spirit〞, 〞word〞or “sense〞. The dichotomy is assumed to have analyzable meaning. This is the central epistemological weakness and sleight of hand.Translation theory in the second half of the 20th century made various attempts to redefine the concepts “literal〞and “free〞in operational terms, to describe “meaning〞in scientific terms, and to put together systematic taxonomies of translation phenomena.Case studiesThe criteria for assessing the translations are given:1.accuracy: the correct transfer of information and evidence of complete comprehension.2.the appropriate choice of vocabulary, idiom, terminology and register;3.cohesion, coherence and organization;4.accuracy in technical aspects of punctuation, etc.III.Equivalence and equivalent effect3.1Roman Jakobson: the nature of linguistic meaning and equivalenceIn his paper “On linguistic aspects of translation〞, he describes three kinds of translation: intralingual, interlingual and intersemiotic translation and he goes on to examine key issue of interlingual translation, notably linguistic meaning and equivalence.Jakobson approaches a now-famous definition: “Equivalence in difference is the cardinal problem of language and the pivotal concern of linguistics.〞He thinks poetry is “untranslatable〞, which requires “creative〞transposition.3.2Nida and “the science of translating〞3.2.1The nature of meaning: advances in semantics and pragmaticsMeaning is broken down into linguistic meaning, referential meaning and emotive meaning. There are three techniques: hierarchical structuring, componential analysis and semantic structure analysis.3.2.2The influence of ChomskyNoam Chomsky’s generative-transformational model analyzes sentences into a series of related levels governed by rules. The key features of this model can be summarized:1.Phrase-structure rules generate an underlying or deep structure which is2.transformed by transformational rules relating one underlying structure to another,to produce.3. a final surface structure,which itself is subject to phonological and morphemicrules.Nida presents a three-stage system of translation (analysis, transfer and restructuring).This involves analysis using generative-transformational grammar’s four types of functional class: events, objects, abstracts and relationals.3.2.3Formal and dynamic equivalence and the principle of equivalent effectFor Nida, the success of the translation depends above all on achieving equivalent response. It is one of the “four basic requirements of a translation〞, which are1making sense;2conveying the spirit and manner of the original;3having a natural and easy form of expression;4producing a similar response.3.3Newmark: semantic and communicative translationIn Newmark’s Approaches to Translation and A Textbook of Translation,he suggests narrowing the gap by replacing the old terms with those of “semantic〞and “communicative〞translation.3.4Koller: Korrespondenz and AquivalenzWerner Koller examines more closely the concept of equivalence and its linked term correspondence. And he also goes on to describe five different types of equivalence: denotative, connotative, text-normative, pragmatic and formal equivalence.IV.The translation shift approach4.1Vinay and Darbelnet’s modelThe two general translation strategies identified by Vinay and Darbelnet are direct translation and oblique translation, which hark back to the “literal vs. free〞division.The two strategies comprise seven procedures, of which direct translation covers are borrowing, calque, literal translation, transposition and modulation and of which oblique translation includes are equivalence and adaptation.The seven main translation categories are described as operating on three levels; these three levels reflect the main structural elements of the book. They are: the lexicon, syntactic structure and the message.A further more important parameter taken into account by Vinay and Darbelnet is that ofservitude and option.They continued by giving s list of five steps for the translator to follow in moving from ST to TT:1.Identity the units of translation.2.Examine the SL text, evaluating the descriptive, affective and intellectual content of theunits.3.Reconstruct the metalinguistic context of the message.4.Evaluate the stylistic effects.5.Produce and revise the TT.They consider the unit of translation to be a combination of a“lexicological unit〞and a “unit of thought〞.4.2Catford and translation “shifts〞Catford makes an important distinction between formal correspondence and textual equivalence, which was developed by Koller.Catford considers two kinds of shift: shift of level and shift of category.Most of Catford’s analysis is given over to category shifts. These are subdivided into four kinds: structural shifts, class shifts, unit shifts/rank shifts and intra-system shifts.4.3Czech writing on translation shiftsIn the 1960s and 1970s some writing introduces a literary aspect, that of the “expressive function〞or style of a text.4.4Van Leuven-Zwart’s comparative-descriptive model of translationshiftsKitty van Leuven-Zwart applies shift analysis to the descriptive analysis of a translation, attempting both to systematize comparison and to build in a discourse framework above the sentence level.The model is “intended for the description of integral translations of fictional texts〞and comprises a comparative model and a descriptive model.Shifts are divided into three main categories with numerous subcategories. The three main categories are modulation, modification and mutation.V.Functional theories of translation5.1Text typeKatharina Reiss’s work in the 1970s builds on the concept of equivalence but views the text, rather than the word or sentence, as the level at which communication is achieved and at which equivalence must be sought. Her functional approach aims initially at systematizing the assessment of translation.Three text types—informative, expressive and operative types—are given by Reiss and presented visually by Cheserman.Reiss also lists a series of intralinguistic and extralinguistic instruction criteria by which the adequacy of a TT may be assessed.5.2Translational actionTranslation action views translation as purpose-driven, outcome-oriented human interaction and focuses on the process of translation as message-transmitter, compounds involving intercultural transfer.5.3Skopos theoryHans J. Vermeer introduces skopos into translation theory in the 1970s as a technical term for the purpose of a translation and of the action of translating, as it deals with a translational action that is ST-based.5.4Translation-oriented text analysisChristiane Nord’s Text Analysis in Translation makes a distinction between two basic types of translation production —documentary translation and instrumental translation.VI.Discourse and register analysis approachesVII.Systems theoriesVIII.Varieties of cultural studiesIX.Translating the foreign: the (in)visibility of translation X.Philosophical theories of translationXI.Translation studies as an interdiscipline。

Skopos TheoryAbstract: In the 1970’ s Germany, a linguist by the name of Hans J. Vermeer broke the linguist-oriented trend by introducing the skopos theory, the first known functional approach to translation, which defends that every translation has a purpose, which would consequently determine the strategies the translator should adopt. This paper main introduces Vermeer’ s skopos theory, with its merits as well as demerits, and gives some personal insights on this theory.Keywords: Vermeer, skopos theory, functional theories of translationSkopos theory, a niche theory in the field of translation studies, employs the prime principle of a purposeful action that determines a translation strategy. The intentionality of a translational action stated in a translation brief, the directives, and the rules guide a translator to attain the expected target text translatum. Emerged around the late twentieth century, skopos theory is the core of the four approaches of German functionalist translation theory.1.Functional theories of translationFunctional theories from Germany in the 1970s-1980s mark a move away from linguistic typologies towards a consideration of culture. Katharina Reiss, a linguist and translation scholar, created a model of translation criticism based on the function relation between the source and the target text, though her views are still concerned with the previous equivalence ones. As she states in her book Possibility and Limits of Translation Criticism, an ideal translation should be “in which the aim in the TL(target language) is equivalence as regards the conceptual content, linguistic form and communicative function of SL(source language)” [3].Going further than Reiss, Hans J. Vermeer completely refuses the equivalence-based theories, stating that “Linguistic alone won’t help us. First, because translating is not a merely and not even primarily a linguistic process. Secondly, because linguistics has not yet formulated the right question to tackle our problem” [4].And he put forward with the skopos theory, which lays foundation for the functional theories of translation. Justa Holz-Manttari introduces the theory of translatorial action. Similar to the ideas of Vermeer,Holz-Manttari describes translation as a complex action that is meant to achieve a specific purpose. Moreover, her theory focuses on the analysis of the participants (initiator, translator, target audience), their role and the conditions in which their activities take place. Christina Nord comes up with the “loyalty principle” of skopos theory, which states that the translators must be loyal to the author by making sure that his translatum doesn’t falsifies or is against the author’s original intentions.2. Skopos theory2.1 Synopsis of skopos theoryDiffering from previous translation studies which focus on a loyal reproduction of the source text in a target language based on principles of equivalence, Vermeer uses the action theory to defend that translation is an action with certain purpose. In the book composed with Reiss, he argues that every action has a purpose since “an action aims to achieve a goal and thus to alter the current states of affairs’’ [4]. As translating is a form of translational action that involves intentional communication (or interaction, if it affects two or more agents) and transition, there must be a purpose associated with it [6]. Because of this, Vermeer states “A translational action is governed by its purpose [4].” And he introduces the Greek word Skopos into translation, which means “aim’’ or “purpose” to propose his skopos theory of translation.According to Vermeer, to translate means “to produce a text in a target setting for a target purpose and target addressees in target circumstances” [4].This is Vermeer’ s definition of translation, and is the manifestation of skopos theory. He proposes that there are three possible types of purposes. Firstly, a general purpose that a translator strives for, such as translating as a source of professional income. Secondly, a communicative purpose of a target text in a target circumstance, such as to instruct the audience. Thirdly, the purpose of a translation strategy or approach, such as to exhibit the structural traits of the source language [2]. In the case of the term “skopos” in skopos theory, it refers to the second type of purpose. For Vermeer, the main aspect that determines the purpose of a translation is the target audience. This includes their culture-specific knowledge, their knowledge of the world, their expectations and theircommunicative needs. Besides, from Vermeer’ s definition on translation, we can see that Vermeer completely excludes the source text as a key factor because, for him, the source text is merely a “source of information” that is then transformed into a “source of information” in the target language. Conversely, what skopos theory emphasizes in translation is a translatum—the target text (outcome) of a source text. And it is the skopos of translation that determines what strategies translators should take to obtain the intended goals. “Skopos theory shaped the way translators work by detaching from the source text and focusing on the target purpose and audience’’ [5]. Hence we can that Skopos theory gives great emphasis on the target language and target recipients. And since the purpose of the translation is judged by the translators, translators are endowed with great power.Under the spokos theory, there are six directives. They are as follows:(1) A translatum is determined by its skopos.(2) A translatum is an offer of information in a target culture and languageconcerning an offer of information in a source culture and source language.(3) A translatum does not initiate an offer of information in a clearly reversible way.(4) A translatum must be internally coherent.(5) A translatum must be coherent with the source text.(6)The five rules [sic] above stand in hierarchical order, with the skopos rulepredominating.The first directive highlights that in whatever condition the translation action is always determined by its skopos, its aim or purpose. The second directive points out the importance between the relationship of the source text and target text to their functions in their respective linguistic and cultural contexts [6].The third directive implies that the translatum do not necessarily have the same function of the source text, emphasizing the irreversibility. And the fourth directive emphasizes the internal textual coherence of source text and fifth the TT’ s intertextual coherence with the ST. There are three rules encompassing the six directives:(1)The skopos rule. The first rule to obey in the process of translation is the purposeof an overall translational action. Skopos rule is always put in the first place.(2)The coherence rule. This rule requires that any translatum should make senseaccording to the target culture of the target language so that the receivers can make sense of it. As quoted from Nord, this rule states:A translation should be acceptable in a sense that it is coherent with the receivers’ situation [2].(3)The fidelity rule. The third “overarching’’ rule necessitates intertextual coherencebetween the source and target texts as target texts are produced in accordance to the information offered by source texts.As quoted from Dan, this third rule states: The TT (target text) should bear some kind of relationship with the corresponding ST (source text) [2].As for the relationship between the three rules, the third rule, the fidelity rule, is subordinate to the second rule, the coherence rule, which in turn is subordinate to the skopos rule. In other words, when translating, the translator should first ensure that the TT fulfills its purpose, then make sure the TT is itself coherent and only see that the TT demonstrates coherence with the ST.2.2 Merits of skopos theoryTo begin with, the skopos theory has provided solid theoretical foundation for translating practical texts. For instance, legal translation is the translation of legal and interlingual information. And it is culture-dependent and there may be specific conventions or concepts that are culture-bound and only exist in the source culture but not the target culture. Through the standard set by the skopos theory, translators measure the preservation of elements in their transfer from source to target text. Via the skopos rule and the coherence rule, the requirement that the target text is coherent for the target text receivers will help to inform translators on adjusting the degree of preservation they want such that this coherence is ensured. To some certain extent, Skopos theory has a wide range of practicability as it can promote translators ‘s efficiency when dealing with practical texts [7].Furthermore, Skopos theory highlights the importance of translators in translation activities, which greatly actives participation of translators. It breaks through the restriction of equivalence translation theory, studies translation from theperspectives of intercultural communication, and broadens the vision of translation studies [8].2.3 Demerits of skopos theoryThe flip side of the coin that involves the freedom to choose from different translation strategies based on the element of purpose, is that the theory may be seen as a vague framework that does not provide precise step-by-step orchestration. Students and translators in training do not have guidelines to follow diligently, possibly posing additional pressure and responsibilities on the translator to seek an adequate translation strategy. This can diminish their understanding and translation experiences for practical situations that are vital in the beginning stages of learning.Skopos theory focuses on the functional study of the TT. Tang Yujie argues that sometime, in order to achieve certain purpose, the translator may take the strategy of rewriting, which makes the TT far betray the original text. By taking into account the needs and expectations of the target audience, the translator is detaching completely from the source text.[7] Skopos theory does not pay sufficient attention to the linguistic nature of the ST nor to the reproduction of mirco-level features in the TT. Even if the skopos is adequately fulfilled, it may be inadequate at the stylistic or semantic levels of individual segments.In addition, since it is up to the translator to decide the purpose of translation action, the translator may lose his sense of responsibility and professional ethics in the process of translation, thus becoming a vulgar utilitarian or pragmatist.Moreover, not all translation has a purpose. What purports to be a “general” theory is in fact only valid for non-literary texts. Literary texts are considered to have no specific purpose.Finally, “Jargon such as translatum does little to further translation theory where workable terms (target text) already exist” [1].3.ConclusionBefore functional approaches to translation, and more specifically the skopos theory, translation consisted of a loyal reproduction of the source text in a target language, based on principles of equivalence. The most revolutionary aspect aboutthese new approaches is that the source text was no longer the king of the translation, something translators had to worship. Now, the translators are allowed and encouraged to take into consideration, and privilege, other important aspects, namely the purpose of the translation, and its target audience, who the text is intended for, bearing in mind their circumstances.In my point of view, skopos theory poses as a huge improvement for translation studies, since it shifts the focus of the translation process, enabling the translator to overcome cultural barriers. This makes TT into more natural-sounding and cultural-appropriate texts, with no comprehension constraints, that people can actually connect with, and feel like they are reading something that are written specifically for them.References:[1] Munday, Jeremy. Introduction Translation Studies: Theories and Applications [M]. 4th edition.London: Routledge, 2016.[2] Nord, Christiane. Translating as a purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches explained (2nded.). London: Routledge,2018.[3] Reiss Katharina. Translation Criticis: The Potentials and Limitations.St. Jerome Publishing,1997.[4] Reiss, Katharina & Hans J. Vermeer. Towards a General Theory of Translational Action: Skopos Theory Explained [M]. translated by Christiane Nord. London: Routledge, 1984/2013.[5] Vermeer, Hans Josef . "Ein Rahmen für eine allgemeine Translationstheorie". Lebende Sprachen, 1978.[6] Xiaoyan Du. A Brief Introduction of Skopos Theory[J]. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,2012,2(10).[7]卞建华,崔永禄.功能主义目的论在中国的引进、应用与研究(1987—2005)[J].解放军外国语学院学报,2006(05):82-88.[8] 汤玉洁.浅析翻译目的论[J].和田师范专科学校学报,2008(01):159-161.。

常用导游词的翻译,英语篇一：导游词的翻译方法与技巧导游词的翻译方法与技巧论文作者：佚名论文属性：短文essay登出时间：20XX-04-07编辑：刘宝玲点击率：1693论文字数：3000论文编号：org20XX04071216091440语种：中文论文chinese地区：中国价格：免费论文收藏：google书签雅虎搜藏百度搜藏关键词：导游词英译功能翻译理论translationoftourcommentariestheFunctionalTheoriesofTranslation摘要本文以广东名胜陈家祠导游词英译为例,从德国功能派翻译理论角度探讨导游词翻译的问题。

通过理论探讨和实践分析,作者论证了导游词的两大英译原则即“以游客为出发点”和“以传播中国文化为取向”,只有在该原则指导下的导游词译本方能使涉外导游真正成为“友谊的使节,文化的传播者”。

abstract:ThepresentpaperattemptstoapplytheFunctionalTheoriesofTranslat ionintheanalysisoftranslationsoftourcommentaries,referringtotheEnglishtr anslationsofthetourcommentariesofthechenclanTempleasacaseofexample. Twomajorprinciplesarethenproposedforc2Etranslationoftourcommentaries :theprincipleofbeingtourist2orientedandthatofpromotingchineseculture.itisthenarguedthattheseprinciplescanserveasimportantguidelinesforinterpreter sas“envoysoffriendshipanddisseminatorsofculture”.随着经济全球化的进一步发展,国际经济文化交流日益频繁。

功能翻译理论视角下的英语格律诗汉译顾森【摘要】There exists debate about the Chinese translation of English metrical poetry for over 100 years. This paper, from the perspective of functional theories of translation, explores the reason for the co-existence of the three Chinese translation methods. It holds that such co-existence is due to the diverse text types borne by English metrical poetry, the multiple functions of English metrical poetry, and the translator＇s skopos%英语格律诗的汉译，百年来就其翻译思想和翻译方法一直存在着争议。

文章从功能翻译理论的角度，对现有的三条翻译道路共存的原因进行了阐释，认为这是由诗歌丰富的文体特征、诗歌的多重功能、和译者的不同翻译目的三者所共同决定的。

【期刊名称】《湖南第一师范学院学报》【年(卷),期】2011(011)006【总页数】4页(P131-134)【关键词】英语格律诗;诗歌翻译;功能翻译理论【作者】顾森【作者单位】黄淮学院外语系,河南驻马店463000【正文语种】中文【中图分类】H315.9英语格律诗是英美文学宝库中的珍葩，几百年来产生了许多充满思想性与艺术性的诗篇，在英美文学中占据着重要的地位，对世界诗歌文化也产生了重要的影响，世界各国都广为译介。

通过了解外国优秀诗作，我们可以观察其民族之特性，看到世界之丰富多彩、人类之伟大崇高，升华个人人格，陶冶大众情操。