HansVermeer功能理论与目的论.docx

1、HansVermeer功能理论与目的论关于功能翻译理论20世纪70年代至80年代，德国的卡塔琳娜莱思(K. Reiss)汉斯弗米 尔(H . J. Vermeer)贾斯特霍斯一曼特瑞(J. H . Manttari)以及克里丝汀诺 德(C. Nord)等学者提出的“功能翻译理论”为翻译理论研究开辟了一个新视角。 此理论的核心是翻译目的译文功能，因此本文将借用此理论来解释编译现象。 功能翻译理论的主要理论包括莱思提出的文本类型与翻译策略论、霍斯 -曼特瑞 的翻译行动论、 弗米尔的目的论， 以及诺德的翻译为本语篇分析理论。 以下概述 后三种论说，即翻译行动论、目的论及以翻译为本的语篇分析理论。翻译

2、行动论(theory of translational action)是霍斯-曼特瑞于80年代提出来的 (Munday 2001：77)。该理论把翻译视为实现信息的跨文化、跨语言转换而设计 的复杂行动。这种行动所涉及的参与者有：行动的发起者 (the initiator)、委托者(the commissioner) 原文产生者(the ST producer) 译文产生者(the TT producer)、 译文使用者(the TT user)及译文接受者(the TT receiver)。翻译理论好比环环相扣的 链条，每一个环节参与者都有自己的目的， 并关联到下一环节。 翻译行动论强调 译文

3、在译语文化中的交际功能。 因此，译文的形式并非照搬原文模式， 而是取决 于其是否在译语文化中合理地为其功能服务。目的论(Skopos Theory)是弗米尔于20世纪70年代提出来的。(Munday 2001： 7879)。Skopos是希腊语，意指“目的”，其主要概念是，所有翻译遵循的首要 规则就是“目的规则”，翻译目的决定翻译策略与具体的翻译方法。 弗米尔认为， 翻译的结果是译文， 但译者必须清楚地了解翻译的目的与译文功能， 才能做好翻 译工作，产生出理想的译作。后来莱思与弗米尔在合著的翻译的理论基础 (Groundwork for a General Theory of Translat

4、ion 1984)一书中，指出了目的论的具体准则 (Munday 2001： 78 79): (1)译文(TT)决定于其目的(determined by its skopos); (2)译文为目标语文 化社会提供信息，其关注点是把源语语言文化信息转换为目标语语言文化信息； (3)译文不提供模棱两可的信息； (4)译文必须能自圆其说 (internally coherent)； (5)译文不得与原文相悖 (coherent with the ST)； (6)上述所列五条准则的顺序表明其 重要性的先后顺序，而所有准则都受目的论之支配。至于第 (5)点，我们的理解 是：译文必须在思想内容与内在逻辑上

5、与原文相一致， 而不是指语言形式或遣词 造句上的一致。诺德的翻译的语篇分析 (Text Analysis in Translation 19881991)向读者 展示了一个更为具体的功能语篇分析模式跨越字词的层面， 从语篇的角度来 解释翻译。她首先 区分比较了两种类型的翻译：纪实性翻译 (documentarytranslation)和工具性翻译(instrumental translation)。纪实性翻译充当了原作者和译 文接受者之间进行原语文化交流的工具， 原语文化特色在译文中保持不变， 如逐 字翻译就属纪实性翻译； 后者则是在目标语文化的交流中充当一种独立的信息传 递工具，译文根据自身

6、的目的对原文作调整。1.Key Concepts of SkopostheorieSkopos is the Greek word for “aim ”or “purpose”and was introduced into translation theory in the 1970s by Hans Vermeer as a technical term for the purpose of a translation and of the action of translating. The major work on Skopos theory (Skopostheorie) is Gr

7、oundwork for a General Theory of Translation , a book Vermeer co-authored with Katharina Reiss (Reiss and Vermeer 1984). Skopos theory focuses above all on the purpose of the translation, which determines the translation methods and strategies that are to be employed in order to produce a functional

8、ly adequate result. This result is the TT (target text), which Vermeer calls the translatum. Therefore, in Skopos theory, knowing why an ST (source text) is to be translated and what the function of the TT will be of crucial for the translator.There exist three possible kinds of purpose in the field

9、 of translation: the general purpose aimed at by the translator in the translation process (perhaps to earn a living ”), the communicative purpose aimed at by the TT in the target situation (perhaps “to instruct the reader ”) and the purpose aimed at by a particular translation strategy or procedure

10、 (for example, “to translate literally in order to show the structural particularities of the SL ”) (qtd. in Nord, 2001: 28). Nevertheless, the term Skopos usually refers to the purpose of the TT. And it is the receiver, or rather the addressee, who is the main factor determining the TT Skopos. Ther

11、efore, the prime principle determining any translation process is the purpose (Skopos) of the overall translational action.2.Three Rules of SkopostheorieAccording to Skopostheorie, there are three basic rules to govern the translator s activities in the process of translation.Skopos rule: refers to

12、the top-ranking rule for any translation which indicates that a translation action is determined by its Skopos. Vermeer explains the Skopos rule as follows:Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The Skopos rule thus reads as follows: translate/interpret/speak/write

13、in a way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function (qtd. in Nord, 2001: 29)However, the Skopos rule does not offer any general principle or strategy that can be employed

14、 to guide any specific translation process. Instead, they can only be determined according to the specific Skopos ready to be achieved by a translation. Since a translational action is determined by its Skopos, the Skopos rule is the top-ranking rule for some kind of translation.Coherence rule: A tr

15、anslator is supposed to produced a text is at least likely to be meaningful to target-culture receivers. For this end, only when the TT conforms to the standard of intratextually coherent, can it make sense in the communicative situation and culture in which it is received and the receiver will have

16、 no difficulty in understanding it. A communicative interaction can only be regarded as successful if the receivers interpret is as being sufficiently coherent with their situation. Accordingly, as another important rule of Skopostheorie, the “coherence rule ”, specifies that a translation should be

17、 acceptable in a sense that it is coherent with the receiver s situation (qtd. in Nord, 2001: 32). Here, being “coherent with ”is synonymous with being “part of ” the receiver s situation. Since a translation is an offer of information about a preceding offer of information, it is expected to bear c

18、ertain relationship with the corresponding ST.Fidelity rule: Vermeer calls the relationship between a translation and the corresponding ST “intertextual coherence ”or “fidelity ”which is postulated as a further principle and referred to as the “fidelity rule ”(ibid.). The important point is that int

19、ertextual coherence should exist between the ST and the TT, while the form it takes depends both on the translator s interpretation of the ST and on the translation Skopos. The maximally faithful imitation of the ST is just one of the possible kinds of intertexual coherence.In all, the three basic r

20、ules of the Skopostheorie are designed to govern the translator s activities in the whole translation process. In most cases, however, a translation cannot satisfy the three rules at the same time due to the reason that the Skopos of the translation is frequently likely to deviate from the intention

21、 of the corresponding SL text. In general, the hierarchical order of abidance of the three rules should be the Skopos rule first, the coherence rule second and then the fidelity rule, or to put it in another way, the demand for fidelity is considered subordinate to intratextual coherence (or the coh

22、erence rule), and both are subordinate to the Skopos rule. When a translation which is faithful to the ST cannot be effectively understood by the TT receiver, the translator should give up the fidelity rule and conform to the coherence rule, i.e. to make his translation meaningful in the target comm

23、unicative situation and culture. If the Skopos requires a change of function, the required standard will no longer be intertextual coherence with the ST but adequacy or appropriateness with regard to the Skopos (qtd. in Nord, 2001: 32-33). And if the Skopos demands intratexual incoherence, the stand

24、ard of intratextual coherence is no longer valid.3.Translation Brief of SkopostheorieGenerally, the Skopos is specified by the translation brief, in which the initiator would give as many details as possible about the purpose, explaining the addressees, time, place, occasions and medium of the inten

25、ded communication and the function the text is intended to have. ( “Brief ” is the English equivalent of the German word Ubersetzungsauftrag. It used to be translated as “commission ”by Vermeer, assignment”by Pochhacker and Kussmaul, etc. Here Nord adopts Janet Frasers term “brief ”.) Exactly speaki

26、ng, the translation brief includes the following information:The intended text function;The target text addressees;The time and place of text reception;The medium over which the text will be transmitted;The motive for the production or reception of the text.This model specifies what kind of translat

27、ion is needed so as to enables the translator to decide what information to include in the target text. Guided by the translation brief, the translator selects certain items from the SL offer of information (originally meant for source-culture addressees) and processes them in order to form a new of

28、fer of information in TL, from which the TL addressees can in turn select what they consider to be meaningful in their own situation.4.Advantages of Skopostheorie over the Traditional Translation Theories4.1 Traditional Equivalence-based ApproachesFor centuries, the literal/free translation has been

29、 a heating topic for the translation theoreticians until the 1960s when they began to analyze the translation systematically. At that time, linguistic approaches were hot issues and the debate on meaning and equivalence was no doubt the focus therein. Over the following twenty years, many further at

30、tempts were made to define the nature of equivalence and one of the most important figures in translation studies is the American Eugene Nida. When he was translating and organizing the translation of Bible, he developed the theory of equivalence, which was then elaborated in two major works in the

31、1960s: Toward A Science of Translating (1964a) and the co-authored The Theory and Practice of Translation (Nida and Taber 1969). In the first book, Nida attempted to move translation, Bible translation in particular, into a more scientific era by incorporating recent studies in linguistics. He decla

32、red two basic orientation types of equivalence, namely formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Formal equivalence is approximate to ST structure. Since this type of translation is often used in an academic environment, the students are allowed to gain close access to the language and customs of

33、the source culture (Munday, 2001). Dynamic equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect, where the “relationship between receptor and message should besubstantially the same as which existed between the original receptors and the message ”(Nida, 1964: 159).Nida also placed special emphasis on