HansVermeer功能理论与目的论.docx

HansVermeer功能理论与目的论.docx

《HansVermeer功能理论与目的论.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《HansVermeer功能理论与目的论.docx（22页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

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。

翻译行动论（theoryoftranslationalaction）是霍斯-曼特瑞于80年代提出来的（Munday2001：

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（theinitiator）、委托者

（thecommissioner）原文产生者（theSTproducer）译文产生者（theTTproducer）、译文使用者（theTTuser）及译文接受者（theTTreceiver）。

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（SkoposTheory）是弗米尔于20世纪70年代提出来的。

（Munday2001：

78—79）。

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》（GroundworkforaGeneralTheoryofTranslation1984）一书中，指出了目的论的具体准则（Munday2001：

78—79）:

（1）译文（TT）决定于其目的（determinedbyitsskopos）;

（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（internallycoherent）；（5）

译文不得与原文相悖（coherentwiththeST）；（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》（TextAnalysisinTranslation1988／1991）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（documentary

translation）和工具性翻译（instrumentaltranslation）。

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，译文根据自身的目的对原文作调整。

1.KeyConceptsofSkopostheorie

SkoposistheGreekwordfor“aim”or“purpose”andwasintroducedintotranslationtheoryinthe1970sbyHansVermeerasatechnicaltermforthepurposeofatranslationandoftheactionoftranslating.ThemajorworkonSkopostheory（Skopostheorie）isGroundworkforaGeneralTheoryofTranslation,abookVermeerco-authoredwithKatharinaReiss（ReissandVermeer1984）.Skopostheoryfocusesaboveallonthepurposeofthetranslation,whichdeterminesthetranslationmethodsandstrategiesthataretobeemployedinordertoproduceafunctionallyadequateresult.ThisresultistheTT（targettext）,whichVermeercallsthetranslatum.Therefore,inSkopostheory,knowingwhyanST（sourcetext）istobetranslatedandwhatthefunctionoftheTTwillbeofcrucialforthetranslator.

Thereexistthreepossiblekindsofpurposeinthefieldoftranslation:

thegeneralpurposeaimedatbythetranslatorinthetranslationprocess（perhaps‘toearnaliving”）,thecommunicativepurposeaimedatbytheTTinthetargetsituation（perhaps“toinstructthereader”）andthepurposeaimedatbyaparticulartranslationstrategyorprocedure（forexample,“totranslateliterallyinordertoshowthestructuralparticularitiesoftheSL”）（qtd.inNord,2001:

28）.Nevertheless,thetermSkoposusuallyreferstothepurposeoftheTT.Anditisthereceiver,orrathertheaddressee,whoisthemainfactordeterminingtheTTSkopos.Therefore,theprimeprincipledetermininganytranslationprocessisthepurpose（Skopos）oftheoveralltranslationalaction.

2.ThreeRulesofSkopostheorie

AccordingtoSkopostheorie,therearethreebasicrulestogovernthetranslator'sactivitiesintheprocessoftranslation.

Skoposrule:

referstothetop-rankingruleforanytranslationwhichindicatesthatatranslationactionisdeterminedbyitsSkopos.VermeerexplainstheSkoposruleasfollows:

Eachtextisproducedforagivenpurposeandshouldservethispurpose.TheSkoposrulethusreadsasfollows:

translate/interpret/speak/writeinawaythatenablesyourtext/translationtofunctioninthesituationinwhichitisusedandwiththepeoplewhowanttouseitandpreciselyinthewaytheywantittofunction（qtd.inNord,2001:

29）

However,theSkoposruledoesnotofferanygeneralprincipleorstrategythatcanbeemployedtoguideanyspecifictranslationprocess.Instead,theycanonlybedeterminedaccordingtothespecificSkoposreadytobeachievedbyatranslation.SinceatranslationalactionisdeterminedbyitsSkopos,theSkoposruleisthetop-rankingruleforsomekindoftranslation.

Coherencerule:

Atranslatorissupposedtoproducedatextisatleastlikelytobemeaningfultotarget-culturereceivers.Forthisend,onlywhentheTTconformstothestandardofintratextuallycoherent,canitmakesenseinthecommunicativesituationandcultureinwhichitisreceivedandthereceiverwillhavenodifficultyinunderstandingit.Acommunicativeinteractioncanonlyberegardedassuccessfulifthereceiversinterpretisasbeingsufficientlycoherentwiththeirsituation.Accordingly,asanotherimportantruleofSkopostheorie,the“coherencerule”,specifiesthatatranslationshouldbeacceptableinasensethatitiscoherentwiththereceiver'ssituation（qtd.inNord,2001:

32）.Here,being“coherentwith”issynonymouswithbeing“partof”thereceiver'ssituation.Sinceatranslationisanofferofinformationaboutaprecedingofferofinformation,itisexpectedtobearcertainrelationshipwiththecorrespondingST.

Fidelityrule:

VermeercallstherelationshipbetweenatranslationandthecorrespondingST“intertextualcoherence”or“fidelity”whichispostulatedasafurtherprincipleandreferredtoasthe“fidelityrule”（ibid.）.TheimportantpointisthatintertextualcoherenceshouldexistbetweentheSTandtheTT,whiletheformittakesdependsbothonthetranslator'sinterpretationoftheSTandonthetranslationSkopos.ThemaximallyfaithfulimitationoftheSTisjustoneofthepossiblekindsofintertexualcoherence.

Inall,thethreebasicrulesoftheSkopostheoriearedesignedtogovernthetranslator'sactivitiesinthewholetranslationprocess.Inmostcases,however,atranslationcannotsatisfythethreerulesatthesametimeduetothereasonthattheSkoposofthetranslationisfrequentlylikelytodeviatefromtheintentionofthecorrespondingSLtext.Ingeneral,thehierarchicalorderofabidanceofthethreerulesshouldbetheSkoposrulefirst,thecoherencerulesecondandthenthefidelityrule,ortoputitinanotherway,thedemandforfidelityisconsideredsubordinatetointratextualcoherence（orthecoherencerule）,andbotharesubordinatetotheSkoposrule.WhenatranslationwhichisfaithfultotheSTcannotbeeffectivelyunderstoodbytheTTreceiver,thetranslatorshouldgiveupthefidelityruleandconformtothecoherencerule,i.e.tomakehistranslationmeaningfulinthetargetcommunicativesituationandculture.IftheSkoposrequiresachangeoffunction,therequiredstandardwillnolongerbeintertextualcoherencewiththeSTbutadequacyorappropriatenesswithregardtotheSkopos（qtd.inNord,2001:

32-33）.AndiftheSkoposdemandsintratexualincoherence,thestandardofintratextualcoherenceisnolongervalid.

3.TranslationBriefofSkopostheorie

Generally,theSkoposisspecifiedbythetranslationbrief,inwhichtheinitiatorwouldgiveasmanydetailsaspossibleaboutthepurpose,explainingtheaddressees,time,place,occasionsandmediumoftheintendedcommunicationandthefunctionthetextisintendedtohave.（“Brief”istheEnglishequivalentoftheGermanwordUbersetzungsauftrag.Itusedtobetranslatedas“commission”byVermeer,‘assignment”byPochhackerandKussmaul,etc.HereNordadoptsJanetFraser'sterm“brief”.）Exactlyspeaking,thetranslationbriefincludesthefollowinginformation:

•Theintendedtextfunction;

•Thetargettextaddressees;

•Thetimeandplaceoftextreception;

•Themediumoverwhichthetextwillbetransmitted;

•Themotivefortheproductionorreceptionofthetext.

Thismodelspecifieswhatkindoftranslationisneededsoastoenablesthetranslatortodecidewhatinformationtoincludeinthetargettext.Guidedbythetranslationbrief,thetranslatorselectscertainitemsfromtheSLofferofinformation（originallymeantforsource-cultureaddressees）andprocessestheminordertoformanewofferofinformationinTL,fromwhichtheTLaddresseescaninturnselectwhattheyconsidertobemeaningfulintheirownsituation.

4.AdvantagesofSkopostheorieovertheTraditionalTranslationTheories

4.1TraditionalEquivalence-basedApproaches

Forcenturies,theliteral/freetranslationhasbeenaheatingtopicforthetranslationtheoreticiansuntilthe1960swhentheybegantoanalyzethetranslationsystematically.Atthattime,linguisticapproacheswerehotissuesandthedebateonmeaningandequivalencewasnodoubtthefocustherein.Overthefollowingtwentyyears,manyfurtherattemptsweremadetodefinethenatureofequivalenceandoneofthemostimportantfiguresintranslationstudiesistheAmericanEugeneNida.WhenhewastranslatingandorganizingthetranslationofBible,hedevelopedthetheoryofequivalence,whichwasthenelaboratedintwomajorworksinthe1960s:

TowardAScienceofTranslating（1964a）andtheco-authoredTheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation（NidaandTaber1969）.Inthefirstbook,Nidaattemptedtomovetranslation,Bibletranslationinparticular,intoamorescientificerabyincorporatingrecentstudiesinlinguistics.Hedeclaredtwobasicorientationtypesofequivalence,namelyformalequivalenceanddynamicequivalence.FormalequivalenceisapproximatetoSTstructure.Sincethistypeoftranslationisoftenusedinanacademicenvironment,thestudentsareallowedtogaincloseaccesstothelanguageandcustomsofthesourceculture（Munday,2001）.Dynamicequivalenceisbasedontheprincipleofequivalenteffect,wherethe“relationshipbetweenreceptorandmessageshouldbe

substantiallythesameaswhichexistedbetweentheoriginalreceptorsandthemessage”（Nida,1964:

159）.

Nidaalsoplacedspecialemphasison