History of Translation Studies 9

这里是《翻译学史》的书稿第九部分(Part 9)。麻烦各位同学看一下已经存在的章回（样品），自己再加进去新的一个章回（就是你们的学期论文）。请也帮助同学们把他们的论文改正。这样多次修改，大家的论文会越来越好。

学期论文（结合学期所学，撰写一篇5000以上单词的英文论文，按照专业杂志的格式，题目、摘要、关键词和参考文摘需要英中，文章英）。学期论文成绩占70%，平时成绩（含课堂表现、展示及作业）占30%。

• Link back to course homepage: Course Homepage Intro. to TS
• Link back to the final exam paper section of the course homepage: Final Exam Papers
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 1
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 2
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 3
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 4
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 5
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 6
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 7
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 8
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 9
• Link to other parts of the final exam papers: Final Exam Papers Part 10

Comparative Studies

A Simple Comparison between Nida and Catford’s Translation Theory of Equivalence 欧阳玲 Ouyang Ling

Abstract: Nida and Cartford shared the same period of translation studies but carried on their studies from different perspective. Nida put forward two types of equivalence as two methods to achieve his ideal equivalent response of receptors(芒迪，42). His equivalence theory was built on his ideas about nature of translation, which was the process of reproducing in the receptor language the message of source language(奈达，12). The nature and task of translation in Nida’s opinion formed a theoretical basis to set the equivalence theory in a comprehensive and systematic way. Cartford, in another way, held a idea that any theory of translation must draw upon a general linguistic theory and therefore proposed the equivalence at different linguistic levels between source language and target language(Cartford,1). The paper intends to develop a comparative study upon Nida and Cartford’s theory of equivalence and my thoughts on their application in translation practices.

Key words: Nida, Cartford, equivalence theory, nature of translation

摘要：

关键词：

1.Introduction

1.1.Nida’s Theory of Equivalence

Nida’s translation theories were formed along with the process of his translating the Bible. Through the reflection upon these translation practices, he defined the nature of translation and pointed the task of translators. Afterwards, he discarded the old term such as “literal”, “free” and “faithful” translation by putting forward the theory of equivalence(芒迪，42) . The equivalence in Nida’s theory can be achieved at two levels: formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence and he saw the two approaches to realize his ideal translation that equivalent effect between source language receptors and target language receptors. By bringing the two concepts up, Nida provided two directions when working on a translation work as well as standards of evaluating the work after it was done. Specifically, formal equivalence in Nida’s definition is the status of translation being equivalent with the source text in both contents and forms. To achieve this status, translators should be oriented towards the source text’s message and structure(芒迪，42). And dynamic, or functional equivalence, turned further to a new focus on the response of receptor. If the target language receptors react to the translation in the same way as source language receptors do to the source text, the success of a translation is then achieved in Nida’s functional equivalence theory. His theory put forward a new trend of translation studies at that time. Nida’s equivalence theory directed people to evaluate a translation by judging and comparing the response of receptors in stead of considering the correctness and accuracy of translation or comparing the formal and stylistic features between source language and target language. In a comprehensive and systematic way, Nida’s equivalence theory elaborated the approaches and the ideal status of translation based on his understanding on the nature of translation, and this equivalence theory has always been praised as his greatest achievement in translation studies.

1.2.Cartford’s Theory of Equivalence

Cartford’s translation theories were built on the discipline of linguistics, and his equivalence theory was included of course. Cartford stated in his book A Linguistic Theory of Translation the theory of translation is concerned with a certain type of relation between languages and is consequently a branch of Comparative Linguistics(Cartford, 20). His theory of equivalence was also originated his definition of the nature of translation, which is the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another language( Cartford, 20). His definition, in other words, portrayed the task for translators. In his opinion, in the process of translation, translators are supposed to replace every grammatical and lexical items in the source language with equivalents in the target language. So in this way, the equivalence in Cardford’s theory can be graded into different levels according to the extent of the replacement, and then he put forward the distinction of full translation and partial translation. Moreover, he raised another pair of concepts: textual equivalence and formal corresponding, and it may give a clearer picture for us to understand his theory. If the target language text can be judged by bilinguals or linguists equivalent with the source language text in any given discourse or occasion, the textual equivalence is achieved. As regards the formal corresponding, Cartford defined it as an approximate status when any target language category occupies, as nearly as possible, in the same place in the structure of the target language as the given source language category occupies in the source language. This pair of concepts presented two different degrees of equivalence and have become a valuable source in translation studies.

2.Similarities and Differences

2.1.The Similarities between the Two Theories

2.2.The Differences between the Two Theories

3.My Thoughts on the Two Theories

4.Conclusion

A Comparative Study Between the Skopos Theory and Yan Fu’s Translation Thoery 吴一露 Wu Yilu

Abstract

Skopos theory and the theory put forward by Yan Fu, that is “ Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance” are one of the most representative translation theories respectively in the history of Chinese and Western translation theories. And these two theories have a profound impact to Chinese and Western translation theories and practices. This paper will compare the similarities and differences between these two theories as well as their historical contributions and limitations. It aims to get a deeper understanding of Skopos theory and Yan Fu’s theory and a better application of theories in practice. In the meantime, the collision and comparative analysis of Chinese and Western theories will also promote the study of translation theories and provide a reference for guiding translation practice.

Key words

Skopos Theory; Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance; Hans Vermeer; Yan Fu

摘要

目的论和严复提出的翻译理论即 “信达雅”分别是中西方翻译理论史上最具代表性的翻译理论之一。并且这两种翻译理论对中西方翻译理论和实践产生了深刻的影响。本文将对比研究目的论以及“信达雅”的同异，结合比较这两种理论的历史贡献及局限,旨在加深对目的论和“信达雅”理解，并将理论更好地运用到翻译实践中。同时中西方理论的碰撞和对比分析，也会促进翻译理论研究和为指导翻译实践提供依据。

关键词

目的论；信达雅；汉斯·弗米尔；严复

1. Introduction

Skopos is the Greek word for “aim” or “purpose” and was introduced into translation theory in the 1970s by the German linguists Hans J. Vermeer as a technical term for the purpose of a translation and developed in Germany in the late 1970s. The creation of Skopos theory is a significant achievement of western translation theories, providing a new perspective for translation study. In 1897, Yan Fu set down the triple translation criteria of “Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance,” (Xin Da Ya), which influenced the development of translation practice and theory for almost half a century after it came into being and it still exerts great influence on contemporary TS. As now the scope of integration and exchanges between China and Western world are expanding to various fields, this paper will reexamine these influential theories by comparing their commonalities, differences and influences, so as to broaden our vision of translation theory study.

2. Introduction of Skopos Theory and Yan Fu’s Theory

2.1 Skopos Theory

Skopos theory comprises the idea that translating and interpreting means to produce a target text in a target setting for a target purpose and target addressees in target circumstances (Vermeer, Hans J.1987a).

2.1.2 The Development of Skopos Theory

The creation of Skopos theory in not going to happen overnight; it is a gradual process that can the skopos theory become the core of functionalist approach, which is initially proposed by Hans Vermeer. Its formation and development experienced mostly three periods.

(1) Katharina Reiss’s research

The book Possibilities and Limits of Translation Criticism, written by Katharina Reiss in 1971, marked the appearance of German translation theories and was the first time raised the idea that text function could be listed as a standard of translation criticism and came up with thoughts of functional translation theory. The core of her translation theory is text typology, including informative text (content-focused), expressive text (form-focused), operative text (appeal-focused) and the auto-medial text, which laid a foundation of Skopos theory.

(2) Hans J. Vermeer: Skopos theories and beyond

Vermeer, Reiss’s student, casting off the chains of Translation Equivalence, thought: translation is not a mechanical language interpretation, but an activity with an aim or purpose. According to Action Theory, human action is a kind of purposeful behavior in a given situation. In his opinion, translation also is such a kind of action with purpose on the foundation of a source text. Hence, Vermeer names his theory Skopos theory, a theory of purposeful action. Hans J. Vermeer believed that the purpose of a text determines the translation strategies. The most important ingredients determining the purpose of translation is readers. So translators should better to consider integrally both the purpose of translation and special circumstances of target-text readers before interpreting.

(3) Justa Holz-Manttari and Christiane Nord: the theory of translational action and Function plus Loyalty Principle

Manttari differentiated “translation” and “translational action”. She thought that “translation” is simply transformative action while “translation action” is more intricate behavior designed to transfer message overcoming culture and language barriers. In Christiane Nord’s Translating as a Purposeful Activity-Functionalist Approaches Explained, she defines the Skopos theory as the prime principle determining any translation process. But Nord also found there were some drawbacks of Skopos theory, so she putted forward the “loyalty principle”: the responsibility of translators towards to their partners in translational interaction.

2.1.3 Rules of Skopos Theory

There are three rules of Skopos theory, including skopos rule, coherence rule and fidelity rule.

“The top-ranking rule for any translation is thus the ‘skopos rule’ (Vermeer), which means that a translation action is determined by its skopos; in other words, that is “ the end justifies the means” (Reiss Katharina & Vermeer Hans J. 1984). As defined by Vermeer and translated by Nord, the Skopos rule states: “Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The Skopos rule thus reads as follows: translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function.” Whether the function of the source text or passages in the source text can be preserved or have to be modified or even changed all decided by the purpose of translation (Christiane Nord, 1997). The skopos is divided into three forms: translator purpose, communicative purpose of the translated text and the purpose of using some kind of translation strategies.

Coherence rule talks about that the target text must be coherent with the source text, given target text receivers circumstances and knowledge (Pochhacker, Franz, 1995). Translators should pick out what is meaningful in the receivers’ condition. As elaborated by Nord, a communicative interaction can only be regarded as successful if the receivers interpret it as being sufficiently coherent with their situation. Under this rule, the receivers of the target text, as well as their cultural background, social circumstances, expectations, values and norms should all be taken into consideration as major factors to produce meaningful translations.

The last rule concerns the intertexual coherence between target text and source text---the target text is determined by its skopos. It means the skopos of target text should share identical views with the intention of original author. In accordance to this, the form of the target text would be determined by both the translator’s interpretation of the source text and the translation’s purpose. These three rules connect with each other. Coherence rule and fidelity rule are subject to skopos rule. From above three rules, we come to a conclusion that the evaluation criterion of translation is “adequacy”—dynamic standard-- rather than “equivalence”. Therefore, translator should not be literalists who rigidly adhere to the words of the source text.

2.2 Yan Fu’s Theory

Yan Fu (1854-1921) was an outstanding Chinese Scholar and translator who had studied abroad from 1877 to 1879 in Britain. In this period, he was interested in western politics and started to learn academic theories of capitalist politics. His solid foundation of language as well as rich reserves of theories made adequate preparations for his future translation work. Because realizing that it was important for old China to catch up western countries in fields of politics, economy, culture, ideology and institutions, this famous Chinese translator devoted his life to importing western ideas and theories by translating various foreign works, including Evolution and Ethics, Yuan Fu (the Chinese version of The Wealth of Nations), The Spirit of Laws and other essays. It is these translated works and his translation theories --- “faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance” that impressed large numbers of Chinese scholars profoundly, which also contributed to his everlasting name in the history of Chinese translation theory study.

2.2.1 The Development of Yan Fu’s Theory

(1)The proposal of “Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance”

The idea of “faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance” （Xin, Da, Ya) was firstly seen in The Dhammapada sequence （《法句经序》）written by Zhi Qian , a venerable monk and a translator of Buddhist scriptures in the Three Kingdoms Period. But as a translation theory, it is known to the public and handed down because of Yan Fu. In 1898, Yan Fu made a conclusion of all the debates related to translation since Han dynasty and Tang dynasty after research. Then he put forward “the three difficulties for translating” in the preface of the translation of T.H. Huxley’s book Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays more than one hundred years ago. The Biography of Yan Fu made a description that Yan Fu was stimulated by the utter failure of the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895 and then started to translate foreign works. The first draft of Evolution and Ethics was finished in 1895. As this was the first book he translated, he met many difficulties in translating and got a lot of thoughts. Then he put his thoughts into Yiliyan （《译例言》）: “ Translation involves three requirements difficult to fulfill: faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance. ” In addition, there are still some people holding the opinion that these translation thoughts of Yan Fu took their ideas from the three principles of famous British translator Tytler.

(2)The evolution of “Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance”

Since this translation theory was put forward, it have inspired continuous debates for nearly one hundred years and the interpretation of the later scholars cannot be ignored. There are four main direction of this evolution. The May Fourth New Culture Movement ushered in a new epoch vernacular literature and translation, which changed the status of Classical Chinese and Vernacular Chinese. So Yan Fu’s interpretation of “Elegance”, which refers to application of Classical Chinese before Han dynasty, became out of step with the Times. Attempting to prove the rationality of “Elegance”, many translators made new interpretations of this translation standard. While there are also some made adjustments on the basis of Yan Fu’s theory. Qu Qiubai suggested using Vernacular Chinese instead of classical one; Lin Yutang, Liu Zhongdei and Zhu Wenzhen proposed to change “Elegance” into “Beauty”, “Closeness” and “Appropriate” respectively. Among which “ Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Closeness” not only inherits rational thoughts, but also overcomes limitations of “Elegance”. So this principle is a remarkable symbol presenting that China’s translation theories are becoming mature. Besides, Lu Xun simplified this three-character standard, turning it into a two-character one--- “faithfulness and smoothness” (Xin Shun Shuo). From “Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance” to “Faithfulness, Smoothness and Beauty”, from “Similarity in Spirit” to “Sublimation”, we can see that the translation spirit of Yan Fu is carried forward and how profound an impact this theory made.

2.2.2 Main Contents of Yan Fu’s Theory

Whenever the criteria of translation is discussed in China, the principle of translation proposed by Yan Fu would be mentioned, namely: “ Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance”. From the perspective of Yan Fu, “Faithfulness” referred to the meaning of the target text should be close to that of the original one, that was, being faithful to the original meaning, as well as its sentimental color, style and flavor. There are two aspects of “Faithfulness”: being faithful to the original work and to target readers. “Expressiveness” meant the target text should be coherent and clear, there being no need to follow the exact order of words and sentences structure of the original language but reorganize and elaborate to respect the rules of target language. And “Elegance” indicated that the target text should be of refinement in language, namely, the use of ancient Chinese before Han dynasty so as to meet the expectation of target readers who were well-educated in China. He claimed that “where language has no refinement, its effects will not extend far”. In his translation, he regarded ancient Chinesean old language as a way of elegant expression.

These three standards are integrated, but there is also differentiation between priority and others. In Yan Fu’s point of view, “Faithfulness” is the core while “Expressiveness” and “Elegance” are two measures, which can be noticed from the order of these three characters. That means “Faithfulness” is the premise and basis of translation and “Expressiveness” is the aim of translation.

5. Conclusion

--Wu Yilu (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Art of Translation

Study on the English Translation of Hunan Scenic Spots Names from the View of Culture Translation 刘欧 Liu Ou

Abstract

Key words

摘要

关键词

2.1 The Abundant Resource of Hunan Scenic Spots

2.2 The Meaning of View of Culture Translation

2.3 The Existing English Translated Versions of Hunan Scenic Spots

2.4 The Strategy of English Translation of Hunan Scenic Spots Names from the View of Culture Translation

Conclusion

Bibliography

The Visible Images and Invisible Hands: An Analysis of Lefevere’s ManipulationTheory and Venuti’s Deconstruction of The Translator’s Invisibility 祝美梅 Zhu Meimei

In the early 1990s, Lefevere, a representative of the cultural school of translation studies and a well-known translation theorist, elaborated Manipulation Theory is his book Translation, rewriting and the Manipulation Literary Fame, in which he said: Translation is, of course, a rewriting of an original text. All rewritings, whatever their intention, reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way. Rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power, and in its positive aspect can help in the evolution of a literature and a society. Lefevere, defines translation as a form of rewriting, thus treating translation as a form of creating another text image, just like literary criticism, biography, literary history, film, drama, fiction, falsification of anthologies and reader’s guides. But it doesn’t mean that translation is rewriting. Lefevere thinks rewriting includes some other forms, for example, historiography, anthology,, criticism and editing. He ven emphasized that translation creates the literary and cultural image of the original text, the original author, and the original text. All rewriting, regardless of its intention, reflects a certain ideology and poetics. Therefore, translation is actually the manipulation of the translator to the text, which makes literature work with a certain way in a particular society. In any case, the understanding of translation as rewriting or manipulation of the original text deepens people’s understanding of translation to a great extent. In Lefevere’s view, there are three elements influencing the function of translation. The first one is professionals within the literary system, including critics, reviewers, teachers and translators who will affect the acceptance of translated works; the second is patronage outside of that system. Patronage here can be seen as the powers that can further or hinder the reading, writing, and rewriting of literature, and the third is the dominant poetics. Lefevere’s translation theory represents an important turning point in the history of translation study. He developed Zohar’s poly-system theory. And he studies translation in cultural approach. Before the “cultural turn”, translation was seen almost as an exclusively linguistic process, in which the translator was required to find the TL equivalent for a SL expression and which was not influenced by any other factors than linguistic ones. But in fact, Lefevere’s translation theory could instruct translation activities in many cases. Based on the understanding of three control factors, the translator will solve problems encountered in the process of translation, exploring changes of translation strategies under various factors, mainly including ideology, poetics and patronages, which will be introduced in the next chapter.

Three control factors Lefevere points that all literature works should be placed in a certain social and cultural environment. Thus its meaning and value is influenced by these factors. The audience’s apprehension of the work also differs for these factors. He emphasizes three factors manipulating translation: ideology, poetic and patronage. Introduction of poetics According to Lefevere, a poetics includes two components. One is the literary method which consists of literary genres, prototypical characters and situations, motifs, symbols. The other is the concept of the literature function. As a theory about the study of poetry and their skills, poetics is also a theory of literature and art. After choosing some types of practice at a certain period, while excluding others, the poetics is codified. Then it will have tremendous influence on the further development of the literary system. Lefevere holds that the translation methods adopted by the translators are carried out under the guidance of certain strategies of certain poetic factors. It exerts on the choices of words, sentecnes, even the style and translation strategies of the whole article. Translation has greatly influenced the exchange of different literary systems, not only in introducing new literary methods into a certain poetics, but also in whether the image of a writer or a work can be successfully introduced into another literary system. In Lefevere’s view, as the manipulatin of a translator, rewriting should be regarded as a cultural necessity in essence, because translators are bound to be influenced and constrained by different social and cultural factors in the process of translation. Rewriting under the guidance of poetics is an important part of the cultural system in which the rewriters produce works. Rewriters often adjust the original works to a certain extent to be in line with the dominant ideology and poetics of the period in which the rewriters lived, and to make the rewritten works accepted by as many audiences as possible. In order to adapt some famous works to the cultural background of various society and history, they have also been rewritten to varying degrees. As is mentioned above, works of the dominant poetics is what people called classics for future writers to follow. But “a poetics, any poetics, is a historical variable: it is not absolute.” For instance, poetics today differs from the dominant poetics of the Tang dynasty. In cater to the change of the dominant poetics, these canonized works will be adapted o rewritten. This is why some classical Greek works still have an impact on Western literature. Translators pay more and more attention on the poetic factors in translation, further developing translation theory. Poetics solve the problem of what literature should or can be, and deciding the role and influence of translation in the society to some extent. In the process of translation, emphasizing more on meaning and lesson poetic factors and literary component will make the poetic aesthetic sense of the original work disappear. Lefevere also points that any poetics transcend language, ethnic and political entities which is demonstrated by listing Multilanguage regions or various forms of social and political organizations in Africa share a common poetics. In his eyes, the poetics will not be adapted to any language, but the dominant poetics is dominated by the ideology. Introduction of ideology