Creat App Theo EN 1

Ei Mon Kyaw: Appropriateness Theory in Translation Studies

Creat_App_Theo_EN_1

Student Name Ei Mon Kyaw, Student No. 202111080021

Abstract

This paper is an analysis to the translational theories and derivation to the appropriateness theory. Translation has been influenced by many social and intercultural factors. In this paper, the translational theories will be surveyed.

Key words

Translation Theory, Appropriateness Theory, Translational Studies

Introduction

Appropriateness theory can be derived from the other existing theories.

Literature Review

Interpreting theories and interpreting studies are as old as human languages. According to Seyed Hossein Heydarian, every language has a specific fingerprint of translation strategies (Woesler 2020, 345).

The concept of translation

The English term translation, first attested in around 1340, derives either from Old French translation or more directly from the Latin translatio (‘transporting’), itself coming from the participle of the verb transferre (‘to carry over’). In the field of languages, translation today has several meanings: (1) the general subject field or phenomenon. (2) the product – that is, the text that has been translated or the report. (3) the process of producing the translation, otherwise known as translating. The process of translation between two different written languages involves the changing of an original written text (the source text or ST) in the original verbal language (the source language or SL) into a written text (the target text or TT) in a different verbal language (the target language or TL)(Munday & Jeremy, n.d.: p 8).

Introducing Translation Studies

Throughout history, written and spoken translations have played a crucial role in interhuman communication, not least in providing access to important texts for scholarship and religious purposes. As world trade has grown, so has the importance of translation. Yet the study of translation as an academic subject only really began in the second half of the twentieth century. In the English-speaking world, this discipline is now generally known as ‘translation studies’, thanks to the Dutch-based US scholar James S. Holmes (1924–1986). In his key defining paper delivered in 1972, but not widely available until 1988, Holmes describes the then nascent discipline as being concerned with ‘the complex of problems clustered round the phenomenon of translating and translations’ (Holmes 1988b/2004: 181). By 1995, the time of the second, revised, edition of her Translation Studies: An Integrated Approach, Mary Snell-Hornby was able to talk in the preface of ‘the breathtaking development of translation studies as an independent discipline’ and the ‘prolific international discussion’ on the subject (Snell-Hornby 1995, preface). Little more than a decade later, the editors of the second edition of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation comment on ‘new concerns in the discipline, its growing multidisciplinarity, and its commitment to break away from its exclusively Eurocentric origins, while holding on to the achievements of the past decades’ (Baker and Saldanha 2009: xxii, cited in Munday & Jeremy, n.d.: p 10-11).

Functional Theories of Translation

The 1970s and 1980s saw a move away from linguistic typologies of translation shifts, and the emergence and flourishing in Germany of a functionalist and communicative approach to the analysis of translation. This tied in with advances in linguistic studies of the complex parameters of text comprehension and generation. Functional Theories of Translation are: (1) Katharina Reiss’s early work on text type and Mary Snell-Hornby’s later integrated’ approach; (2) Justa Holz-Mänttäri’s theory of translatorial action; (3) Hans J. Vermeer’s skopos theory, which centred on the purpose of the TT; (4) Christiane Nord’s more detailed text-analysis model which continued the functionalist tradition in the 1990s and beyond (Munday & Jeremy, n.d.: p 113-114).

Introduction to Skopos Theory

Skopos theory is a translational theory by the German translator Vermeer in 1978 (Lecturer & Jabir, 2006). This emphasizes the role of the translator as a creator of the target text and gives priority to purpose (skopos) of producing the target text. The word “Skopos” is from Greek, meaning ‘purpose or aim’ (Lili, 2016). According to Skopos theory, the basic principle which determines the process of translation is the purpose (skopos) of the translational action. The Skopos theory orients a more functionally and socio-culturally concept of translation, whereby translation is considered not as a process of translation, but as a specific form of human action (Lili, 2016). The main idea of Skopos theory is that translators should hold the thought from the perspective of the target readers during the process of translation. So, translators should keep in mind what the function of translation text is, what the target readers' demand is and what communicative situation is (Vermeer, 1996, cited in Lili, 2016).

In Skopos Theory, translational action is regarded as a communicative human action, in which the social elements and cultural elements of the source text should be considered. Traditionally, people regard translation as the interaction between translators and the source text, or translators between the writers. Skopos Theory gives the translator more freedom. In the past, translators have to be loyal or faithful to the source text, and try as possible as they can to convey the meanings of the writers to achieve equivalence to the source texts. However, in the Skopos Theory, skopos rule is paramount and if the fidelity rule is contradicted to the skopos rule, translators can choose to delete or rewrite the source text according to their different skopos. Vermeer points out that if a translation work satisfies its skopos, then it is adequate and good translation even if it is not equivalent to the source text. Instead of being fluent, the coherence rule of Skopos Theory states that the conditions and knowledge of the target reader should be considered to achieve intratextual coherence. Target reader’s different needs are recognized and translators should take them into consideration (Yang, 2020). Since skopos varies with text receivers, the skopos of the target text and of the source text may be different. Skopos theory should not be understood as promoting (extremely) free translation in all, or even a majority of cases (Reiss and Vermeer 1984/1991:196, cited in Tamas, n.d.). It is up to the translator as the expert to decide what role a source text is to play in the translation action. It may be ADAPTATION to the target culture, but it may also be to acquaint the reader with the source culture (Vermeer 1989a:182, cited in Tamas, n.d.). Every translation commission should explicitly or implicitly contain a statement of skopos.

Skopos and its Related Terms

Skopos is a technical term for the aim or purpose of a piece of translation. In Vermeer's theory, there is a distinction between the terms aim and purpose. This is further explained by Nord (ibid:28-29, cited in Lecturer & Jabir, 2006). The gist of Vermeer's discussion is that aim is considered as the final result which an agent tries to achieve via an action; whereas purpose is a provisional stage in the process of achieving an aim.

Function is yet another term that refers to what a text means. The meaning of the text is viewed by the receiver. Another related term to skopos is intention which is regarded as an aim- oriented plan of action on the part of both the sender and the receiver. This points towards an appropriate way of producing or understanding the text. In order to remove the ambiguity resulting from the difference between intention and function, Nord (1991:47f, cited in Lecturer & Jabir, 2006) has proposed a distinction between intention and function. The sender is responsible for specifying intention and by using a text he tries to achieve a purpose. The receiver uses the text with a certain function, depending on his/her own expectations, needs, previous knowledge and situational conditions. This distinction is important to the field of translation as the sender and receiver belong to different cultural and situational settings. Some say that translation is translating cultures. So, intention and function can be analyzed from two different angles. The former is viewed from the sender's point of view while the latter is seen from the receiver's (Lecturer & Jabir, 2006).

Three Main Rules of the Skopos Theory

According to Hans J Vermeer and following translation theory experts, there are three main rules of the Skopos theory: skopos rule, coherence rule and fidelity rule.

Skopos Rule. Skopos is a Greek word for "aim" or "purpose". "The top-ranking rule for any translation is thus the 'skopos rule', which means that a translation action is determined by its skopos; that is, 'the end justifies the means'" by Reiss and Vermeer. Vermeer also stresses on many occasions that the skopos rule is a general rule, and translation strategies and methods are determined by the purpose and the intended function of the target text(Vermeer, 1984, cited in Lili, 2016).

Coherence Rule. The coherence rule states that the target text "must be interpretable as coherent with the target text receiver's situation" (Vermeer, 1984, cited in Lili, 2016). In other words, the target text must be translated in such a way that it is coherent for the target text receivers, given their circumstances and knowledge. In terms of coherence rule, the source text is no longer of most authority but only part of the translation beliefs. It is only an offer of information for the translator, who in turn picks out what he considers to be meaningful in the receiver's situation(Vermeer, 1984, cited in Lili, 2016).

Fidelity Rule. Translation is a preceding offer of information. It is expected to bear some relationship with the corresponding source text. Vermeer calls this relationship "intertextual coherence" or "fidelity". This is postulated as a further principle, referred to as the "fidelity rule" by Reiss and Vermeer in 1984.The fidelity rule merely states that there must be coherence between the translated version and the source text. In the relationship among the rules, fidelity rule is considered subordinate to coherence rule, and both are subordinate to the skopos rule. If the skopos requires a change of function, the criterion will no longer be fidelity to the source text but adequacy or appropriateness with regard to the skopos. And if the skopos demands intra-textual incoherence, the standard of coherence rule is no longer vivid (Nord, 2001, cited in Lili, 2016).

Vermeer thinks that translation, as an aspect of human action, is purposeful or intentional, and that the purpose (skopos) of this translation action is very important as it determines the translation strategies and translation methods in the later translation activity of the translator, which is the most important rule of Skopos Theory—the skopos rule (Yang, 2020). Besides, Vermeer also puts forward the other two rules—the coherence rule and the fidelity rule and states clearly the hierarchical order of these three rules—skopos rule > coherence rule > fidelity rule. Skopos Theory gives a new way of thinking about the concept of translation and the role of translator and target reader in the translation process(Vermeer, 1984, cited in Lili, 2016).

Translation Action

Enlightened by Wright’s action theory, which regards human’s action as intentional, Vermeer sees translation as a human action, meaning that translation is an intentional action performed by human being. In his A Framework for a General Theory of Translation, Vermeer describes translation as a communicative action (intentional), in which communicative verbal and nonverbal signs are transferred from one language into another (Nord, 2001, Yang, 2020). Vermeer claims that seeing translation as a mere linguistic process is not adequate, this is also an important significance of Vermeer’s Skopos Theory, a shift from previous linguistic translation theories.

In Skopos Theory, translational action is regarded as a communicative human action, in which the social elements and cultural elements of the source text should be considered. Instead of considering the mere linguistic level, other cultural elements are considered; this is a significance of Vermeer’s Skopos Theory. Second, Skopos Theory makes people have a new thinking about the involving participants of a translational action. Traditionally, people regard translation as the interaction between translators and the source text, or translators between the writers. Instead of merely being loyal to the source text or the original writer, translator should be loyal to his target reader. Skopos Theory gives the translator more freedom. In the past, translators have to be loyal or faithful to the source text, and try as possible as they can to convey the meanings of the writers to achieve equivalence to the source texts. However, in the Skopos Theory, skopos rule is paramount and if the fidelity rule is contradicted to the skopos rule, translators can choose to delete or rewrite the source text according to their different skopos. It gives a new criterion for translation evaluation. Instead of being equivalent to and transferring the meaning of the source, Vermeer points out that if a translation work satisfies its skopos, then it is adequate and good translation even if it is not equivalent to the source text. Equivalency is only a sub-branch of adequacy. Skopos Theory gives certain attention to the target reader. Instead of being fluent, the coherence rule of Skopos Theory states that the conditions and knowledge of the target reader should be considered to achieve intratextual co herence. Target reader’s different needs are recognized and translators should take them into consideration (Nord, 2001, Yang, 2020).

Criticisms over Skopos Theory

The critiques mainly focus on the attitude of the Skopos theory toward the ‘dethronement’ of the source text (Schaffner, 1998, cited in Uddin, 2019). The Skopos theory may bring a translation product closer to an ‘adaptation’ rather than a ‘translation’ (Nord, 1997, cited in Uddin, 2019). Skopos theory should put the source text (rather than the target text) as the starting point regardless of the purposes of the texts produced during the translation process (Koller, 1990, cited in Uddin, 2019). Skopos theory is inapplicable to literary texts (also religious texts) since these texts involve highly stylistic and expressive language; therefore, equivalence may not be achieved (Nord, 1997, cited in Uddin, 2019). Another particular criticism mentions unclear guideline of Skopos theory during the translation practice, i.e., what are step by step procedures that have to be done during the translation process (Sunwoo, 207, cited in Uddin, 2019).

Shortcomings of Skopos Theory

The skopos is an ambiguous concept. Skopos Theory undervalues the source text and writers. Skopos Theory is unfalsifiable and Skopos Theory fails to give clear evaluation criteria for a translation.

The Ambiguity of “Skopos”

In Skopos Theory, when the skopos of the target text is different from the skopos of the source text, translator can choose to be not equivalent with the source text if in accordance with the skopos. And here comes one problem, whether all the source text and all the translation are intentional or purposeful, which is still in dispute. Sometimes writers produce “art” for “art’s sake” and maybe some translations are done with no purpose. So, in these situations, can Skopos Theory still be applied and how to explain them? According to Skopos Theory, in the normal circumstances, a client needs a translation work and then the client should come to the translator with a “translation brief” or “commission”. In the translation brief or the commission, the client should give as many details as possible such as the skopos, time, addressee, time, place, and medium of the target text. The skopos of the translation work should be clarified in the translation commission so that the translator could know clearly the skopos and appropriate translation methods and translation strategies could be utilized in the translation work. So, the client plays the role of initiator in the translation process and determines the skopos of the translation work. And the client and the translator could negotiate with each other to help clearly convey the skopos of the translation work and negotiation between clients and translators is needed especially when the client has only a vague or even an incorrect idea of the what kind of text is required (Nord, 2001, Yang, 2020).

However, in the normal situation, the clients do not know the Skopos Theory and do not know the important role of translation commission, and they can only give a brief introduction of the target text in their mind to the translators. In the reality, most of the time, the clients are not experts in translation and they do not have the competence to list practical and feasible requirements of the target text. And sometimes there is even no written translation commission by the clients for the translators. Clients’ negotiation with translators is only an ideal situation but not feasible or practical in the reality. It may take a lot of effort of the translators and the clients but may lead to low efficiency and the waste of time. So here comes one contradictory phenomenon. On the one hand, the Skopos Theory requires that the skopos of the translation work should be determined by the clients and displayed clearly in the translation brief. On the other hand, there is only a brief introduction of the requirements for the target text and sometimes there is even no written translation commission. So the skopos of the translation work has no substantive contents. The translators can only depend on themselves to deduce the possible skopos of the target text and depend on themselves to decide the translation strategies and translation methods in the later practical translation work. This gives a lot of freedom to the translator, however, at the same time, makes the skopos of the translation commission a meaningless and ambiguous concept in the practical translation work of the translators (Nord, 2001, Yang, 2020).

From the above analysis, the skopos of a translation work is only an ideal and ambiguous concept and has no guiding significance in the later practical translation work of the translator, which is one very important shortcoming of Vermeer’s Skopos Theory. Source text is only regarded to be an “offer of information” in a source culture and source language, and too much freedom leads to disrespect of the source text and the writers. Skopos Theory treats translation as a functional activity and too much free dom and subjectivity of the translator leads to low respect for the source text and writer. When in the translation of literary works, being too much goal-oriented and deleting, rewriting and simplification of the source text would destroy the literariness and artistry of the original literary work. The literariness and artistry of the original literary work may be destroyed and conflict may occur (Nord, 2001, Yang, 2020).

The Unfalsifiability of Skopos Theory

Vermeer claims that the skopos is regulated by the initiator at first but finally determined by the translators. So should the translators be the ones who judge whether his or her translation has achieved the skopos? How do we know the skopos of the translators and how we prove that the translators fail to achieve the skopos? Let’s see an example.

原文：改革进入了深水区，但再深的水我们也得蹚。 译文：In pursuing reform, we have entered uncharted/deep waters. But we must wade through these waters no matter how deep we are.

This example is from Translators Association of China, in its website. The word “深水区” means that China’s reform has entered its journey of the middle may be an acceptable translation, however, “deep water” gives people an impression of limited hope to survive. Since Translators Association of China puts this version of translation in its website, at that time they think that this translation is acceptable and appropriate and achieves the skopos. Because if they thought that the translation fails to achieve the skopos, they will try to refine it until a better version is created (Nord, 2001, Yang, 2020).

The Ambiguity of Evaluation Criterion of Target Text

What is the evaluation criterion of the target text? In Skopos Theory, skopos is at a paramount place, and translators can have a lot of freedom and subjectivity in a translation process. How to judge whether the translator has achieved the skopos? Skopos Theory can only be seen as a general theory and it gives us enlightenment that we should take the skopos of the translation into consideration, however, has no practical guiding meaning in the later translation process. Then some people begin to regard the other two rules: fidelity rule and coherence rule as the evaluation criteria for the target text. This is inappropriate and conflicting with the skopos rule, because according to Skopos Theory, the hierarchical rule of these three rules is that skopos rule > coherence rule > fidelity rule.

Coherence rule and fidelity rule are subordinated to the skopos rule, and the skopos rule, rather than the other two rules, should be the evaluation criteria for the target text. In Skopos Theory, readers, as the most important role in influencing the skopos, should be the reviews of the translation. In this way, the target text that is well-accepted by the readers can be seen as good translation? Even if we regarding readers as the reviewers of the target text, how to deal with the different knowledge levels of the target reader? How to deal with the different aesthetic standards of the target reader? From the above analysis, we can know that the evaluation criteria for a translation are ambiguous (Nord, 2001, Yang, 2020).

Concept of Appropriateness Theory=

“Appropriateness Theory” is the final theory of all translation theories. There may be different answers to the question of appropriateness in different times and from different actors, perspectives, disciplines, etc (Moratto & Woesler, 2021). An evaluation of the appropriateness of a translation can only be relative and never absolute. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a system of evaluation, valuing the different aspects such as the function of the text, loyalty to the author, the ideals of literal/free translation, and how far a translation can “work” in the target language (Moratto & Woesler, 2021).

Translation and interpreting theories can each explain particularly well individual aspects of translation processes and the creation of target texts. This allows the existing theories to be used eclectically. In addition, the eclectic use must be supplemented with an enrichment by the final judgment possibility of all theories on superordinate categories such as ethics and human dignity in the form of the theory of "appropriateness" (Woesler, 2021, pp. 1-5). According to the appropriateness theory, however, a line of conflict arises with regard to the user's being at the mercy of the principal, both of whom may pursue different interests. Appropriateness theory, as an integrative theory, accepts all existing translation theories for certain aspects of the translation process. Furthermore, it poses the question to what extent a translation can be called "appropriate" in certain sub‐aspects and as a whole.

Appropriateness Theory in relation to Skopos Theory

Skopos theory called for iconoclasm against the sanctity of the original, focused on the translator and the purpose of the text to functionally (or dynamically) achieve equivalence in the target culture (Woesler, 2021, pp. 1-5). Imagine the fictional case of a battle speech by a Japanese general to his soldiers. Now the Chinese army got a hold of the speech, translates it into Chinese and replaces “Chinese” by “Japanese” and uses it to motivate its own people. Translating a battle speech for one country with discriminatory statements about an enemy country that has been correctly translated for use as a battle speech in the enemy country according to the

Skopos theory would be doubly inappropriate according to the Appropriateness theory in such these reasons: 1. translators ethically stand above ideologies or other discriminations and do not contribute to human rights violations. 2. even if the purpose was served, reversing statements to the exact opposite would not be appropriate to the source text, even though principals and readers in the target culture may receive the text very favorably (Woesler, 2021, pp. 1-5).

Thus, the Appropriateness Theory goes beyond the previous theories that measure the correctness of a translation by the content, semantics, grammar, situation of the principal, translator and reader. Here, an overall assessment is asked for, in which the principal, the equivalence in the source and target culture or the effect in the target culture are no longer a measure of translation quality. These translations must also be measured against even more general, human yardsticks. And this is where human dignity and ethics come into play. A typical borderline case would be a deliberately false translation with the intention of avoiding or producing things worse, e.g., human rights violations, torture, genocide, etc. If the deliberate falsification of a translation serves to mislead, manipulate, and alienate the recipient in order to strengthen the power of a group, it would be ethically reprehensible and might be correct for the principal under the Skopos theory, but not under the Appropriateness theory.

Ethics

Ethical practice has always been an important issue for translators and interpreters, though historically the focus of concern has been the question of fidelity to the spoken or written text. Directed and collective engagement with an ethics of translation can serve as a means of strengthening the possibility of elaborating a role for translation as a positive force for social and political change. It can also help to create more effective pedagogical tools for training translators and interpreters to reflect upon their personal and/or social commitments and challenge existing norms established in codes of ethics that are untenable in actual contexts of practice (Arrojo 2005; Timoczko 2007: 318–22). Perhaps, increased focus on translation ethics within the field can help to guide translators, interpreters and translation scholars towards their ‘right’ to act responsibly, and to take their visibility and accountability seriously (Maier 2007, Baker, 2009, p 100-103).

Cultural transfer

Fuentes Luque and Kelly (2000:241, cited in Baker, 2009) point out that ‘the role of the translator in international advertising . . . can in no way be limited to “purely linguistic” issues’, and suggest that translators of advertising material should be to become ‘intercultural experts’. Guidère (2001) agrees that ‘to accomplish his mission successfully, the translator is required to think and to integrate a certain amount of data, not only about marketing and basic communication, but also about geopolitics and ethnology’. Adab (2000, 2001) similarly stresses the importance of cultural values. The discussion of cultural issues in the translation of advertising material would particularly benefit from insights on the cultural adaptation of European or American advertising campaigns and messages for non-Western audiences. Important research has been carried out in this area by scholars such as Guidère (2000a), who highlights the difficulties of translating advertisements into Arabic, Zequan (2003), who traces some of the terminological choices made in the translation of a beauty spa advertisement from English into Chinese to differences in religious traditions, and Chuansheng and Yunnan (2003), who provide an extensive overview of brand name translation strategies in China. Ho (2004) analyses the cultural adjustments he introduced in his own translation of commercial advertising for Singapore as a tourist destination, again from English into Chinese. An obvious example of the importance of cultural adaptation (and appropriation) to ensure customer motivation can be found in the translation of tourist brochures. If, as Sumberg (2004) points out, the profile of the advertised destination is poorly adjusted to the target readership’s tourist expectations, the brochure will fail to sell the destination – even though that brochure might very well reflect the actual profile and reality of the place better than a heavily adapted translation (Baker, 2009: 9-10).

Cultural Translation

The term ‘cultural translation’ is used in many different contexts and senses. In some of these it is a metaphor that radically questions translation’s traditional parameters, but a somewhat narrower use of the term refers to those practices of literary translation that mediate cultural difference, or try to convey extensive cultural background, or set out to represent another culture via translation. In this sense, ‘cultural translation’ is counterposed to a ‘linguistic’ or ‘grammatical’ translation that is limited in scope to the sentences on the page. It raises complex technical issues: how to deal with features like dialect and heteroglossia, literary allusions, culturally specific items such as food or architecture, or further-reaching differences in the assumed contextual knowledge that surrounds the text and gives it meaning. Questions like these feed long-standing disputes on the most effective – and most ethical – ways to render the cultural difference of the text, leaning more towards naturalization or more towards exoticization, with the attendant dangers of ideologically appropriating the source culture or creating a spurious sense of absolute distance from it (Carbonell 1996). In this context, ‘cultural translation’ does not usually denote a particular kind of translation strategy, but rather a perspective on translations that focuses on their emergence and impact as components in the ideological traffic between language groups (Baker, 2009: p 67).

Conclusion

Translators and interpreters seem to rather strive for balance, i.e., to apply a balanced translation strategy that is generally accepted and also perceived as "appropriate" by the translators/interpreters themselves (Woesler, 2021, pp. 1-5).

--EIMONKYAW (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)Ei Mon Kyaw ------Ei Mon Kyaw-EIMONKYAW (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Woesler, Martin. (2020). Responsibility and Ethics in Times of Corona. Woesler, Martin and Hans-Martin Sass eds. Medicine and Ethics in Times of Corona Muenster: LIT

Ei Mon Kyaw

Creat_App_Theo_EN_1

--EIMONKYAW (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Ei Mon Kyaw -Ei Mon Kyaw-EIMONKYAW (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)