Creat App Theo EN 1

Chapter 1. Appropriateness Theory in Translation Studies 翻译研究中的恰当性理论

Creat_App_Theo_EN_1

Student Name Ei Mon Kyaw 艾梦觉, Student No. 202111080021, Hunan Normal University, China

Abstract

Skopos Theory has signaled for the paradigm shift, from linguistics to functionalism, due to its focus of translation that lies between extra-linguistic factors (i.e., culture and client) and textual factors (i.e., the ‘purpose’ of a text) (Trisnawati, 2014: 246). Vermeer used ‘skopos’, which literally means ‘a purpose’, as a distinct technical term and stated that any translation is an action and goal-oriented, thus any translating action needs to have a purpose, or a skopos that plays a role as “the prime principle determining any translation process” (Trisnawati, 2014: 246). However, it also has some deficiencies, including the ambiguity of the “skopos”, the undervaluation of source text and writer, the unfalsifiability of Skopos Theory and the ambiguity of evaluation criteria for the target text (Yang, 2020: 2-6). Consequently, the new theory called Appropriateness Theory is derived to give a new way of thinking about the concept of translation and the role of translator or target reader in the translation process. This paper aims to develop a new theory “Theory of Appropriateness” by addressing some shortcomings of Skopos Theory and shed some light on the translation field.

由于翻译的焦点在于语言之外的因素（如文化和委托人）以及文本因素（如文本目的） (Trisnawati, 2014: 246)，目的论标志着范式的转变，即从语言学转向功能主义。弗米尔将"目的"当作一个特定的术语，声称任何翻译都是一种行为，都是以目的为导向的，因此任何翻译行为都需要一个目的，作为"决定任何翻译过程的主要原则"(Trisnawati, 2014: 246)。然而，目的论仍然存在一些缺陷，包括"目的"的模糊性，对原文和作者不够重视，目的论的不可证伪性以及对译文的评价标准较为模糊(Yang, 2020: 2-6)。最后将得出一个新的理论即适用性理论，该理论将为翻译的概念，翻译过程中译者和译语读者的角色探讨提供一种新的思考方式。本文旨在通过解决目的论中的一些不足之处来发展"适用性理论"，并且为翻译领域带来一些新的启示。

Key words

Skopos Theory, Appropriateness Theory, Translational Studies

目的论；适用性理论；翻译研究

What is 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, Munday, 2016: 10-11). Holmes (2004:181, cited in Munday, 2016: 10-11) described the then nascent discipline as being concerned with ‘the complex of problems clustered round the phenomenon of translating and translations’.

Introducing Skopos Theory

Skopos Theory is a translational theory by the German translator Vermeer in 1978 (Lecturer & Jabir, 2006: 1). 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: 1). 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: 1). 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: 1).

Significance of Skopos Theory

Skopos Theory brings us a new thinking about translation, and translation evaluation criteria. First, Skopos Theory marks a shift of translation theory from a mere linguistic level to a more complex level. 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 (Yang, 2020: 5-6).

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. However, Vermeer, regards translation as an intentional human action with a purpose and regards the commission as the source of a translation. Besides the commissioner, the clients, the target reader and so on are considered in the process of a translational action. Instead of merely being loyal to the source text or the original writer, translator should be loyal to his commissioner, his clients, and his target reader (Yang, 2020: 5-6).

Third, Skopos Theory gives the translator more freedom. In the past, translators are compared to dancers in ankle cuffs. They 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 (Yang, 2020: 5-6).

Fourth, 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 (Yang, 2020: 5-6).

Fifth, 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 coherence. Target reader’s different needs are recognized and translators should take them into consideration (Yang, 2020: 5-6).

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.: 3-4). 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.:3-4). Every translation commission should explicitly or implicitly contain a statement of skopos (Baker, 2009: 237).

Skopos and its Related Terms

In Vermeer's theory, there is a distinction between the terms ‘aim’ and ‘purpose’. 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 (Nord, ibid:28-29, cited in Lecturer & Jabir, 2006: 2).

‘Function’ is 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 (Lecturer & Jabir, 2006: 2).

In order to remove the ambiguity resulting from the difference between intention and function, Nord (1991:47f, cited in Lecturer & Jabir, 2006: 2) 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 (Lecturer & Jabir, 2006: 2).

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: 2).

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 (Lili, 2016: 1219-1220).

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: 1219-1220). 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.

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: 1219-1220).

Vermeer states the hierarchical order of these three rules—skopos rule > coherence rule > fidelity rule. The skopos rule is dominating and the most important rule in translation activity, and the other two rules are both subordinated to skopos rule. In other words, if the other two rules are contradicted to the skopos rule, translators should obey the skopos rule and can violate the other two rules. Vermeer gives the least importance to the fidelity rule, which is the most important reason for him being criticized (Yang, 2020: 4).

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: 2). The Skopos Theory may bring a translation product closer to an ‘adaptation’ rather than a ‘translation’ (Nord, 1997, cited in Uddin, 2019: 2). 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: 2). 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: 2). 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: 2).

Shortcomings of Skopos Theory

The Ambiguity of “Skopos”: In Skopos Theory, the most important thing for a translation work is the skopos. Vermeer puts forward the new evaluation criteria for a certain translation—adequacy. Since sometimes the skopos of source text and target text is different, the translation should be allowed to be not equivalent. In this case, if a translation work achieves its skopos, then it is appropriate and adequate. Thus, knowing clearly the skopos of a translation work is very important in evaluating whether a translation work is adequate or not. In Skopos Theory, Vermeer regards translation as a human action, which is intentional and purposeful. Sometimes writers produce “art” for “art’s sake” and maybe some translations are done with no purpose. In these situations, can Skopos Theory still be applied and how to explain them? On the one hand, the Skopos Theory requires the skopos of the translation work determined clearly by the clients. 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. As a result, 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. This gives a lot of freedom to the translator, however, at the same time, makes the skopos of the translation commission an ambiguous concept (Yang, 2020: 6-11).

The Undervaluation of Source Text and Writer: Vermeer claims that due to different skopos of a specific translation work, the translator could choose different translation methods and translation strategies. Even the translator rewrites or deletes the source text is feasible if it is in accordance with the skopos. Equivalence should not be the translation criteria for the target text but adequacy should, and equivalence is categorized to be a branch of adequacy, when the skopos of the target text and the source text are almost the same. In Vermeer’s Skopos Theory, there are 3 important rules: the skopos rule, the coherence rule and the fidelity rule. The hierarchical rule of these three rules is that skopos rule > coherence rule > fidelity rule. Vermeer puts the fidelity rule into the least important role in these three rules. This proposition gives a lot of freedom and subjectivity to translators, and translators are entitled to rewrite or even delete some of the source text. 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. The literariness and artistry of the original literary work may be destroyed and conflict may occur (Yang, 2020: 6-11).

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 (Yang, 2020: 6-11). The Ambiguity of Evaluation Criterion of Target Text: What is the evaluation criterion of the target text? How to judge whether the translator has achieved the skopos? Skopos Theory can only be seen as a general theory and it, 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 according to the hierarchical rule of Skopos Theory. The skopos rule, rather than the other two rules, should be the evaluation criteria for the target text (Yang, 2020: 6-11).

Concept of Appropriateness Theory

All of the translational theories can be boiled down to one question they serve: Is the translation appropriate? In other words, is it adequate, suitable, reasonable, fair, just, apt, situationally fitting, does it work in the target language/culture? Therefore, “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. An evaluation of the appropriateness of a translation can only be relative and never absolute. Thus, 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: xvi preface II).

Of historical importance is the question of appropriateness, which in turn leads the translators to fundamental ethical questions: Should they report things they overheard from the foreign negotiation team to their own team to enhance their own team’s chances? Is it appropriate to tell a standard joke in the target language when the country’s leader has told a racist joke? What implications does it have about the foreign country’s leader, when he laughs at their standard joke? The country’s leader may think he laughed at his (racist) joke. Is it appropriate to take over the role of a negotiation participant when they are hired for interpreting? When they are a wartime interpreter: Is it appropriate to translate propaganda and to interpret for a dictator? Is it appropriate to translate the German order “Feuer!” [Shoot!] by the German commander into French if the collaborating French soldiers would commit a crime against humanity when they understood and executed the order? Where to draw the line to refuse to translate? What consequences does it have if they refuse? What responsibilities do interpreters and translators have? The Appropriateness Theory is complex and shows that a Code of Ethics is of the utmost importance (Moratto & Woesler, 2021: xvi preface II).

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, 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 (Woesler, 2021, 1-5).

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: 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: 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 (Woesler, 2021: 1-5).

Like any other theories, Skopos Theory is also not perfect. According to Nord, there are two interdependent limitations of this theory. One concerns the culture-specificity of translational models; the other has to do with the relationship between the translator and the source-text author (Du, 2012: 5).

To solve the above problems of Skopos Theory, Nord introduces the loyalty principle into the functionalist model. In Nord’s terms, function refers to the factors that make a target text work in the intended way in the target situation. Loyalty refers to the interpersonal relationship between the translator, the source-text sender, the target-text addressees and the initiator. (Nord, 2001, Du, 2012: 5). The combination of function and loyalty is the successful point of Nord’s functionalist approach, and are respectively the two pillars of her approach which also answers many criticisms of Skopos Theory (Du, 2012: 5). The “Theory of Appropriateness” regards appropriateness as the guiding principle and loyalty plus function should also be paramount.

Further Modifying Translation and Interpreting Theories by Appropriateness Theory in the Near Future

Translation and interpreting studies have changed their paradigms already several times. In ancient times, it was prescriptive, favoring literal or free translation (or combinations of literal and free). It later became more descriptive. Contrastive-linguistic approaches with equivalency as the main criteria were followed by communicative and then functional approaches. Since the functional approaches considered cultural backgrounds, it was called the “Cultural Turn” (Moratto & Woesler, 2021: 214).

With the Skopos Theory, the equivalence of the purpose of the source and target texts are stretched beyond the authenticity of the source, and the role of the translator/interpreter gets back into the focus. Recent developments turned toward a sociology, a culture, and the ethics of translation as “the Theory of Appropriateness”. (Moratto & Woesler, 2021: 214).

Algorithms just take a huge mass of data and come to results without knowing how because they do not have to understand any more. However, translation produced with these algorithms in general are of low quality. With the next step, the algorithms need to be able to learn from mistakes and adjust themselves to be of better quality, but still qualitatively lower than human translation. So, before the machine can take over, it needs to “understand” humans better and needs to be “made more human.” The new forms of translating and interpreting are mostly managed by artificial intelligence, which applies big data analysis and algorithms on human translation and interpretation to find the most appropriate and most comprehensible translation/interpretation for a specific target text recipient (Moratto & Woesler, 2021: 214).

Therefore, the focus shifts from the person of the translator/interpreter to appropriateness (which is defined by analysis of cultural background and individual personalities) and comprehensiveness, the latter moving the focus further toward the audience by cooperating humans and machine to lead to appropriateness theory. Since the translation or interpretation may look different depending on the individual recipient, the new translation and interpretation will be individualized and therefore the focus moves not just to the audience, but to the personality of the individual recipient and his/her social and cultural environment (Moratto & Woesler, 2021: 214).

Translation Ethics for Appropriateness Theory

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, cited in Baker, 2009: 100-103). 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: 100-103).

Chesterman (2001, cited in Farahmand & Hadaegh, n.d.: 3-4) put forward four models of translation ethics: an ethics of representation, an ethics of service, an ethics of communication, and norm-based ethics. He pointed out the problems with all these models before making his own proposal: an ethics of commitment, which is a proposal to professional translators for a universal Hieronymic Oath (Liangun 连云, 2014: 1-2).

Based on Chesterman's Ethics of Representation, the translator should be faithful to the original text. Therefore, Chinese-English translation of scenic spots should be as close as possible with Chinese materials to the content, style and effects. However, the phenomenon of random deletion to English translation of scenic spots materials is very serious. Such as, the English translation of the Flower Path (One of LuShan Mountain’s important attractions) is as follows (http://www.china-lushan.com/en/detail.php?act=scenic&id=2):

“It was commonly believed that flowers were withered under the mountain, while in full bloom at the top of the mountain on the contrary. You can enjoy all kinds of rare flowers and amazing Violin-like Lake at the same time” (Shao & Liu, 2017: 1921-1922).

However, its Chinese language content is very rich. It mentioned in the Tang Dynasty, poet Bai Juyi was demoted to Jiangzhou (Jiujiang), and he went sightseeing here. It was the late spring, and at the foot of the hill, peach blossom had faded, but here, it was still in blossom. Such a special phenomenon stimulated Bai Juyi’s strong feeling, and he wrote the famous poem Dalin Temple Peach Blossoms. In the Flower Diameter Pavilion, the two words “Flower Path” were engraved in a stone and words said that the two words were written by Bai Juyi. Based on such a special historical allusion, the present name--the Flower Path was got. So, the introduction of Chinese highlights the cultural heritage of the site. However, English translation has lost its rich cultural connotation and national characteristics (Shao & Liu, 2017: 1921-1922).

Chesterman's Ethics of Service regards translation as a commercial behavior serving customers, so translators are required to provide excellent service to customers. In addition to translation standard, the translation of scenic spots should also highlight the characteristics, excavate the cultural heritage and publicize the eye-catching points. The first English sentence that introduces “the Flower Path” of Lu Shan Mountain is as follows:

“It was commonly believed that flowers were withered under the mountain, while in full bloom at the top of the mountain on the contrary.”

Seeing from the content, it should be the imitation to Bai Juyi’s following verses:

"In Fourth Moon the fragrance of flowers leaves the mundane world,

At this mountain temple the peach has barely begun to bloom" (Shao & Liu, 2017: 1921-1922).

But there is no such artistic conception and aesthetic feeling in the English introduction (Shao & Liu, 2017, 1921-1922). Chesterman's Ethics of Communication emphasizes communication and cooperation with others to achieve the purpose of cultural exchange. “Communication Overview”, an English column of Mount Sanqingshan, explains the geographical location and ways to arrive this scenic spot. Judged from the content, it should be “Arrival Strategy”, but not so-called “Communication Overview”. Otherwise, it failed to deliver real and efficient information to foreign tourists (Shao & Liu, 2017: 1921-1922).

Chesterman's Norm-based Ethics requires that translation is to comply with the specific language and cultural norms of the target language and can be accepted by their country and society. In different columns of the official website (http://www.china-lushan.com/en/index.php) of Lushan Mountain, the name of this scenic spot are translated into “Lushan”, “Lushan mountain”, and “Mountain Lu” casually. In the official website, the name of such a famous scenic spot should have three different versions of English translation, so there is indeed a lack of norms (Shao & Liu, 2017, 1921-1922).

From the moral and spiritual aspects, Chesterman's Ethics of Commitment mainly emphasizes the translator's professional ethics (Chen Shunyi,2015:111, cited in Shao & Liu, 2017: 1921-1922). In the official website (http://sqs.sqs.gov.cn/) of Mount Sanqingshan, Jiangxi, “National 5A Class Scenic Spot” is translated into “National Tourist Attraction”, and “5A” is deleted at will, so how can the foreign tourists realize it’s a 5A level scenic spot? It is thus clear that translation of scenic spots should be standardized.

Pym (1997, cited in Farahmand & Hadaegh, n.d.: 3-4) listed five ethical principles:

1. The translators are responsible for the translation they accept to produce;

2. The translators are not directly responsible for the whole translation situations, but professionally responsible for the translation;

3. Translation processes should not be reduced to an opposition between two cultures, and it is wrong to base one’s actions on only one set of cultural criteria;

4. The cost of translation ought not to outweight the benefits of the intercultural relation in question; and

5. Through their work, the translators are responsible for contributing to lasting intercultural cooperation.

Liangun 连云 (2014) first classified models of translation ethics into theory of surrender and theory of manipulation, pointing out that the latter being the dominant and powerful discourse in contemporary translation studies. "Manipulation", a practice of translation, in which the source text is re-written and exploited as one pleases, that is, treated as means or instruments, to achieve one’s own ends and purposes, has become the main trend, which almost no one could escape and has even characterized the translator’s existence. "Surrender", an opposite method to manipulation, is a translation practice in which manipulation is renounced so that the source text exists for its own purposes and its own value is respected (Liangun 连云, 2014: 1-2).

"Respect for difference and reverence for civilization" should become a fundamental ethical principle in trans-cultural communication against the background of globalization. Without staying within its own world with its ends and needs, the ethics of surrender cares about the differences and varieties of the source text or the outside world as a whole. It obeys the authority of the source text and takes an absolute responsibility for the particularity of the source text as life and soul. Only in this way will a true encounter with the source text be possible and the richness and variety of the source text unfold and develop on its own. Surrender is liberation for the source text and the translator as well, as these two kinds of liberation belong to the same process (Liangun 连云, 2014: 1-2).

Thus, proposal of the ethics of surrender in translation carries with it such connotations: to stop achieving one’s own goals, purposes, functions, plans or expectations by manipulating the source text with one’s own ideology or values; instead, to translate in such a way so that the source text unfolds or develops on its own and is open to all kinds of possibilities, so that the readership will have a direct dialogue with the source text, so that people with different opinions and from different cultures can participate on equal status in discussions about the truth of the source text. This is the only effective way to reach a faithful translation and the only correct attitude toward creative arts and things that pass down from generation to generation (Liangun 连云, 2014: 1-2).

As every man is limited and cannot grasp the truth of the source text at one attempt or once for all; that is, all of his understanding or sense-making is of a temporary nature and he needs others for supplement and complement; therefore, it is good living as well as good translating to give up one’s arrogant elitist position, that is, to give up one’s own aim, purposes, plans, expectation, etc. so that the source text or anything in the world is not veiled or restricted by one’s selfishness or limitations but unfolds and develops on its own (Liangun 连云, 2014: 1-2).

It is true that anyone lives with his or her own ideology and values, which is what Gadamer means when he says that prejudices are conditions that make understanding possible. The aim and significance of understanding or translation consist in overcoming and transcending one’s prejudices or limitations so that one’s vision gets broadened. The so-called "giving up" or "surrender" does not mean the existence of a soul free of any prejudices or an easy access to the truth of a text or the thing itself, but the necessity of knowledge or self-consciousness of one’s prejudices and limitations, which would make one believe that the text has something beyond one’s own expectations and help one become open-hearted and sensitive to different opinions or readings about the text. This is not only a translation method or an attitude the translator should have toward the source text but also a world view or an attitude one should have toward life (Liangun 连云, 2014: 1-2). Appropriateness Theory considers that theory of manipulation and theory of surrender should be balanced.

Ideological Manipulation in Appropriateness Theory

Translation, as an exchange or activity between different languages and cultures, is deeply influenced by the translator’s ideology from the beginning. During the translation process, a translator chooses his/her translation strategy mainly according to his/her ideology. When Chinese " 龙 "was first translated into English, China was on the eve of Opium War, when the ideology of Western hegemony which appeared in opposition to Chinese thought and culture was very strong. That is the reason why it was translated into "dragon". But now, with the rising of China’s international position and influence, Chinese national ideology is increasing. More and more Chinese put forward that Chinese " 龙 " should be re-translated with the Chinese Pinyin "long" or the coinage "loong". It is ideology, which is just like an invisible hand, that manipulates the translation of Chinese "dragon/loong" (Xu-ming 旭明, 2009: 143-145).

In Lefevere’s view, ideology consists of "opinions and attitudes deemed acceptable in a certain society at a certain time, and through which readers and translators approach texts". As translators’ work is always affected by the surrounding socio-cultural environment, ideological beliefs are reflected in language usage (Ying, 2020: 76).

A New Year’s Reunion is an English translation of Chinese picture book Tuan Yuan (《团圆》) written by Yu Li-qiong and illustrated by Zhu Cheng-liang. The book tells a story about family reunion during Chinese New Year from the perspective of a little girl, Maomao. The Chinese original was first published in Taipei, China, in 2008 and has won Feng Zikai Chinese Children’s Picture Book Award for its touching story and delicate pictures. Its English version was published by Candlewick Press in 2013. It depicts real life of migrant families in modern China, focuses on family affection and features Chinese culture. Therefore, it is highly awarded in target culture. The most obvious adaptation the translator has made can be found on the front cover. On the cover of Chinese version, Maomao is sleeping tucked between her parents, which depicts a warm scene of Chinese family reunion. “Adult–child co-sleeping is the mainstream sleeping arrangement for children in mainland China”. But in western world children usually sleep in their own bedrooms at an early age. The co-sleeping scene on the cover may lead to confusion, upset or even resistance of young target readers. So the translator substitutes the co-sleeping picture with a picture of the family making sticky rice balls together, which not only presents the theme of family reunion but also highlights cultural elements. It is a successful example of a translation conforming to target cultural norms (Ying, 2020: 76).

Another adaptation can be found in the translation of the title. The Chinese title can literally be translated as “Reunion”, but the translator, on the other hand, takes culture into account and translates it into “A New Year’s Reunion”, which makes the theme of the original clearer. The translation here confirms Shoshana Blum-Kulka’s “explicitation hypothesis”. Translators tend to add more information to make translation more intelligible and acceptable for target readers (Ying, 2020: 76).

When the translation of Buddhist scriptures began in about the second century, most translators used a literal approach, but in their translation, they were influenced by Taoism and Confucianism, the mainstream ideologies of the time. Xuan Zang (600-664), the best-known translator of Buddhist scriptures in China, was acclaimed for faithfulness and meticulousness (Chen Fukang 1992: 38-44; Ma Zuyi 1984: 60-61, cited in Fung, 1998: 241), and yet he was unable to ward off entirely the influence of Confucian thoughts. Besides, he 'melted away' the argument of the source texts and even changed the texts in order to promote the views of his own sect, according to a critic (Ma Zuyi 1984: 58, cited in Fung, 1998: 241). Appropriateness Theory emphasizes ideology to reach to the appropriateness with the target text and culture or times.

Cultural transfer for Appropriateness Theory

Fuentes Luque and Kelly (2000:241, cited in Baker, 2009: 9-10) pointed 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, cited in Baker, 2009: 9-10) agreed 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 (2001, cited in Baker, 2009: 9-10) similarly stresses the importance of cultural values in that 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. Ho (2004, cited in Baker, 2009: 9-10) 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, cited in Baker, 2009: 9-10) pointed 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.

Translating means comparing cultures. Translators interpret source-culture phenomena in the light of their own culture-specific knowledge of that culture, from either the inside or the outside, depending on whether the translation is from or into the translator’s native language-and-culture (Nord, 2001, cited in Du, 2012: 2192).

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: 1-5). To sum up, the ‘Theory of Appropriateness’ comes with the practical solutions to the limitations of Skopos Theory that need to be modified. To be a proper translation, the translators must consider appropriateness, translation ethics, loyalty plus function, ideology, theory of manipulation plus theory of surrender, cultural transfer and artificial intelligence according to “Appropriateness Theory”. However, the 'appropriateness' rule must be dominating and the most important rule in translation activity.

References

Baker, M. & S. G. (2009). Routledge_Encyclopedia_of_Translation_Studies_2nd_ed.

Du, X. (2012). A brief introduction of Skopos theory. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 2189–2193. https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.10.2189-2193

Farahmand, S., & Hadaegh, B. (n.d.). The Study of Chesterman’s Models of Translation Ethics : A Case Study of the Persian Translation of The Sound and the Fury.

Fung, C. N. (1998). Faithfulness, manipulation, and ideology: A descriptive study of Chinese translation tradition. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 6(2), 235–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.1998.9961339

Lecturer, A., & Jabir, J. K. (2006). SKOPOS THEORY: BASIC PRINCIPLES AND DEFICIENCIES. In Journal of the College of Arts. University of Basrah No (Issue 41).

Liangun 连云, S. 申. (2014). 从“操控”到“投降” ——全球化背景下翻译伦理模式构想 From “Manipulation” to “Surrender” - Conception of Translation Ethics Model in the Context of Globalization. Journal of National 211 Project Universities 国家211工程高校学报.

Lili, Z. (2016). Study of Business English Translation Based on the Three Rules of Skopos Theory.

Moratto, R., & Woesler, M. (2021). New Frontiers in Translation Studies Diverse Voices in Chinese Translation and Interpreting Theory and Practice. http://www.springer.com/series/11894

Munday, J. (2016). Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications.

Shao, J., & Liu, G. (2017). A Translation Ethics Perspective Exploration of the C-E Translation of Jiangxi Scenic Spots. http://www.china-lushan.com/en/index.php

Trisnawati, I. K. (2014). SKOPOS THEORY: A PRACTICAL APPROACH IN THE TRANSLATION PROCESS (Vol. 1, Issue 2).

Woesler, M. (2021). Ending the “100-schools” dispute between translation theories by integrating them and measuring the “appropriateness”. Facing up to the challenges posed by ethics and artificial intelligence to the transformation of the translator’s and interpreter’s professional role.

Xu-ming 旭明, G. 郭. (2009). 从“Dragon”到“loong”——论意识形态对“中国龙”英译实践的操纵 From “Dragon” to “loong”——On the Manipulation of Ideology on the Practice of English Translation of “Chinese Dragon.” Journal of Yunmeng, 04, 143–145.

Yang, M. (2020). Evaluation on the Significance and Shortcomings of German Functionalist Vermeer’s Skopos Theory. OALib, 07(11), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1106923

Ying, S. (2020). Ideological Manipulation in English Translation of Chinese Children’s Literature: Case Studies. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and Translation, 6(3), 75. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijalt.20200603.13

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)

corrected by --Asep Budiman (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2021 (UTC)