Creat App Theo EN 1
Ei Mon Kyaw: Appropriateness Theory in Translation Studies
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).
4. 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.
4.1. Skopos and its Related Terms
In Vermeer's theory, there is a distinction between the terms ‘aim’ and ‘purpose’ (Nord, ibid:28-29, cited in Lecturer & Jabir, 2006). 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.
4.2. Three Main Rules of the Skopos Theory
Skopos Rule: It means that a translation action is determined by its skopos; that is, 'the end justifies the means' by Reiss and Vermeer.
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, intratextual coherence rule requires that the target text must be translated in such a way that it is coherent with the circumstances and knowledge of the target text receivers.
Fidelity Rule: Intertextual rule, also the fidelity rule merely states that there must be coherence between the translated version and the source text (Nord, 2001, cited in Lili, 2016).
Vermeer states the hierarchical order of these three rules—skopos rule > coherence rule > fidelity rule (Yang, 2020). 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.
4.3. 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).
4.4. Shortcomings of Skopos Theory
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?
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.
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.
Conclusion
--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
--EIMONKYAW (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Ei Mon Kyaw -Ei Mon Kyaw-EIMONKYAW (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)