History of Translation Studies

History of Translation Studies

Link back to course homepage: Course Homepage Intro. to TS

Acknowledgement

I am indebted to the more than 300 students of the Master Course "Introduction to Translation Studies" conducted in the two fall terms 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 at Hunan Normal University, Foreign Studies College. They have enriched this monograph with their ideas, their creativity and the top students even have contributed short passages to this book on single aspects. They have also helped to arrange that the monograph could appear in different languages simultaneously. The Foreign Studies College is one of the top places of Translation and Interpreting Studies in China.

Foreword

Interpretation theories and interpretation studies are as old as human languages, since interpretation practise is not just necessary between full fledged languages, but is practised as soon as two different individuals meet, like a grandmother and her grandchild. The first lay interpreters naturally reflected on their interpreting work and this was the start of theories and studies. As soon as written language was invented, critical reflection also started and with it translation theories and translation studies.

The first thoughts about transponing the meaning of one language into a similar one of another language were prescriptive with precepts and principles, sometimes exaggerated into dogma and people not adhering to them being tortured or murdered.

In the 1960s, the translation studies started to become aware of itself as an academic discipline.

Western Translation Theories

Impacts of Western Translation Theories on The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish

I. Introduction Translating sets forth on its journey a long time ago. It has been over 2200 years since Livius Andronicus translated Homer’s Odyssey from Greek into Latin around 250 BC, which is the earliest activity of translating from recorded history. Throughout history, translation is not only involved in politics,culture, religion, language and so forth, but also keeps changing as times and social conditions roll on. On grounds of the changes of targets and contents of translation history, considering the specific periods of people’s apprehension of translation and the roles translation plays in society of different times, researchers divided the history of western translation into 3 parts, translation of religious materials, translation of literary classics and translation of non-literary materials.

The division of western translation history varies from person to person in circles of translation. Generally speaking, from about 250 BC when people translated Septuagint into Greek to the 16th century when the translation of the Bible prevailed, it is the historical period of translating religious materials, followed by period of translation of literature mainly from literary classics and great works of social sciences.(Wu & Shu 2011:76) After the Second World War, however, translation of non-literary and practical materials began to exert influence as a major force.

In the west, studies on translation practices and theories have walked through the recorded history of over two thousand years, which is very close to the one in China. Nevertheless, China had made little progress with translation studies because of closed-door policy. Before years around 1980s, the systematic study on theories of western translation had been left incomplete in China, where few books and papers related were published. And even in the western countries, there existed similar situations. However, studies on theories of western translation has made appreciable development since 1980s, especially the books on history of western translation theory written by Rener, Robinson, etc. These books and materials are indisputably of great value for us to take a closer look at theories of western translation, yet it is very hard for people of Chinese cultures to search, unearth and analyse the history of translation theories in the backgrounds of western cultures. As Tan Zaixi put it in his book The Brief History of Western Translation, “From ancient times, translation in the west has been proceeding for over two thousand years, along with extraordinary translators and divergent theories, which can not be expound within twenty or thirty thousand words.”(Tan 1991:1) And for translation studies as a independent discipline, it is a very meaningful job to study translation and its theories from all over the world, which includes the western translation theories.

Accordingly, while studying the history of western translation theories, we must understand the necessity of describing the development of western translation theories in a proper way and figure out how they are classified, especially for theories of modern and contemporary times. Based on the fundamental way of studying translation or ideologies of various schools, now people would usually divide translation studies into literary school, linguistic school and cultural school. The literary school includes the traditional philological approach and the hermernutic approach; the linguistic school consists of the equivalence approach, the functional approach and the cognitive approach; the cultural school covers translation studies approach, deconstruction approach, feminism approach, post-colonial approach and the integrated approach, of which translation studies approach can be further divided into polysystem theory, the norm theory and the manipulation theory. By contributing new thoughts to this discussion, the study aims to reach more consensus among translation studies scholars in this aspect.

II. School Classification Beyond dispute, it’s practicable that people describe the history of western translation theories by dividing them into different schools in light of theories and ideologies of translation studies. With the modernization and integration of economy in western society, western translation theories also begin to get over the hurdles in the way of mutual development and blur the distinction among nationalities, which makes it harder to owe some ideology or theory of translation to a certain country or area. For instance, Gideon Toury was famous in the west but lived in Israel. In contrast, when some ideology or theory is proposed by someone in some place, it can probably be responded to or supported by scholars from all corners of the world. They hold it up totally out of agreement with the points someone makes, not necessarily where the points come from. Another example, Eugene A. Nida, who put forward the idea of “functional equivalence”, is American, but Kade, who is his supporter, comes from German. Therefore, it might be easier to understand the present situation and trends of western translation theories from levels of translation schools and ideologies, especially for theories of contemporary and modern times. As one would expect, it is just one of the methods to classify western translation theories on the basis of translation schools or ideologies. From a perspective of historical development, it would be a more traditional way to classify western translation theories by times and nations. This diachronic way of studying it helps to organize the historical materials clearly and make profitable comparisons among traditions and characteristics of translation theories among western countries and regions, which enables people to understand the distribution and trends of western translation theories with an open mind. On the other hand, the diachronic way also describes the divergence and amalgamation of western translation theories. To give an example, the debate between free and literal translation never ends during which the eclecticism occurred and then literal translation was overtaken by free translation; the transfer from regarding the words as translation units to viewing sentences, discourses and even the whole passages as translation units... and so on. Despite that, as for studies on western translation theories, it is not the best way to do it only by a certain means. If we completely choose the way of describing the history of western translation theories by dividing them into different schools in light of theories and ideologies of translation studies, the relation between translation theories and specific cultural environment of society may be ambiguous and so is the relation between diachronic and synchronic development of translation. If we only decide on a more traditional way to classify western translation theories by times and nations, our research and description will inevitably be in need of subjects of translation theories. To avoid such deficiencies, we must adopt a way combining both means mentioned above to study western translation theories. In other words, we must take into consideration not only the historical connection between theories and ideas of translation but also the relation of translation theories with the specific social and cultural environment. Only by doing so, our research would be able to describe the whole process of western translation theories from an objective perspective.

From what we have mentioned above, we view western translation theories from two sides. First, we view it from the respect of historical development steadily. Cicero, was the first translation theorist in the west during times of Roman empire. As a rhetorician and orator, he categorized translation into ones by “ut interpres” and “ut orator” for the first time. Translation by “ut interpres” means translation of no creativity but translation by “ut orator” means translation of creativity which may even rival the original. As a matter of fact, Cicero put forward two fundamental ways of translating and pioneered the study of theories and methods of translation. Since Cicero’s studies on translation, western translation theories have been dealing with arguments between free translation and literal translation, word-for-word translation and excessively free translation, faithfulness and unfaithfulness and so forth.

Besides Cicero, there are an abundance of excellent translation theorists in western translation history, who have proposed assorted theories and ideas from different angles in different times. In ancient times, aside from Cicero’s categorization of “literal translation” and “free translation”, Marcus Fabius Quintlianus thought that the target ought to compete with the original; St. Jerome believed that people were supposed to follow the rules of literal translation when translating the Bible and use free translation when it came to literary classics; St. Augustine held the view that translation was inspired by God. In the Middle Ages, Manlius Boethius promoted the literal translation that would rather keep “faithful” than “elegant”; Dante was of the opinion that “works of literature are untranslatable”. During the Renaissance, Desiderius Erasmus believed that translation was not a subjection to authority of religious beliefs and translation of the Bible depended on the language of a translator; Martin Luther held the view of humanism that texts must be rendered in the people’s language; Etienne Dolet reckoned that people translated on “five principles” of understanding the content of the original, being proficient in the original language and the target language, avoiding word-for-word translation, expounding in simple languages and focusing on the style of the target text. From the 17th to 19th century, Charles Batteux was of the opinion that author was the master and translator was the servant, whose work were not allowed to be amplified, to omit and change the wording of the original; John Dryden categorized translating into metaphrase, paraphrase and imitation and he thought translation was some kind of art; Tytler put forward three principles that the target reflected the ideas exactly the original conveyed, the style and skills the target used should be of the same characteristics of the original and the target should be as expressive as the original; Friedrich Schleiermacher made a distinction between translation and interpretation, literal translation and mechanical translation; Humboldt believed his theories that language decided the translatability and untranslatability of the world; Matthew Arnold thought whether a translation was good or not depended on the experts; Francis W. Newman had the idea that it were common readers, not the experts,who determined the criteria of translation. In the 20th century, we have Fedolov’s theories that people should study translation theories from linguistics first and translation theories is categorized into history, introduction and arguments of translation; we have Roman Jakobson’s three classification of interlingual translation, intralingual translation and intersemiotic translation; we have Levy’s thoughts that “translating should make reader have an illusion of the original”, “translating is a deciding process”; we have Gachechiladze’s theories on literary translation that “translation is always a artistic and realistic reflection of the original” and “ translation of literature and art is a artistic work”; we have Carford’s theories of linguistics that translation should reach an equivalence of context; Nida thought “translating is a science”, “translating is communicating” and there exists equivalence between the readers of the original and the target; Mounin’s view of modern linguistics on translation theories; Paul Valery emphasized that the target needed to break the limits of the original. All the thoughts and ideas mentioned above have constituted the most essential parts of western translation theories.

Furthermore, we could look at the whole system of western translation theories from the other side, which is the schools of ideology. There are two branches of it: translation theories of literature and art and linguistics theories of translation. The school of translation of literature and art stems from the early drama by Terentius in Ancient Rome, ucceeded by Levy and Gachechiladze in modern times, and continues to thrive in the 21st century. People of this branch perceive translation as a kind of literary art, which draws attention to recreation of literature. Theorists have been discussing the defects and merits between faithfulness and unfaithfulness, word-for-word translation and excessively free translation, literal translation and free translation and so on. Besides, they also foreground the purposes and effects of translation. They stress both the original and the literary attributes of the language of it., as well as the idiomatic expression and tradition of literature of the original that people must respect whiling translating. They not only zero in on the style and literariness of the text very much but the talent of literature a translator or interpreter should possess. The school of linguistic theories of translation is from Augustine and people of traditional linguistics or philology in Ancient Rome to various schools of modern linguistics in the 20th and 21st century. For this situation, the core lies in language. People of this school, who think that the goal of translating is to reach the equivalence between the original and the target, combine translation theories with analysis of semantic and syntactic functions and talk on issues of translation from the characteristics of structure and sentence-making skills of a language so as to show how the equivalent texts are made from words, grammars and other features of a language.

From either branches we can see that they have their own advantages and disadvantages. Translation theories of literature and art give an emphasis to the purposes and results of translating and the artistic effects from a macroscopic view, but neither pay much heed to practical process of translating and skills of using a language nor care about whether the target and the original reach the equivalence of structures. Linguistics theories of translation is also not spotless because some theories don’t stress the aesthetic functions and ignore the recurrences of works of literature and art. They mostly focus on the structure of a language to and theoretically are limited to word, sentence or syntax only, which disregards the main structure of a text and the structure of discourse and the cultural features to a larger extent.

However, no matter it is the branch of translation theories of literature and art or linguistics theories of translation, they are not completely isolated but complement each other. Although either of two branches has its own shortcomings, there is no translation theorist of literature and art who could talk about the artistic value of literary works divorced from linguistic issues; there is no theorist of linguistics who could be immersed in linguistic structures of a text without issues of aesthetics.

III. About The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish Joan Pinkham, a professional translator from the U.S., published the book The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish in 2000. She worked for the Foreign Languages Press and Central Compilation and Translation Bureau in China for 8 years from 1980s to 1990s. It is one of the few books by westerners that systematically discuss the “Chinglish” issues in China. In the years working for the Foreign Languages Press and Central Compilation and Translation Bureau, her job was to revise and polish the drafts from Chinese translators, which was inevitably affected by Chinese and mindset of Chinese people. For that reason, Pinkham got to know many English translations with “Chinese characteristics” and wrote this book. The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish consists of three parts, Unnecessary Words, Sentence Structure and Supplementary Examples, which reveal lots of mistakes Chinese translators tend to make.

First of all let’s take a look at examples given in the fist chapter:

promoting the cause of peaceful reunification; reforms in the sphere of economy; to ensure a relationship of close cooperation between.

Phrases like these can often be seen in some English papers or periodicals and they seem to make sense to English learners or translators in China. But the author regards them as negative examples in the first chapter of the first part, Unnecessary Nouns. The author mentioned that “Many of these nouns are easy to recognize. They are plainly redundant because their sense is already included or implied in some other element of sentence.”(Liu 2002:34) in the book. Here the author perceives nouns like “cause”, “sphere” and “relationship” as “category nouns”, which are the general nouns that sever only to introduce a specific noun to follow. Let’s take the first phrase as an example. In such constructions, the first noun announces the category of the second; in this case, it tells the readers that “promoting” falls into the category of “cause.” That is something they already know. Accordingly, the first noun should be deleted: “ promoting peaceful reunification.”(Pinkham 2000:16) It is the same for other two examples. What’s more, the first chapter also involves “Unnecessary Verbs.” Examples are as follows:

to bring about a change in this state of affairs; until China realizes its modernization; trying to entice the Korean army to launch an attack against them.

“Like unnecessary nouns, most unnecessary verbs in Chinglish occur in phrases. Usually they are combined with nouns (plus the inevitable articles and prepositions that nouns bring with them).”(Pinkham 2000:34) The commonest type is phrases like these. As for “to bring about a change in this state of affairs”, here the verb (“bring about”) is a weak, colorless, all purpose word having no very specific meaning of its own, while the real action is expressed in the noun(“change”). Since the verb is not contributing anything to the sense, it can be edited out: “change this state of affairs.”

In the second chapter, the author talks about Unnecessary Modifiers, which is not a problem easy to cope with for Chinese translators because it covers the issue of whether they should be used and using the modifiers properly. Five types of unnecessary modifiers are listed, redundant modifiers, self-evident modifiers, intensifiers, qualifiers and cliches. But the author especially points out that it is not appropriate to revise some accepted phrases, which are related to some national policies, even if they have unnecessary modifiers in the sentences, because this may cover political affairs.

In the third and forth chapter the author talks on Redundant Twins and Saying the Same Thing Twice. For instance, views and opinions, help and assistance, stir up and incite, sentiments and feelings, prudent and cautious. The author classifies the redundant words into three groups according to the relation between synonyms and clauses and offers corresponding reversion. And she adds that examples of redundant synonyms are too many to list even for native English speakers; for example, rules and regulations, bits and pieces, by leaps and bounds, betwixt and between, by hook or by crook, huffing and puffing. After centuries of development, these phrases are now accepted by native English speakers or learners probably because of their jaunty alliteration or rhythm. But the author believes that these phrases unavoidably “exert an influence not only on native speakers of English (including foreign polishers) but on Chinese translators as well, reinforcing the habits of their own language. No doubt this influence contributes to the abundance of twins in Chinglish.”

The first chapter of the second part is mainly about The Noun Plague. Here the author shows a draft: “The prolongation of the existence of this temple is due to the solidity of its construction.” She also gives a revision: “The temple has endured because it was solidly built.” The first version contains four abstract nouns, while the second has none. Not only do the nouns make the statement nearly twice as long, but they also make it pretentious, wooden and hard to understand.(Pinkham 2000:56) Yet, the author doesn’t think that “noun plague” only occurs in Chinglish but in English by native speakers, especially in theses and government documents where abstract nouns can often be seen, because they want their theses or documents to seem more “authoritative” or “scientific.” The author thinks this is a dangerous trend which we should all fight against. And she advocates to use more verbs, gerunds or adverbs instead of abstract nouns. From the eighth to the twelfth chapter, the author gives some instruction to tell English learners and translators in China how to get rid of the mindset of Chinglish by putting pronouns and antecedents first, then the adjuncts and its purposes, in a logical way. The eighth chapter discussed the improper collocation of pronouns and antecedents. In this condition, personal pronouns, relative pronouns or demonstrative pronouns show up without antecedents or are too far away from antecedents. This is exactly what the uncertainty and lack of rigor of Chinese has brought about. The ninth chapter mainly talks about where we should set phrases or clause in an English sentence. The author is of the opinion that translators should pay attention to where the phrases or clauses are in a sentence so that the logic is clear and key points are highlighted. She also thinks that the phrases or clauses ought to modify what is close to them, otherwise in the sentence may occur the illogical parts. In addition, to stress the key points, the most important information should be imparted at the end of a sentence.

IV. Discussion From Introduction and School Classification, we have leaned that in western translation history, there are traditionally two branches: translation theories of literature and art and linguistics theories of translation. In 1959, the book, On Linguistic Aspects of Translation by Roman Jakobson, analyzed comprehensively the relation bewteen language and translation, the importance of translation and some existing problems of translating from an angle of linguistics, which had made groundbreaking contribution to linguistics theories of translation. Eugene A. Nida put forward a concept of “Translating is science” and he also applied Theory of Communication into translation on the basis of linguistics, believing that translating is communicating. He proposed the principle of “Dynamic Equivalence” and further submitted “Functional Equivalence” from the perspective of social linguistics and communicative function of language, which was instrumental in modern history of translation theories in the west as well. Nonetheless, Nida’s theories paid too much heed to content rather than form. To make up the deficiency, Peter Newmark put forward “Communicative Translation” and “Semantic Translation.” The former aimed at restructuring the language of the target in order to make it expressive and underline the effects of information; the latter emphasized the formal resemblance between the original and the target. From theories and ideas above, the core issue they care about is how the source language is transferred into the target language and “equivalence” is what they have in common. Katharina Reiss, Hans Vermeer, Justa Holz-Manttari and Christiane Nord from Germany started to use communicative theories, theories of communication, discourse linguistics and ideology of aesthetics to switch the focus of their studies from source texts to target texts, which made it an influential school in international translation circles. In 1971 in the book Translation and Limitations in Translation Criticism, Reiss’s functional theories of translation was in embryonic state, where she believed that translation should reach equivalence in respects of conceptual content, forms of language and communication and name it “integral communicative performance.” In practice, however, she realized that the equivalence was not what people expected so relation between function of the original and the target was the priority. Hans Vermeer proposed skopos theory for that matter, which looked on translating as a process with purposes and results of the original. The skopos theory has three rules: skopos rule, coherence rule and fidelity rule. Skopos rule is considered as the primary one. It means that in the context and culture of target language, translation ought to work in a way exactly the recipient of target language expects and the purpose of translation actions determines the whole process of translating, that is, “the end justifies the means.” Coherence rule is that translation must accord with the standard of intratextual coherence, which means that translation has readability and acceptability to the recipient and makes sense in communicative context and culture of the target language. The fidelity rule means that there exists intertextual coherence between the original and the target. This is actually what other theories have talked about faithfulness in translation but the faithfulness depends on the purpose of the target and how translator understand the original. Here we also have talked about the book The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish. This book has discussed some problems English learners and translators in China have in grammar and vocabulary. For discourse and semantics, there also exits some issues. And the author is American who has the typical mindset of the west and is able to find out some problems of translation by Chinese translators. And the author tends to revise those translations in an aspect of linguistics theories of translation. For example:

the editorial calls on the Chinese people to fully implement the CPC’s basic line, deepen reform and further opening to the outside, so as to further push forward the political, economic and social development of the country in a steady way;

The author revises it into:

the editorial calls on the Chinese people to implement the CPC’s basic line, deepen the reform, and promote the opening to the outside, so as to steadily push forward the political, economic and social development of the country.

In this sentence, “fully” is deleted because the author thinks it is unnecessary for its sense can be taken for granted: policies should always be fully carried out. If the word conveys something more specific in Chinese, that must be spelled out for the reader of English. We must say, for example, “to implement CPC’s basic line in all its aspects,” or “in every respect.” As for “further”, it is obvious that at this point in history any push given to development will be a “further” push. The repetition of “further” in the draft is particularly undesirable because the word is used in two different senses. It appears first as a verb (“to further opening”), then immediately after as an adverb (“to further push ahead”), so that the reader is obliged to go back and read the sentence again in order to make sense of it.(Pinkham 2000:74)

Even though the author doesn’t talk on any translation theories directly in her book, her discussion on Chinglish and the revision she offers do involve some translation criteria, for example, domestication and foreignization. Translating is the transfer process from one language to another, during which it carries wide backgrounds of culture. To be specific, it is also the process of transferring cultures among each one. In general, there are two ways when it comes to this process: domestication and foreignization. Domestication is that features of the original are abandoned, that is to say, characteristics of translation follow ones of the target, which would, to some degree, make it easier to understand for recipients of the target language and contributory to culture exchanges. Foreignization is that translator translates in a way the original does, translation remaining characteristics of the original language.

The author defines “Chinglish” as “Chinglish, of course, is that misshapen, hybrid language that is neither English nor Chinese but that might be described as ‘English with Chinese characteristics’”in the book. And she also points out that “this book is intended to help them turn their work into real English such as might have been written by an educated native English speaker of the language.” It means that the author is in favor of domestication during the process of translating. Here’s an another example:

we should draw up correct development and construction plans for all these zones;

The author revises it into:

we should draw up correct plans for the development of all these zones.

The author thinks that two large abstractions plainly used here mean the same thing. And to avoid using the noun “development” as an adjective, we should say: “ for the development of all these zones.” That would be the simplest, most natural word order in English.(Pinkham 2000:87)

V. Conclusion In summary, A Brief History of Western Translation Theories by Tan Zaixi recounts the history of western translation theories from ancient times by introducing main characters, translation works, translation schools and other events in the west in historical stages. The book also takes preliminary analysis and discussion into development between theories and practices of translation. There are two different directions in terms of translation theories in the west: translation theories of literature and art and linguistics theories of translation. The former one extends from the ancient dramas to modern translations. In this regard, translation is considered as literary art, which focuses on recreation of the original. Theorist mostly emphasize culture, style and literariness of the target and the literary talent of the translator. The latter direction is linguistics theories of translation, which combine theories with semantics and syntax, and believe that translating should reach semantic equivalence between the original and the target through vocabulary, grammar and skills of using a language. In the long term, linguistics theories of translation has had predominance of studies of modern translation theories. Theorists hold the view that translation studies ranges from applied linguistics and contrastive linguistics and is closely related to semantics, along with literature and art studies, sociology, anthropology, psychology, theories of communication and so forth. The Translator’s Guide to Chinglish by Joan Pinkham summarizes the evidence of the common issues in English translation, which are ones translators in China are usually neglectful of. As Jacques Barzun, Dean of the Graduate Faculties of Columbia University, put it, “The clarity of her explanation is equaled only by the deftness with which she states the point of the English usages and the simplicity of the revisions made in faulty sentences. I know of no books as well adapted as hers to the needs of clumsy writers.” Even though the author doesn’t talk on any translation theories directly in her book, her discussion on Chinglish and the revision she offers do involve some translation criteria and the author tends to uphold domestication in this book. And we can’t deny that as a professional translator from America, with the typical western mindset, the author is inevitably influenced in the spectacular background of western translation history. More importantly, the two books this article refers to have demonstrated that theories must be applied into practice, guide practice and reveal the objective patters inside translating, otherwise theories would lose its vitality.

Derrida and Benjamin

Comparison of Derrida’s and Benjamin’s Translation View

1.Pure Language and Difference In its essence, translation is a kind of linguistic activity. Therefore, all translation theories involve linguistic issues. Benjamin has presumed a perfect original language as the origin of subsistent languages in real world after summarizing the deflects of subsistent languages. This original language is from God, and has full creativity and cognition, in which, language and spirit, meaning and form, signifier and signified have been united to show the truth through self-manifestation. Benjamin has pointed out that with the corruption of human, the language has no longer been one but multiple. Naming language has corrupted into the abstract conceptual language. (Cao Danhong 6) In this way, it descended to instrumental signs. It refers to things in various manual systems but it can never covey the universality through self-manifestation, so the relationship between the human and world has changed from the intersubjectivity into subject-object dichotomy where human dominates.(Wei Jiangang & Sun Yingchun 75) In another word, due to language descended from the original “being” into lower “having”. Therefore, it has become the synonyms of “abstract”, “judgement” and “meaning”. Language has never been a medium but a kind of means used in communication of “subjects” (Wohlfarth 27). As a result, meaning has been the external reference out of sign itself, instead of spirits of self-manifestation of pure language. And the relationship between signified and signifier is actually external instead of being original, direct and internal. Paul De Man has said that we think we use our language freely. We feel comfortable and familiar with the dwelling place within our language, in which we thought we weren’t alienated, but we don’t notice that this kind of alienation has been shown strongly in our relationship with our original language. It has been disintegrated already, which bring a special alienation, a peculiar pain. (Paul De Man, 99) Benjamin has set the transcendental existence of pure language in order to make the path of salvation to human clear, that’s to say to find the lost pure language is to unite the world together. Benjamin thinks that, all practical languages have a common origin and among themselves a kind of affinity that goes beyond the history. As, Benjamin once said, “The reference of pure language just like each language that exists as an entirety, is identical. However, this reference cannot be achieved through one single language, but through the complement of various languages” (Benjamin 61) That’s to say, if we want to reconstruct pure language, we have to eliminated the external relationship of linguistic reference and restore the identical relationship between spirit and language, which means to promote the linguistic reference of all languages to form an integral complementary, which call duty on translation. Only through translation can the mode of reference of source language enter into the target language. Therefore, to Benjamin, the significance of translation is not to covey the basic meaning and content of source language but the changes to both languages after translation, thereby translation can make us to know more about the differences and complementation of each language. What is different between Benjamin and Derrida is that Derrida has invented the concept of “la differánce", which uses infinitely flowing stream of meaning to overthrow the western logocentrism. Thereout, it has assured the translation view that advocates difference and opposes the identity. Derrida has pointed out that la differánce is the precondition of possibility of multiple meanings so that meaning is the result of its moving. While meaning cannot precedes la differánce, there would be no existence of pure and completely identical origin of meaning, just like what the Babel story reminds us. (Davis 10) In another word, as meaning is in la differánce so that there cannot be any conceptual or theoretic systems no matter it is in one language or in several languages. Meaning always presents its fluidity, uncertainty and diversity. We cannot make meaning independent of language nor can we make language independent of meaning. On the contrary, meaning is already in language so meaning is the linguistic meaning. Due to the language is so complicated, fickle, ambiguous and different with itself, thus, meaning is also unclear ambiguous and even mysterious. (Cai Xinle 200) What we can discuss is only the relationship of difference instead of the transcendental identity. In Derrida’s view, word is in a dynamic state, we can only understand it, describe it or listen to its voice in such a dynamic condition. If there is a starting point, the meaning will flow no more as it can be fixed in the very beginning. If we must establish an origin, the difference will be it. Derrida has regarded the difference as the origin, aiming to explain that in the very beginning where meaning formed, that’s to say the source has already had initial difference among meanings. The so-called purity has been contaminated and the source is rather complicated. (Zhu Gang 20) Derrida and Benjamin all oppose to structural linguistic view. What is different is that Benjamin opposed the human control and domination of language by emphasizing the identity of language and spirit. We’d rather to say that it’s opposed to structuralism but to the opposite relation between the subject and object. In essence, Benjamin is not against the concepts like structure, order, and center etc. He just opposes the structure, order and center etc. that are based on the interference to language done by the subject-object relationship, emphasizing that language will not be constrained by the fetter of any subject-object relationship. If we consider more carefully, he doesn’t disapprove the logocentrism completely as he just emphasizes that logocentrism cannot be constructed and learned by the subject and object relation. It must be built and realized by the way of unintentionality or the “presence” of logos will be delusive. On the contrary, Derrida is refusing any metaphysics during the process of his deconstruction of any conceptual system. In his opinion, Benjamin has not cast off the set pattern of logocentrism because Benjamin’s “Pure language” is still a construction of a concept, no matter how transcendental and absolute identity it is. Videlicet, if God were the person who deconstructs, we would see that rationality dominates everything and logos will be the deconstruction in the speaker’s status. It would not be the deconstruction of deconstruction. Once there is an unshakable center, logos will take the domination and everything will obey the authority in the center. Therefore, in order to avoid constructing any central system or structure, Derrida take the difference as the origin of everything. There will be no identity and everything is constantly reproducing and differentiating, so it presents nothing but difference. At any moment, it’s different from others as well as itself. In this way, the identity doesn’t exist. All we can observe is the dynamic stuff, which constantly changes. 2. Metaphrase and Relevant Translation As Benjamin and Derrida has different linguistic view, their comprehension about the translation criterion are also different from each other’s. Benjamin thinks that in various languages, the ultimate essence, pure language, is only relevant to the linguistic factors and its changes. In linguistic works, it bears heavy alien meaning. Translation’s unique function is to make the pure language get rid of this heavy burden, to turn the symbolic action into symbolic objects itself, to make the pure language reoccur during the linguistic transition. (Benjamin, 67) In other words, real languages, without exception, refer to things externally. To recover the identity of language and spirit, we must let the language to break the shackle of meaning while the effects of translation are to make the two languages free of the heavy burden by making the modes of reference of the two languages complementary of each other. To judge whether translation of a work is successful is to observe the combination of signifier and signified of language. Benjamin thinks Hölderlin’s translation work is the perfect sample of for instance, his works are almost perfect transition of texts because they are absolutely literal translation and metaphrase but also not readable. It dismembered the sentences, leading to the consequence that meaning is missing. (Paul De Man 104) To Benjamin, the translation that gets the language out of the shackle of meaning, and makes the language manifest itself to covey the spirits is the best translation. Anyway, translation has to turn back to language itself, to the reference of language, to reach pure language commonly shared by the two languages by complementing the modes of reference of source language and target language. Benjamin declares that the interlinear version of Babel is the prototype of all translation due to the reason that Babel is the words of God, which are so true that language identifies with spirit. Derrida is totally different from Benjamin’s proposition that he proposes the relevant translation. In general, “relevant” is the best translation in Derrida’s view, which is also the sort of translation expected by people. It’s a kind of translation that fulfills its duty and finishes its mission. It’s that kind of translation that finds the most comparatively accurate words for the expressions in the source text, that language used is the most correct, appropriate, relevant, direct and apropos… Obviously, Derrida is trying to use a series of words to set standard for the best translation or the ideal translation. What’ a pity is that many scholars believe the literal meaning that such is what set by Derrida, ignoring the implication. (Wang Yingchong 15) However, if we reflect on the “relevant”, we can hardly make what it means clear, and Derrida himself has made no ostension on “relevant”, thus, this is actually the word game of Derrida that meaning being not assured makes translation impossible. With the trick of the untranslatability of the word “relevant”, Derrida implies the deconstruction of his standard of translation. What Derrida really wants to express is that if there was a standard of translation, and the standard would work as the same, then would the standard still support itself? The untranslatability of “relevant” has already told us the untranslatability, not mentioning the translation standard. In Derrida’s point of view, meaning is already the delayed presence, leading to the result that translation is a debt that translator can never pay off, a mission that translator can never finish. Therefore, can text really not be translated? Derrida says that we have to know what relevant translation is, what relevant translation means and what the essence of translation is, its mission, ultimate purpose and final mission. On one hand, relevant translation, no matter wrong or right, is generally better than irrelevant translation, and is likely to be viewed as the best translation. The definition of translation skopostheorie and the definition of the essence of realization in translation are contained in the definition of relevant translation. Therefore, the question that what relevant translation is goes back to what translation is or what should the translation be. While what the translation should be seems to be equal to what the possible best translation would be. (Derrida 429) Therefore, Derrida’s discussion about the standard of translation goes back to the translatability and untranslatability. Actually, what Derrida wants to prove is that translation itself is a paradox, that is, just in the untranslatability can translation exist and go on. The original text always owes to translation, and constantly summons translation, and in a larger sense, anything meaningful calls for interpretation. (Wang Yingchong 17). Whereas, the good translation or the translation standard can only be discussed in absolute translatability; pursuit of translation in absolute untranslatability will be nonsense, and it can only be infinitely approached but never reached as once it become absolute translatability, which means translation presents the meaning in limitless differánce in presence, the identity occurs, then the translation will be unnecessary. In short, Derrida and Benjamin have different view on translation. Benjamin worships metaphrase through which two languages can supplement each other’s referential pattern to manifest the pure language, whose spirits are the best translation. While Derrida plays a small fraud that he sets relevant translation as translation criterion but he doesn’t make it clear, in which way he indicates his ideas of untranslatability and that pursuit of translation in absolute untranslatability will be nonsense, and it can only be infinitely approached but never reached. 3. Afterlife and Rebirth Benjamin also differs most from Derrida in the insight of the relationship between the original work and translation work. In Benjamin’s perspective, the purpose of translation is to promote the complementation of referential modes of different languages so as to restore the identity. Therefore, translation work is never the copy or reappearance of the original work, but the supplement and succession of the original work and in turn, original work can only rely on its translation work to refresh its vitality and go on its subsistence. The relationship of the two can only be understood in the whole purpose of realizing pure language. What Benjamin expects is through constant translation, we can make the referential modes of original work and translation work interflow until we exhaust all the referential modes to realize the final identity of language and spirit in entity. To the relationship of original work and translation work, Benjamin interprets from the perspective of organism and survival. Various forms of life closely correlate with biological phenomena though it has no great significance to biological phenomena. Translation work grows out of original work or we’d rather say it originates from the afterlife. Due to the fact that original work precedes the translation work, and in the range of world literature, no great works meets a perfect translator when its author is still alive, so translation work only marks the continuity of the original work. (Benjamin 76) Benjamin has regarded the original work as vigorous organism so that translation is views as the continuity of original work, which is also the afterlife of original work. Benjamin stresses that life is a historical concept instead of the existential concept. Life doesn’t limit within biological body. Only when we view life as a historical process of organism survival, can the concept of life be understood correctly. With this sense, translation work being the continuity of original work can be comprehended. Those that was flashy will corrupt and those that was fashionable will become old. So does the linguistic form. The linguistic form of the original work will die out with time passing by, but the life of original work will not die with the existential form of original work. With the help of translation work, the life of original work will be continued, updated and expanded, thus being constantly succeeded in its life history. Hence, translation was like the source of rejuvenation. (Kramer 24) However, in Benjamin’s points, translation work is the afterlife of original work doesn’t mean it’s the end of original work’s life nor that translation work replaces the original one to be an independent organism. Benjamin stresses that continuity of life doesn’t pay much attention to the survival of organism, which means that translation is a medium that pushes the original’s life process, a medium that provides a chance for the continuity of original’s life instead of substitution. The mission of translation is to promote the original work’s linguistic life growing until it ripens and fruit the pure language. The final purpose of language is to meet our needs to show that the relation among languages is quite close. Translation cannot reveal or build such hidden relation, but translation can reoccur it by intensification and embryotic appearance. Right through the expression of embryotic form, it makes relation among languages reoccur. (Benjamin,60) Accordingly, translation is not the birth of original work nor the death of original work but the living on of the original. It’s the birth after death and death after birth. In this way, Benjamin has assured the position of the original work which is higher than the translation work, on which the original work depends to continue its life. Translation can never be equal to the original work because only the original language has the vigor to embody the fruit of pure language. Compared to that, Derrida thinks that translation work is the rebirth of the original work and notes that there are two implications in “rebirth”, which are given by “Fortleben and Uberleben” in Benjamin’s The Task of Translator, indicating that life will continue, consistent and survival continues, but it also indicates resurrection after death. Derrida emphasizes that original work has equal and independent position with translation work, which are complementary for each other. If the original text calls for supplement, that’s because it’s not flawless, complete, entire and self-identified. The original texts to be translated fell into exile from the very beginning. (Derrida 2003) Starting from such complementary relationship, Derrida abolished the original position of the original work as original work has no difference from translation work in that original work is the translation work of former texts, and translation work can be translated as original work for later texts. La differánce of meaning is infinite that all the texts are the limited comprehension of semantic differánce, which supplement and substitute each other, constructing a constantly flowing semantic chain. A text that depends on other texts but differs from other texts at the same time constantly waits for supplement and substitution in the semantic net. Text is a claiming process that goes beyond meaning in itself; it’s the trace of a sequence of movements. The ultimate text that can cover the infinite semantic differánce doesn’t exist and the ultimate meaning is intangible as meaning is mobile and infinite. All in all, Derrida and Benjamin have shown their distinctive comprehension about the original work and translation work. Benjamin has claimed that translation work is the afterlife of original work and original work also depends on translation to continue its life. Due to the fact that only the original work can deliver birth to pure language, although the very relations among languages can be reoccurred in translation work, original work ranks first. Derrida holds another opinion that the two, original work and translation work are equal and complementary. There is a doubt that why Benjamin insists that the fruit of pure language is on the original work’s side, as we mentioned in the beginning that Benjamin want to realize the identity of language and spirit through exhausting all the referential modes of all languages, and making them melt with each other. Though translation is the living-on of original work which just like the baby from a mother, affiliated to the original. Why the final result will be on the original side still needs our attention. During the differánce of texts, original text can become the translation of former text while the translation can be the original text of later text, thus the chain of textual differánce are built. 4.Conclusion In a word, through the comparative study of Benjamin’s translation view and Derrida’s translation view, we can find something in common but the two still distinct with each other and own their unique perspective and ideas. Firstly, on the aspect of original work, translation theories of deconstructivism emphasizing infinite differánce of meaning and relativity and fluidity of text deny the originality of original works with intertextuality. Lots of texts appear, one differing from the former a little bit; all of them are the translation of translation. Each text has its unique features, and at the same time, it’s the translation of another text, thus, no text is the absolute original work plus language itself is a kind of translation. In the first place, it’s the translation of non-linguistic world and in the second place, every sign and phrase are the translation of another sign and phrase. (Bssnett 112) Nonetheless, Benjamin insists on the originality of original work, emphasizing that linguistic core is contained only in the original work and the function of translation is to liberate the relationship between the signifier and signified. Hence, if Benjamin denies the originality of original work will make the ground of his translation view lost. Secondly, on the aspect of the author, deconstructivism emphasizes the intertextuality instead of the author, declaring that God was already dead and trying to overthrow the concept that author is the source of meaning from the ground level, so translation views of deconstructivism denies the originality of the author and even the copyright of the author(Jiang Xiaohua & Zhang Jinghua 42). However, Benjamin advocates the originality of the author. Though he has not mentioned the issues about author’s copyright, we can infer from the emphasis of originality of original work and creativity of the author that he should admit the copyright of the author. Thirdly, on the aspect of translator, translation view of deconstructivism places the translator in the equal position of author, but at the meantime, it denies the creativity and copyright of translator. What Derrida does is to completely ignore the subjectivity of translator but focus on text. On the contrary, Benjamin does not only emphasize the position of translator and consider that translator contributes creativity as well as author, which just differs in the way of wok and he also points it out that the success of translation depends on the ability of translator. Fourthly, on the aspect of translation work, translation view of deconstructivism has eliminated the difference between the original work and translation work, believing that original work and translation work supplements each other and coexists with each other; the original work lives on with the help of translation work while the translation work becomes independent text because it succeeds the semantic differánce of the original work. Whereas, Benjamin stresses that translation is the continuity and supplement of original life but at the same time, he disapproves the independence of translation work as the effect of translation work is only to promote the growth of “pure language” existing in original work and translation itself contains no organism of pure language so translation work has not been equipped with translatability. Fifthly, on the aspect of translation criterion, translation view of deconstructivism has deconstructed the traditional translation view that seeks loyalty and equivalence and it has deconstructed the comprehension, extraction and transmission proposed by itself. (Wang Yingchong 18) As a result, it has treated the translatability and untranslatability in an equal way, indicating that any text can be translatable and untranslatable. Accordingly, the criterion of translation has been dissolved. Compared to Derrida, Benjamin prefers literal translation, advocating that we should promote the supplement of the referential modes of original work and translation work in the general purpose of realizing pure language. The most obvious distinction between the two is that the former has no intention to provide a solution or a conclusion after dissolving the criterion of translation, which is a little bit puzzling while the latter has set the transcendental body of pure language to declare the existence of absolute translatability, with intensified mode to present what is not in presence and to bring things far away nearer to us as distant things. (Derrida 79) To sum up, Benjamin cannot be classified as a member of translation school of deconstructivism no matter from the perspective of ideas and the structure of his theories. Although Benjamin has many points of view that are similar with ideas of deconstructivism, but his theory system completely different.

Skopos and Functional Equivalence

A Comparative Study between Functional Equivalence Theory and Skopos Theory and My thoughts on the Two Theories

(1)Introduction 1.1. Functional Equivalence Theory

In 1964, Eugene Nida, the famous American linguist and Bible Translator, first put forward the notion of “dynamic equivalence” in his book Toward a Science of Translating. According to Nida, “dynamic equivalence” refers to “ the closest natural equivalence to the source language message(Tan Zaixi, 1984: 10)”. In saying this, Nida means to appeal translators to put emphasis on expressing to the target readers both the messages conveyed in the source language and the forms and styles of the original text. Later, he realizes the name “dynamic equivalence” may confuse some translation learners and they may think he only focuses on translating the content and meaning of the source text and ignores its form and style, he then changes the name of “dynamic equivalence” into “functional equivalence”. Nida thinks that the response made by the target language receptor to the target text should generally be equivalent to the response made by the source language receptor to the source text, so when the translator cannot retain both the form and the content of the original text, he or she should give priority to the content of the original text and change the form of the source text. And in response to questions like how and to what degree the translator can change the form of the original text, Nida then points out that in translation, there are four aspects in dynamic equivalence, namely, lexical equivalence, syntactic equivalence, textual equivalence and stylistic equivalence respectively. If a translator can convey the language form, the content and the style of the source text in natural target language, and make the target readers give the same response to the target text as the source language made to the original text, then his translation can be said to have achieved the maximal equivalence. On the other hand, if a translation only transmit the content of the original text generally, then the translation can be said to have achieved the minimal equivalence. 

1.2. Skopos Theory Skopos theory was first put forward by Hans Vermeer in his book Framework for a General Translation Theory in 1978. According to Skopos theory, translation means to “produce a text at target setting for a target purpose and target addressee in target circumstances”(Liu Junping, 2009: 377). Based on this definition, Vermeer Hans concludes the three rules of Skopos theory, which are skopos rule, coherence rule and loyalty rule. Firstly, skopos rule, or purpose principle, is the primary principle to be followed in translation. It holds that the purpose to be achieved of the target text determines the whole process of translation, including the choice of the translator in translation skills and strategies, and that all translation activities are determined by its purpose. Generally speaking, the skopos rule has under its umbrella three types of purposes: the first one is the basic purpose of the translator; the second is the communicative purpose of the translation; and the third is the purpose of specific translation strategies or means. But at most of times, “purpose” refers to the communicative purpose of the translation. Secondly, coherence rule, also called intra-textual coherence, means that the translation must be understandable and readable to the receptors, and meaningful in the communicative environment of the target culture and the target text. Thirdly, fidelity rule, which means that there should be inter-textual coherence between the source text and the target text. Inter-textual coherence is similar to what is usually called “信” or “be faithful to the original text”. In the traditional translation theory, “faithfulness” is always regarded as the basic translation standard to obey, but in Skopos theory, to what degree the form and style of the target text should be faithful to the original text totally depends on the purpose of the translation and the translator’s understanding of the source text. Under Vermeer’ s Skopos theory, the skopos rule is the most important rule among the three rules, the coherence rule the second important, and the fidelity rule the least important. This indicates that in Skopos theory, the end justifies the means(Liu Junping, 2009: 377-378)

II.Similarities and Differences 2.1. The Similarities between the Two Theories 2.1.1. Both Attach Great Importance to the Target Receptor’s Status

    Functional Equivalence Theory is a receptor-oriented theory. As revealed by Nida’s definition of translation, that “translation consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence of the source language, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style”, Functional Equivalence Theory emphasizes that the primary aim of translation is such that the target text should bring the target receptors the similar or same response as the response made by receptors in the source language. Besides, to bring to the readers a similar or same response, Nida even put forward that, if it is necessary, different target texts should be made according to the needs of different receptors. All of the two points reflects that in Functional Equivalence Theory, the target receptor’s status is very important.

While the Skopos theory, too, put the reader’s needs on a high status. Of the three rules in Skopos theory, the most important one is skopos rule, which includes three purposes, the basic purpose of the translator, the communicative purpose of the translation, and the purpose of specific translation strategies or means. However, to take all the three purposes into consideration, a translator must first know what and who the target text serves, so he or she can immediately know the purpose of the translation task and do a corresponding and qualified translation. This, on the other hand, also means that in Skopos theory, the target reader’s needs indirectly determine the purpose of the translation, so it is also given priority to by the translator. 2.1.2. Both Emphasize the Communicative Function of Translation

    Under the Functional Equivalence Theory, the translation should achieve a functional equivalence, bringing the target readers the roughly same experience and making them give the responses as the receptors in the source language culture. In doing this, the translator is in fact trying to achieve the communicative function of the original text by shortening the distance of the source text receptors and the target text receptors, which, on the other hand, means that the process of translation is a communicative process between the original language culture and the culture of the target language.
    In Skopos theory, of the three purposes under the skopos rule, the communicative purpose is regarded as the most important purpose of a target text. Skopos theory holds that translation is a communicative activity with a purpose, and the process of translation is determined by the intended function or purpose of the target text.

2.2 The Differences between the Two Theories 2.2.1. Different Status of the Source Language and the Target Language

    From the perspective of Functional Equivalence Theory, a good translation achieving the goal of translation not only needs to provide another message similar to the original message conveyed in the source text, but also needs to clearly reflect the meaning and intention of the original text, bringing to the target readers similar or even same effects and making them give a same response. From this point, one can easily see that Functional Equivalence Theory is centered on the original text, which, to some degree, reflects that Functional Equivalence still put the source language on a high status. The status of the target language is secondary to the source language as the choice of the words, sentence structures of the target text still heavily depend on the source text.
     Skopos theory, on the other hand, gets rid of the point of view of the traditional text-centered translation theory, and focuses on the function and purpose of the target text. From the perspective of Skopos theory, a successful translation is not one that places the original text in a sacred and unattainable position. Vermeer further put forward the view of “subverting the source language” in Skopos theory. He stated that “the linguistic and stylistic features of the original text are no longer the only criteria to measure the translation”. All of these reflect that the source text enjoys a relatively low status in Skopos theory compared with its status in Functional Equivalence Theory. Besides, from the three rules of Skopos theory, one can easily know that, the most important one is the skopos rule, then the coherence of the target text, namely the intra-textual coherence and finally the fidelity of the target text to the source text, namely the inter-textual coherence. Therefore, we can see that the status of the source language actually lower than the target language in Skopos theory, which is different from the case in Functional Equivalence Theory.  

2.2.2. Different Translation Principles

    Nida believes that equivalence is the goal of translation. His translation standard is that the target text should be faithful to the original text in terms of content and style while also being expressive in the eyes of the target readers. As put forward by Nida that, “translation consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalence of the source language, first in terms of meaning and second in terms of style”, the translation standard of Functional Equivalence Theory include “equivalence”, which is the equivalence of meaning and style, namely be faithful to the meaning and style of the source text. Besides, in front of “equivalence”, there is also a word “natural”, which means the target text should be fluent and be in conformity with the habits of the target culture, namely “expressiveness” in traditional translation theory.
  In Skopos theory, however, “faithfulness” is no longer regarded as the primary translation criteria. As Skopos theory judges the success of a translation by its intended purpose, which reflects the requirements of the target readers. However, as the requirements of the readers are different, Skopos theory advocates the diversification of translation standards. Only when the communicative purpose of the translation requires the translation to have the same communicative function as the original text, equivalence becomes the standard of the translation process. Otherwise, the translation may be very different from the original text in its style and form.

2.2.3. Different Translation Skills and Translation Strategies Used in the Translation Process

     In Functional Equivalence Theory, as determined by its definition for translation, the translation skills and strategies used in the translation process are all for one common goal, which is to bring the target readers the roughly same or same response. In order to achieve the aim, some translation skills are frequently used under the Functional Equivalence Theory, including literal translation, liberal translation, domestication and borrowing translation. And among all these translation skills, domestication and borrowing translation are two translation strategies most favorably advocated by Functional Equivalence Theory. Here, I will list the translation of a phrase to briefly explain the reason why the two translation skills are often used in translation process. We all know that to grow like mushrooms is an English phrase which means to rapidly grow or increase in number. It vividly describes the scene that after the incessant rain in London, the explosive growth of the mushrooms. While in China, there is also a similar phrase “雨后春笋”, to describe the scene that after a spring rain, the bamboo shoots sprout overnight in the forest. Therefore, when doing a E-C translation, the translator often uses domestication and translate “to grow like mushrooms” into “雨后春笋”, so as to enable the Chinese readers give a same response as English readers did.
     However, Skopos theory is different. In Skopos theory, the end justifies the means, which means all the translation skills and strategies are determined by the purpose and use of the target text as well as the reader it serves. Therefore, it usually adopts different translation strategies to meet different translation purposes. Translators can freely choose the translation skills he wants to use, whether it is literal translation or liberal translation, domestication or foreignization, transliteration or borrowing translation, even simplifying translation and reduction translation, in consideration of the author's writing intention, the theme of the original text, the translator’s purpose and the needs of the readers. 

Here, I want to firstly compare the difference between Functional Equivalence Theory and Skopos theory in dealing with content with cultural characteristics. As I wrote before, the Functional Equivalence Theory emphasizes the same response between the original readers and the target readers and the presence of a natural text to the target readers, so it prefers to use the existed words, phrases, and cultural images in the target language to replace the expressions in the original text, which explains why domestication and borrowing translation are often use under the theory -- that is because by using the two ways, functional equivalence can be achieved. However, in Skopos theory, the translator enjoys a higher degree of freedom. He can select translation skills flexibly according to the skopos of the text. For example, when it comes to cultural translation, the translator should carefully consider the cultural differences between the two languages and have full understanding of the purpose and usage of the original text. If the purpose of a translated text is to diffuse the language characteristics of the original author, the author’s writing intention, or the language characteristics of the source language culture, then the translator can adopt the strategy of foreignization or the strategy of literal translation with some annotations in the target text to help the target readers better understand a foreign concept. For example, in order to maintain the cultural characteristics of Chinese, the Chinese proverb “谋事在人，成事在天” should be translated as “man proposals, heaven disposes." instead of “man proposals, God disposes”. This is because the translator wants foreign people to know our beliefs -- we Chinese believe in Heaven rather than God. At the same time, sometimes, to meet the needs of some special readers, simplifying translation and reduction translation are also used in the translation process. For example, there are some publishers in China which publish the simplified version of those foreign classics to meet the the children’s needs in reading. 2.2.4. Different Status of the Translator In what Nida thinks of, the translator is only a cultural envoy, transmitting the idea of a culture to people in another culture. Nida believes that as the second source of information, the translator’s role is mainly to convey the original author’s intention to the readers. Therefore, the translator must understand what the original author thinks. The translator’s role is mainly to convey the original author’s intention to the readers. In addition, the translator should not introduce any personal ideas into the translation of the original text, no matter whether the original point of view is consistent with his own. “The translator should not intervene in, edit or rewrite the original text even if it has shortcomings and errors, nor should he improve the original text even if he has the ability”(Tan Zaixi, 1984). Of course, we can critically accept Nida’s words. When there are obvious mistakes in the original text (such as the original text not conforming to the facts), we should correct them in the translation. Skopos theory improves the position of translator. The translator is the receptor of the original text and transmits the information of the original text to the reader. Skopos theory allows the translator to determine the faithfulness of the translation to the source text and determine the proportion of the faithfulness of the target text to the original text. It adopts the translation strategies such as “modification, abridgement and reduction”, and denies that there is only one “correct or best” translation of the source language. Therefore, the translator has more freedom in the process of translation, and can transfer the original text according to the needs, expectations and knowledge background of the readers, so as to achieve the purpose of a translation task. 2.2.5. Different translation processes In order to achieve functional equivalence, Nida proposed the famous back translation theory by referring to the concepts of core sentence, non-core sentence and transformation. In Functional Equivalence Theory, translation is a complicated process, which includes four stages: analysis, transfer, reconstruction and test (Tan Zaixi, 1984, 144). Specifically speaking, as far as Nida is concerned, when doing a translation task, the translator needs to transform the original text from the surface structure to the deep structure or pseudo-deep structure on the basis of grammatical and semantic analysis, and then translate the deep structure or pseudo-deep structure of the original text to the deep structure of the target text, and finally from the deep structure of the target text to the surface structure of the target text. After the translation is done, the translator needs to re-examine and test the translation.(Peng Changjiang, 2017: 09) Skopos theory, however, unlike the Functional Equivalence Theory, it does not put forward specific translation procedures. The Skopos theory does not give detailed guidelines for the translation of words, phrases, paragraphs and texts, but it do gives some guidance to the translator from the macro perspective, giving the translator more autonomy to do translation and enabling them freely translate a text.

III.My Thoughts on the Two Theories 3.1. My thought on Functional Equivalence Theory 3.1.1. Strengths and Contributions of Functional Equivalence Theory Firstly, the Functional Equivalence Theory brings modern linguistics, communication studies, information theory, semiotics and aesthetics into the field of translation. From the macro perspective, it breaks through the limitations of the traditional thoughts on translation and provides a new perspective for translation research. It studies translation in a more detailed way from multiple perspectives, applies new thoughts, concepts and methods to translation studies, and provides many new methods for translation research. Besides, it also lays a solid foundation for modern translation studies. Secondly, it must be emphasized that, Functional Equivalence Theory has given many constructive suggestions to translators. From a micro perspective, Functional Equivalence Theory has solved the long-standing dispute between literal translation and liberal translation. It requires the translator use the target language to reproduce the meaning of the source language as fully as possible in different language structures, thus both breaking the restrictions of traditional word-for-word translation and limiting the free and random play of the translator. To some extent, Functional Equivalence Theory has greatly promoted the translation of some types of literary works, such as the translation of prose, help avoiding the creation of many pseudo--translation and translationese cases. At the same time, it eases the argument of domestication and foreignization from the perspective of language and culture, and seeks the balance point of domestication and foreignization from the perspective of multiple disciplines. Thirdly, Functional Equivalence Theory provides with the target readers a chance to know other country’s culture in their own language. Traditionally, translation is to transform the original language that are different from ours into the familiar language that we use. It can let the people who have not learned a foreign language also understand and appreciate the message under some phrases written in a foreign language. For example, if one has no common sense in English, he will regard “a piece of cake” as “一块蛋糕”. This example reflects the culture gap between the people of two countries. Good translation is one that overcomes these culture gaps and turn them into what the target readers is familiar with. So, it is better for the translator use the Functional Equivalence Theory to translate “a piece of cake” with the well-known Chinese proverb “小菜一碟” . 3.1.2. Deficiency of Functional Equivalence Theory

Although Functional Equivalence Theory has made many contributions to the translation studies, it is not without its deficiencies. Here I list three disadvantages of it.

First, Nida’s Functional Equivalence Theory is concluded from the translation of the Bible. It is, in fact, cannot be a guideline for all kinds of translation. For example, some texts, including some articles with profound historic significance and cultural characteristics, some scientific articles, some lyrical articles, movie subtitles, government reports, actually need different translation standards. Functional Equivalence Theory can play an important role in appropriate fields, but it is not universal or omnipotent rule. Though, in fact, there is nothing omnipotent and flawless in the world. Functional Equivalence Theory can play an important role in appropriate area. If it is used in the right place, it can help the translator present a more brilliant translation. Second, the Functional Equivalence Theory requires the target text to be written in a “common language”, which should be understood by the less educated readers and accepted by the readers with high literacy, but this turns out to be very difficult to achieve in practice. It can be said that the requirements of this theory are way too demanding. Although this is a goal worth pursuing, it is nearly impossible to achieve, as even in the same country, different knowledge levels, different regional cultures and even different life experiences will lead to different understanding abilities. In addition, Nida also ignores an important thing, that is, culture is very complex. The generation, evolution and creation of each nation and its culture are different from each other. Some cultural images in foreign works may be something the other country’s readers have never seen and cannot understand. In translation process, it is certainly ideal if the translator can find a corresponding cultural object in the target culture. But at most of times, it is in fact very difficult for the translator to find such a substitute. This makes the so called “functional equivalence” very difficult to achieve, and even show its loopholes -- which is also a difficulty in translation process -- it is usually difficult for translators to translate and explain certain words with special cultural meanings. In fact, the differences between different cultures are absolute and inevitable, while the similarities are rare and precious. For example, in order to avoid the danger and inauspicious emotions of the word “red” in western culture, some British translators translate the original title of the book 《红楼梦》 into “The Story of the Stone”. This kind of translation, however, fails to transmit the message of a rich, luxurious, dreamy life hidden in the original book name, let alone bring the western readers the same response. 3.1.3. My Point of View towards Functional Equivalence Theory The great influence of Functional Equivalence Theory on the whole translation field is obvious to all, but it is not a universal theory. The advantages and disadvantages of the theory of functional equivalence should be treated in a dialectical way. Functional Equivalence Theory is the product of a particular historical period, and it may have some inconsistencies with contemporary translation theories. Therefore, we should take a comprehensive view of Nida’s translation theory. On the whole, Nida’s translation thought can be regarded as a bright gem in the treasure house of western translation studies.

3.2. My thoughts on Skopos Theory 3.2.1. Strengths and Contributions of Skopos Theory

     Skopos theory has many advantages. First of all, as a major breakthrough in the study of contemporary western translation theory, Skopos theory breaks the limitations of Functional Equivalence Theory at the linguistic level and puts forward a translation standard dominated by skopos principle. Skopos theory provides the translator with another perspective in translation practice, which is more conducive to the choice of translation strategies.
     Secondly, Skopos theory focuses on the requirements of the translation client, points out the influence of the client on the translation process, and breaks the limitation of traditional translation theory, which only takes the original author, the translator and the target reader into consideration. From this perspective, Skopos theory can be called a real breakthrough in the history of translation studies.
     Thirdly, Skopos theory emphasizes the initiative and participation of the translator, and holds that the original text mainly plays the role of providing information. Therefore, it shifts the focus of translation from faithful reproducing the source text to the creation of the translation. It overthrows the central position of the original text and establishes the central position of the target text and the translator, which gives all translation learners and researchers a new insight towards translation studies.

Finally, Skopos theory further studies the development of translation from the perspective of culture. From the perspective of Skopos theory, translation is a kind of cultural comparison and a kind of cross-cultural communication in a certain cultural context, which benefits the target readers a lot. 3.2.2. Deficiency of Skopos Theory However, all thing is not perfect, Skopos theory is no exception, of course. Firstly, Skopos theory allows the translator to rewrite the original text to a certain extent, but it does not indicate the extent to which the translator can rewrite the original text. It gives the translator too much freedom, which may let the translator easily translate the source text out of its context. Besides, the original meaning and usage of the source text may be distorted if the translator unscrupulously use every means in order to achieve the so-called “purpose of translation”. Accordingly, the translator will fall into the whirlpool of random translation, which may violate the intention of the original text. Secondly, the Skopos theory overemphasizes the purpose of translation, the purpose of the translator and the purpose of the target language, so that the translator may easily change or omit many stylistic features of the original text in the target text. This makes it not suitable for some styles of text, such as poems. Because if a translator translates a poem into a prose or a descriptive passages out of the purpose of the translation client, he or she may be better said to rewrite or recreate something than translate. After all, translation is based on the original text, otherwise it cannot be called translation.

     Last but not least, there are tens of thousands of readers. To meet the needs of different people, a translation must adopt multiple standards. When there are contradictions among various standards, the translator will be at a loss and the multiple standards will be equal to no standards. For example, if a translator receives the mission of the translation client that he should translate a song faithfully but also retain the beauty of the original text for both the children and adults to appreciate it, then the translator may feel hard to do the translation task with the three contradictory translation requirements.    

3.2.3. My Point of View towards Skopos Theory There are more or less deficiencies in every translation theory, and Skopos theory is no exception. To some extent, the shortcomings of Skopos theory mentioned above are also a major feature of it. It is this distinctive theoretical feature that can make it stand out in many translation theories and attract the attention of many scholars and translation enthusiasts. The author believes that the contribution of Skopos theory to the development of translation theory and its guiding significance in translation practice is far greater than its shortcomings and deficiencies. People should treat it with a more objective and rational attitude and let it play its due role in the field of translation. Generally speaking, the Skopos theory put forward by Hans Vermeer is regarded as a major theoretical breakthrough in the study of western translation theory, and it also plays an important role in guiding the successful translation practice.

IV.Conclusion Through the above comparison, we find that both Functional Equivalence Theory and Skopos theory have their own advantages and disadvantages, and their differences are greater than their similarities. Functional equivalence pays attention to the equivalence between the form and content of the translation and the original text as well as the reader’s response. Skopos theory can solve some problems that can not be solved by Functional Equivalence Theory and widen the research perspective of translation theory, which is to some extent the inheritance and development of Functional Equivalence Theory. The scope of application of the two is different, but both of them have their own unique excellencies.

Comparative Study on Functional Equivalence Theory and Skopos Theroy

Introduction Research background Contemporary western translation theories are flourishing, providing a new perspective for translation studies. In the 1960s, Eugene A. Nida proposed a translation theory based on reader response, namely "functional equivalence theory". With the development of the times, people have further understanding of the complex phenomenon of translation. The theory of equivalence sets the translation within the scope of the language level. However, the essence of translation is not only the conversion of pure language, but also the communication between different cultures based on language form. In the 1970s, translation studies oriented to the target language culture appeared in the West, breaking the traditional translation theory of textual centralism, which made the translator pay more attention to the translation and the target language receivers, the social and communicative functions of the translation. The German functionalist translation theory got rid of the shackles of the equivalence theory that prevailed at that time, broadened the field of translation theory research. Significance of the study By comparing the differences and similarities of these two translation theory, it can deepen our understanding of them. Therefore, when we do translation, we can choose the most appropriate translation theory to guide us to translate according to the specific situation. So it is very necessary to make a comparison between functional equivalence theory and skopos theory. Layout of this thesis This thesis will be divided into three chapters. In the first chapter, a brief introduction of functional equivalence will be presented, such as the definition of functional equivalence, and its four criteria: conveying information; conveying the spirit and style of the original work; fluent language; and similar reader response. The second chapter involves three parts, that is, the development of skopos theory; the definition of skopos theory and the three rules of skopos theory. The final chapter falls into two part: the differences and similarities between these two theories. Ⅰ. A brief introduction of Functional equivalence theory 1.1 The definition of functional equivalence theory Functional equivalence theory is the core of the famous American translator Eugene Nida’s translation theory. It attaches great importance to the response of the target language receivers, that is, the target language receiver and the source language receiver produce the same viewing response. He holds that translation should not only ensure the correctness of information exchange and achieve information equivalence in lexical sense, but also take into account the cultural background and behavioral patterns of the target language receiver and achieve information equivalence in style, semantics and other aspects in the process of translation, that is, to achieve functional equivalence of language. In the process of translation, we should not only consider the formal factors such as vocabulary and grammar, but also pay attention to the linguistic factors such as context, culture and social background, which are very important to translation. Nida’s definition of translation indicates that translation is not only equivalence in lexical sense, but also equivalence in semantics, text and style. The information conveyed by translation includes both surface lexical information and deep cultural information. This kind of “dynamic equivalence” includes four aspects: 1. lexical equivalence；2. syntactic equivalence；3. textual equivalence；4. stylistic equivalence. Among these four aspects, Nida believes that “meaning is the most important and form is the second”(张春柏，1998：50). 1.2 The criteria of functional equivalence theory Nida’s functional equivalence translation theory has four criteria (Nida, 2001:117): 1.2.1 Conveying information The “information” includes all kinds of information conveyed by the original language: semantics, style, literary image, scene and psychological effect. In the theory of functional equivalence, the criterion of “conveying information” means that the target language information conveyed by the translator to the target language receiver should be basically the same as the original text information conveyed by the original author to the target language receiver. Example: “presidential historian...” “总统的史学家......” It is not clear that the message conveyed by “presidential historian” to Chinese readers is not the same as that conveyed by “presidential historian” to English readers. However, according to Nida’s functional equivalence theory, the translator translates it into “研究总统的历史学家” by adding words, so that Chinese readers can correctly understand the true meaning of “presidential historian” in the original text. 1.2.2 Conveying the spirit and style of the original work From Nida’s point of view, translation is to reproduce the original text in the most natural way in the target language, first of all, meaning, then spiritual style, so that the receivers of the translated text can produce basically the same psychological response as the receivers of the original text. Example:“来吧，朋友!” It is a column broadcast by CCTV. If translated into “come on, friends!”, it seems to be close to the original in form, as a column is not solemn enough. And “solemnity” is the style of “来吧，朋友！”in the original Chinese text, which should be reproduced in the translation. Therefore, “A time to make friends” is quite different from the original Chinese in form, but it accurately conveys the spiritual style of the original to the target readers. 1.2.3 Fluent language: fully in line with the norms and conventions of the target language This criterion means that, on the premise of conveying the information and spiritual style of the original text, the process of translation should not be constrained by the linguistic form and structure of the original text, and should grasp the connotation and spirit of the original text. Example：“车来了！” “Here comes the car / truck / bus / minibus / lorry / taxi!” In Chinese, the category word “car” is used to replace any form of vehicle. But this method is not found in English. On the contrary, English is accustomed to using specific vocabulary. Therefore, when translating similar Chinese into English, it is necessary to make clear the means of transportation and to translate the specific means of transportation according to the habits of English expression. If you cross the street, remind your peers to say “车来了！”You should translate it into “Be careful!” according to English expression habits, so that English readers can really understand the meaning of the original text. 1.2.4 Similar reader responses The first two standards focus on the transmission of linguistic information, content and style, while the latter two focus on the acceptability of the translation to the audience：The relationship between the target reader and the target text should be basically the same as that between the original reader and the target text, so as to achieve the spiritual fit between the translator and the original author, thus enabling the target reader to get the same feelings as the original reader. Example: “as white as snow.” It can sometimes be translated into “very white” because people in the translated culture may not know what snow is. We can also translate “to grow like mushroom” into “如雨后春笋般地成长起来”, because “mushroom” means exactly the same in English as“春笋”in Chinese.

Ⅱ. A brief introduction of Skopos theory Skopos theory is the core concept of German functionalist theory, which is put forward by Hans. J. Vermeer. Skopos theory holds that the purpose of translation determines the translation methods and strategies that are to be employed. Vermeer thinks that translators should follow three basic rules in the process of their translation, which are respectively skopos theory, coherence theory and fidelity theory. 2.1 The development of Skopos theory Before the 1970s, the focus of translation studies was equivalence. In fact, this kind of equivalence was hard to achieve because the differences between cultures are hard to eliminate. In order to solve this problem, translation theorists put forward new theories, using functional and communicative methods to study translation. In this context, functionalist skopos theory continues to develop, and boldly shakes off the bondage of equivalence, taking the skopos as the general principle. So translation is examined in the framework of behavioral theory and intercultural communication, which opens a new path for the world translation theories, including the Chinese translation (Li Changshuan, 2009:11). The development of skopos theory has experienced the following four stages: The first stage: Katharina Reiss firstly introduced the concept of equivalence into translation criticism, proposing the prototype of functionalist theory. On the one hand, Reiss still insisted on the equivalence theory with the original text as the center, and pointed out that the ideal translation should be equivalent to the original text from the conceptual content, language form and communicative function. She believed that the ideal translation should be comprehensive communicative translation. On the other hand, Reiss also realized that some equivalence is impossible. For example, the translation and the original text have different functions. In this case, Reiss believes that the translator should give priority to the functional characteristics of the translation rather than the equivalence principle (Zhang Jinglan, 2004:1). Reiss's research laid the foundation for skopos theory. The second stage: Reiss’s student Hans J. Vermeer proposed skopos theory, taking the skopos of the translation as the paramount principle during the process of translation. Vermeer believed that translation is a kind of human behavior, and any kind of human behavior is purposeful, so the purpose of translation should be determined before the translation begins. Vermeer thinks that translation should be based on the original text, and translation is a purposeful behavior that must be completed by negotiation. In addition, translation must follow three basic rules, of which the skopos rule is the most important. After these three rules are put forward, the criteria for judging the good or bad translation are no longer “equivalence”, but whether the translation fully achieves the expected goal of translation or not. The third stage: Based on communication theory and action theory, Holz-Manttari proposed translational action. Translational action views translation as purpose-driven, outcome-oriented human interaction and focuses on the process of translation as message-transmitter compounds involving intercultural transfer (Jeremy Munday, 2001:77). Translation is a communicative process involving a series of roles and players Manttari regards text as a pure tool for achieving communicative function, and believes that its inherent value is completely subordinate to its purpose. The translator only needs to be responsible for the purpose environment, and the target text can be completely independent of the original text, thus further developing the functionalist translation theory. The fourth stage: Christane Nord comprehensively summarized and perfected the functionalist theory. Nord proposed the principle of "function plus loyalty", which systematically elucidates the internal and external factors that need to be considered in text analysis of translation, and how to formulate a translation strategy that is consistent with the purpose of translation based on the original text. 2.2 The definition of skopos Skopos theory was originally put forward by the German scholar Han J. Vermeer in 1978. “Skopos is a Greek word for 'aim' or 'purpose' and was introduced into translation theory by Vermeer as a technical term for the purpose of a translation and of the action of translating”(Munday, 2001: 78). Translation actions have many purposes, but Vermeer divides them into three categories: translator’s basic purpose, such as make a living; the target text’s communicative purpose, like enlightening the readers; and the purpose realized by selecting some special translation strategies or steps, for example, translating one language word by word aims to show the structure feature of this language. Generally speaking, the skopos theory refers to the communicative purpose of the source text. 2.3 Three basic rules of skopos theory In this part, a detailed analysis of these rules will be presented with examples. 2.3.1 The skopos rule In the three rules of Skopos theory, Skopos theory is the prime principle to be followed in any translation. Vermeer explains this rule as follows: 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 in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely in the way they want it to function.

                                                 (Vermeer, 1988:20)                                           

Therefore, skopos theory believes that any translation action is determined by the purpose of the translation. That is to say, “The ends justify the means” (Reiss &Vermeer, 1984:101) the purpose of translation determines the translation methods and strategies. Example: I wear nothing but a few drops of Channel No.5

       无限芬芳的超脱，点滴即可创造。

If using the literal translation, this sentence can be translated as “我什么都不穿，除了滴几滴香奈儿五号”. However, this kind of translation extremely lacks of beauty and there is no more elegance. Considering that the ultimate goal of advertisement is to induce consumers to buy the products and services it promotes. This advertisement adopts free translation and combines with Chinese traditional culture, which makes it like a ancient poem with quaint charm. It not only expresses the meaning of the advertisement, but also injects the characteristics of art, thus letting Channel No.s full of magic. It satisfies some people's pursuit high quality of life, and also makes consumers deeply impressed. So it can be called a successful translation. 2.3.2 The coherence rule Coherence rule is also called intratextual coherence rule. It holds that the translated text must be coherent, readable and acceptable. In other words, the TT receivers can understand the TT according to their cultural and intellectual background. Any text is a provider of information and functions, but the information and functions are not always obvious from a linguistic point of view. The translator selects aspects and components that serve the purpose according to the skopos rule, and then translates the source text through language processing to make the translated text become a new information provider. In the language processing process, translators must be concerned that translation is readable and understandable in the translated language. Only the translation is meaningful in the communicative context of the TL receivers can the culture and information of the source text be effectively transmitted to the target language readers. Example: Enchanting medieval house with five acres of delightful gardens.

       这里是迷人的中世纪住宅，外有五英亩的美丽花园。

This is a part of the travel propaganda. In order to ensure that translation is smooth and coherent, the original prepositional phrase is changed into a complete sentence with a subject-predicate structure, which doesn’t make the relationship among sentences appear loose. 2.3.3 The fidelity rule Fidelity rule is also called inter-textual coherence and states that there must be coherence between the ST and the TT. It is similar to the “faithfulness” of Yan Fu’s theory. Fidelity rule maintains the status of the original text and constrains translation actions of different translation purpose. However, the concept of Fidelity rule is relative. The form and degree of faithfulness is determined by the purpose of translation and the translators’ understanding of the original text. Example: Free entry into farm, Dogs on lead. OPEN DAILY: 1 March--30 November 10:00 am--5:00 pm

       农场免费进入，宠物狗请带好狗绳。

开放时间：3月1日--11月30日 上午10点--下午五点 The time, place and various precautions in the travel text are very important, because the error of this kind of information will bring unnecessary trouble to the tourists. Therefore, the translation, according to the fidelity rule, faithfully and effectively conveys the original information to the reader for the purpose of facilitating the tourists. There exists a hierarchical order of these rules. The skopos rule is the most important one and other two rules are subordinate to it. At the same time, the fidelity rule is also subordinate to the coherence rule.

Ⅲ. Comparative study on Nida's functional equivalence theory and functionalist skopos theory This chapter will mainly discuss the differences and similarities between functional equivalence theory and skopos theory. 3.1 The differences 3.1.1 Different theoretical basis The early equivalence theory was directly influenced by American structuralist linguistics and human linguistics. Later, Nida combined translation studies with the syntactic structure analysis method, semantic component analysis method and Chomsky's transformational-generative grammar that were popular in the United States in the 1940s and 1950s, took structural analysis of language expressions and translation procedures, and injected fresh blood into translation studies (Chen Gang, 2011: 145). Using communication theory and cross-cultural content as the starting point, Nida revised Chomsky's deep transfermation grammar, paid attention to the psychology of information receivers, and stimulated the potential of information receivers as .much as possible. German skopos theory is an emerging school in the late 1970s. It criticizes that the translation theory based on linguistic school pays much attention to form, and is developed on the basis of communication theory, information theory, behavior theory, discourse linguistics, and text theory. Based on the behavior theory, Skopos theory proposes the concept of translation action, which extends translation to a new field. That is to say, translation is a kind of purposeful and conscious intercultural communication action of human. As the name suggests, Skopos theory regards translation activities as a kind of "action", and any action has its goals or skopos. One of the representatives of the skopos theory, Hans J. Vermeer, summarizes the essence of skopos theory in a concise language: the ends justify the means, that is, the purpose of translation determines the translation process. 3.1.2 Different translation principles and standards Nida's functional equivalence refers to “the closest natural equivalence to the source language information”. “Natural” here means that the translation must conform to the language and culture of the target language, in line with the context and the requirements of the target receivers. "Equivalence" here, he clearly stated that it is not "equivalence" in mathematics, but "approximation", that is, the approximation of functional equivalence from varying degrees. From the above Nida’s dynamic equivalence theory, the translator must conform to four criteria in order to achieve "close and natural equivalence": (1) conveying meaning; (2) conveying the spirit and style of the original work; (3) fluent; (4) similar reader responses. In order to achieve these four standards, there will be contradictions between content and form from time to time. It is either the content giving way to form, or the form giving way to content. The two form a unified whole. Skopos theory advocates that translation should follow three rules: the skopos rule, the coherence rule and the fidelity rule, of which the skopos rule is the highest principle. The main purpose is to make the translation achieve the expected function of the target language receivers in the target language environment. In addition to the highest principle, the translation must follow the coherence rule and the fidelity rule. The former requires the translation to be "coherent within the text," that is, the translation needs to meet the communication context and cultural background of the target language so that the target reader can understand. The latter requires the translation to be coherent between the ST and the TT. That is, the translation should try to imitate the original text, whether it is formal imitation or content imitation is permissible, which depends on the purpose of the translation. The latter two rules are subordinate to the highest rule-- the skopos rule. But this also makes the translation theorists produce questions. Is the translator free to do anything for the purpose? Then Nord put forward the theory of “function plus loyalty”. Nord believes that "there is no translation without the original text", and free rewriting does not belong to translation; "Translators should be responsible for both the original text and the translation environment, and be responsible for both the sender of the original information and the recipient of the translation." This responsibility of the translator is "loyalty"(Zhang Meifang, 2005:60-65). The principle of "function plus loyalty" avoids the skopos theory to go to extremes, and complements skopos theory, highlighting the responsibility of translators, and limiting the translator's freedom. Because the skopos theory believes that the success of the translation is judged by whether the expected purpose of the source text is realized or not, and the expectation also reflects the requirements of the target language reader. Since the target language readers reflect differently, so the translation standard of the skopos theory is also diversified. 3.1.3 Different cultural directions Nida tried to overcome the cultural difference and eliminate the cultural atmosphere in the source text. His theory is mainly oriented to the original text. That is, the source language culture, emphasizing the consistency of cultural environment between the source language and the target language. At the same time, Nida is a support of language commonality. His theory reflects the translation thought of structuralist linguistics, that is, the "mirror reflection" of the objective world and the universality of language expression. The translators’ full imitation and the independence of express the value of their culture, especially the cultural consistency of the target language culture and the source language culture. Vermeer regards translation as a purposeful action, firstly in its outcome, that is, the target text. The target text is oriented towards the target culture, and the target culture determines the suitability of the target text. Therefore, Skopos theory believes that Translation is an irreversible transmission of information to the source language culture or language in the target culture. There is no intermediate position, it is intercultural communication action, and it is communicative and cultural. In addition, Skopos theory is oriented to the context of macro-postmodern culture, especially the habits, traditions and norms of the target language culture (Fan Derui, 2019:67). 3.2 The Similarities 3.2.1 Both are a combination of translation and language function The skopos theory represented by Hans J. Vermeer and Christane Nord, and the functional equivalence theory of Nida are put forward by different schools in different periods, but there are still many internal connections and intercommunity. There is no doubt that both have their rationality of existence and show progress in their translation activities of their respective periods. Whether it is "skopos theory" or "functional equivalence theory", both their ultimate goals are to achieve smooth communication between different languages and reduce misunderstandings and conflicts arising from information exchange. In particular, both combine translation with language functions, focusing on the role of language functions in translation. Skopos theorists believe that translation is a purposeful communicative activity, and the translation process is determined by the expected function or purpose of the translation. This purpose is to a great extent influenced by the target receivers and the context and cultural background of the target receivers. Therefore, the translator should decide the choice of the original text information, the use of the translation strategy and the expression of the translation according to the requirements of the clients, combined with the purpose of the translation and the specific situation of the target receivers Nida also put forward the translation principle of functional equivalence from the perspective of language function, and also combines translation with language functions. He pointed out that due to the differences in language and culture, it is impossible for translation to obtain the formal equivalence between the source text and the target text, but only functional equivalence. Although the expressions of various languages are different, they have the same expressive power and have the same or similar language functions, that is, expressive, cognitive, interpersonal, informative, imperative, empathetic, sympathetic, empathy and aesthetic function. If the translation of these aspects is basically the same, then the functional equivalence of translation is achieved. According to this, he put forward that "the preservation of the original content must change the form, the degree of change, and must depend on different languages in the distance between language and cultural." In order to produce efficacy, the adjustment of the translation from form to content is the specific application of functional ideas. However, Nida did not develop further in the direction of functionalism, but still focused on the concept of equivalence. Therefore, his theory is fundamentally different from the views of the German functional translation school. 3.2.2 Both emphasize the role of the readers and the intelligibility of the translation. Vermeer believes that the recipients of the translation, that is, the readers, as an important part of the translation requirements, is one of the most important factors in determining the purpose of translation; the target language receivers is the recipient or listener of the translated text with the knowledge, expectation and communication needs of his own specific culture world. Translation is the text in the environment of the target language produced for the purpose of the target language and the reader of the target language in the context of the target language. In addition, the coherence rule of skopos theory emphasizes that the translation must meet the criteria of "coherence within the text" that is, only the text is fully understood by the recipient can they make sense. It can be seen that the skopos theory emphasizes the role of the readers and the intelligibility of the translation. Nida's functional equivalence theory is also readers-oriented. Nida believes that the research object of translation is the reader; the recipient is not a passive target of language communication, but an active participant in communicative activities. The reader's response is the only criterion for judging the quality of the translation. Therefore, the translation must be fluent and understandable. In order to achieve the intelligibility of the translation, it is even possible to delete parts that the reader cannot understand, such as metaphors.

Conclusion

By comparatively analyzing Eugene Nida's functional equivalence theory and the German functionalist skopos theory, skopos theory critically inherited the rational factors of Nida's functional equivalence theory, and abandoned its irrational part. Skopos theory gets rid of the shackles of equivalence theory, breaking the traditional perspective of single translation studies, turning attention to the study of other relevant factors in translation activities other than language. Skopos theory broke through the framework of equivalence translation theory, and proposed a theoretical system of diversification of translation standards led by the skopos rule. The diversification of translation standards makes the function closer to reality. This is clearly more scientific, more operative and more versatile than Nida's theory that takes functional equivalence as the sole criterion. Moreover, compared with the traditional language translation theory that emphasizes the internal study of translation, Skopos theory denies that translation is a simple language conversion, and pays more attention to the external of translation. Compared with Nida, Skopos theory are more concerned with the humanity and sociality of translation activities. In addition, the Skopos theory shifts the focus of translation from the reproduction of the original text to the more challenging creation of target text, which enhances the active participation of the translator as the main body of the translation, overturning the center status of the original text, and establishing the central status of the target text and the translator. The functionalist skopos theory puts translation in a dynamic cultural context, emphasizing the translator's active intervention. Therefore, it solves some problems that the functional equivalence theory fails to solve, broadens the research perspective of traditional translation theory, is a major breakthrough and important supplement to the functional equivalence theory, and erects a distinctive flag in modern translation theory.

On the Comparison between "Sublimation" an "Functonal Equivalence" Theories

Abstract: Qian Zhongshu and Eugene Nida are outstanding and renowned translators in the history of Chinese and Western translation respectively. It is believed that Mr.Qian’s “Sublimation” theory and Nida’s “Functional Equivalence” theories have a broad and profound impact on Chinese and Western translation theories and practices. This paper will recognize the theoretical value of these two theories from the dialectical point of view by comparing the similarities and differences between “Sublimation” and “Functional Equivalence”. It aims to better apply translation theory to translation practice, and advocate us to view Chinese and Western translation theories from a historical and contradictory perspective, and thus making Translation Studies become more systematic and scientific. Key words: sublimation; functional equivalence; Qian Zhongshu; Eugene Nida

Introduction: As a famous master of literature, translation and academy, Qian Zhongshu is considered as “the Kunlun Mountain of culture” by many scholars on account of his remarkable achievements and a wide range of knowledge. His literary masterpieces include “Pipe-awl Chapters” , “Discourses on Art”, “Seven Patches”, “Selected Essays of Qian Zhongshu”, “Fortress Besieged” and so on. What’s more, he proposed “Sublimation” theory in translation field, which does great contribution to traditional Chinese translation theory and make Translation Studies more systematic. As Chinese scholar Chen Fukang said: “He (Qian) has made a great many outstanding achievements in some important fields like literature and academic research. Although the discussion on translation is only a carved railing in his academic palace, it can have a huge impact in the field of translation studies.” (Chen Fukang 2000: 417). Eugene Nida is a famous American contemporary linguist and translation theorist. He has been devoted to the translation of the Bible and has summarized a set of translation theories from his own translation practice. The core point of his translation theory is “Functional Equivalence” (initially called “Dynamic Equivalence”). From his point of view, “Functional Equivalence” is to refer to the type of equivalent reflected in a TT which seeks to adapt the function of the original to suit the specific context in and for which it was produced” (Shuttleworth & Cowie, 2004: 64). It requires that the translation should focus on the meaning and spirit of the original text, instead of being constrained by formal correspondence. According to this theory, he deems that the translation must have four criteria: (1) conveying meaning; (2) expressing spirit; (3) natural and smooth wording; (4) similar receptor response. In his book “From one language to another”, he replaced “Dynamic Equivalence” with “Functional Equivalence” and put forward two levels of meaning, say, referential meaning and associative meaning.

1.The theoretical origin of “Sublimation” and “Functional Equivalence” 1.1 The theoretical origin of “Sublimation” The idea of Qian Zhongshu’s translation theory of “Sublimation” comes from his book “Lin Shu's Translation” written in 1963 and “The Pipe-awl Chapters” published by Zhonghua Book Company in 1979. He proposed that the process of translation is actually a process of employing “enticement”, avoiding “misinformation” and pursuing “sublimation”. Then he pointed out: “The highest ideal of literary translation is ‘sublimation’. When you translate the literary works from one language to another, you can not only avoid the trace of stiffness and awkward expressions resulting from the different habits of language use, but also completely preserve the flavor of the original. Then we can say, that's the realization of ‘Sublimation’ ” (Qian Zhongshu, 2002: 77). According to his explanation, it can be easily seen that the core of his translation theory is “Sublimation”. What’s more, we can extract 3 levels of “Hua” (Sublimation) from his theory, the first is to transform the source text to target text, and then use the domesticating method to make the source language be naturally and smoothly expressed in target language without any transparent feeling of translation caused by the differences of culture and language. Finally, it is the ultimate goal of “Sublimation” that is to say, “the transmigration of souls”, replacing the external shell and retaining the inner spirit and style without the slightest deviation. In other words, a translation should cleave to the original with such fidelity that it would not read like a translation, for a literature work in its own language will never read as though it were through a process of translation (Kao, 1975: 8-9).

1.2 The theoretical origin of “Functional Equivalence” Nida first proposed the concept of dynamic equivalence in the 1964 book “Toward s Science of Translating”. He believed that there were two kinds of equivalence in translation, namely formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Specifically, formal equivalence is the “quality of a translation in which the features of the form of the source text have been mechanically reproduced in the receptor language”. On the contrary, dynamic equivalence is the quality which characterizes a translation in which “the message of the original text has been so transported into the receptor language that the response of the receptor is essentially like that of the original receptors” (Nida & Taber, 1982: 200-201). Nida’s translation theory has its origin from his own translation practice of the Bible, in which he emphasized the communicative function of translation from the perspective of semantics and information theory. What's more, he regarded translation as interlingual translation, and he stressed the importance of paying attention to the receptors' response, in order to pursue the standard that target readers could have the same response as the original readers. In his book “From one language to another”, he changed the term “Dynamic Equivalence” to “Functional Equivalence” and he emphasized that we should try to achieve formal equivalence on the basis of the accordant information conveyed from the source text to the target language. In addition, he divided the translation process into three steps, say, “analysis, transfer, restructuring and check”. Through these four steps, the original information can be accurately conveyed, the response of the target receptors is also concerned, and the purpose of communication will be well achieved.

2.Similarities and differences between “Sublimation” and “Functional Equivalence” 2.1 Similarities between “Sublimation” and “Functional Equivalence” (1) The same concern for the translation processes: As we mentioned above, Mr. Qian Zhongshu proposed that the process of translation is actually a process of employing “enticement”, avoiding “misinformation” and pursuing “sublimation”. To put them specifically, “enticement” refers to the role that plays in cultural exchanges by means of translation. In this sense, translation can be regarded as a guide that will lead target readers to understand the original language and culture and to better understand foreign excellent works. This process is of great significance because If the readers have little interest in the source language culture and foreign literature; then the translation works will lose its value. So we can say that translation is not only a conversion of two languages, but also a collision between different cultures and thoughts. The so-called term “Misinformation” refers to the distortion and wrong expression of the translation. Since “Misinformation” is the inevitable shortcoming of translation, no matter how excellent a translator is and no matter how smooth his translations are, he can not avoid making mistakes of one sort or another in one way or another, but he can exhaust every means to reduce misinformation to its minimum (Yu Chengfa,2003: 43). This is due to the gap between different languages, the gap between the translator's understanding, the style of writing and the form of original content, and even the gap between the translator's comprehension and his ability of expression. The final step is called “Hua Jing”; here “Hua” means “Sublimation”,which is the highest ideal of literary translation and also the ultimate goal of translation processes. A translator should try to figure out what the original writer means and ponder over what he imagines so so to immerge oneself with the writer(Luo Xinzhang, 1984: 511). Qian Zhongshu's explanation of the process of translation is the essential condition for the realization of “Sublimation” (Hua). Therefore, when doing translation practice, the translator has to make each step be well prepared, which requires a high standard of the translator's ability and quality. Similarly, based on the theory of “functional equivalence”, Nida proposed a “four-step model” of the translation process from the perspective of linguistics, namely, “Analysis, Transfer, Restructuring and Check”. Nida and Taber claim that all languages have between six and a dozen basic kernel structures and “agree far more on the level of kernels than on the level of more elaborate structures” such as word order. First of all, “Analysis” denotes that we have to analyze the surface structure of the source text and then to master the grammatical meaning of the sentence, in other words, the referential meaning and connotative meaning of the source text. In order to convey the original information correctly, the translator must analyze the text from surface structure to the deep structure. Then, “Transfer”, it means that the translator renders the analyzed source text to the target text. This step contains the conversion of two different language symbols and language forms, and it is also an exchange of different thinking modes. Next, “Restructuring” is the re-processing and re-creation of the original text, in which the translator will translate the original text into the target one that conforms to the expression of the target language, getting rid of the constraints of the surface structure of the original text, thus further excavating the meaning of the deep structure. Restructuring is thus defined as forward translation, or in other words the process which is the reverse of back-transformation (Shuttleworth & Cowie, 2004: 145). Last but not least, "Check" refers to the process of comparing the text of the original language with the target language so as to avoid semantic errors in the translation works, and pursue the maximum equivalence between the content of the target text and the content of the original text. Nida and Taber’s own description of the process (1969: 63–9) emphasizes the ‘scientific and practical’ advantages of this method compared to any attempt to draw up a fully comprehensive list of equivalences between specific pairs of SL and TL systems (Jeremy Munday, 2016: 63).

(2)The same concern for the response of the target readers: Since ancient times, the domestic and foreign translators have different opinions on the criteria of excellent translation. Yan Fu proposed his famous three-character guideline, namely, “Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance” in his translation work “Evolution and Ethics and Other Essays”. Similarly, western translator Alexander Fraser Tytler put forward the “Three principles of translation”. To put it simply, that the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work; that the style and manner of writing should be of the same character as that of the original; that the translation should have all the ease of the original composition. From the analysis of Yan Fu’s and Tytler’s description of translation criteria, we can see the fact that the study of the principles and standards of translation is precisely the translator’s emphasis on the target readers, and also reflects the translator’s sense of responsibility for the target culture. Qian Zhongshu's “Sublimation” theory stressed that translators should guide our readers to read foreign literary works or let our readers be attracted by the foreign culture and introduce foreign writers to them. “Sublimation” is not only a standard for translation, but also a reflection of translators’ care for the target readers. Mr. Qian said: “The translation should be faithful to the original work, so that it does not read like a translation work, because the original work will never be read like a translation in the situation of source culture.” A good translation can stimulate the reader's curiosity about the original work and also give the reader the enjoyment of beauty. What’s more, Mr. Qian also commented the three principles proposed by Yan Fu:

“Faithfulness in translation should include expressiveness and elegance. Expressiveness gives full scope to faithfulness, and elegance is not just to adore expressiveness. To convey the original in the same style---that is faithfulness. ...Many have come to understand that a translation is not supposed to beautify or polish to attain elegance. Yet few have realized that a translation has to give up the words for the spirit. A translation can be intelligible without being faithful to the original, yet can be faithful to the original without being intelligible to the reader.”(Qian Zhongshu, 1986: 1101)

In the meanwhile, Nida deemed that the accuracy of the translation depends on the extent to which the ordinary readers correctly understand the original text, that is, whether the target reader can obtain similar or identical feelings when reading the translation works. The purpose of “functional equivalence” is to satisfy the communication needs of the readers. In order to achieve this goal, we have to change the form of the original text if it is necessary and consider the reader's acceptance of the translation work. Nida's “Functional Equivalence” requires not only the faithfulness to the original text, but also the accountability to the target readers and the original readers. Nida describes various “scientific approaches to meaning” related to work that had been carried out by theorists in semantics and pragmatics. Central to Nida's work is the move away from the old idea that a word has a fixed meaning and towards a functional definition of meaning in which a word acquires meaning through its context and can produce varying responses according to culture. From what we has discussed above, we can see that both Nida’s “Functional Equivalence” and Qian Zhongshu’s “Sublimation” must take the reader’s reaction into consideration. Therefore, as a standard for translation, these theories avoid mechanical textual equivalence and bilingual conversion, which promotes the development of translation practice.

(3)The Domesticating tendency of the two theories: As we mentioned in the very beginning, Mr. Qian’s “Sublimation”(化) theory has three meanings, namely “Transfer”(转化), “Domesticating”(归化) and “Sublimation”(化境). It can be seen easily that “Domesticating” is a bridge connecting the transformation of source text and the realization of Sublimation in target language. In the book “Seven Patches”, he wrote: “whether the target version is ‘European-oriented’ or ‘Chinese-oriented’, the translation is always based on the language system from the original country to the language system of the target country(2002: 78). Although he did not explicitly state whether the translation should be “domestication-oriented” or “foreignization-oriented”, he compared the translation to the “reincarnation” of the original and regarded that the translation was an “out form” of the original. In addition, he appreciates Lin Shu’s translation works, and comments that he would rather read Lin Shu’s translation than read Haggard’s original text. In this way, Mr. Qian Zhongshu seems to prefer the text of “Chinese-oriented” style, which demonstrates the tendency of “Domestication”. In the theory of “Functional Equivalence”, Nida advocates the use of the expression habits of the target language to transform the original text. He believes that language is the means of communication, and communication is the ultimate goal and an important role of translation, so he pays more attention to the receptors' response to the target text. In order to allow the target readers to accept the translation, it is necessary to make the translation correspond to the cultural traditions and language habits of the target language. At the same time, the translator has to make the translation natural and smooth under the premise of ensuring loyalty. Nida's “Domesticating” translation tendency can be seen from the above view. Please look at the following example: S: “white as snow” T: “白如木棉花” or “白如鹭毛” or “白如蘑菇” From the point of view of traditional translation standards, the above example runs counter to the original information. However, for those who have never seen snow will never know what snow is alike, and therefore he can't understand what "white as snow" means. Through the strategy of “Domestication”, the target readers can have a similar response to the original readers, so as to better achieve the purpose of communication.

2.2 Differences between “Sublimation” and “Functional Equivalence” (1) Different theoretical basis: Qian Zhongshu's “Sublimation” theory is based on Yan Fu’s criteria of translation “Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance”, which is the development of Chinese traditional translation theory. Qian Zhongshu's “Sublimation” theory has pushed the study of translation to the extreme of art from the category of aesthetics. Eventually, the “Sublimation” theory was included in the course of the development of Chinese translation thought, say, “Case - Seeking faithfulness - Spiritual likeness - the Sublimation”. These four concepts, are independent, but also interconnected. They developed gradually to constitute a whole translation system and this whole system works as an important part of our traditional translation theory (Luo Xinzhang, 2009: 20). Nida’s “functional equivalence” was established on the basis of his Bible translation practice. Under the guidance of Chomsky’s transform-generating grammar, Nida’s functional equivalence requires that the translator analyze the given text from the surface structure to the deep structure; then transform it from the deep structure of the original text to the deep structure of the target text, and finally adjust the target language structure to obtain the surface structure of the translated version. From a series of steps, we can see that the hierarchical and theoretical property of translation studies, so Nida put forward his opinion that translation could be considered as a science. Qian Zhongshu thought that the translated works could surpass the original works and sometimes even should be much better than the original; while Nida did not choose the advantageous version between the original and the target text- his more emphasis goes to the equivalence between the two languages and the response of the target receptors thus more priorities were given to the communicative function. (2)Different scopes of their application: “Huajing” (Sublimation) was proposed by Mr. Qian Zhongshu for literary translation standards; hence it may be more appropriate for the translation of literary genre. He considered that translator should “break through” the barriers of cultural differences and make the translation “surpass” the original work. However, it seems unreasonable for the translations of applied styles which relates to politics, economics, law, trade, etc. In addition, some scholars believe that Mr. Qian’s “Sublimation” has over-emphasized the mystery of art and has become a vague standard that could be hard to reach (Gao Huali, 2009: 154). The “highest ideal” of the literary translation he described will inevitably produce the problems of “Misinformation”, which would limit the scope of application of “Sublimation”. Despite the fact that scholars and experts of one generation after another have made their fruitful efforts to shed light on “Sublimation” from various aspects, it remains theoretical unexplainable and practical unattainable, like “an attic, in the air” to many people in the translation circle (Yu Chengfa, 2003: 8) On the contrary, Nida’s translation of Bible carries religious culture with integrity and solemnity. He preached to people from all walks of life in order to spread the will of God; therefore, his translation must not only meet the needs of the aristocracy, but also the needs of ordinary people who lack knowledge of religious culture. The target readers of the “functional equivalence” theory is the masses from all walks of life in the society, and its range of application is more practical. Nida’s equivalence of translation is derived from the translation practice of the Bible. As we know, western languages have a lot in common in culture and words of expression, so Nida’s “equivalence” is relatively easy to achieve between two European languages. In English-Chinese translation, it may be more difficult to achieve complete “equivalence”, because Chinese and English belong to different language systems, and their cultures are rather divergent. Nida strictly divides the translation steps into four, which can be used as a practical translation method to guide the translation of some scientific and technical articles, announcements, and application articles. For literary genres, such as the translation of poetry and prose, the translator's creativity may be more important. It is difficult to convey the literary nature of the original text by mechanical methods and steps.

3.A Critical Understanding of “Sublimation” and “Functional Equivalence” 3.1 Is “Sublimation” faithful ? According to traditional translation theory, the translator is always regarded as the "servant" of both the original and the translated text. He must be faithful to the original author while concerning the target readers. Xu Jun (2003: 321) wrote in his book “On Translation”: “Three points are often emphasized in traditional translation theory: first of all, translators should not incorporate their own subjective thoughts in translation; then they should not express their individuality in translation; in the end, translators should render the text on the basis of original message, and loyally follow the thoughts of the original writer. From the analysis of Qian Zhongshu’s “Sublimation” theory, it is clear to see that he is more inclined to the translation strategy of “Domestication”, which emphasizes that the target version can surpass the source text. He, himself appreciates Lin Shu’s translation works, because of their common advocacy and similar historical background. From the point of view of historical materialism, “social existence determines social consciousness, and social consciousness has an adverse effect on social existence.” For example, Lin Shu was living in a closed country and at that time , Qing Dynasty was extremely arrogant or even ignorant. His style and characteristics of the translation were naturally influenced by this national sentiment. Therefore, his translation had tendency to “Domestication” or even an unfaithful translation. Qian Zhongshu lived in a period of prosperity in literature and art since the establishment of People's Republic of China and at that time Chairman Mao proposed the policy of “All flowers blossoming and hundreds of schools contending (百花齐放，百家争鸣). So our Chinese people were overflowing high spirit and proud emotion; some translators’ translation works are more inclined to take the advantages of “Domestication” and make the translation work more excellent than the original one. Such a translation strategy will be somewhat “disloyal” to the original text, and will not “sincerely imitate” the original text as Lu Xun advocates from his “Foreignization” method. It is difficult to concretely implement “Sublimation” theory, because it has become an “unattainable” goal. Whether the translation should be “Chinese-oriented” or “European-oriented”; be “faithful” or “creative”, and whether the translator should be “visible” or “invisible” in translation are all difficult standards to measure since these factors are inevitably affected by the subjective and historical objectivity of the translator. Is “Sublimation” really a faithful translation to the original text? Perhaps just as Mr. Qian himself said: “The translator’s ability to use his native language is more flexible and smooth than the original author’s ‘source language’ and that is what always happens in the history of translation.” We can consider that such “disloyal” is “faithful” in a certain sense.

3.2 Problems of Nida’s “Functional Equivalence” The questions of meaning, equivalence and translatability became a constant theme of translation studies in the 1960s and were tackled by a new ‘scientific’ approach followed by one of the most important figures in translation studies, the American Eugene Nida. Eugene Nida’s theory of translation developed from his own practical work from the 1940s onwards when he was translating and organizing the translation of the Bible, training often inexperienced translators who worked in the field. As for Nida's “functional equivalence” theory, praise and opposition to his theory are always existing in the translation circle. Some people think that the theory is a representative of the science of translation science and has a good guiding role in translation practice. However, there are also some scholars who disagree with this theory and for example Peter Newmark is one of its critics. He believed that Nida’s equivalence theory takes the reader too seriously, but sometimes sacrifices the actually original thoughts of the writer. It is also doubtful whether “functional equivalence” can be applied to the original texts of various subjects. If the translator partially pursue “functional equivalence”, which will makes it difficult for the target readers to fully understand the original cultural information and it is not conducive to the mutual communication between different countries and cultures. For the above example: if we render “White as snow” as “白如鹭毛”, target readers may understand the meaning of the original author, but they still have no idea of what the word “snow” actually means. This has become a situation where we cannot get two things at the same time, or in Chinese “鱼和熊掌不可兼得”. However, If the original text is literally translated as “white as snow”, then the translator continues to explain what substance a “snow” is and what characteristics it may have and why we say its color is as white as egret’s feathers. In this way, not only can the readers of the translation work have the same response as the readers of the original, but also it is conducive for them to learn to understand new things and new concepts, which will gradually promote the communication of different cultures and the mutual interests of different countries.

4.Conclusion Mr. Qian Zhongshu’s “Sublimation” theory and Nida’s “Functional Equivalence” respectively represent huge progress in Chinese and Western translation studies, and they played an important role for the reference of translation studies and practice. Their theory is likened a treasure-house that requires more investigation and more exploration. Their theory is likened a treasure-house that requires more investigation and more exploration. Furthermore, we must learn their theories with a critical view, so as to strive for innovation and establishment of a new era for translation studies.

References [1]Chen Fukang. A History of Chinese Translation Theories in China [M].Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2000. [2]Gao Huali. A Short History of Translation And Interpretation in China And Other Countries [M].Hangzhou：Zhejiang University Press.2009. [3]Kao, Gorge. (trans.) Lin CH'in-nan Revisited [A]. By Qian Zhongshu. Renditions [J], autumn, 1975: 8-21 [4]Luo Xinzhang.On Translation [M].Beijing：The Commercial Press.1984. [5]Mark, Shuttleworth, Moira Cowie. Dictionary of Translation Studies [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press. 2004. [6]Munday, Jeremy. Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications. Routledge, 2013. [7]Nida, Eugene A. & Charles R.Taber (1969/1982) The Theory and Practice of Translation, Leiden: E. J. Brill. [8]Qian Zhongshu.Pipe-awl Chapters [M].Beijing：Zhonghua Book Company.1986. [9]Qian Zhongshu.Seven Patches [M].Beijing：SDX Joint Publishing Company.2002. [10]Xu Jun.On Translation[M].Wuhan：Hubei Education Press.2003. [11]Yu Chengfa. Interpreting Sublimation [D].Central China Normal University,2003.

Contemporary Translation Studies

An Analysis of the Book of Contemporary Translation Theories and Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications

Introduction: In this essay, it presents the author’s understanding of the two books: Contemporary Translation Theories and Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. After a brief introduction of these two books, this paper tends to concentrate on the discussion of four important translation theories. This paper will be divided into three parts. Firstly, after a brief introduction of the great book: Contemporary Translation Theories, and then it will focus on the analyzing of the Eugne Nida’s two famous translation theories namely formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. By giving out its definition, it’s easier to find the advantage and disadvantage of these two concepts. Then, this paper will go on introducing briefly the Chomsky’s translation studies. And then it will find some commonness and distinction in Nida’s and Chomsky’s opinions in translation. Secondly, it will give a short introduction of the book Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications and it will fix its attention on the translation principles of Tytler and then make a comparison of Yan Fu’s translation principle “Faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance”. By deeper analyzing these two similar translation theories, we can find some commonness and difference in these two translation theories by taking the culture and thinking modes into consideration. At last, this paper intend to give a brief comparison between these two great books by taking the consideration of writing style and content arrangement. All in all, this paper intends to give the readers a better understanding of these two great books and provoke their reflection about these two books.

I Analysis of the book Contemporary Translation Theories Recently, it is a great pleasure to read a very famous book called Contemporary Translation Theories whose author is called Edwin Gentzler. The second edition of this book has received great success. The publication of this book is significant to the global translation study academia. “Since the mid-19th century, translation theory has maderapid progress, Edwin Gentzler finds out what is useful and rejects what is useless on the translation of today's theories in this book”(Li 2014:111). He also makes a Detailed description in detail several major schools of translation:The North  American Translation Workshop, the “Science” of Translation, Early Translation Studies, the Polysystem Translation and Deconstruction. In this book, it presents what is happening in different parts within the discipline. “Gentzler uses his provoke thinking viewpoint to trace the development of literary translation studies from the American translation workshop program, through the polysystems research to deconstruction and postcolonial translation theory and beyond”(Xu and Wang 2000:42). This book not only provides us with a deep way of theorizing the translation but also is effectively a translation practice . At the end of this book, he also points out the future of translation and sends his positive attitude about the translation’s future. The author turns a whole number of the complex theoretical material into accessible language, so that everyone who doesn’t read any books about translation can read this book freely. Apart from that, each chapter in this book is separated so you can read each chapter alone without relying on your understanding of the other chapters. By this way, it is more convenient for us to find the topic of translation that we are interested in to read and find valuable informationfor us. Gentzler’s book provides us with a precise analysis about what the translation school achieved so far and gives his insight into the future of translation. “This book stands as a continuing translation textbook with some of the most important theories in the field such as “the same aesthetic experience, dynamic equivalence, corresponding literary function, or the deconstruction theory of Derrida”(Li 2014:112). Despite distinct focus, each theory is completed by a conceptual framework that thinks original existence and an understanding of it in the target society. At present, “all translation theories have kept rigid distinction between original texts and their translations text”(Xu and Wang 2000:43). In the chapter 2, this book introduces the American translation workshop. In this chapter, it mainly introduces the A. Richard’s new criticism and translation, Ezra Pound’s theory of luminous details, Frederic Will’s the paradox of translation and Lawrence Venuti’s rethinking translation. In it workshop, “it emphasizes that translation is a marginal activity, not considered as a proper field of study”(Gentzler 2001:5). However, as time goes by, the process of growth and acceptance of translation boost when many translation courses and workshops were being offered at many universities. There appears many works about this translation workshop but it does not have many books about the translation theories. “In this workshop, the personal opinions may offer some help, but it still lacks the consistent theory to support translation”(Gentzler 2001:44). Therefore, it needs urgently a classified theory for the translation and it yields the coming of the “science” of translation. In this book, it mainly introduces Eugene Nida’s formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence and Noam Chomsky’s syntactic structure and generative-transformation grammar. Here, it will illustrate my understanding of these two concepts about formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence. Edwin Gentzler illustrated the concept of dynamic equivalence in his book Contemporary Translation Theories, Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style. The relationship between the target language receptor and the target text should generally be equivalent to that between the source language receptor and the source text(2001:48). In the dynamic equivalence, Nida focus on the correspondence of the feeling between the target language and the receptor and the source language and the learner. By his understanding, these two feeling should be the similar. More specifically, “dynamic equivalence considers more about the relationship between the reader and the information, which means that the target reader's response to the target text should be the same as that of the source reader's response to the source text”(Liu 2012:242). “Any foreignness and translationese should be avoided in the target text”(Ju 2000:203). Now, it will list the advantages of dynamic equivalence.

       “On the one hand, the dynamic equivalence is “somewhat like the free translationwhich emphasizes the translation should achieve the same effect instead of being limitedin the content and form” (Li  2014:112). “It concentrates on the correct way of 

translating the content of the original text”(Shakernia 2013:2). On the other hand, “it focuses on readers' reaction and analyzes the translation process from the viewpoint of target readers”(Nida 1995:225). In this way, translation is not a single activity, but more social elements are added to make the translation concrete and specific. Moreover, in the dynamic equivalence, due to its classified translation principle it is more suitable to the translation of technology and science essays. The dynamic equivalence provides us a detailed rule of translation during our process of translation so when we translate, we can find the reasonable principles to rely on. These essays should be more formal and official. However, although the dynamic equivalence has gained a lot of praises it still deserves some limitations. Firstly, “it is just a language conversion and ignores the cultural information taken by the language, resulting in cultural domestication”(Liu 2012: 245). In fact, cultural differences are objective and can not be inevitable, and no one can avoid them. If you have to maintain a dynamic equivalent translation, it will definitely have a negative impact on cultural communication. For example, “‘dongfeng’ is a positive image in Chinese culture while in western society it thinks the west wind is goodmorality”( Shakerni 2013:2) Therefore, it is strange that Shelley's singing of the west wind is translated into "ode to the east wind", because it will hinder the Chinese readers' understanding of the western world. What's more, to judge whether the target readers have similar effects is uncertain and unpractical because they are different in gender, age,educational background and life experience, etc. Strictly speaking, the reader's response is a variable that cannot be regarded as equivalent to the standard effect. Finally, dynamicequivalence information in the text does well, just like the Bible, but it is difficult to realize literary translation, text language is different from general language. Dynamic equivalence, as a concept, puts an .an overly narrow focus on the response of the active hearers, perhaps sometimes at the expense of other factors which are also crucial to adequate translation, such as the accuracy of the message, the uniqueness of the original historical setting. Next, it will list the definition of formal equivalence. “Formal equivalence  is simple and source-oriented. It is like a word for word literal translation”( Shakernia 2013:2). Formal equivalence concentrates on the message itself, in both form and content. “One is concerned that the message in the receptor language should match asclosely as possible the different elements in the source language”(Shakernia 2013:3). The use of formal equivalents might at times have serious implications in the  target text since the translation will not be easily understood by the target  readership. For example, “in the translation of the sentence of greet others with a holy kiss, these two different equivalence can have distinctly different translation”( Shakernia 2013:3). In the formal equivalence translation, we need to translate it into the translation of saying hello to others with a holly kiss. But it seems strange to others because what’s the meaning of holy kiss. Then, we need to add one explanation of holy kiss which is in the old testament the holly kiss is usually treated as a usual way to greet others. However, in the dynamic equivalence, we need not to take the correspondence of the structure into consideration. We only need to pay attention to the reaction of receptorsof language. We can translate it into the translation of shaking hands with others enthusiastically. From the above example, it’s clear to find the focus of these two equivalences is very different therefore the translation can be different. Here, it will try to figure out the advantages and disadvantages of formal equivalence. One of the most distinguished advantage of the formal equivalence is that in this translation, “the formal equivalence is keenly oriented towards the source language structure, which exerts strong language influence in determining accuracy and Correctness”(Nida 1995:223). Because the formal equivalence emphasizes the complete transcript of the original text’s content and form so it will have the consistent structure of the original text.Another advantage of formal equivalence is that it put much focus on the accuracy.Because in such translation theory, the target language will try to find a equivalent in the source language. For example, in the sentence of “Please fetch me a glass of water” when translating it into Chinese, we will try to find each word equivalent in Chinese. We will try to find each word such as “please”“fetch”“me” and so on. Then we can find the equivalent in Chinese which can be transliterated into Chinese as “Qing gei wo yi bei shui”. Apart from that, let’s move on to the disadvantages of formal equivalence. One of the obvious disadvantage of the formal equivalence is that sometimes it will neglect the intent of the original text. Because the formal equivalence isreferred as to the literal translation and in such way it may overlook the author’s intent. For example, we often hear Chinese people say:“Ni chi le ma?” In fact, it’s a way to greetpeople in Chinese custom while we cannot translate it into English as “Have you eat your dinner or lunch?”. Instead we should translate it into English as “Hello!”or “Hi!” Among these two theories, Nida puts the dynamic equivalence in the  first place. It has been viewed as his core contribution to the modern translation  filed. “Nida pays attention to readers' response and advocates replacing the expression of foreign culture in the original text with the expression habit of the receiving language, namely, domestication”(Nida 1995:224). By far, “Nida has achieved a lot in translation study. He simplifies Chomsky’s theory and adopts only the later two part of the model in order to validate his science”(Gentzler 2001:52). “He is aware of the nature of a practice-oriented approach, attempts to scientifically validate his methodology and apply it to translation as a whole” (Panou 2013: 1) . In this chapter, it also talks about Noam Chomsky’s contribution to the linguistic and translation. In Chomsky’s opinion, the linguistic is a study of science and we can apply many linguistic principles to translation, therefore, the translation can also be said a study of science. Among the Noam Chomsky’s contribution is his transformational-generative grammar. “It is a theory that talks about why people can talk and how people can learn new sentences. It is a theory about language ability. Chomsky holds his opinion that basics and transformation form grammar” (Zhou 2019:5). The basics form deep structure and deep structure transforms to surface structure. Word’s meaning belongs to deep structure . Besides, “he thinks that language is a unique human natural constitution. Language ability should be more focused on not rather language behavior”(Zhou 2019:6). “The TG Grammar tries to reveal the unity of particular grammars and universal grammars, to explore the universal rules with the hope of revealing the human cognitive system and the essential nature of human being”(Zhu 2018:241). Both Chomsky and Nida believe that deep, coherent and unified entity exists behind whatever manifestation language takes. However, there exists some difference between their opinions. “Chomsky would not jump to conclusions based on correlations between just two languages, nor assume that a grammar to a particular to one language would work systematically for another” (Li 2011:395). While Nida holds the belief that deep structure and transformatio-nal rules which is divorced from all the problems of translation are similar across languages. All in all, these two great persons all make a big contribution to translation and their theories are still widely used today.

II Analysis of Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications As for the second book: Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications , it is a very populary book which has undergone through the fourth edition. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications remains the definitive guide to the theories and concepts that make up the field of translation studies. This fourth edition has been fully revised and continues to provide a balanced and detailed guide to the theoretical landscape. “Each theory is applied to a wide range of languages, including Bengali, Chinese, English, French, German, Italian, Punjabi, Portuguese and Spanish”(Liu and Deng 2010:54). It starts with the definition of translation and then presents us the translation theory before the twentieth century to the modern translation theory. It focus on many important translation theories such as systematic translation theory, polysystem theory translation, functional theories of translation, and so on. There are three reasons why I like this book very much. Firstly, this book is full of content which is arranged carefully and skillfully for the readers to read. It contain an introductory table clearly presenting key terms and ideas, the main text, describing in detail the models and issues under discussion, an illustrative case study, which applies and evaluates the main model of the chapter, suggestions for further reading, a brief evaluative summary of the chapter and a series of discussion and research points to stimulate further thought and research. I am extremely fond of the case study in this book which is also a unique feature of this book. In the case study, it will list a related case about the translation issue in this chapter for readers to think and then this book provide us with a discussion of case studies for us to reflect our thinking. I think it’s a good way for us to relate the knowledge of book into reality which it’s more helpful and useful for us to remember the knowledge in the book. And by applying our knowledge to the real problem in reality, it’s more helpful for us truly understand the essence of translation studies. Secondly, there are a large number of charts are cited, and the names of the charts are listed on a special page after the table of contents at the front of the book for easy reference. In this way, it is easier for readers to absorb much information contained in the charts. In the meantime, it is clear for the readers to relate the knowledge with the information in the charts. It is also a good way to sort out the large number of information in an ordered way for the readers to have a quick way to absorb the information. Thirdly, the book includes an appendix to the web sites relevant to translation studies before the final notes and index. These include two web sites that publish information about conferences, recent publications and research, six web sites for international translation journals and four web sites for translation organizations that often contain useful links. In this way, it becomes much easier for the readers to search the information on the websites for further reading and studying. Now, let’s move on to talk about the content of this book. In the second chapter, this book lists the debate about the word-for-word and sense-for-sense translation which is debate that dominated much of translation theory. “Faithful translation” is an attempt to reach a compromise between the two. Many great translators object to word-for-word translation and they advocate the sense-for-sense translation”(Munday 2013:18). For example, Cicero oppose the word-for-word translation strongly by saying “that I did not hold it necessary to render word for word, but I preserved the general style and force of the language”(Munday 2013:19). “The issues of free and literal translation were for over a thousand years with the translation of the Bible and other religious and philosophical texts”(Munday 2013:22). As for the translation of Bible, there must mention the Martin Luther whose major influence is made by his translation of the New Testament and later the Old Testament. Martin Luther advocates the revolutionary nature of translation. “At that time, the Bible was only available in Europe in a Latin translation. This meant that the majority of the people had no access to the Bible in their native languages”(Stolt 2014:373). He is concerned with the German readers. “Here, he supports the idea of using of “pure, clear German and the building of new languages in translation. Therefore, he used a non-literal translation in his translation of Bible”(Stolt 2014:373). Also, his use of a regional yet socially broad dialect went a long way to reinforcing that form of the German language as standard. “His aim is to keep communication with readers and listeners, but the audience for his new translation of the scriptures was composed not of scholars but plain speakers of vernacular German”(Stolt 2014:374). And thanks to Martin Luther’s efforts of translating Bible, the Germany people now could read Bible freely. Later, the book talks about the translation principle of Dryden, Dolet and Tytler. Here it will put emphasize on the Tytler’s translation principles. As for Dolet has five translation principles while Tytler proposes his three translation rules. “They are the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work. Secondly, the style and manner of writing should be of the same character with that of the original. Thirdly, the translation should have all the ease of the original composition.” (Munday 2013:26) Here, we can see that Tytler pursues the balance between the source language and target language. The translator must have the capacity of employing the exact manner and skill in translating his target language. For example, “there are two sentences which express the same meaning but they are different in their writing style”(Xi 2009:41). One is on Monday morning, the park is usually crowded with too many people. The other is on Monday morning, the park attracts many people. It’s obvious that the first sentence is in a negative mood while the second sentence is in a positive mood. These two sentences all convey the same meaning but they differs each other in the mood and style. To be a good translator, you need to be skillful in bringing the same style of the source language to the target language. The advantages of his translation principle are as follows. First of all, “he abandons the traditional translation idea of dichotomies and he tries not to use these controversial term such as literal translation, free translation to give his translation rules a better and clear way to present”(Bie and Huang 2007:164). Here, in his translation principles, we cannot see the mentioning of the literal translation and free translation which can cause misunderstanding in the translation studies. Secondly, “he clarifies and extends people’s understanding of the metaphor that translators are painters. In his opinion, he advocates that the job of a translator is distinct different from the painter” (Bie and Huang 2007: 166). Although the translator does not use the same color as the original, he must give his "picture" the same power and effect. The translator cannot copy the original style, but must use his own style to translate the perfect script. The more he studies a imitation, the less his copy will reflect the ease and spirit of the original. Now, let’s move on to talk about the disadvantages of his translation principles. Tytler’s translation thoughts are mainly on the base of his exact experience and subjective observation. “Some people even say that the book just looks like a textbook addressing the translation arts. In the meantime, from his translation theories, we can know that he imitates other translator’s theory, especially Dryden”(Firdaus 2012:285). For example, his first principle “That the translation should give a complete transcript of the ideas of the original work, which is almost same as the Campbell’s accurately reproduce the original meaning”(Firdaus 2012:286). Tytler, “points out that the three principles are in a necessary order. The order arrangement is appropriate, natural and is arranged according to their importance to the translation which cannot change casually”(Firdaus 2012:287). In this way, we can concluded that his idea that if in a case of need to sacrifice a certain principle, the translator should notice the importance of order of translation principle. The translator cannot try to get a beautiful and fluent translation at the expense of the faithful translation of the script. Tytler’s translation has exerted great influence on the later translation studies and left a big influence on the later translators such as our Chinese great translator-Yan Fu. Here, it will list the Yan Fu’s translation theories and then we can have a brief comparison between Yan Fu’s translation principles and Tytler’s translation principles. “Yan Fu is our Chinese great scholar and translator, most famous for introducing western ideas, including Darwin’s natural selection to China in the late 19th century”(Wang 2008:70). Just as Shi Chunrang and Zhao Wei proposed their opinions in their essay Thoughts on Yan Fu's “Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance” and Tytler's Three Principles—a Case Study of Comparative Translation that Yan Fu proposed three difficulties in translation: faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance in the preface to his translation of Evolution and Ethnic. “Faithfulness” means the full and complete conveying or transmission of the original content or thought. It emphasizes the right way of expressing content of the original source. “Expressiveness” demands that the version must be clear and follow without any grammatical mistakes or confused logic and sense. The translation should convey freely the content of the original source. “Elegance” means that the target translation should be similar to the source text in style(2005:96). It means that the mood of the target translation should be almost same as the source language. By analyzing carefully, it’s clear to find there are many things in common between these two translation theories. Firstly, “the first principle and second principle of Tytler are the same as the saying that translation should be faithful to the source language’s content and mood which is similar to the first principle of Yan Fu that emphasizes on the full and complete conveying of the original content”(Shi and Zhao 2005:97). Secondly, these two translation theories all focus on stressing the conveying the thought and content of the source language. And the translation should be available for people to read. “These two theories all emphasize on the conveying the complete transcript of the source text”(Shi and Zhao 2005:98). It’s clear to see many differences between these two translation theories. Firstly, “they are different in thinking mode. Yan Fu does not make a clear and detailed explanation of his translation theory. Instead it relies on others’ explanation of his translation theory”(Xi 2009:41). Just as a saying, “Everything is clear without saying a word”. To better understand Yan Fu’s translation theory, we need to have the associated “relation and reflection about the great thought of our great ancestors. As we all know, “traditional Chinese mode of thinking is perceptual which tends to make the theory obscure and received. However, westerners attach great importance to rational thinking which makes the theory more concrete”(Shi and Zhao 2005:98). The thinking mode of western is putting emphasize on the rational thinking and it emphasizes one’s rational understanding of the objects and people. Also, “it concentrates on the formal explanation of the objects and people”(Shi and Zhao 2005:98). Therefore, the Tytler’s three translation principles all give respect to the object to the original text. And it repeatedly emphasizes on the importance of the original text and treat the original text as it start point. Apart from that, it also gives the literal explanation in a detailed way. In this way, after analyzing the different thinking between the western and eastern, we can say that Yan Fu do not give a literal explanation of his translation principle. Thus, we can say that his translation principle understands tacitly. Secondly,“they are distinctly different in the importance. Since the three principles of faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance are presented, the importance of them has not been clearly classified”(Shi and Zhao 2005:99). One of the most important features of Yan Fu’s translation standard is its ambiguous semantic meaning. But in fact, “Yan Fu put emphasizes on the free translation and he proposed the principle of expressiveness to support the principle of faithfulness”(Xi 2009:41). “Since during the process of translation, except adhering to the expressiveness of the original text, the principle of faithfulness is the most difficult task to finish as to the conveying the original text’s mode and style”(Xi 2009:42). Therefore, we can draw a conclusion that principle of expressiveness is vital in his three principles and then is the expressiveness and the last is elegance. We should stick to the general principle of “original meaning”, only then can we have a reasonable logic to give an order on the importance of “faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance”. “While Tytler thinks the order of his three principles is suitable, natural and could not be changed”(Wang 2008:71). Tytler proposes that we can make the conveying the faithful translation of the content at the expense to pursue the beautiful and fluent translation of the original text. “If we must give up one of principles he proposes, he advises that we can give up the least important principle namely the third principle”(Wang 2008:71). In other words, it is the first sacrifice of the original “style and effectiveness”. What's more, the style and mood of the original painting must be conveyed in order to convey a faithful picture of the sense. Thirdly, “these two translation theories are different in the aspect of value orientation. The reason of this difference is due to the difference in the academic tradition of the emphasizing on the practice and theory level of the east and west”(Wang 2008:73). As is known to all, traditional Chinese translation paid more attention to practice rather than theory. The idea of translation should guide translation practice and should be of reference value. Yan Fu's “faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance” was originally used to describe the difficulty of translation, not as a translation standard. He summed it up from his own practice and was concerned with practice rather than theory. However, western translator put practice and theory at the same level. Tytler's three principles are three levels of difficulties in detail, from the content loyal to distinct style. The reflected logical form is clear and obvious, which is significantly different from the implicit three translation principles of “faithfulness, expressiveness and elegance”. “Western translation theories focus on detailed analysis, rational abstraction and theoretical deduction, and pay attention to logical organization, hierarchy and clarity of content in language expression”(Wang 2008:73). Influenced by traditional philosophy, western translation theories have a strong sense of subject and object throughout the whole process. Taking “expressiveness” as an example, Yan Fu's “expressiveness” and Tytler's third principle “translation should have all the ease of the original composition” have roughly the same meaning, but it’s obvious that they are different in thinking mode. “The Chinese adopt a thought pattern of intuition and understanding while the Englishmen follow a thought pattern of logic and reason, which makes a profound impact on each language”(Chen 2012:126). To this extent, the difference between understanding and rational thinking, as well as the degree of respect for the original text can be best reflected. At last, “these two translation theories are distinct in their motivation. Yan Fu’s criterion is purposeful which aims to attract the elite’s attention”(Wang 2008:73). The literature works that Yan Fu translated from the western world are mainly the great and famous work in the period of western capitalism. “He fully understand this mode of thinking is difficult for the Chinese intellectuals at that time so in this way, he need to make the translation principles easier for the Chinese intellectuals to absorb”(Chen 2012:127). In this regard, he chose this way of spreading his translation ideas which makes his translation principles purposeful. While Tylter just wants to make the whole translation system more systematic and cover content, form and text these three aspects. “His aim in his translation principle is simply trying to make his translation principle known by people and suggest a reasonable translation principle for translators to follow”(Xi 2009:42).

III Comparison between the book of Contemporary Translation Theories and Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications 1.From the aspect of arrangement of the content Both of these two books all take the line of main translation workshops as its main chapter and then list its contribution to illustrate the content. “In the contemporary translation studies, the author compare the translation group’s advantages and weakness and then give out his own understanding of the study of the translation group” (Li :2014 111).” In the Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications , the author lists the introduction of each translation workshop’s contribution and achievement to translation” (Liu and Deng 2010:54). While these two books’ difference in arrangement is that in the book Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications adds a case study to extend the readers’ inflection about the translation study listed in the book. Apart from that, this book also adds the discussion of case study, summary, further reading and discussion and research points into the book which are lack in the Contemporary Translation Studies. These added parts to the book Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications helps extend the readers’ personal study and help the readers relate the theoretical knowledge with the translation practices. 2.From the content of the material Both of the books all list the major contribution of each translation workshop but they differ in their focus and approach. In the contemporary Translation Theories, the author will “analyze the advantage and weakness of the each translation workshop and then study the interrelationship between these translation workshops and at last describe the importance of each translation theory to the world and then pose its questions to the presupposition of each translation theory”(Li 2014:111). While in the Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications, the author firstly gives a brief introduction of the chapter content and then illustrates the introduction of each translation workshop in a detailed way. To make the book in a more precise way, the author also lists the summary, case study, discussion of study, further reading and discussion and research points in his book to make the readers to have a more comprehensive way of the book. Apart from that, these two books all take a method of incorporating the theories and practices into the whole. In these two books, each book all include the material of theories and practices as its contents. For some important parts, the authors all give out their questions in the book. For example, in the Contemporary Translation Theories, the author poses his question about Pound’s translation idea“ Was he talking about intuition, guessing the author’s original intention, or something else?(Gentzler 2001:20) After this question, the author gives out his opinions about Pound’s translation idea emphasizing the translator should both inside a tradition and outside any institutionalized logic. While this point of asking question in the Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications is more obvious. At the end of each chapter, the author will give several questions in his part of discussion and research points. Some of these questions can find the answers in the textbook while some will require the readers to do some additional researches. Conclusion: All in all, after this paper’s careful introduction of these two books and detailed analyzing of the translation theories, it hopes to help the readers to have better understanding of these two books. After the deep analysis of the two theories of Nida’s translation theories and the comparison between Tytler’s three translation principles and Yan Fu’s translation rules, it’s better for the readers to understand the basic rule of translation. And also after analyzing the two big translation theories, it’s clear to draw a conclusion that to be able to be a good translator, the translator should not only be skillful in adapting to two kinds of different language and also he needs to have the solid translation practice experiences. He needs to have the complete transcript of the original text by conveying the content of the original text, but also he should imitate the style and mood of the original text.

Works Cited Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories. Vol. 21. Multilingual Matters, 2001. Munday, Jeremy. Introducing Translation Studies: Theories and Applications. Routledge, 2013. Li Jiangchun. “The comment of the second edition of the Contemporary translation theories.” Foreign Language Education. 35.1(Jan. 2014): 111-114. CNKI. Web. 1 Nov. 2019 Xu Dongping and Wang Dongfeng. “Giving comment about the Edwin’s Contemporary Translation theories.” Foreign Language and Their teaching.12(2000):42-44. CNKI. Web. 1 Nov. 2019 Nida, Eugene A. “Dynamic equivalence in translating.” An Encyclopaedia of Translation: Chinese-English English-Chinese [C/Z]. Hong Kong: The Chinese University Press (1995): 223-30. Shakernia, Shabnam. “Study of Nida’s (formal and dynamic equivalence) and Newmark’s (semantic and communicative translation) translating theories on two short stories.” Merit Research Journal of Education and Review 2.1 (2013): 001-007. Liu Dayan. “Dynamic equivalence and formal correspondence in translation between Chinese and English.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2.12 (2012): 242-247. Panou, Despoina. “Equivalence in translation theories: A critical evaluation.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies 3.1 (2013): 1. Miao, Ju. “The limitations of ‘equivalent effect.” Perspectives: Studies in Translatology 8.3 (2000): 197-205. CNKI. Web. 3 Nov. 2019 Zhou Wenmei. “Interpreting the linguistic idea in Chomsky’s generative-transformational grammar construction.”Yinshan Academic Journal. 32.3(Jun 2019):5-10. CNKI. Web. 4 Nov. 2019 Zhu Enlue. “A brief analysis of Chomsky’s generative-transformational grammar.” Overseas English. (2018):241-242. CNKI. Web. 5 Nov. 2019 Li Zhiwang. “An analysis of Chomsky’s generative transformational grammar and Nida’s ideas about translation.” Journal of Inner Mongolia Agricultural University. 3(2011):394-396. CNKI. Web. 5 Nov. 2019 Liu Fang and Deng Jie. “The comment of the new edition of Introducing translation studies: Theories and applications.” Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies. 4.(Apr 2010):54-58. CNKI. Web. 6 Nov. 2019 Stolt Birgit “Luther’s Translation of the Bible.” Lutheran Quarterly 28.4 (2014): 373-74. Shi Chunrang, Zhao Wei. “Thoughts on Yan Fu's “Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance” and Tytler's Three Principles—a Case Study of Comparative Translation.” Foreign Language Research 5 (2005):96-100. CNKI. Web. 5 Nov. 2019 Xi Yan. “ Faithfulness-Expressiveness-Elegance, Tytler's three principles and Dynamic Equivalence——New Analyses on the Differences and Similarities of the Standard of Translation and the Causes.” Journal of Cangzhou Teachers' College 3 (2009): 40-42. CNKI. Web. 8 Nov. 2019 Bie Fangfang, and Huang Qin. “Dolet’s Translation Principles and Tytler’s Translation Principles: A Comparison.” Foreign Language Education 2007.0 (2007): 30. CNKI. Web. 9 Nov. 2019 Firdaus, Sonia. “Evolution of translation theories and practice.” The Dialogue (2012):272-294 Wang Chenjie. “A Systematic Comparison between Yan Fu's Theory of Faithfulness, Fluency, and Expressiveness and Tytler's Three General Rules of Translation.” Journal of Ningbo Institute of Education 1 (2008):70-73. CNKI. Web. 10 Nov. 2019 Chen Wen,. “On Yan Fu and the Influence of the “Faithfulness, Expressiveness and Elegance.” Journal of Chongqing University of Arts and Sciences (Social Sciences Edition) 6 (2012): 125-129. CNKI. Web. 11 Nov. 2019