History of Translation Studies 9

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

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

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

Comparative Studies

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

Abstract:

Nida and Cartford shared the same period of translation studies but carried on their studies from different perspective. Nida put forward two types of equivalence and accordingly some methods to achieve his ideal equivalent response of receptors(芒迪，42). His equivalence theory was built on his ideas about nature of translation, which was the process of reproducing in the receptor language the message of source language(奈达，12). So Nida tends to provide a new direction which is oriented by the receptors. The nature and task of translation in Nida’s opinion formed a theoretical basis to set the equivalence theory in a comprehensive and systematic way. Cartford, in another way, held a idea that any theory of translation must draw upon a general linguistic theory and therefore presented the equivalence at different linguistic levels between source language and target language(Cartford,1). In his opinion, the equivalence exists between the categories and the conditions to examine the equivalence lie on the relatable extent with the features of substance. Therefore, Cartford’s theories seem to be more of abstract. The paper intends to develop a comparative study upon Nida and Cartford’s theory of equivalence and my thoughts on their application in translation practices.

Key words:

Nida, Cartford, equivalence theory, Linguistic theories

摘要：

奈达和卡特福德在翻译学研究中处于同一时期，但二人开展的研究却是基于于不同的角度。奈达提出了两种对等类型，并提出了相应的策略以达到他理想的对等状态，即使译文接受者获得与原文接受者相同的反应（芒迪，42）。他的对等理论建立在他关于翻译本质的观点之上，即在接受语中再现源语信息的过程（奈达，12）。因此奈达提供了一种以译文接受者为导向的新研究方向，并基于对翻译的性质和任务的界定构成了对等理论的理论基础。另一方面，卡特福德认为任何翻译理论都必须借鉴一般语言学理论，因此提出了源语言和目的语在不同语言层面上的对等（Cartford，1）。他认为对等是通过范畴表现出来，而判断对等的条件就是原文和译文中各个范畴特性的相关性，因此卡特福特的理论似乎更具 抽象性。本文旨在对奈达和卡特福德的对等理论进行比较研究，并对二者在翻译实践中的应用进行思考。

关键词：

奈达，卡特福德，对等理论，语言学理论

1.Introduction

1.1.Nida’s Theory of Equivalence

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

1.2.Cartford’s Theory of Equivalence

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

2.Similarities and Differences

2.1.The Similarities between the Two Theories

2.1.1.The influence of linguistics in both theories

Nida was considered as a representative of communicative theory school, and therefore, he built his equivalence theory based on the communicative purpose. Basically, in the view of Nida, translation can be seen as a communicative activity and the transformation of linguistic form is necessary. From this the influence of Chomsky's linguistics, especially his transformational-generative grammar. Nida believes that Chomsky's transformational-generative view of on language is of great importance to the process of translation. Specifically, the transformational-generative was used for Nida to describe the process of translation, which includes the grammar analysis, transferring and restructuring and the reproducing the information of source text. (芒迪，40) Chomsky’s generative–transformational model was incorporated in the description of translation process by Nida and, at the same time, it provides the basis of his building of dynamic equivalence, as a component of “the science of translation” in his eyes. Similarly, the influence of Chomsky’s linguistic theories can also be found in Cartford’s theory in the following aspects. Firstly, as is defined by Cartford, translation is the replacement of textual material in one language by equivalent textual material in another language(Cartford, 20), and here the definition claims that there is sometimes no entire translation but a simple replacement by textual material at one or more levels of language(Cartford, 20). To be specific, the replacement between source language and target language may be at grammar or lexis levels. Secondly, through his classifications of translation in terms of the extent, levels and ranks, Cartford actually gives some standards to discuss the nature of translation equivalence, and these concepts are presented based on the linguistic knowledge. For example, the distinction between full and partial is related to the extent of source text which is submitted to the translation process(Cartford, 20), and the extent may involve linguistic elements, such as lexical items. The same case occurs in the definitions of total and restricted translation, in which phonology, graphology, grammar and lexis are all considered as the elements when estimating the replacement.

2.1.2.The approach to achieve equivalence

The key role played by Nida is to point the road away from strict word-for-word equivalence.His introduction of the concepts of formal and dynamic equivalence was crucial in introducing a receptor-based orientation to translation theory(芒迪，40). He also divided meaning into linguistic meaning, referential meaning and emotive meaning. Furthermore, several techniques such as hierarchical structuring, componential analysis and semantic structure analysis were presented to analyse the structure of words and differentiating similar words in related lexical fields. The classification of the three meanings and aided translation techniques serve as crucial elements in the mechanism of back-transformation presented by Nida. By the application of back-transformation, the surface structure of the source text is analyzed into the basic elements of the deep structure; these elements are transferred in the translation process into the deep structure of the receptor language and then restructured semantically and stylistically into the surface structure of the target text(芒迪，40). The similar approach pointed out by Cartford is translation shift, which consists of two major types: level shifts and category shifts. Cartford made a distinction in his book A Linguistic Theory of Translation between textual equivalence and formal correspondence. Furthermore, textual equivalence refers to the specific relationship of the source text and translated text while formal correspondence is presented and defined based on the systematic concepts of both source and receptor languages. Since the differences between the two concepts are obvious, the occurrence of translation shift is inevitable. Therefore, by presenting the translation shifts, Cartford meant to depart from formal correspondence in the process of going from source language to target language(Cartford, 73), which means, in a sense, he want to achieve the status of equivalence through the approach. In other words, level shifts and categories are presented as some techniques in the process of translation, which can be regarded as similarity when compared to Nida’s theory described above.

2.2.The Differences between the Two Theories

Before comparing the two theories in terms of the following points, we should make it clear that the development of the two equivalence theories were started with the views of translation nature. Nida and Cartford put forward their understandings toward the nature of translation, and, consequently, the central problem of translation practice and the central task of translators were proposed. In Nida’s view, translation is to reproduce information of the original text and exert the same feeling of the receptors with the source language readers. Based on this receptors-oriented and text-centered principle, his equivalence theory turns to be more dynamic because the readers’ response, which is the essential factors to examine, occurs only in the process of the transferring of information. In other words, the behavior of encoding and decoding is a must once the equivalence is achieved. The equivalence in Cartford’s view, by contrast, which lies in the internal structure of linguistics, turns out to be more static. The nature of translation given by Cartford is the replacement of equivalent textual material between two languages. By saying textual material, he held the idea that equivalence only occurs within the language and through its categories. The context of language and the components of linguistics including phonology, graphology, grammar and lexis are considered as elements to examine the equivalence. And in this case, the equivalence between the source text and target text is to be realized by the equivalence of contextual features of both the source and target languages. Cartford’s theory of equivalence, in this sense, differed from Nida’s theory by research methods.

2.2.1.Different Conditions of Equivalence

Functional equivalence described by Nida put a great emphasis on communicative effect of translation. He believed if the communication can be created between the source text and its receptors, the equivalent effect should be made when the translated text was presented before its receptors. Therefore, the comparison of receptors’ response between source language and target language would be necessary when it comes to the conditions of Nida’s equivalence theory. Besides, the meaning and style of the both texts should also be analyzed in a comparative way because this two factors are very influential in the formulating of receptors’ response. Firstly, by the division of formal equivalence and functional equivalence by Nida, he tried to generalize the two types of equivalence that which focused respectively on the faithfulness and closeness of the receptor language with the source language in both from and the equivalent response. Thus, the conditions to achieve formal equivalence may include accuracy and correctness of translation, which is determined by the approximation to source text structure. Furthermore, Nida put forward “four basic requirements of a translation” as the conditions to examine the achieving of equivalent response, which are making sense, conveying the spirit and manner of the original, having a natural and easy form of expression, producing a similar response(芒迪，42). These requirements were generalized to be the conditions of a success of translation.

Since Cartford defines translation equivalence as the empirical phenomenon, he discussed the conditions of translation equivalence by specific points within the context of sentences. First, the equivalence from his view is between categories including grammar, lexis, phonology and contextual meanings. From this we can know the same meaning at a linguistic level is hard to achieved between source language and target language. In this case, he describe a condition by pointing out a concept of total translation, in which the texts or items in source language and target language are interchangeable in a given situation(Cartford, 49). In this way, he presented a new condition to evaluate equivalence. Based on this, he further his discussion on total translation by examining the overlapping contextual meanings in the items of source language and target language. He claimed contextual meanings include relationship to certain situational features, a more abstract and broad way to discuss equivalence. Therefore, another condition of equivalence was described as the overlapping extent of situational features common to the contextual meanings(Cartford, 49). To conclude, Cartford classified the conditions of equivalence on different scopes of translation. In the process of evaluating the equivalence in total translation, phonological translation or graphological translation, the examining of the relatable features between source text and target text should be made.

2.2.2.Different Classifications of Equivalence

Since Nida and Cartford held different views on the conditions required to achieve the equivalence, they classified translations from different perspective. Nida raised a classification of two types of equivalence: formal equivalence and functional equivalence. These two types actually reflect Nida's research on structure of language from shallow to deep. Nida believed that different languages should have the same deep structure and the same functions between languages lead to equivalence in translation. In his view, the functional equivalence occurs when the response of target language receptors is as same as possible the response of source language receptors. In describing equivalence, Nida pointed out that the correspondence between the original form and the target form should not be excessively pursued in translation. Instead, attention should be focused on accurately conveying the meaning of the original text. By this dynamic equivalence theory Nida paved a road away from the static mode of focusing on the comparison of texts. He believed that only when the target receptors understand the translation thoroughly, the same response can be achieved, and this is the main task of translation. Therefore, Nida’s classification was based on the specific situation in which the receptors communicate with the texts.

In Catford’s view, translation is the replacement of textual material. From this definition, he actually drew a line between source language and target language because by textual material he meant to point out that there would be no entire translation of meaning. In his words, at one or more levels of language there may be simple replacement by non-equivalent target language material(Cartford, 20). Based on this, Cartford classified translation into categories in terms of the extent, levels and ranks. Full translation and partial translation are divided by the extent of parts replaced in the process of translation. This two concepts are maybe the basic components of his later presenting of formal correspondence. In his view, formal correspondence is an approximate status in which categories cannot be replaced totally in another language. And by dividing total translation and restricted translation, he intended to involve the replacement of grammar and lexis and consequential replacement of phonology and graphology in his definition. All of these classification provide certain perspective to evaluate the translation and help to create a structure when analyzing the language. In a word, the classifications by Cartford was built in the internal language.

2.2.3.Different Research Approach

To some extent, the research method employed by Nida and Cartford was shaped under the guidance of different linguistic theories. Guided by the transformational-generative grammar by Chomsky, Nida analyzed the structure of language and put forward the back-transformation theory that entails the transferring of surface structure to deep structure between source language and target language. So the research methods adopted by Nida turns to be more flexible and have a focus on dynamic factor when discussing equivalence. Since Nida's translation theories were built up consciously to serve the research on the translation of Bible, his theories may have distinctive features in guiding the translation practices. In another aspect, Nida held a view that "meaning is universal" and emphasized the common ground between languages, which reflect in his equivalence theory, information conveyed by meaning is the focus To be specific, the equivalence can only be examined during the communication of these information between texts and receptors. Oriented by this communicative principle, Nida therefore took the reader's response as the standard to evaluate the translation. In a word, Nida described the equivalence and its mechanism in a developing process, during which the texts, context and receptors are performing their dynamic role. In a word, Nida’s carried out its study by the method of dynamic comparison, and through his discussion of receptor-oriented principle, his theories greatly contribute to the later translation practices.

By contrast, in the process of Cartford’s research on equivalence, the system-functional linguistics by Halliday was incorporated. The substance, form and context Language, which are the three basic levels in Halliday’s theory, constitute the categories of Cartford’s equivalence theory. Moreover, language was define by Cartford as a patterned behavior and this behavior is casually related to various other features of the situation in which it occurs(Cartford, 2). Therefore, in terms of research methods, Cartford carried out his comparative study mostly from the static and fixed perspective of language. Most of the examples he took are words, phrases and sentences, which are the units of language. He pay little attention to the dynamic context and receptors’ reaction. In describing the formal correspondence, he also held a view that categories of every language is defined in terms of relations holding within the language (Cartford, 27). In this way, his research methods seem to be more static and fixed in the internal structure of language. Due to the static traits, Cartford’s theories may be properly used for reference in academic study on languages because his theories exactly provide a macro framework.

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

Abstract

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

Key words

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

摘要

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

关键词

目的论；信达雅；汉斯·弗米尔；严复

1. Introduction

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

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

2.1 Skopos Theory

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

2.1.2 The Development of Skopos Theory

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

(1) Katharina Reiss’s research

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

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

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

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

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

2.1.3 Rules of Skopos Theory

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

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

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

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

2.2 Yan Fu’s Theory

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

2.2.1 The Development of Yan Fu’s Theory

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

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

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

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

2.2.2 Main Contents of Yan Fu’s Theory

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

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

5. Conclusion

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

Art of Translation

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

Abstract

Key words

摘要

关键词

2.1 The Abundant Resource of Hunan Scenic Spots

2.2 The Meaning of View of Culture Translation

2.3 The Existing English Translated Versions of Hunan Scenic Spots

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

Conclusion

Bibliography

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

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

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