liveryHans Vermeer “功能理论”与“目的论”

译文在译语文化中的交际功能。

因 此，

译文的形式并非照搬原文模式，

而是取决

< br>于其是否在译语文化中合理地为其功能服务。

目的论

(Skopos Theory)

是弗米尔于

20

世纪

70

(Munday 2001

：

78

—

79)

。< /p>

Skopos

是希腊语，意指“目的”

， 其主要概念是，所有翻译遵循的首要

规则就是

“目的规则”

，

翻译目的决定翻译策略与具体的翻译方法。

弗米尔认为，

翻译的结果是译文，

但译者必须清楚地了解翻译 的目的与译文功能，

才能做好翻

译工作，产生出理想的译作。< /p>

后来莱思与弗米尔在合著的《翻译的理论基础》

(

Groundwork

for

a

General

Theory of Translation

1984)

一书中，指出了目 的论的具体准则

(Munday 2001

：

< br>78

—

79)

：

(1)

译文

(TT)

决定于其 目的

(determined

by

its

skopos)

；

译文为目标语文

化社会提供信息，其关注点 是把源语语言文化信息转换为目标语语言文化信息；

(3)

译文 不提供模棱两可的信息；

(4)

译文必须能自圆其说

；

(5)

译文不得与原文相悖

(coherent

with

the

ST)

(6)

上述所列五条准则的顺序表明其

重要性的先后顺序，而所有准则都受目的论之支配。至于第

(5)

点，我们的理解

是：

译文必须在思想内容与内 在逻辑上与原文相一致，

而不是指语言形式或遣词

造句上的一致 。

诺德的《翻译的语篇分析》

(Text Analysis in Translation 1988

／

1991)

向读者

展示了一个更为具体的功能语篇分析模式——跨越字词的层面，

从语篇的角度来

解释翻译。她首先

区分 比较了两种类型的翻译：纪实性翻译

(documentary

translation)

和工具性翻译

(instrume ntal translation)

。纪实性翻译充当了原作者和译

< br>文接受者之间进行原语文化交流的工具，

原语文化特色在译文中保持不变，

如逐

字翻译就属纪实性翻译；

后者则是在目标 语文化的交流中充当一种独立的信息传

递工具，译文根据自身的目的对原文作调整。

1. Key Concepts of Skopostheorie

Skopos is the Greek word for

“

aim

”

or

“

purpose

”

in the 1970s by Hans Vermeer as a technical term for the purpose of a translation and of the action

of translating. The major work on Skopos theory (Skopostheorie) is

Groundwork for a General

Theory

of

Translation

,

a

book

Vermeer

co- authored

with

Katharina

Reiss

(Reiss

and

Vermeer

1984). Skopos theory focuses above all on the purpose of the translation, which determines the

translation

methods

and

strategies

that

are

to

be

employed

in

order

to

produce

a

functionally

adequate result. This result is the TT (target text), which Vermeer calls the translatum. Therefore,

in Skopos theory, knowing why an ST (source text) is to be translated and what the function of the

TT will be of crucial for the translator.

There

exist

three

possible

kinds

of

purpose

in

the

field

of

translation:

the

general

purpose

aimed

at

by

the

translator

in

the

translation

process

(perhaps

‘

to

earn

a

living

”

),

the

communicative purpose aimed at by the TT in the target situation (perhaps

“

to instruct the reader

”

)

and

the

purpose

aimed

at

by

a

particular

translation

strategy

or

procedure

(for

example,

“

to

translate literally in order to show the structural particularities of the SL

”

) (qtd. in Nord, 2001: 28).

Nevertheless, the term Skopos usually refers to the purpose of the TT. And it is the receiver, or

rather

the

addressee,

who

is

the

main

factor

determining

the

TT

Skopos.

Therefore,

the

prime

principle determining any translation process is the purpose (Skopos) of the overall translational

action.

2. Three Rules of Skopostheorie

According to Skopostheorie, there are three basic rules to govern the translator

’

s activities in

the process of translation.

Skopos

rule:

refers

to

the

top-ranking

rule

for

any

translation

which

indicates

that

a

translation action is determined by its Skopos. Vermeer explains the Skopos 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 (qtd. in Nord, 2001: 29)

However,

the

Skopos

rule

does

not

offer

any

general

principle

or

strategy

that

can

be

employed

to

guide

any

specific

translation

process.

Instead,

they

can

only

be

determined

according to the specific Skopos ready to be achieved by a translation. Since a translational action

is determined by its Skopos, the Skopos rule is the top-ranking rule for some kind of translation.

Coherence rule: A translator is supposed to produced a text is at least likely to be meaningful

to

target- culture

receivers.

For

this

end,

only

when

the

TT

conforms

to

the

standard

of

intratextually coherent, can it make sense in the communicative situation and culture in which it is

received and the receiver will have no difficulty in understanding it. A communicative interaction

can only be regarded as successful if the receivers interpret is as being sufficiently coherent with

their

situation.

Accordingly,

as

another

important

rule

of

Skopostheorie,

the

“

coherence

rule

”

,

specifies that a translation should be acceptable in a sense that it is coherent with the receiver

’

s

situation (qtd. in Nord, 2001: 32). Here, being

“

coherent with

”

is synonymous with being

“

part of

”

the receiver

’

s situation. Since a translation is an offer of information about a preceding offer of

information, it is expected to bear certain relationship with the corresponding ST.

Fidelity rule: Vermeer calls the relationship between a translation and the corresponding ST

“

intertextual coherence

”

or

“

fidelity

”

which is postulated as a further principle and referred to as

the

“

fidelity rule

”

(ibid.). The important point is that intertextual coherence should exist between

the ST and the TT, while the form it takes depends both on the translator

’

s interpretation of the ST

and

on

the

translation

Skopos.

The

maximally

faithful

imitation

of

the

ST

is

just

one

of

the

possible kinds of intertexual coherence.

In

all,

the

three

basic

rules

of

the

Skopostheorie

are

designed

to

govern

the

translator

’

s

activities in the whole translation process. In most cases, however, a translation cannot satisfy the

three rules at the same time due to the reason that the Skopos of the translation is frequently likely

to

deviate

from

the

intention

of

the corresponding

SL

text.

In

general,

the hierarchical

order

of

abidance of the three rules should be the Skopos rule first, the coherence rule second and then the

fidelity

rule,

or

to

put

it

in

another

way,

the

demand

for

fidelity

is

considered

subordinate

to

intratextual coherence (or the coherence rule), and both are subordinate to the Skopos rule. When

a translation which is faithful to the ST cannot be effectively understood by the TT receiver, the

translator

should

give

up

the

fidelity

rule

and

conform

to

the

coherence

rule,

i.e.

to

make

his

translation meaningful in the target communicative situation and culture. If the Skopos requires a

change of function, the required standard will no longer be intertextual coherence with the ST but

adequacy

or

appropriateness

with

regard

to

the

Skopos

(qtd.

in

Nord,

2001:

32-33).

And

if

the

Skopos demands intratexual incoherence, the standard of intratextual coherence is no longer valid.

3. Translation Brief of Skopostheorie

Generally, the Skopos is specified by the translation brief, in which the initiator would give

as many details as possible about the purpose, explaining the addressees, time, place, occasions

and medium of the intended communication and the function the text is intended to have. (

“

Brief

”

is

the

English

equivalent

of

the

German

word

Ubersetzungsauftrag.

It

used

to

be

translated

as

“

commission

”

by

Vermeer,

‘

assignment

”

by

Pochhacker

and

Kussmaul,

etc.

Here

Nord

adopts

Janet

Fraser

’

s

term

“

brief

”

.)

Exactly

speaking,

the

translation

brief

includes

the

following

information:

●

The intended text function;

●

The target text addressees;

●

The time and place of text reception;

●

The medium over which the text will be transmitted;

●

The motive for the production or reception of the text.

This

model

specifies

what

kind

of

translation

is

needed

so

as

to

enables

the

translator

to

decide what information to include in the target text. Guided by the translation brief, the translator

selects

certain

items

from

the

SL

offer

of

information

(originally

meant

for

source- culture

addressees) and processes them in order to form a new offer of information in TL, from which the

TL addressees can in turn select what they consider to be meaningful in their own situation.

4. Advantages of Skopostheorie over the Traditional Translation Theories

4.1 Traditional Equivalence-based Approaches

For

centuries,

the

literal/free

translation

has

been

a

heating

topic

for

the

translation

theoreticians

until

the

1960s

when

they

began

to

analyze

the

translation

systematically.

At

that

time,

linguistic

approaches were

hot

issues

and

the

debate

on

meaning

and

equivalence

was

no

doubt

the

focus

therein.

Over

the

following

twenty

years,

many

further

attempts

were

made

to

define the nature of equivalence and one of the most important figures in translation studies is the

American

Eugene

Nida.

When

he

was

translating

and

organizing

the

translation

of

Bible,

he

developed the theory of equivalence, which was then elaborated in two major works in the 1960s:

Toward

A

Science

of

Translating

(1964a)

and

the

co- authored

The

Theory

and

Practice

of

Translation

(Nida and Taber 1969). In the first book, Nida attempted to move translation, Bible

translation in particular, into a more scientific era by incorporating recent studies in linguistics. He

declared

two

basic

orientation

types

of

equivalence,

namely

formal

equivalence

and

dynamic

equivalence. Formal equivalence is approximate to ST structure. Since this type of translation is

often

used

in

an

academic

environment,

the

students

are

allowed

to

gain

close

access

to

the

language and customs of the source culture (Munday, 2001). Dynamic equivalence is based on the

principle

of

equivalent

effect,

where

the

“

relationship

between

receptor

and

message

should

be

substantially

the same as which existed between the original receptors and the message

”

(Nida,

1964: 159).

Nida also placed special emphasis on the purpose of the translation, on the roles of both the

translator and the receivers, and on the cultural implications of the translators

in the translation

process:

When

the

question

of

the

superiority

of

one

translation

over

another

is

raised,

the

answer

should be looked for in the answer to another question, best for whom? The relative adequacy of

different translations of the same text can only be determined in terms of the intention, which each

translation successfully fulfills the purpose for which it was intended. In other words, the relative

validity of each translation is seen in the degree to which the receptors are able to respond to its

message

(in

terms

of

both

form

and

content)

in

comparison

with

(1)

what

the

original

author

evidently intended would be the response of the original audience and (2) how that audience did,

in fact, respond. The responses can, of course, never be identical, for interlingual communication

always implies some difference in cultural setting, with accompanying diversities in value systems,

conceptual presuppositions, and historical antecedents. (Nida, 1976: 64)

He produced an analytical procedure systematically for translators working with all kinds of

text

and

his

linguistic

approach

to

translation

has

been

influential

on

many

subsequent

and

prominent translation scholars.

However, as time went by, Nida

’

s concept of formal and dynamic equivalence has come to be

heavily criticized. Scholars felt that equivalence was still over concerned with the word level, and

some

translation

scholars

working

in

training

institutions

were

also

aware

that

the

equivalence

approach

lacked

consistency,

because

in

translating

Bible

or

literature

works,

the

theorists

of

equivalence tended to accept this as the optimum translation procedure, but for pragmatic texts,

such as C-E translation of publicity materials, they preferred the non-literal strategy and in some

cases, equivalence might even not be called for at all. This different or even contradictory standard

made the equivalence approach rather confusing, and some scholars got more and more doubtful

and unsatisfied with. Under such circumstances, they started to seek for a more practical theory.

4.2 Advantages of Skopostheorie

From

the

above

analysis,

we

can

see

that

the

disadvantages

of

the

traditional

equivalence-based

approaches

are

that

they

just

consider

the

static

relationship

between

the

ST

and the TT without paying too much attention to some other dynamic relationships and factors.

Equivalence-based

theories

focus

on

the

ST

according

to

which

the

features

of

the ST

must

be

preserved in the TT, and the TT must be equivalent to the ST. They exclude many translational

phenomena such as rewriting and reconstructing from the field of translation study and thus can

hardly describe some common phenomena in translation study. Therefore, some scholars began to

question the equivalence-based translation theories. New theories were called for. This is where

Skopostheorie emerged in 1970s which intended to break up with linguistic translation theory and

bridge the gap between theory and practice.

An

important

advantage

of

Skopostheorie

is

that

it

allows

the

possibility

of

the

same

text

being translated in different ways according to the purpose of the TT and the commission which is

given to the translator. In Vermeer

’

s words:

What the Skopos states is that one must translate, consciously and consistently, in accordance

with some principle respecting the target text. The theory does not state what the principle is: this

must be decided separately in each specific case. (Vermeer 1989/2000: 228)

So, using Vermeer

’

s own example, an ambiguity in a will written in French would need to be

translated literally, with a footnote or comment, for a foreign lawyer dealing with the case. On the

other hand, if the will appeared in a novel, the translator might prefer to find a slightly different

ambiguity that works in the TL without the need of a formal footnote, so as not to interrupt the

reading process.

In a word, Skopostheorie enjoys advantages over the traditional translation theories attaching

too

much

importance

to

“

equivalence

”

or

“faithfulness”

.

Because,

traditionally,

it

is

considered

that the translator

’

s task is to offer the same amount and kind of information as the ST producer.

This

equivalence-based

criterion

was

regarded

as

the

standard

to

evaluate

a

translation.

While

Reiss

and

Vermeer

maintain

what

the

translator

does

is

to

offer

another

kind

of

information

in

another form, which has

“

directly challenge the traditional concept of equivalence as a constitutive

feature of translation

”

(Nord, 2001:35)

附

1

：目的 论与编译

编译

编译

(adaptation)

是译者自由 度最大的一种翻译方法，

接近于根据原文进行改

写或改编。

在文学翻译和其他一些有特殊目的的翻译活动中，

这种翻译方法比较

常见。例如：

(1)

白日依山尽，黄河入海流。

欲穷千里目，更上一层楼。

(

王之涣

)

Westward

the

sun,

ending

the

day’s

journey

in

a

slow

descent

behind

the

mountains.

Eastward the Yellow River, emptying into the sea.

To look beyond, unto the farthest horizon, upward!

Up another storey!

(

翁显良译

)

(2)

到过真正法国拉丁区的人，都知道这是一个文人艺术家 的集散地，无论

你是什么人，

也要来感受澳门这间以此命名的餐 厅。

水晶灯下，

柔和的光线散落

在餐厅 每一个角落，

舒适宽敞的高背座椅，

一丝不苟的摆设，