英语电影片名的翻译-开题报告(七)

    Choocolat-《浓情巧克力》vs.《巧克力》

    In the above examples, the first versions are better than the second ones, because they help appeal to the audience either by creating some kind of suspense atmosphere,by giving the audience more room for imagination, or by well matching the psychology of the Chinese audience who tend to use four-character expressions and phrases.

2.4 Summary

    Few film titles are purely informative, aesthetic, or appellative. The above three functions of film titles, the informative, the aesthetic and the appellative functions, are

Closely maybe interrelated with each other. Most film titles include all the three functions with an emphasis on one of the three. Most informative titles may have a vocative thread running through them; the expressive titles usually carry information. Similarly, appellative titles include the informative and the aesthetic functions at certain level as analyzed in the above. Generally speaking, these three functions operate throughout a film title and the first two functions serve the commercial function in that the ultimate goal of filmmaking is to entertain the audience and to become a great box-office hit.

    From the above analysis one may see that the mufti-functions incorporated in film titles lead to a result that the film title is not purely a content-focused text, or a form-focused text or an appeal-focused text, since the purpose of film titles is to inform, to entertain and to attract the audience. Instead, it is a unity of the three with particular emphasis on one of them. The functionalists hold that each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The translated text is supposed to fulfill certain functions in the situation in which it is used. Therefore, in the process of translation, the translator should take such factors into consideration and they may

adopt flexible translation strategies so long as they can fulfill the listed functions.

Chapter Three

Literature Review

3.1 Functionalist Translation Theory Revisited

    As a relatively complete and systematic theory, functionalist approaches to translation didn't suddenly appear overnight. "The 1970s and 1980s saw a move away from the static linguistic typologies of translation shifts and an emergence and flourishing in Germany of a functionalist and communicative to the analysis of translation." (Monday, 2001:73). "Linguistics alone won't help us. First, because translating is not merely and not even primarily a linguistic process. Secondly, because linguistics has not yet formulated the right questions to tackle our problems. So let's look somewhere else."困ord, 2004: 10). With the strenuous efforts of several translation scholars, the theory has been constantly improved and widely applied by translation researchers.

3.1.1 Early Views

    Since functionalist approaches didn't suddenly appear overnight,  a brief description of early functionalist views of translation is necessary for us to understand it.

    Functionalist approaches to translation were not invented in the twentieth century.Throughout history, translators usually observed that different situations call for

different renderings, especially many Bible translators have felt that the process of translating should involve both procedures: a faithful reproduction of formal source-text qualities in one situation and an adjustment to the target audience in another. They believed that it was more important "to render the sense" (St.Jerome) or to adjust the text to the target audience's needs and expectations.

    In a similar vein, Eugene A. Nida (1964) also makes a distinction between formal and dynamic equivalence in translation, with the former referring to a faithful reproduction of source-text form elements and the later denoting equivalence of extralinguistic communicative effect伽ida, 1964: 159 qtd. in Nord, 2004: 5).

    According to Nida, a translation of dynamic equivalence is intended to achieve compete naturalness of expression and to relate the receptor to modes of behavior

relevant within the context of his own culture; it does not insist that he understand the cultural patterns of the source-language context in order to comprehend the message(ibid.).

    However,  equivalence-based  translation  theories  have  their  weakness. Equivalence-based approaches focus on the source text, the features of which must be preserved in the target text, and the target text must be equivalent to the source text. However, in real life, to achieve absolute equivalence in the process of translation is impossible, since the process of translating should involve both procedures: a faithful reproduction of formal source-text qualities in one situation and an adjustment to the target audience in another. Therefore, in this situation, scholars began to explore new theories. This is where the functionalist translation theory emerged in 1970s intended

to break with linguistic translation theories and to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

3.1.2 Development of the Theory

    We cannot discuss the theory without mentioning Katharina Reiss, Hans J. Vermeer,  Justa  Holz-Manttari,  and  Christiane  Nord  because  of their  major contributions  to  the  development  of  the  functional  translation  theory.  The development of modern functionalist theory in translation studies has gone through four stages: Katharina Reiss's functionalist translation criticism, Hans J. Vermeer's Skopostheorie and its extensions, Justa Holz-Manttari's theory of translational action, and Christiane Nord's function plus loyalty model.

3.1.2.1 Katharina Reiss's Functionalism

    As early as 1971，Katharina Reiss introduced a functional category into her objective approach to translation criticism': In her book Possibilities and Limits of

Translation Criticism, taking equivalence as her basis, Reiss develops a model of translation criticism based on the functional relationship between source and target texts. According to Reiss, the ideal translation would be one "in which the aim in the TL [target language] is equivalence as regards the conceptual content, linguistic form and communicative function of a SL [source language] text" (1977, translation in 1989: 112 .in Nord, 2004: 9). She refers to this kind of translation as `jintegral communicative performance". (ibid.). However, she also knew that real life presents situations where equivalence is not possible and, in some cases, not even desired due to the specifications of the "translation brief'. Therefore, her objective approach to translation criticism allows for certain exceptions from the equivalence requirement. "One exception is when the target text is intended to achieve a purpose or function instead of that of the original. Another exception is when the target text addresses an audience different from the intended readership of the original ord, 2004:9)", that is to say, the target text has a specific group of target addressees other than that of the original. Both exceptions have allowed the functional perceptive in the translation process to overrule the equivalence standards. The translation critic can no longer rely on features derived from source-text analysis but has to judge whether the target text is functional in terms of the translation context. In this case, for Reiss, all the types of translation may be justified in particular circumstances,  and then  functional

equivalence is no longer regarded as the normal aim of translation.

3.1.2.2 Hans J. Vermeer's Skopostheorie

    Hans Vermeer, a student of Reiss, has gone much further in trying to bridge the gap between theory and practice. His most distinguished theory is Skopostheorie,

which was developed as the foundation for a general theory of translation, dealing with specific languages and cultures. Since translation involves the transfer of communicative verbal and non-verbal signs from one language into another, Vermeer considers translation as a type of human action, which is defined as intentional, purposeful behavior that takes place in a given situation. That's why Vermeer calls his theory Skopostheorie, a theory of purposeful action. Furthermore, since situations are integrated with cultures, any evaluation of a particular situation, of its verbalized and non-verbalized elements, depends on the status it has in a particular culture system.

According to Vermeer, "one of the most important factors determining the purpose of a translation is the addressee, who is the intended receiver or audience of the target text with their culture-specific world-knowledge, their expectations and their communicative needs.", 2004: 12)‘

    As a sharp contrast toWeiss's belief}that the source text is the measure of all things in translation, Vermeer raises the idea of the "dethronement" of the source text:

the status of the source text is much lower in functionalist approaches, which is radically different from earlier linguistic or equivalence-based theories. The source text is no longer the first and foremost criterion for the translator's decisions; instead, it is just one of the various sources of information used by the translator. "Vermeer regards it as an `offer of information' that is partly or wholly turned into an `offer of information' for the target audience." (ibid.). More details about the Skopostheorie will be presented later.

3.1.2.3 Justa Holz-Manttari's Theory of Translational Action

    Justa Holz-Manttari takes one step further than Vermeer. Her theory is based on the principles of action theory. Instead of using the term "translation", she prefers to speak of "message transmitters", which consists of textual material combined with other media such as pictures, sounds and body movements. In her model, translation is defined as "a complex action designed to achieve a particular purpose". The purpose of translational action is to transfer messages across culture and language

barriers by means of message transmitters. As Holz-Manttari puts it: Translational action is the process of producing a message transmitter of a certain kind, designed to be employed in superordinate system in order to coordinate actional and communicative cooperation. (1984: 17 qtd. in Nord, 2004:13)

    She particularly emphasizes the actional aspects of the translation process, analyzing the roles of the participants (initiator, translator, user, message receiver) and the situational conditions (time, place, medium) in which their activities take place:

3.1.2.4 Christiane Nord's Function plus Loyalty Model

    Another important scholar who helps spread the influence of the functionalist Christiane Nord points out the limitations to the Skopos model: when the transion brief requires a translation whose communicative aims are contrary to or incompatible with the author's opinion or intention, there would be no restriction to the range of possible ends. In concerning this limitation, Nord raises the Loyalty principle of Skopostheorie: the responsibility translators have toward their partners in translational interaction. The function plus loyalty principle is thus proposed with the intention of inducing the translator to respect the sender's individual communicative intentions

and reduces the prescriptiveness of `radical' functionalism.

3.1.3 The Nucleus of the Functional Translation Theory: Skopostheorie

    Skopostheorie is put forward by Hans J. Vermeer. He stated his general position in his Framework for  General  Translation  Theory  in  1978,  and  explained Skopostheorie in detail in the book Groundwork for a General Theory of Translation co-authored by Vermeer and Reiss in 1984. Skopostheorie is a relatively new approach to translation studies that considers translation as a purposeful activity, and emphasizes the predicted results of translating. Therefore, Skopostheorie is the nucleus of the functional translation theory, playing the most important role in it.

    Before probing into the details of the discussion, it is necessary for us to grasp general ideas of the theory to avoid some unintended misunderstandings. The main ideas of Skopostheorie can be summarized as follows:

    (1) Translation is a form  of intentional,  interpersonal,  and  intercultural interaction based on a source text.

    (2) As an intentional interaction, translation intends to make change from one state of affairs to another.

    (3) Different participants are involved in this process and play different roles. The client is usually the initiator of the translational action, who determines the translation brief; the translator produces target text in the target culture to express the communicative intention of the sender of the source text; and the receiver is the user

of the target text.

    (4) The general principle consists of Skopos rule, which is the top-ranking one for any translation, coherence mle, fidelity rule and loyalty rule, which is added to make sure that the target-text purpose should be compatible with the original author's intention.。，“

    (5) The source text is no longer the first and foremost criterion for the translator's decisions, yet instead, it is just one of the various sources of information used by the translator. The translator chooses from this "offer of information" the items which he thinks are adequate to the desired purposes in the target culture.

    (6) Adequacy of the target text is more important than equivalence. "Adequacy refers to the qualities of a target text with regard to the translation brief: the translation should be `adequate to' the requirements of the brief."ord, 2004: 35)

3.1.3.1 Basic Concepts of Skopostheorie

a) Translation as Intentional Interaction

    According to Nord, "when we speak of intentionality in an interaction, we assume there was a choice to act one way or another, to refrain from acting in a particular way, or to not act at all." (ibid.: 19). Vermeer defines the concept as "for an act of behaviour to be called an action the person performing it must (potentially) be able to explain why he acts as he does although he could have acted otherwise."(ibid.)

    Translation can be regarded as an intentional interaction because, firstly, it is intended to change an existing state of affairs, primarily the inability of certain people to communicate with each other; secondly, it is carried out with more specific communicative intentions, such as to inform the target addressees about something the source-text sender says. By stating translating as an intentional interaction, the functionalists means that translation must be directed toward a purpose, that is to say, to promote emphasizes, communication or to inform the readers. Such intentionality, as Vermeer "does not refer to an action really being intentional, but to its being seen or interpreted as intentional by the participants or any observer." (ibid.). Intention may be related to the translator, but more often, it is associated with the initiator of a translation process. Therefore, the intention of a translation is not necessarily the same as or similar to the intention of the original author, and in translating there may be different choices in picking up translation strategies according to the purpose that the translation is intended for.

b) Translation as Interpersonal Interaction

From the development of Skopostheorie we know that in the theory of translation action, Holz-Manttari "places special emphasis on the actional aspects of the translation process, analyzing the roles of the participants (initiator, translator, user, message receiver) and the situational conditions (time, place, medium) in which their activities  take  place."ord,  2004:13).  According  to  functionalism,  all  the participants have certain functions or roles in the interaction. Apart from the traditionally assumed participants in translation process, namely, source-text producer, translator, target-text receiver, the functionalists add some more agents to the process of translation, such as initiator, commissioner, target-text user, target-text addressee and so on. All of the participants are connected through a complex network of mutual relations and may account for the translation brief of translation, affecting the purpose and strategies of translation. Nord analyzes all these roles in greater detail. 

1 .Initiator is the person, group or institution that starts off the translation process and determines its course by deftning the purpose for which the target text is needed. Initiator is the one who actually needs the target text. (ibid.: 20)

2. Commissioner is the person who asks the translator to produce a target text for a particular purpose and addressee. The commissioner may influence the very production of the target text, perhaps demanding a particular text  format or terminology (ibid.)

3. Translator is ostensibly the expert in translational action and should be responsible both for carrying out the commissioned task and for ensuring the result of the translation process, even when aspects like formatting and layout are assigned to other agents. (ibid.: 21)

4. Source-text producer is the person who produces the text that is to serve as the source for a translational action. (ibid.)

5. Target-text receiver is the addressee of the translation and is thus a decisive factor in the production of the target text. The addressee is the prospective  receiver seen the text producer 's standpoint; the receiver is the person,group or institution that actually reads or listens to the text after it has been produced. 2004: 22)