英语电影片名的翻译-开题报告(九)

3.1.3.4 Three Rules of Skopostheorie

a) Skopos Rule

Skopos is a Greek word for `purpose'. According to Skopostheorie, "the prime principle determining an translation translational action."  2004: 27). process is the purpose (Skopos) of the overall The Skopos usually refers}to the purpose of the target text. The top-ranking rule for any translation is thus the "the end justifies the means" (ibid.: 29). rule', that is,

    Nord distinguishes three kinds of purpose: "the general purpose aimed at by the

translator in the translation process (perhaps `to earn a living'), the communicative purpose aimed at by the target text in the target situation (perhaps `to instruct the reader') and the purpose aimed at by a particular translation strategy or procedure."(ibid.: 27-8)

    Vermeer explains the Skopos rule in the following way:Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve this purpose. The rule thus reads as follows: translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your

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, 1989a: 20 qtd. in Nord, 2004: 29)

    This rule is intended to solve the restrained disputes involving free vs. Faithful translation, dynamic vs. formal equivalence, good interpreters vs. slavish translators, which the translation is needed, the Skopos of a particular translation task may require the translator to adopt a `free'

or a `faithful' translation, or anything between these two extremes (ibid.: 29).

b) Intratextual Coherence and Interteztual Coherence

    Besides Skopos rule, more specific aspect of Skopostheorie is the relationship between the source and target texts within a functionalist framework, that intratextual and intertextual coherence, which form into the coherence rule fidelity rule. is,and Coherence rule refers to that the target text should conform to the standard of intratextual coherence', "which specifies that a translation should be acceptable in a sense that it is coherent with the receivers' situation" (cf. Pochhacker, 1995: 34 qtd. In Nord, 2004: 32). This means the receiver should be able to understand it; it should make sense in the communicative situation and culture in which it is received. For thisreason, in the process of translation, the translator should take the target culture into careful consideration and do some alternations in order to make the translation intelligible. Otherwise, the translated text may lose its significance and become meaningless in a target culture.

    Since translation is an offer of information from the source text, the translated text must bear certain relation with the source one. Vermeer calls this relationship intertextual coherence' or `fidelity'. This coherence exists between source and target text and the form it takes depends both on the translator's interpretation of the source text and on the translation Skopos. "One possible kind of intertextual coherence could be a maximally faithful imitation of the source text." (Nord, 2004: 32)

    In Skopostheorie, fidelity rule is considered subordinate to coherence rule, and both are subordinate to the Skopos rule. If the Skopos requires a change of function, the standard will no longer be fidelity to the source text but adequacy or appropriateness with regard to the Skopos (Reiss&Vermeer, 1984: 139 qtd. in Nord,2004: 33). "And if the Skopos demands intratextual incoherence, the standard of intratextual coherence is no longer valid." (ibid.: 33)

c) Function plus Loyalty Rule

    Loyalty rule is put forward by Christiane Nord. As has been mentioned above, Nord finds two interdependent limitations to the. Skopos model. "One concerns the culture-specificity of translational models; the other has to do with the relationship between the translator and the source-text author." (ibid.: 124). Although Vermeer allows for a relationship of "intertextual coherence" or "fidelity" to hold between the source and target texts, the demand for fidelity is subordinate to the Skopos rule. From the previous, we have known that the main idea of Skopostheorie could be paraphrased as `the translation purpose justifies the translation procedures' or `the end justifies the means'. This seems acceptable whenever the translation purpose is in accordance with the communicative intention of the original author. But what happens if the translation brief requires a translation whose communicative aims are contrary to or incompatible with the author's opinion or intention2004: 124). The rule then requires that the translator should be loyal to the -text author.

    "Loyalty commits the translator bilaterally to the source and the target sides." (ibid.: 125). It refers to the responsibility the translator has toward the source text producer, the target receiver and other agents involved in the translational interaction. That is to say, the translator should be responsible toward his partners in translational interaction. The target-text purpose should be compatible with the original author's intentions. Nord emphasizes that the term cannot be "mixed up with fidelity or faithfulness, concepts that usually refer to a relationship holding between the source and the target texts. Loyalty is an interpersonal category referring to a social relationship between people." (ibid.)

    Function plus loyalty, the combination makes a supplement rule to perfect the functionalist theory which guides the translation process. "Function refers to the factors that make a target text work in the intended way in the target situation, while loyalty refers to the interpersonal relationship between the translator, the source-text sender, the target-text addressees and the initiator. Loyalty limits the range of justifiable target-text functions for one particular source text and raises the need for a negotiation of the translation assignment between translator and their clients." (ibid.:126)

3.1.3.5 Merits of Skopostheorie

    Compared with previous linguistic equivalence-oriented translation theories, Skopos theory, by taking precedence over purpose and function in translation, brings more valuable insights into translation practice and evaluation. It approaches translation in a functional way, which broadens the definition of translation into a socio-cultural frame instead of the previous linguistic one.

a) A New Definition of Translation

    Instead of treating translation as a code-switching operation, Skopos theory defines translation as an intentional, interpersonal, and partly verbal intercultural interaction based on a source text. Just as Vermeer puts it:

    I have defined !rpnslation as information offered in a language:of culture which imitates information offered in language a of culture A so as to fulfill the desired function. That means that a translation is not the trans-coding of words or sentences one language into another, but a complex action in which someone provides information about a text under new functional, cultural and linguistic conditions and in a new situation, whereby formal characteristics are imitated as far as possible (Vermeer, 1986: 36 qtd. in Snell-Hornby, 2002: 46).

    This highlights the involvement of multiple personal and cultural factors in translation process. In this way, Skopos theory has widened the scope of translation studies and moved beyond the linguistic boundary. Such definition broadens the horizon of translation studies and helps to explain the complexity of translation.

b) Changes of the Status of ST and TT

    An important impact of Skopos theory is that it completely changes the status of ST and TT. The source is "dethroned" and just becomes an "offer of information", which is no longer the supreme yardstick for translation. With the falling of ST status, the target text rises to the focus. The translator can adapt his translation strategy according to the translation purpose. Therefore, the translator can be released from the "restrictions imposed by a narrowly defined concept of loyalty to the source text

alone" (Schaffner, 2005: 238) and have the initiative in translation.