Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page118

culture)aboutinformationoriginallyofferedinanotherlanguagewithinanother

culture(thesourcelanguageandculture).Atranslationisthusasecondaryoffer

ofinformation,withthetranslatorofferinginformationaboutcertainaspectsof

thesourcetextin situation,accordingtothetargettextskoposspecifiedbythe

initiatorandconsideringtheneeds,expectations,etc.,ofthetargettextreceivers

(ReiβandVermeer1984/1991).Translation,bydefinition,involvesboth

linguisticandculturaltransfer;inotherwords,itisaculturetranscendingprocess

(Vermeer1992:40,1986).

Whethertheskoposofthetargettextandofthesourcetextisdifferentorthe

sameforthetwotexts(thatis,whetherwehaveFunktionskonstanzor

FunktionsänderunginReiβandVermeer’sterminology),thestandardforthe

translationwillbeadequacyorappropriatenesstotheskopos,whichalso

determinestheselectionandarrangementofcontent.AlthoughReiβand

VermeerdepartfromtraditionalapproachesthatseeEQUIVALENCEasa

constitutivefeatureof(any)translation,theydousethelabel‘equivalence’inthe

senseofadequacytoaskoposthatrequiresfunctionalconstancy:forexample,

ifthetranslationbriefrequiresafaithfulreproductionofthewordsandstructures

ofthetargettext,ashappensfrequentlyinpedagogicalsituations(1991:140).

Forfunctionalists,then,thelongstandingdebateaboutliteralversusfree

translationbecomessuperfluous,sinceallforms,whetherliteraltranslation,

communicativetranslation,oradaptation,whetherdocumentaryorinstrumental

translation(Nord1997:138),areequallyvalidtranslationalprocedures,

dependingontheskopos.

Althoughtheterms‘skopos’,‘purpose’and‘function’areoftenused

interchangeablybyReiβandVermeer(1984/1991),functionisalsousedina

morespecificsensewhichderivesmainlyfromReiβ’stexttypology.Inthis

sense,itislinkedtoaspectsofgenre(Textsorte)andtexttype(Texttyp).That

is,Reiβ’soriginalideaofcorrelatingtexttypeandtranslationmethodwas

presentedasaspecifictheorytofitintoageneraltranslationtheory;ithas

repeatedlybeenarguedthatthetwopartsofthebook‘donotreallyforma

homogenouswhole’(Nord1997:12).Inassigningthesourcetexttoatexttype

andtoagenre,thetranslatorcandecideonthehierarchyofpostulateswhich

hastobeobservedduringtargettextproduction(ReiβandVermeer

1984/1991:196).Suchaclassificationofthesourcetextisrelevantonlyincases

wherefunctionalconstancyisrequiredbetweensourceandtargettexts.

However,bothVermeer(1989b)andReiβ(1988)haveexpressedreservations

abouttheroleofgenre:thesourcetextdoesnotdeterminethegenreofthe

targettext,nordoesthegenredetermineipsofactotheformofthetargettext,

or,indeed,theskopos;rather,itistheskoposofthetranslationthatdetermines

theappropriategenreforthetranslatum,andthegenre,beingaconsequenceof

theskopos,issecondarytoit(Vermeer1989b:187).

Theoryoftranslatorialaction

Thetheoryof‘translatorialaction’(translatorischesHandeln,alsotranslational

action)wasdevelopedbyJustaHolzMänttäri(1984).Translationishere

conceivedprimarilyasprofessionalacting,asaprocessofintercultural

communicationwhoseendproductisatextwhichiscapableoffunctioning

appropriatelyinspecificsituationsandcontextsofuse.Inthisconception,

neithersourceandtargettextcomparison,norlinguistics,hasanysignificantrole

toplay,andtranslationissituatedwithinthewidercontextofcooperative

interactionbetweenprofessionals(experts)andclients.Indevelopingher

approach,HolzMänttäridrawsoncommunicationtheoryandonactiontheory.

Communicationtheoryenableshertohighlightthecomponentsinvolvedina

processofcommunicationacrossculturalbarriers,whileactiontheoryprovides

thebasisforadelineationofthespecificcharacteristicsoftranslatorialaction.In

ordertosethertheoryapartfrommoretraditionalapproaches,HolzMänttäri

develops,inGerman,adistinctiveandhighlyabstractterminology,attimes

eschewingeventheterm‘translation’(Übersetzung)inordertoavoidthe

connotationsandexpectationstraditionallyattachedtothatterm(HolzMänttäri

1986:355).

HolzMänttäri’saimistoprovideatheoreticalbasisandconceptualframework

fromwhichguidelinesforprofessionaltranslatorsmaybedrawn.Theprimary

purposeoftranslatorialactionistoenablecooperative,