论翻译目的论的局限性

广西师范大学

硕士学位论文

论翻译目的论的局限性姓名：周志莲

申请学位级别：硕士专业：英语语言文学

指导教师：袁斌业

20080401

论翻译目的论的局限性

研究生：周志莲专业：英语语言文学

年级：2005级指导老师：袁斌业教授研究方向：翻译理论与实践

中文摘要

德国翻译家弗米尔（H.J. V ermeer）在1984年与赖斯合著的《普通翻译理论基础》中提出“翻译目的理论”（Skopostheorie），强调翻译是一项有目的的活动。随着大量西方理论的引进，该理论得到许多国内学者的认同，被广泛应用于中国语境下的翻译实践研究。根据辩证主义观点，以及中国目前对西方理论积极研究的状况，其局限性应该给予适当的关注。事实上，许多学者已发现了Skopostheorie的不足之处，但是，他们的论述还不够系统，不足以启发读者对Skopostheorie的正确认识和应用。

本文从翻译批评，即从Skopostheorie的指导功能和评价功能两个角度，更全面、系统地揭示其局限性以启发读者正确地认识和应用Skopostheorie。

本文的引言部分介绍了论文的背景情况，阐述了本研究的目的、意义和结构。第二部分是文献综述，呈现了前人的相关研究及存在的问题；第三部分介绍了Skopostheorie，并区别了它与其他功能翻译理论的关系；第四部分从Skopostheorie的指导功能列举了五点局限性以防此理论误导读者。首先从Skopostheorie的理论基础和原则来探讨：Skopostheorie 的理论基础不够牢固和Skopostheorie对翻译目的的描述简单；接着对前人的研究进行补充，进一步证明此理论曾受到的批评：Skopostheorie不太适用于文学翻译和此理论没有充分地意识到译者主体性所受到的限制；接着再提出：Skopostheorie作为翻译批评标准具有局限性。然后，本文通过案例研究——用Skopostheorie来评价《洛丽塔》三个中译本，力求为本文论点提供更多的论据。由于大多数译本的Skopos具有模糊性，这部分通过比较《洛丽塔》的三个译本、分析三个译者的翻译方法和误译现象来推论它们的Skopos。结果表明：不同的学者对于同一个译本可以推论出不同的Skopos，并且推论出的Skopos不一定正确；译者在翻译过程中难以由始至终地服从Skopos；Skopostheorie不太适用于文学翻译；在Skopos不明确的情况下，Skopostheorie难以评价翻译。这些都为以上提出的局限性提供了论据。最后，本文客观评价了Skopostheorie，概述了整个研究，并且对Skopostheorie的将来研究提出几点建议。

本文从理论背景、理论基础和理论原则出发，论据涉及了行为理论、文本接受理论、文学翻译理论和翻译批评，力求客观、全面地论证Skopostheorie的局限性：Skopostheorie 的理论基础不够牢固，Skopostheorie对翻译目的的描述简单，Skopostheorie不太适用于文学翻译，此理论没有充分地意识到译者主体性所受到的限制和Skopostheorie作为翻译批评标准具有局限性。本文提出的局限性在前人的成果上增加了三点并补充了更多的论据，试

图对Skopostheorie的进一步研究提出建议，探讨如何有效、充分利用此理论这一持续已久的问题。

关键词：翻译目的论；局限性；翻译批评；《洛丽塔》

A Study of Limitations of Skopostheorie

Postgraduate: Zhou Zhilian Major Field of Study: English Language & Literature Grade: 2005 Supervisor: Professor Y uan Binye Orientation: Translation Studies & Practice

Abstract in English

Skopostheorie was proposed by H.J.V ermeer in the book A Framework for a General Theory of Translation co-authored by V ermeer and Katharina Reiss and published in 1984. It stresses that translation is a purposeful activity. After more introduction of this theory and of multi-yardsticks of translation from home and abroad, many Chinese scholars become in favor of Skopostheorie, which later grows more and more prevailing in Chinese translation field. According to dialectics, as well as China’s current enthusiasm for western theories, its limitations should be given due attention. In fact, lots of scholars have discovered limitations of Skopostheorie, but which have not been studied systematically enough to help understand and apply this theory.

This thesis aims to point out the limitations of Skopostheorie in a more systematic way to cast light on the correct understanding and application of the theory through translation criticism: instructive and evaluative roles of Skopostheorie.

Chapter one introduces the background information of the thesis, including its objective, significance and structure. Chapter two is literature review, describing the previous studies on limitations of Skopostheorie and pointing out their defects. Chapter three introduces Skopostheorie and distinguishes it from other functional approaches to translatio n①. Chapter four extends the work on five limitations of Skopostheorie that are listed from Skopostheorie’s instructive role in case readers are misguided. Firstly, through its theoretical foundations and rules the thesis proves: theoretical foundations of Skopostheorie are shaky, and the description of Skopos is simple; by making up some arguments the thesis bears out some previous criticisms on the theory:Skopostheorie does not work well in literary translation and Skopostheorie is not fully aware of the constraints on the translator’s subjectivity; and lastly it proposes and proves that Skopostheorie is not convincible as a criterion of literary translation criticism. Then, the study places emphasis on a case study of Lolita’s three Chinese versions. It is carried out from the perspective of Skopostheorie to provide more evidences of the argumentations of this thesis. This part compares three Chinese versions, analyzes the translation methods and mistranslation to draw the Skopos, and shows that the Skopos is inferred differently by different translation critics and not guaranteed to be right; not all translators can follow the Skopos throughout the

entire translation process; Skopostheorie does not work well in literary translation; it is difficult to evaluate the target text (TT) from the perspective of Skopostheorie without knowing the translator’s Skopos. These arguments undoubtedly testify to the above limitations. Finally, the thesis evaluates Skopostheorie objectively, makes a summary of the entire study and provides some suggestions about how to apply Skopostheorie correctly.

This study starts from the theoretical background, foundations and rules of Skopostheorie and makes use of action theory, literary reception theory, literary translation and translation criticism to verify the argumentations objectively and comprehensively: theoretical foundations of Skopostheorie are shaky; the description of Skopos is simple; Skopostheorie does not work well in literary translation; Skopostheorie is not fully aware of the constraints on the translator’s subjectivity; Skopostheorie is not convincible as a criterion of literary translation criticism. The thesis draws three new limitations and makes up some arguments for the previous studies to suggest directions in which further research is needed and explore how to apply Skopostheorie fully and effectively.

Key words: Skopostheorie; Limitations; Translation criticism; Lolita

论文独创性声明

本人郑重声明：所提交的学位论文是本人在导师的指导下进行的研究工作及取得的成果。除文中已经注明引用的内容外，本论文不含其他个人或其他机构已经发表或撰写过的研究成果。对本文的研究作出重要贡献的个人和集体，均已在文中以明确方式标明。本人承担本声明的法律责任。

研究生签名：日期：

论文使用授权声明

本人完全了解广西师范大学有关保留、使用学位论文的规定。广西师范大学、中国科学技术信息研究所、清华大学论文合作部，有权保留本人所送交学位论文的复印件和电子文档，可以采用影印、缩印或其他复制手段保存论文。本人电子文档的内容和纸质论文的内容相一致。除在保密期内的保密论文外，允许论文被查阅和借阅，可以公布（包括刊登）论文的全部或部分内容。论文的公布（包括刊登）授权广西师范大学学位办办理。

研究生签名：日期：

导师签名：日期：

Acknowledgements

My thesis has been more than half a year in the making, during which time a great many people have made efforts to ensure that the end result will be as acceptable as they have expected. On the completion of my thesis, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all whose instruction and advice have made this work possible.

Firstly, I must thank my tutor, Prof. Y uan Binye, for his insightful views on how this thesis should be designed, and for his timely feedback and encouragement that are very helpful in writing the dissertation. Prof.Y uan Binye has devoted himself to translation field for many years. From him, I not only have experienced the perseverance and attentiveness required for a true scholar, but also accumulated knowledge of translation and understood how to write a paper or thesis well.

I am also greatly indebted to other teachers who have contributed valuable instruction and given me so much inspiration and encouragement during the 3-year M.A study. Special thanks go to Prof. Bai Jingze, Prof. Luo Yaoguan, Prof. Zhang Shuning, Prof. Zhang Xianglin and Miss Luo Di.

Finally, I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation to my family members and my boyfriend Chen Jinlong who have been constantly offering me love and support in my study and life, as well as all my friends around me for their sincere help and support during my study in GXNU.

Chapter 1 Introduction

1.1 A Brief Introduction to the Thesis

Is it very meaningful to focus on the limitations of Skopostheorie since each theory has two sides? The title is not meant to find fault with Skopostheorie but to warn off the correct application of the theory with the discretion of the limitations. Since its introduction into China in 1980s, Skopostheorie has been widely applied to Chinese translation field. Lots of Chinese scholars subscribe to functionalism and draw inspiration from Skopostheorie. Chinese scholars’researches on the theory range widely from translation criticisms, translation methods, literary and non-literary translation to translation teaching, yet Skopostheorie has some limitations and confuses readers so that it is often used in a blind way. Some of senior scholars advise that we should make a critical judgment about foreign translation theories. Actually, some limitations of Skopostheorie have been pointed out, but not been studied systematically and explicitly enough to provide enlightenment on the correct use of the theory. Accordingly, the author of the thesis finds it urgent to clarify its limitations for readers to understand Skopostheorie better. The study is to systematically investigate the limitations of the theory from two objects of translation criticism: instructive role and evaluative role.

1.2 Objective and Significance of the Study

The thesis is intended to identify Skopostheotie’s limitations comprehensively to help young scholars recognize the correct application of the theory. After searching for relevant studies on Skopostheorie in Chinese Database of Academic Journals and Chinese Database of Excellent Master’s Dissertation, the author has observed that most of the articles written by postgraduates are confined to such topics as overviews of the theory and evaluation of Chinese versions in the light of Skopostheorie. Among these articles, some confuse readers with the ambiguous account of functionalist translation theory and result in misuse of Skopostheorie. Some other articles just see part of the theory and simply present one or two limitations to show their dialectical attitudes. Obviously, the limitations of Skopostheorie have not caught much attention, and young scholars still lack objective understanding of Skopostheorie. Bian Jianhua (2006b), a female Chinese scholar of translation field, systematically analyzes the application of and the studies on German Functionalism①in China from 1987 to 2005. Professor Bian gives details of German Functionalism and suggests the reasonable application of Skopostheorie. She argues that historical materialism and Marxist dialecticalism should be adopted to study Skopostheorie in Chinese translation field. So, based on historical materialism and dialecticalism, this thesis depictes the social and academic background, the evolution of this theory, and

analyzes its exact content; it adopts two objects of translation criticism——instructive role and evaluative role——to prove the argumentations; it also combines theory with practice, and relates western translation with Chinese translation to voice its special opinions. Lolita is chosen as a case study in this thesis for the language of Lolita is vivid, difficult and full of literariness and it has various Chinese versions. However, while there has been much in the studies of the original text, there is little research done on its Chinese versions. The author takes this opportunity and uses it to illustrate the argumentations of this thesis. The thesis also features this point that Chinese versions are adopted to test the universality of Skopostheorie. Yang Zijian assumes that the combination of Chinese and western translation theories is not one thing plus another or mutual borrowing and sharing, and that scholars should test its universality and limitations through our linguistics, literature, culture and especially the study of limitations before making full use of them (Liu Shicong, 2004: 40). It is important that Skopostheorie’s essence be extracted to combine with our Chinese translation phenomena, which will enrich and improve our translation theories. Bian Jianhua (2006b) contends that to link Skopostheorie to Chinese translation will make a valuable contribution to the establishment of a more extensive and open framework of Chinese translation studies. It is thus very necessary for us to interpret Skopostheorie again, to follow up its evolution and to scrutinize its weaknesses by analyzing Chinese translation.

1.3 Structure of the Thesis

This thesis consists of five chapters:

Chapter one serves as an introduction, providing background information of the thesis and stating its objective, significance and structure.

Chapter two, also called literature review, reviews the previous relevant studies on Skopostheorie’s limitations, shows their shortcomings: being unsystematic and inadequate, and finally points out the direction of the study: to carry out a systematic study of limitations of Skopostheorie from the theory’s instructive role and evaluative role.

Chapter three involves an introduction to Skopostheorie. It introduces Skopostheorie and distinguishes it from other functional approaches to translation, such as the theories from Katharina Reiss, Christiane Nord, Eugene A. Nida, Peter Newmark, etc.

Chapter four, the body of the thesis, expounds and proves five limitations of Skopostheorie from Skopostheorie’s instructive role and evaluative role. To watch its instructive role it starts from its theoretical foundations and rules to explore the limitations, and further proves some previous criticisms on the theory by making up arguments. Furthermore, the thesis performs a case study. Lolita’s three Chinese versions are analyzed and evaluated to provide more forceful

evidence of the argumentations of the thesis.

Chapter five is the conclusion. It summarizes and evaluates the thesis, and finally proposes some suggestions on the correct application of Skopostheorie.

Chapter 2 Literature Review

This study is designed to conduct a systematic survey of Skopostheorie’s limitations in order to have a good mastery of the theory. Before the study, it is necessary to give a survey of previous studies on Skopostheorie’s limitations both at home and abroad. As few of published papers can be found to exclusively exhibit the limitations of Skopostheorie, the attacks on German functionalism that are also directed against Skopostheorie on many occasions will be cited as well, so as to offer more relevant information about literature review,

According to Christiane Nord (2001: 109-122), the western translation field holds 10 criticisms over German functionalist approaches, which are involved with Skopostheorie: Criticism 1: Not all actions have an intention.

Criticism 2: Not all translations have a purpose.

Criticism 3: Functional approaches transgress the limits of translation proper.

Criticism 4: Skopostheorie is not an original theory.

Criticism 5: Functionalism is not based on empirical findings.

Criticism 6: Functionalism produces mercenary experts.

Criticism 7: Functionalism does not respect the original.

Criticism 8: Functionalism is a theory of adaptation.

Criticism 9: Functionalism does not work well in literary translation.

Criticism 10: Functionalism is marked by cultural relativism.

Schaffner and Christiane Nord consent to some of the criticisms that have been made of Skopos theory①by other scholars:

(1) What purports to be a ‘general’ theory is in fact only valid for non-literary texts. Literary texts

are considered either to have no specific purpose or to be far more complex stylistically; (2) Reiss’s text type approach and Vermeer’s Skopos theory are in fact considering different functional phenomena and cannot be lumped together; (3) Skopos theory does not pay sufficient attention to the linguistic nature of the ST (source text) nor to the reproduction of microlevel features in the TT.

Even if the Skopos is adequately fulfilled, it may be inadequate at the stylistic or semantic levels of individual segments (Munday, 2001: 80-81).

Fan Xiangtao and Liu Quanfu (2002) in their co-authored paper on the purpose of translation choice point out that V ermeer’s classification of purposes is quite simple, and illustrate that the process of translation is a complicated one involving various purposes at different levels that decide on the corresponding translation choices. Y uan Binye (2008) further

demonstrates that translation purposes are multi-dimensional and also unidimensional in some context; the hierarchical order of translation purposes is in a constant state of change as context varies, and there exists an indistinct demarcation line between the higher and lower translation purposes.

Wu Wen’an (2003) discusses the application of Skopostheorie to literary translation. He presents four doubts at the end of his paper to show his dialectical view on the application of Skopostheorie: (a) the real translation is such a complicated process that appropriate translational methods are hard to be found out, even though the Skopos and the ST are analyzed at great length; (b) it is a great pity that the translation in the Skopostheorie framework may not represent the entire ST but part of it; (c) this theory cannot remove the translational barriers caused by different cultures; (d) it is doubtful whether the translator can keep on obeying the Skopos in translation from the beginning to the end. It can be seen that Mr. Wu challenges the general application of Skopostheorie and implies the limitations of the theory.

Liu Miqing (2005: 270) objects to marginalizing the meaning and only seeking the conformity with the target culture. Although the source of his translation principle②is mainly derived from Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophical views on pragmatism, ontology, games, etc., he thinks that German Functionalism often suffers three criticisms: (a) this theory overemphasizes the pragmatic meaning of words and denies the referential meaning, so word is reduced to be a tool; (b) German functionalism (or Skopostheorie) focuses little on various meanings and functions of ST, and spoils translation in its own right; (c) German functionalism seems to cancel the term “translation”as it mixes the essence of translation with that of translation under the translation brief (see TRANSLA TION COMMISSION in Chapter III).

Recently, postgraduates in their theses usually adopt Skopostheorie to analyze Chinese versions and add its one or two weaknesses in the end to show their dialectical attitudes. Zhang Fan（2006), a postgraduate, describes V ermeer’s Skopos theory and attaches importance to its utility and rationality in translation practice, i.e. how Skopos affects translation methods. He presents two weaknesses at the end of his dissertation: (a) the Skopos theory is not a universal model, because the range and extent of possible translation strategies still remain unsettled, and the loyalty principle is still too abstract to be put into practice easily; (b) the Skopos theory can be regarded as a criterion of judging a translation work, but it can be somewhat difficult to determine whether a version has achieved its intended purpose.

Chen Daliang (2007) firstly clarifies the relationship between Skopostheorie and functionalism and then shifts the focus to the attacks on Skopostheorie with regard to three aspects: intercultural actions, translation process and the evaluation of translation effect. Firstly, Skopostheorie neglects the subjective position of the author, the publisher, the readers of the ST

and elevates the translator to a powerful position and overemphasizes the translator’s subjectivity; secondly, the application of Skopostheorie to literary translation tends to reduce the literariness and artistry of the ST; thirdly, even though we admit that all translations are purposeful, not all purposes are reasonable. This theory is utilitarian as V ermeer says that the most important factor of determining the translation is the TT receiver.

Many disadvantages presented above overlap simply so that they can not provide an overall picture of Skopostheorie’s limitations. The 10 criticisms in Nord’s book involve German functionalist approaches to translation and constitute a unity but offer personal explanation based on western translation practices; Nord partly agrees with V ermeer and partly objects to him so that young scholars are prone to mixing up these two scholars’ approaches. Professor Fan and Professor Y uan’s respective studies try to improve the theory only from the level of purpose; Wu Wen’an offers disadvantages of Skopostheorie at the end of his article on the application of Skopostheorie to literary translation, but the disadvantages are relatively simple and empirical without some practical examples. Liu Miqing, a senior scholar in the field of translation studies has gained many insights into Chinese and western translation theories, but he also just gives a brief introduction of the limitations of Skopostheorie; most of master’s dissertations evaluate Chinese versions under Skopostheorie, confuse Nord and V ermeer’s functionalist approaches to translation①and simply make up several simple shortcomings in the end. Chen Daliang discusses the limitations relatively fully, but his three perspectives: intercultural actions, translation process and the rationality of purpose are not adequate. These scholars have taken great pains to show Skopostheorie’s limitations, but in a fragmentary way.

In short, the limitations of the Skopostheorie have not been exhausted. This thesis is thus an attempt to carry out a systematic study of limitations of Skopostheorie from the theory’s instructive role and evaluative role.

Chapter 3 Introduction to Skopostheorie

3.1 Introduction to Key Rules of Skopostheorie

We need to understand how Skopostheorie is described by V ermeer before exploring its disadvantages. This chapter aims to introduce Skopostheorie and to distinguish between it and other functional approaches to translation.

In what kind of background was Skopostheorie established? In 1970s, with the pragmatic turn both in linguistics (leading to a pragmatics-based text theory) and literary theory (leading to reception aesthetics text theory) as well as communication theory in mind, V ermeer and other Skopos scholars started to view translation as a purposeful intercultural communicative acting between individuals instead of something that is done to a text by a translator. In addition, the social background wanted more and more professional translators and interpreters, and the founding of a lot of translation-training organizations gave another impetus. Thus, they felt the need for an independent theory of translation (Bian Jianhua, 2006a). Having been trained as an interpreter by Katharina Reiss, V ermeer took up general linguistics, then translation studies and also desired to break with linguistic translation theory by proposing a new translation theory. Skopostheorie is explained in detail in the book A Framework for a General Translation Theory co-authored by V ermeer and Reiss in 1984. The book firstly interprets V ermeer’s key rules of Skopostheorie, which is then made compatible with Reiss’s text-bound approach. What is Skopostheorie? The immediate background of Skopostheorie is V on Wright’s action theory——action is an intentional change. V ermeer thinks that a precise specification of aim or Skopos must be adequately defined if the text-translator is to fulfill his task successfully. In Skopostheorie (the theory applies the notion of Skopos to translation and Skopos is a Greek word for “purpose”), the prime principle determining any translation process is the purpose of the overall translational action; guided by the translation brief, the translator selects certain items from the source-language offer of information and processes them to form a new offer of information in the target language, from which the TT receivers can in turn select what they consider to be meaningful in their own situation. In other words, what the translator can do, and should do, is to produce a text that is at least likely to be meaningful to target-culture receivers (Nord, 2001: 27; 32; V ermeer, 2000:221-222). V ermeer’s Skopostheorie is mainly embodied in the following key rules.

3.1.1 Hierarchical Rule

a. Skopos Rule

The top-ranking rule for any translation is the “Skopos rule”, which means that a

translational action is determined by its Skopos (Nord, 2001: 29); V ermeer explains the Skopos rule in the following way:

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.” (as cited in Nord,

2001, p.29)

b. Intratextual Coherence

Intratextual Coherence ranks second. The TT must be interpretable as coherent with the TT receiver’s situation. In other words, the TT should make sense in the communicative situation and culture in which it is received to achieve smoothness (ibid.: 31-32) .

c. Intertextual Coherence

Intertextual Coherence, also called “fidelity”, takes third place. In V ermeer’s view, a translation is an offer of information about a preceding offer of information. It is thus expected to bear some kind of relationship with the corresponding ST. V ermeer deems that intertextural coherence should exist between the ST and TT, while the form it takes depends on the translator’s interpretation of the ST and on the Skopos (ibid.: 31-32). That fidelity is inferior to smoothness usually becomes a source of the disputes on Skopostheorie.

It seems that V ermeer prescribes the hierarchical rule in line with action theory and literary reception theory: the Skopos is the boss, intratextual coherence the second and fidelity the lowest; the last two rules are subordinated to the Skopos of the translation. (From this rule we can see how prescriptive Skopostheorie is) If the Skopos requires a change of function, the standard will be adequacy (see ADEQUACY AND EQUIV ALENCE below) or appropriateness with regard to the Skopos. And if the Skopos demands intratextual incoherence, the standard of intratextual coherence is no longer valid (ibid.: 33).

3.1.2 Translation Commission

“Translation commission” is cited from an English version of Vermeer’s essay and refers to “translation brief”used in Nord’s book. As one translates in accordance with a “commission”that is given by oneself or someone else to translate, V ermeer thinks that commissions are normally given explicitly and some can be assumed in the culture (such as non-literary translation), although seldom with respect to the ultimate purpose of the text. V ermeer says that “ in the absence of a specification, we can still often speak of an implicit (or implied) Skopos, commission should be binding and conclusive even though it may be wishful thinking, but worth to strive for ”(V ermeer, 2000: 229). He thinks that a commission comprises (or should comprise)

as much detailed information as possible on the goal, and condition such as deadline and fee. The Skopos should be explicitly negotiated between the initiator (or the person playing the role of initiator, such as client) and translator, because the translator knows more about the way a text might be received in the target culture.

3.1.3 Culture and Culture-specificity

It is widely known that there are various definitions for “culture”. V ermeer states that a culture is “the entire setting of norms and conventions an individual as a member of his society must know in order to be ‘like everybody’-or to be able to be different from everybody” (ibid.: 33). Then V ermeer proposes “culture-specificity” and states, “a culture-specific phenomenon is thus one that is found to exist in a particular form or function in only one of the two cultures being compared” (ibid.: 34). The above two definitions are adopted by V ermeer to indicate that translation takes place in a specific culture, that translators interpret source-culture phenomenon in the light of their own culture-specific knowledge of that culture, that translating means comparing cultures and that by comparing these two different cultures, the foreign culture can only be perceived. In short, translation has different definitions in different cultures. He introduces this rule to help to choose the appropriate translation method and remove the translational barriers.

3.2 Distinctions among Functional Approaches to Translation

Skopostheorie is an important part of German functionalism or functionalist approaches to translation, which still includes Katharina Reiss’s functional category of translation Criticism, Justa Holz-Manttari’s theory of translational action, and Christiane Nord’s functional approach. These scholars are all convinced that translating is a form of translational interaction, a purposeful activity, an interpersonal interaction, a communicative action, an intercultural action (ibid.: 1). According to Nord, the foundation of functionalist translation theory is Skopostheorie by Hans J.V ermeer (卞建华, 2006a).

As early as in 1971, taking equivalence as her basis, Reiss developed a model of translation criticism in terms of the functional relationship between source and target texts. As an experienced translator, she knew that real life presents situations where equivalence is not possible and, in some cases, not even desired. And she realized certain exceptions from the equivalence requirements. One is when the TT is intended to achieve a purpose or a function other than that of the ST. Another one is when the TT addresses an audience different from the intended readership of the ST. So, she thinks that the translation critic can no longer rely on features derived from source-text analysis but has to judge whether the TT is functional in terms

of the translation context(ibid.: 9-10). She outlines “equivalence”, “adequacy”and “text-typology”in Skopostheorie. In the framework of Skopostheorie, “equivalence”loses its traditional sense and is reduced to adequacy to a Skopos. “Adequacy” refers to the qualities of a TT with regard to the translation brief. In other words, the translation should be “adequate to” the requirements of brief. Although Reiss still adds some specific rules about “text-typology”into V ermeer’s Skopostheorie in their co-authored book, there is a certain discrepancy between them, because she bases her textypology rules on equivalence theory (Reiss, 2000: 161; Nord, 2001: 27). So, specific rules about text-typology are omitted here.

Justa Holz-Manttari, another representative of this school, goes one step further than V ermeer. She 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. In her theory and methodology of “translation action”, she avoids using the term “translation”in the strict sense. Although her theory is based on the same action theory as V ermeer’s Skopostheorie, it is designed to cover all forms of intercultural transfer, including those not involving any source or target texts, such as pictures, sounds and body movements. Christiane Nord’s functionalism finds expression in her translation-oriented text analysis and function-plus-loyalty model. She wrote a book Translating as A Purposeful Activity——Functionalist Approaches Explained which introduces V ermeer’s Skopostheorie, presents her principle about translator training, literary translation, interpreting, responds to the ten criticisms against German functionalism (including Skopostheorie) and also claims some limitations existing in Skopostheorie. So, some of Nord’s functionalism will be discussed later for further understanding Skopostheorie.

Unlike German functionalist approaches to translation, Nord thinks that functional approaches to translation, in a broad sense, were not created in the 20th century. For instance, in the earlier times, many translators had 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, such as Cicero, Martin Luther (Nord, 2001: 4). Nida and Newmark have put forward their functional approaches. In the 1960s, Eugene A. Nida proposed dynamic equivalence in translation. According to his dynamic equivalence, the message has to be tailored to the receptor’s linguistic needs, cultural expectation and ‘aims at complete naturalness of expression’ (Munday, 2001: 39-40). Actually, he holds that the receptors of the TT respond to the message substantially the same manner as the receptors of the ST. However, he believes that the important condition of this rule is that TT purpose should be similar to or as the same as the ST purpose, and that translating cultural words freely is a bad translation (张南峰, 2004: 74-75). Although it has been heavily criticized as a paradoxical one,

Nida places the receiver in the centre of the equation, which has exercised considerable influence on subsequent theoreticians, especially in Germany. Newmark feels that it is illusory to achieve the success of equivalence effect by Nida’s receptor-oriented rule and suggests narrowing the gap by introducing two translation methods: semantic and communicative translation. Communicative translation can be adopted to produce on its readers an effect as close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the ST, while semantic translation can be used to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the ST (Munday, 2001: 44). Nida and Newmark take communication and usage of language as the core of their theories, but they regard translating as a code-switching, which is different from German functionalist translation theories.

By way of analysis and comparison, we can find that in Skopostheorie the TT readership is the most important factor of influencing the Skopos; it is Skopos to determine the roles of the relevant factors, such as the readership and the ST; translators can choose the translation methods they prefer to achieve the Skopos. Nevertheless, Skopostheorie reveals some limitations by claiming itself as a general theory, taking all translation as being purposeful and regarding the TT readership as the center in the communicative activity of translation. The next chapter is to explore the limitations of Skopostheorie from the instructive and evaluative roles of the theory.

Chapter 4 Limitations of Skopostheorie

As we know, everything has two sides. Each theory is right at a certain stage but not at all stages. That is true of the Skopostheorie. Skopostheorie is not general enough to cover all of translation practices or perform a good role in instructing translation actions every time. Considering other scholars’ reviews on Skopostheorie’s limitations, the author of the thesis decides to explore Skopostheorie’s limitations from translation criticism. What is translation criticism? Wen Xiuying (2006: 36-38) draws four common features of translation criticism from a dozen of definitions such as from Xu Jun, Yang Zijian, Yang Xiaorong, etc. First, translation criticism is not the common criticism; secondly, the objects of this criticism are the translation process, the translation result, and translation theory that instructs practice; thirdly, translation criticism should be carried out in historical light in a systematic way and with an objective attitude; fourthly, the aim of translation criticism is to enable translation theory and practice to develop correctly. Translation criticism as one aspect of translation theory centers on analyzing, judging and evaluating translation practice in line with a certain translation theory. As we know, Skopostheorie’s advantages have been fully recognized. In order to carry out a comprehensive translation criticism on its limitations, this chapter explores the limitations in terms of two perspectives: Skopostheorie’s instructive role, i.e. how well Skopostheorie can instruct translation practice and Skopostheorie’s evaluative role, i.e. how well Skopostheorie can evaluate translation practice. The part 4.1 shows the disadvantages of its instructive role. It goes from the theoretical foundations of Vermeer’s principle and the key rules of the theory to the previous criticisms on this theory to present the limitations of the theory. The part 4.2 is to compare, evaluate three versions of Lolita, and analyze translation methods④to draw their Skopos, aiming to see whether Skopostheorie can work well in literary translation as a general translation criterion and providing more forceful evidence of the limitations discussed in the part 4.1.

4.1 Limitations of Skopostheorie from the Perspective of Instructive Role

4.1.1 Theoretical foundations of Skopostheorie are shaky

Although it is the first time that this limitation has been proposed, it should have attracted attention earlier. From the above we know that the theoretical foundations of Skopostheorie mainly include action theory, literary reception theory, communication theory and pragmatics. Action theory and literary reception theory play more important roles because they bring about the hierarchical rule of Skopostheorie, that is, the former makes Skopos the top place and the latter makes intratextual coherence the second and intertextual coherence the third. Vermeer has

one-sided interpretation of them, which must be subjected to questions. Let’s first see how V on Wright describes action theory:

Action is the process of acting, which means “intentionally (at will) bringing about or preventing a change in the world (in nature)”. Action can thus be defined as an intentional “change

or transition from one state of affairs to another.” (as cited in Nord, 2001, p. 16)

According to this action theory, Vermeer says that all human actions are performed out of purposes (ibid.: 11) and all translations have their purposes (ibid.: 110). It is not completely right. Each action can not be interpreted well only with a purpose or an intention. A variety of definitions of action are defined, especially in philosophical and social regards. Habamas is a famous contemporary German philosopher. Although his ideas about action and reason are not completely favored, it is helpful that he summarizes four types of action used in the social science: the first type is intentional action in which the actor chooses the most ideal approach to his purpose after comparing and balancing various means; the second one is normal and adjustable action in which the actor rigidly complies with the agreeable norms of the group; the third is dramatic action in which the actor consciously and subjectively performs himself before one or more persons to draw attention, the fourth action is communicative action in which the actor communicates with the other person with linguistic or non-linguistic signs to understand each other to reach a certain agreement (哈贝马斯, 1994: 119-140). We can see from this definition of action that purposeful action is one kind of varied actions, so Skopostheorie can be applied to some of translation phenomena but not all. Later, Vermeer admits there may be other definitions of action and says that action does not have a purpose anyway, but that they are interpreted as being purposeful by the participants or any observer (Nord, 2001: 110). Does he back down to have a less extreme view? Anyway, many translation critics claim that not all actions have an intention and not all translations have a purpose. In addition, it is difficult to draw the Skopos when we do not have an explicit Skopos, even if we regard translation as purposeful.

Reception theory, namely, aesthetics of reception, came into being in the late 1960s in Southern Germany. In the book Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory, Jauss combines literature, history with aesthetics to study the history of literature. He emphasizes that a literary text can continue to have effects only if readers still respond to it, and that textual interpretation is largely a question of reconstructing the reader’s “horizon of expectations”. He thinks that history of literature is a process of aesthetic reception and production in which, literary texts result from the interactions among the author, the receptive readers and the