skopos theory翻译功能目的论
Skopos theory翻译目的论
Skopos theory: a retrospective assessmentAndrew Chesterman[2010a In W. Kallmeyer et al. (eds), Perspektiven aufKommunikation. Festschrift für Liisa Tittula zum 60.Geburtstag. Berlin: SAXA Verlag, 209-225.]1. IntroductionIt is often said, especially by laymen, that translation does not really have a theory. Not true: it has lots! (Well, it depends what you want to call a theory; but still...) But at least it does not have a general theory, right? Translation Studies has produced at best only a mixture of fragmentary theories. – This claim is not quite true either: we have several candidates which present themselves as general theories of translation. One them is skopos theory.It is now about a quarter of a century since the publication of Reißand Vermeer’s classic work,Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie (1984), and even longer since the earliest publications on a functional approach to translation. Skopos theory, as aparticular type of general functional theory, seems fairly well established on the map of translation studies, and is duly mentioned in all the textbooks. But how well has it stood the test of time? My aim here is to offer a general retrospective assessment of the theory, also taking account of some more recent criticism.2. Axiomatic assumptionsAny theory rests on basic assumptions that are not tested within a given research paradigm, but are taken as given, self-evident, based on common sense and logic. We must start from somewhere, after all. But of course we can always query these assumptions if we wish, standing outside the paradigm. Some of them may be only implicit, hidden. But good theories aim to make all the relevant assumptions as explicit as possible, for instance as axioms from which the rest of the theoretical claims can be deduced. Skopos theory is unusual among other theories of translation, in that it has this form of a deductive, “syntactic” theory based on a small number of explicit axioms. In the 1984 version, these are called “rules” (Regeln). I give them here in summarized form (in the original German, from Reiß and Vermeer 1984: 119), followed by some brief initial explications and comments.1. Ein Translat ist skoposbedingt.2. Ein Translat ist ein Informationsangebot in einer Zielkultur und–sprache über ein Informationsangebot in einer Ausgangskulturund –sprache.3. Ein Translat bildet ein Informationsangebot nicht-umkehrbareindeutig ab.4. Ein Translat muß in sich kohärent sein.5. Ein Translate muß mit dem Ausgangstext kohärent sein.6. Die angeführten Regeln sind untereinander in der angegebenenReihenfolge hierarchisch geordnet (“verkettet”).Ad 1: Skopos theory thus assumes that a translation always has a skopos (a purpose), even though this may not always be clear (ibid.: 21). This skopos may often differ from that of the source text (surely a useful point). The skopos is the highest determining factor influencing the translator’s decisions. Elsewhere (ibid.: 96), the rule is phrased: “Die Dominante aller Translation is deren Zweck.” The theory assumes that the skopos is oriented towards to the intended target recipients: all translations have such a readership; even if you cannot always specify them, there are al ways “there” (ibid.: 85). – I will return below to problems of definition.Ad 2: The theory assumes that language is embedded in culture. Translation is seen as a subtype of more general cultural transfer (Reißand Vermeer 1984: 13). The “information offer” concept relates to the underlying theory of communication, whereby a sender “offers” information to a receiver. This information is assumed by the sender to be “interesting” to the receiver (ibid.: 76, 103), and, if the communicative act is successful, it will be interpreted by the receiver in a way that is compatible with the sender’s intention and does not give rise to a “protest” (ibid.: 67, 106).Ad 3: Translations are not normally reversible; and a given source text has many possible translations.Ad 4: Intratextual coherence is assumed to exist to the extent that the text makes sense to the receiver, that it is compatible with the receiver’s cognitive context, as in any form of communication. Note that rules 4 and 5 have a clear prescriptive form, unlike the others.Ad 5: This fidelity rule assumes that the translation represents the source text, in some way which is relevant to the skopos. The theory recognizes a range of equivalence types.Ad 6: This rule is of a different status from the others, and, as part of a general theory, problematic. We might at least want to query the order of rules 4 and 5 as being universally valid.Immediately after giving this summary, the authors claim that these rules are “probably” the only general rules of translation (ibid.: 120). All further development of the theory would then be filling in more detail, providing rules for the analysis of the target situation, establishing conditions for the selection of different translation strategies, and so on (ibid.: 85).A last initial comment: at the very beginning of the book, the authors define “theory”, quite reasonably, thus: “Unter ‘Theorie’ versteht man die Interpretat ion und Verknüpfung von ‘Beobachtungsdaten’” (ibid.: vii). This definition nevertheless seems to be rather at odds with the way they actually present their theory. The argument of the book does not start with empirical observations or inductive generalizations, but proceeds deductively. Examples are given to support claims, but many of them seem to be invented.In a later publication, Vermeer (1996: 12f) contextualizes skopos theory explicitly as a form of action theory. Here too he sets out a number of axioms (now called, in English, “theses”), as follows, ending at about the point where the previous list (above) began:1. All acting presupposes a “point of departure”, i.e. an actor’sposition in space and time, convictions, theories, etc., includingtheir respective history.2. All acting is goal-oriented.3. From a variety of possibilities [...] that action will be chosenwhich one believes one has the best reasons for choosing under the prevailing circumstances. The reason(s) may not be conscious forthe actor.4. Given the prevailing circumstances, an actor tries to reach theintended goal by what seem to him the/an optimal way, i.e., forwhich he believes he has the best overall reason(s).5. Translating is acting, i.e. a goal-oriented procedure carried out insuch a way as the translator deems optimal under the prevailingcircumstances.6. Thesis 5 is a general thesis valid for all types of translating[including interpreting].7. In translating, all potentially pertinent factors (including thesource text on all its levels) are taken into consideration as far asthe skopos of translating allows and/or demands. [Emphasisoriginal]8. The skopos of (translational) acting determines the strategy forreaching the intended goal.One might wonder about the apparent underlying assumption here that human behaviour is necessarily always rational –if these axioms aresupposed to be descriptive (on which more below). Another underlying assumption, to which we shall return, is the assumption of optimality: that the translator (always) acts in an optimal way.3. Conceptual contributionQuite apart from any other merits, a theory may contribute new concepts to a field. These may aid theoretical thinking in general, as well as description and explanation, and may be taken up and adapted by other theories. New theoretical concepts are interpretive hypotheses, to be tested pragmatically in use (see further e.g. Chesterman 2008). Two aspects of this potential conceptual contribution will be mentioned here, beginning with the central concepts themselves.3.1. Key terms and conceptual distinctionsSome of the earliest criticism of skopos theory had to do with some of its definitions, or the lack of them (see Koller 1990, on functional theories more generally; Kelletat 1986; Hebenstreit 2007). We can also ask whether the relation between the set of terms and the set of necessary concepts is an appropriate one. Are there too many terms, or too few?Skopos is said to be a synonym of Zweck (purpose)or Funktion(Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 96), but “function” itself is not explicitly defined in the same context. Perhaps it could be glossed as “intended effect”. But: effect on whom? Intended receivers, or any and all receivers? And intended by whom? Is it only the client’s intention that counts? What about the source author’s? The publisher’s? When does an effect begin, and end? What about heterogeneous effects? How do we actually measure effects? Furthermore, if skopos equals function, we may wonder why a new term is needed. Confusingly, the Germanterm Funktion is used in several senses, including the mathematical one. Two of these senses do indicate an interesting distinction: “external function” is said to denote the translator’s general o bjective of making a living, whereas “internal function” refers to the skopos of a given translation (or translation process) (ibid.: 4). This external function seems very close to the term telos proposed in Chesterman and Baker (2008), to describe a trans lator’s ideological motivation for working as a translator, either generally as a career or on some specific, perhaps chosen, assignment.Later, Vermeer (1996: 7-8) seeks to distinguish three related concepts as follows: the intention is what the client wants to do;the skopos is what the translation is for; and the function is the “text purpose as inferred, ascribed by recipient”. But there remain problemshere. Are these distinctions necessary? When might an intention clash with a skopos? Function, in particular, remains an unclear concept. Recipients are not a homogeneous set, and may well ascribe very different functions. Even a model reader may react differently on different occasions. And besides, actual reception should surely be distinguished from intended function. Both intentions and functions may be virtually impossible to access, particularly if the translations studied are distant in time or space. – The conceptual and terminological confusion here has not been resolved (see e.g. Nord 1997: 27f; Sunwoo 2007).Another problematic term is that of coherence, used both to refer to the similarity relation of equivalence between source and target, and to the intratextual interpretability of the translation itself. These seem very different concepts, and one wonders why the theory uses the same term. Since we already have “equivalence”, and this term is used in skopos theory too, why do we need a new term? We also already have “similarity”, if something looser than “equivalence” is wanted.A translation is defined in the second axiom as an offer of information about a source text (which is itself another such offer, about something else). This interpretation of the relation between source and target is much weaker than any notion of equivalence, weaker even than relevant similarity (although Reiss and Vermeer do refer occasionally tothe offer as being a “simulating” one, e.g. p. 80, 105). It does not appear to constrain the “offer” in any way, except insofar as the offer is assumed to be “interesting” to the receivers and is “coherent” with the source text. Here again we can ask: does this term really earn its place?Regarding the German term Translation itself, we can appreciate the way in which skopos theory (following a German tradition in Translation Studies) uses this to cover both written and oral translation: this is a neat solution we have not managed to imitate in English, and which has subsequently been widely accepted. There will, however, always be argument about the appropriate extension of the term. Kelletat (1986) and Koller (1990) think the skopos notion of translation is too broad because of the way it downgrades the importance of the source text and thus allows very free translations, adaptations etc., within the concept. Kelletat (1986: 15) even suggests the Reiss/Vermeer definition would include the whole of Latin literature! In my view, on the contrary, it is too narrow, if it is taken to exclude non-optimal translations.The theory’s use of the term “adequacy” (Adäquatheit) also merits a comment. The term was already familiar from other approaches, particularly Toury’s (e.g. 1980). But skopos theory defines it differently, not as a retrospective relation of closeness between target and source but as a prospective one between the translation, the source text and the skopos (Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 139). This skopos-sense of adequacy isso easily confused with the Toury-sense that scholars now either have to specify which sense is intended or give up using the term altogether. It is risky to give a new sense to an already established term.Skopos theory, like other functional approaches, has also contributed to a more differentiated conceptualization of the agents involved in the translation process. Instead of simply having a sender and a receiver, we have learned to distinguish between writer, client, translator, publisher, recipient, addressee and so on. In this sense, skopos theory has helped to shift the discipline towards a more sociological approach.3.2. Underlying metaphorical structureA good theory’s concepts do not exist in isolation, but in a network of relations. This network may be more or less consistent in terms of its metaphorical structure. Martín de León (2008) has recently drawn attention to some interesting problems in the underlying metaphorical conceptualization of skopos theory. She argues that the theory combines two different metaphors: TRANSFER and TARGET. This suggests a lack of conceptual consistency, insofar as the metaphors are incompatible.The TRANSFER metaphor describes the movement of an object from A to B, and assumes that the object (or some essence of it) does notchange en route. This means assuming some kind of equivalence, of course. As an underlying metaphor for translation (visible in the etymology of this word), it normally needs to reify some notion of meaning (referred to as the message in Holz-Mänttäri 1984). The client’s intention might also be regarded as an “object” that is to be preserved. However, the view of a translation as merely an “offer of information” about the source text appears to go against the TRANSFER metaphor.The theory’s notion of intertextual coherence also relates to this metaphor, albeit loosely. But how valid is this assumption that meaning is “there” in the text? Several contemporary models of cognition would argue that meaning always emerges via a process of interpretation, a process which depends on multiple variables and is not completely predictable (see e.g. Risku 2002). – In my view, both these positions are overstated. Surely some meanings are more obviously, objectively “there” in a text, while others are much less so and are open to interpretive variation. If no meanings were objectivizable at all, there would be no work for terminologists and no-one would dare to step into a plane.The TARGET metaphor on the other hand describes a process from a source along a path to a goal. It does not assume an unchanged, reified message. It implies that the translator can participate in constructing the meaning of the message and thus highlights notions ofintentionality and rationality. Skopos theory stresses the expertise and responsibility of the translator to select what needs to be translated and to translate it in the most appropriate manner. But this metaphor also prompts questions. Suppose a given process or action does not have a single goal but multiple ones, perhaps regarding heterogeneous receivers? And where actually is a goal located? Strictly speaking, the goal is not in the text but in the mind of the initiating agent, for whom the translation is merely a means to achieve a goal or goals. Further: where in the theory is there any space for an assessment of the goals themselves? Is it really enough to say that any end justifies the means? – We will take up the ethical dimension of this argument below.4. Ontological status of the theoryPerhaps the most debated problem of skopos theory has been its unclear ontological status. Does it aim to be a descriptive theory (of what is) or a prescriptive one (of what should be)? Does it describe a real world or an ideal, optimal one?This ambiguous status is already apparent in its axioms: axioms four and five are openly prescriptive, but the others are not. Reiss and Vermeeer say that there is no such thing as “the best” translation for agiven source text. “Es gibt nur das Streben nach Optimierung unter den jeweils gegebenen aktuellen Bedingungen” (1984: 113). – This is an interesting formulation. The “es gibt” looks like an existential, descriptive claim: it is a fact that translators strive, that they do their best. Well, how valid is this fact? We could reply that good translators do indeed do their best, most of the time, but surely there must also be many translators who merely do the minimum, at least sometimes. Professionals must often satisfice, after all. And there are many bad translators, of course (if a translator is anyone who does a translation, as a general theory should surely assume).It seems to me to be clear that skopos theory is essentially prescriptive, although it has some descriptive assumptions. It aims to describe how good translators, expert professionals, work; what good translations are like. It describes an ideal world (see also Chesterman 1998). Vermeer has acknowledged this (Chesterman 2001), saying that the theory seeks to describe optimal cases. Elsewhere, however, he also seems to suggest that functional theories in general are both descriptive and prescriptive:Skopos theory is meant to be a functional theoretical general theory covering process, product and, as the name says, function both ofproduction and reception. As a functional theory it does not strictlydistinguish between descriptive and (didactic) prescription.(Vermeer 1996: 26n)Although the term “functional” remains problematic, I find this claim curious. Consider for instance the analysis of the reception of translations in a given culture in a given period. This would be an analysis of how the translations “functioned” in the target culture (data might include all kinds of responses, critical reviews, library loans, size and number of editions published, allusions to the translations in other writings, use of the translations as source texts for further translations, or as literary influences; sales of commercial products advertised by the translations; changes in the social, political, religious or ideological conditions; and so on). The analysis would not need to be prescriptive in any way. Even if the analysis compared the reception with the inferred intentions of different clients, this would not imply a prescriptive approach.On the other hand, there is one obvious way in which prescriptive claims can be viewed descriptively, and that is by formulating them as predictive hypotheses, as argued in Chesterman (1999). Vermeer actually does precis ely this at one point (1996: 31): “if you translate in such and such a way then y will happen”. Such predictions can then be tested in the normal way, and the results can be generalized in the form of guidelines which, if followed, are reliablyassumed to lead to translations which do not give rise to negative feedback (“Protest” in skopos-theoretical terms). This, of course, is precisely what translator training courses teach. It is also what skopos theory aims to do. If you keep the skopos in mind, and translate accordingly, the result will be better than if you neglect the skopos.5. Empirical status of the theoryAs presented, skopos theory is not founded on a search for empirical regularities. This point has been made by many critics (e.g. Koller 1995: 215). We can nevertheless consider how its various assumptions and claims might be tested empirically. It is striking that very little such testing has actually been done. What kind of evidence would falsify or weaken its claims? I will f irst consider the theory’s descriptive adequacy, then comment on its explanatory adequacy and possible testable consequences.5.1. Descriptive adequacyAxioms two and three in the original list above are descriptive. Axiom two, on translation as an offer of information, is definitional. It is aninterpretive hypothesis, which can be glossed something like this: ‘in this theory, we claim that a translation is usefully interpreted as ...’. As such, the claim is not falsifiable, but is testable pragmatically, i.e. in use (see further Chesterman 2008). Has this interpretation been widely adopted and led to further hypotheses? Not notably, it seems. On the contrary, it has aroused some criticism, as it seems to allow the concept of translation to expand too far (e.g. Kelletat 1986).Axiom three states that translations are not reversible. This claim can certainly be tested empirically, via back-translation. In my view, the claim is too extreme. It would surely be more accurate to say that the smaller the unit of translation, the more reversible it is; that in cases of standardized translations – e.g. in multilingual glossaries of special fields or in the names of institutions, or in many idioms and proverbs, in numbers, etc. – reversibility may well be the norm. In other words, the claim needs to be restricted, made subject to other conditional factors such as size of translation unit, text type, skopos, and so on.There have been a few empirical studies recently which question some of the other basic assumptions of skopos theory. Koskinen (2008) examines the working conditions of EU translators. One of her findings is that in many cases, EU translations that are not intended for the general public are not directed at a target culture at all, but are oriented by the needs of the source institution (99-100). This goes against the skopostheory assumption that a translation should have optimal functionality for target culture addressees. However, this type of EU case is not evidence against the idea that a translation is primarily determined by its skopos. Here, the skopos is simply not a target-oriented one. Interestingly, Koskinen points out that the special requirements of this kind of translation are experienced as particularly problematic by translators who have been trained in a functional approach: their translation brief seems to conflict with the target-oriented way in which they have been trained to think.Furthermore, many professional translators do not work as autonomous individuals but as members of a team of experts, including terminologists, subject specialists, revisers, copyeditors and so on. Such conditions do not always support the skopos theory assumption that it is the translator who ultimately decides how to translat e, as the expert. (“Er entscheidet letzten Endes, ob, was, wie übersetzt/gedolmetscht wird.” Reiß and Vermeer 1984: 87.) One recent study illustrates this well: Nordman (2009) examines the complex process of Finnish-Swedish translation in the bilingual Finnish Parliament, and highlights interesting disagreements between the translator’s preferences and those of revisers or legal experts, and how these are resolved. The translators and revisers she studied seem to have different norm priorities. It is not always the translator’s views that prevail.Even in some literary translation the priority of the translator’s expertise has been questioned. In a questionnaire study dealing with poetry translation, Flynn (2004) queries the status of some of the factors which skopos theory assumes, including that of the dominance of the translator’s own expertise. Flynn found that the situational factors affecting the final form of the translation are more like sites of confrontation between the various agents involved, including publishers and proof-readers as well as translators. The translator does not necessarily always have the final say. Flynn’s results admittedly concern a particular type of translation only, in a particular (Irish) context; but again, we can point out that a general theory should be able to cope with all types.As another example of evidence against the assumption that it is the expert translator who makes the final decisions I cite an ongoing PhD project by Julia Lambertini Andreotti at Tarragona. She is a qualified court interpreter working with Spanish and English in California. The ethical code there requires that interpreters make no alteration to the register of the legal jargon as they translate. But since many of the clients are not well educated, they simply do not understand the legal terminology, and so do not understand what they are asked. As communication experts, the interpreters naturally wish to adapt theregister so that the clients can understand, but this is not allowed. The interpreters are simply not permitted to act as skopos theory assumes.One might argue that all such examples are cases where a translator is forced to act under duress, against the council of his own expertise, and thus in non-optimal conditions. They would thus fall outside the scope of skopos theory. Reiß and Vermeer explicitly exclude instances of “Translation unter Zwang” (1984: 101). – But there are multiple kinds and grades of duress, including unrealistic deadlines, legal constraints etc., which characterize much real-world translation and interpreting. Indeed, if there are in fact more non-optimal cases than optimal ones, skopos theory itself would deal only with special cases – surely not the intention of the skopos theorists. A general theory should be general enough to encompass all cases.From another point of view, note should be taken of studies on how translators perform under time pressure (e.g. Hansen 2002). These studies suggest that when professional experts work under unusual time pressure, they tend not to waste time pondering about the skopos or the target audience but simply stay on the surface of the text, translating fairly literally, without reformulations or other major shifts which might actually be appropriate for the readership. Here again we have professionals working in a non-optimal situation, without sufficient timefor normal working procedures. Under these conditions, the skopos assumptions seem not to represent what actually happens.Research such as these studies underlines the way in which skopos theory relates more to an ideal, optimal world than to the real and often suboptimal world of everyday translation. In this sense, some of the general descriptive claims and assumptions of the theory can easily be falsified, or forced into more conditioned formulations – if they are supposed indeed to apply to all translation, not just optimal translation done in optimal working conditions. And what about the undeniable existence of a great many really bad translations? These are nonetheless also translations, of a kind; but they are completely excluded from skopos theory. From the point of view of descriptive adequacy, then, the theory is inadequate. But if it is taken as a prescriptive theory, of course, this is not a valid criticism.5.2. Explanatory adequacyThe first axiom (in the German list above) is a causal one. From the point of view of the production of a translation, it states that the skopos is the most important conditioning factor. This has obvious prescriptive relevance. But retrospectively, as an answe r to the question “why is this。
Hans Vermeer “功能理论”与“目的论”
关于功能翻译理论20世纪70年代至80年代，德国的卡塔琳娜·莱思(K．Reiss)、汉斯·弗米尔(H．J．Vermeer)、贾斯特·霍斯一曼特瑞(J．H．Manttari)以及克里丝汀·诺德(C．Nord)等学者提出的“功能翻译理论”为翻译理论研究开辟了一个新视角。
此理论的核心是翻译目的／译文功能，因此本文将借用此理论来解释编译现象。
功能翻译理论的主要理论包括莱思提出的文本类型与翻译策略论、霍斯-曼特瑞的翻译行动论、弗米尔的目的论，以及诺德的翻译为本语篇分析理论。
以下概述后三种论说，即翻译行动论、目的论及以翻译为本的语篇分析理论。
翻译行动论(theory of translational action)是霍斯-曼特瑞于80年代提出来的(Munday 2001：77)。
该理论把翻译视为实现信息的跨文化、跨语言转换而设计的复杂行动。
这种行动所涉及的参与者有：行动的发起者(the initiator)、委托者(the commissioner)、原文产生者(the ST producer)、译文产生者(the TT producer)、译文使用者(the TT user)及译文接受者(the TT receiver)。
翻译理论好比环环相扣的链条，每一个环节参与者都有自己的目的，并关联到下一环节。
翻译行动论强调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年代提出来的。
(Munday 2001：78—79)。
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。
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 2001：78—79)：(1)译文(TT)决定于其目的(determined by its skopos)；(2)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(internally coherent)；(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。
翻译目的论汇总
第五讲翻译目的论简介即就是Skopos theoryskopos是希腊语，意为“目的”。
翻译目的论(skopos theory)是将skopos概念运用于翻译的理论，其核心概念是：翻译过程的最主要因素是整体翻译行为的目的。
skopos这一术语通常用来指译文的目的。
除了Skopos，弗米尔还使用了相关的“目标(aim)”、“目的(purpose)”、“意图(intention)”和“功能(function)”等词。
为了避免概念混淆，诺德提议对意图和功能作基本的区分：“意图”是从发送者的角度定义的，而“功能”指文本功能，它是由接受者的期望、需求、已知知识和环境条件共同决定的。
在弗米尔的目的论框架中，决定翻译目的的最重要因素之一是受众——译文所意指的接受者，他们有自己的文化背景知识、对译文的期待以及交际需求。
每一种翻译都指向一定的受众，因此翻译是在“目的语情景中为某种目的及目标受众而生产的语篇”。
弗米尔认为原文只是为目标受众提供部分或全部信息的源泉。
可见原文在目的论中的地位明显低于其在对等论中的地位。
功能派翻译理论是20世纪70年代德国学者凯瑟林娜•赖斯(Kantharina Reiss)、汉斯•费米尔(HansVermeer)、贾斯塔•赫兹•曼塔利(Justa Holz Mantari)和克里斯蒂安•诺德(Christiane Nord)等提出的翻译理论。
它的形成大体经历了四个阶段，其颇具里程碑意义的理论是赖斯的功能主义翻译批评理论(functional category of translation criticism)，费米尔的目的论及其延伸理论(Skopos theorie and beyond)，曼塔利的翻译行为理论(theory of translation action)和诺德的功能加忠诚理论(function plus loyalty)。
1. 凯瑟林娜•赖斯(Kantharina Reiss)的翻译标准的功能分类说(the Functional Category of Translation Criticism)1971年凯瑟林娜•赖斯在《翻译批评的可能性与限制》(Possibilities andLimitations in Translation Criticism)中首次提出翻译功能论(functional approach)，把“功能类型”这个概念引入翻译理论，并将文本功能列为翻译批评的一个标准。
功能翻译理论概述
功能翻译理论概述
contents
功能翻译理论的文献综述 核心理论——目的论简介 功能翻译理论在各类翻译领域的应用 对功能翻译理论的评价
结语及参考文献
Translation Time
theorists
Works
Opinions
Remarks
• “目的原则” （skopos rule)指的是译文与“翻译 指令”之间的关系，即：如果译文与翻译的目的 不同于原文的目的，译文必须满足翻译指令的要 求。
目的论的三原则
在这个系统中，忠实原则从属于连贯原 则，而连贯原则又从属于目春光一二！（《牡丹亭》）
图3：有关翻译目的论的文章类型比例图
38%
20% 5%
37%
研究性文章文学 性
文学类应用性文 章
非文学类应用性 文章
评价性文章
结果分析
1．研究内容单一 从统计分析我们可以看到，尽管近年来有关功能主义翻译目的论在
我国的研究文章数量不断增多，但多是在翻译策略方面特别是在非文 学类翻译策略研究方面。功能主义目的论在翻译批评、翻译理论和翻 译教学中的研究相对缺乏。
但是要使目的论完全适应各种题材，仍需要对许 多方面进行反思。
参考文献
[1] Baker, Mona. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studied. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.2004.
[2] Gentzler, Edwin. Contemporary Translation Theories(Revised Second Edition).Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Educat ion Press.2004.
翻译目的论汇总
第五讲翻译目的论简介即就是Skopos theoryskopos是希腊语，意为“目的”。
翻译目的论(skopos theory)是将skopos概念运用于翻译的理论，其核心概念是：翻译过程的最主要因素是整体翻译行为的目的。
skopos这一术语通常用来指译文的目的。
除了Skopos，弗米尔还使用了相关的“目标(aim)”、“目的(purpose)”、“意图(intention)”和“功能(function)”等词。
为了避免概念混淆，诺德提议对意图和功能作基本的区分：“意图”是从发送者的角度定义的，而“功能”指文本功能，它是由接受者的期望、需求、已知知识和环境条件共同决定的。
在弗米尔的目的论框架中，决定翻译目的的最重要因素之一是受众——译文所意指的接受者，他们有自己的文化背景知识、对译文的期待以及交际需求。
每一种翻译都指向一定的受众，因此翻译是在“目的语情景中为某种目的及目标受众而生产的语篇”。
弗米尔认为原文只是为目标受众提供部分或全部信息的源泉。
可见原文在目的论中的地位明显低于其在对等论中的地位。
功能派翻译理论是20世纪70年代德国学者凯瑟林娜•赖斯(Kantharina Reiss)、汉斯•费米尔(HansVermeer)、贾斯塔•赫兹•曼塔利(Justa Holz Mantari)和克里斯蒂安•诺德(Christiane Nord)等提出的翻译理论。
它的形成大体经历了四个阶段，其颇具里程碑意义的理论是赖斯的功能主义翻译批评理论(functional category of translation criticism)，费米尔的目的论及其延伸理论(Skopos theorie and beyond)，曼塔利的翻译行为理论(theory of translation action)和诺德的功能加忠诚理论(function plus loyalty)。
1. 凯瑟林娜•赖斯(Kantharina Reiss)的翻译标准的功能分类说(the Functional Category of Translation Criticism)1971年凯瑟林娜•赖斯在《翻译批评的可能性与限制》(Possibilities andLimitations in Translation Criticism)中首次提出翻译功能论(functional approach)，把“功能类型”这个概念引入翻译理论，并将文本功能列为翻译批评的一个标准。
目的论在翻译中的意义及体现-精品文档资料
目的论在翻译中的意义及体现目的论(skopostheory)是翻译行动论的重要组成部分。
其首倡者德国功能派翻译学家HansJ.Vermeer指出，翻译是一种行动，而行动皆有目的，所以翻译要受到目的的制约。
该翻译理论的核心原则是“目的准则”，这一理论超越了传统的“等值”或“等效”的翻译观。
在目的论指导下，翻译方法就呈现出了多样性。
如果能在忠实原文的基础上达到翻译的目的，对原文既可以采用逐字翻译的方法，也可以采用改写的方法，或者采用介于两者之间的任何翻译策略。
从这种目的论延伸出来的译文评价体系则认为评价一篇译文的优劣，并非是看它对原文的等值程度（equivalence），而是看它对于翻译目的的适宜性（adequacy），即是否有助于在译语情境中实现译文的预期功能。
目的论在具体翻译过程中体现出的一个实际意义，是就翻译方法的选择上提出新的看法。
原文通常原本是为源于文化中的一个情景而制作的，因此处在“原文”的地位，而译者的作用是进行跨文化的沟通。
因此，翻译的目的就是由任务决定的目标或意图，原文的内容或者表现形式必要时可由译者来修改。
翻译策略的选择应该围绕语言转化过程中两种语言符号本身的结构差异，同时还应考虑到两种语言形式表现出的社会文化差异。
对辜鸿铭所翻译的《论语》进行分析和研究，可以清晰展示出目的准则在中国古典文化经典翻译中的运用。
从翻译活动的社会文化多层面背景中体会辜氏翻译作品的特殊风格，理解到他的翻译目的、翻译方法和翻译特色。
一、特定文化背景中辜氏翻译《论语》的目的中国四书五经的翻译最早始于明末清初。
当时来华的外国传教士和汉学家把《诗经》、《易经》、《论语》、《老子》等中国古代文化典籍译成多种文字。
要把中国古代经籍译成西方文字，就得同时精通对译的两种语言，能够透彻理会两国文化，并非一般人所能担任。
同时，《论语》流传时间久远，其观点因时代不同而理解有异，其文字也有令人费解之处。
就中国人而言，对某些篇章的理解也会因时代不同而阐释不一。
Skopos_Theory._Schaeffner目的论
Skopos theoryBy CHRISTINA SCHÄFFNERSkopos theory is an approach to translation which was developed in Germany in the late 1970s (Vermeer 1978), and which reflects a general shift from predominantly LINGUISTIC and rather formal translation theories to a more functionally and socioculturally oriented concept of translation. (cf. ACTION (THEORY OF TRANSLATORIAL ACTION); COMMUNICATIVEIFUNCTIONAL APPROACHES). This shift drew inspiration from communication theory, action theory, text linguistics and text theory, as well as from movements in literary studies towards reception theories (see for example Iser 1978). Apart from Hans Vermeer, the founder of skopos theory, other scholars working in the paradigm include Margret Ammann (198911990), Hans Hönig and Paul Kussmaul (1982), Sigrid Kupsch-Losereit (1986), Christiane Nord (1988) and Heidrun Witte (1987a); see also articles in the journal TEXTconTEXT, published since 1986 by Groos in Heidelberg. Skopos theory takes seriously factors which have always been stressed in action theory, and which were brought into sharp relief with the growing need in the latter half of the twentieth century for the translation of non-literary text types. In the translation of scientific and academic papers, instructions for use, tourist guides, contracts, etc., the contextual factors surrounding the translation cannot be ignored. These factors include the culture of the intended readers of the target text and of the client who has commissioned it, and, in particular, the function which the text is to perform in that culture for those readers. Skopos theory is directly oriented towards this function.Translation is viewed not as a process of trans coding, but as a specific form of human action. Like any other human action, translation has a purpose, and the word skopos, derived from Greek, is used as the technical term for the purpose of a translation. Skopos must be defined before translation can begin; in highlighting skopos, the theory adopts a prospective attitude to translation, as opposed to the retrospective attitude adopted in theories which focus on prescriptions derived from the source text. In addition to its purpose, any action has an outcome. The outcome of translational action is a translatum (Vermeer1979:174; translat in Reiss and Vermeer 198411991:2), a particular variety of target text.Vermeer's skopos theoryVermeer (1978:100) postulates that as a general rule it must be the intended purpose of the target text that determines translation methods and strategies. From this postulate, he derives the skopos rule: Human action (and its subcategory: translation) is determined by its purpose (skopos), and therefore it is a function of its purpose. The rule is formalized using the formula: IA(Trl) = f(Sk).The main point of this functional approach is the following: it is not the source text as such, or its effects on the source-text recipient, or the function assigned to it by the author, that determines the translation process, as is postulated by EQUIVALENCE-based translation theories, but the prospective function or skopos of the target text as determined by the initiator's, i.e. client's, needs. Consequently, the skopos is largely constrained by the target text user (reader/listener) and his/her situation and cultural background. Two further general rules are the coherence rule and the fidelity rule. The coherence rule stipulates that the target text must be sufficiently coherent to allow the intended users to comprehend it, given their assumed background knowledge and situational circumstances. The starting point for a translation is a text as part of a world continuum, written in the source language. It has to be translated into a target language in such a way that it becomes part of a world continuum which can be interpreted by the recipients as coherent with their situation (Vermeer 1978:100).The fidelity rule concerns intertextual coherence between translatum and source text, and stipulates merely that some relationship must remain between the two once the overriding principle of skopos and the rule of (intratextual) coherence have been satisfied.The general translation theory of Reiss and VermeerIn combining Vermeer's general skopos theory of 1978 with the specific translation theory developed by Katharina Reiss, Reiss and Vermeer (1984/1991) arrive at a translation theory that is sufficiently general(allgemeine Translationstheorie), and sufficiently complex, to cover a multitude of individual cases. They abstract from phenomena that are specific to individual cultures and languages an account of general factors determining the translation process, to which special theories that concern individual problems or subfields can be linked consistently.A text is viewed as an offer of information (Informationsangebot) made by a producer to a recipient. Translation is then characterized as offering information to members of one culture in their language (the target language and culture) about information originally offered in another language within another culture (the source language and culture). A translation is a secondary offer of information, imitating a primary offer of information. Or, to be more precise, the translator offers information about certain aspects of the source-text-in-situation, according to the target text skopos specified by the initiator (Reiss and Vermeer 1984/1991:76). Neither the selection made from the information offered in the source text, nor the specification of the skopos happens at random; rather, they are determined by the needs, expectations, etc. of the target-text receivers. Translation is by definition interlingual and intercultural, it involves both linguistic and cultural transfer; in other words, it is a culture-transcending process (Vermeer 1992:40).Since skopos varies with text receivers, the skopos of the target text and of the source text may be different. In cases where the skopos is the same for the two texts, Reiss and Vermeer (1984/1991:45) speak of Funktionskonstanz (functional constancy), whereas cases in which the skopos differs between the two texts undergo Funktionsanderung (change of function). In cases of the latter type, the standard for the translation will not be intertextual coherence with the source text, but adequacy or appropriateness to the skopos, which also determines the selection and arrangement of content.Although a translatum is not ipso facto a faithful imitation of the source text, fidelity to the source text is one possible or legitimate skopos. Skopos theory should not, therefore, be understood as promoting (extremely) free translation in all, or even a majority of cases.Although the terms 'skopos', 'purpose' and 'function' are often used interchangeably by Reiss and Vermeer (1984/1991), function is also used in a more specific sense which derives mainly from Reiss. In this sense, it is linked to aspects of genre (Textsorte) and text type (Texttyp). The source text can be assigned to a text type and to a genre, and in making this assignment, thetranslator can decide on the hierarchy of postulates which has to be observed during target-text production (Reiss and Vermeer 1984/1991:196).Reiss and Vermeer's text typology, based on Bühler (1934), includes the informative, the expressive and the operative text types, which derive from the descriptive, the expressive and the appellative functions of language, respectively. Such a typology is helpful mainly where functional constancy is required between source and target texts. However, both Vermeer (1989a) and Reiss (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 geme, being a consequence of the skopos, is secondary to it (Vermeer 1989a:187).Status of source text and target textAccording to skopos theory, then, translation is the production of a functionally appropriate target text based on an existing source text, and the relationship between the two texts is specified according to the skopos of the translation. One practical consequence of this theory is a reconceptualization of the status of the source text. It is up to the translator as the expert to decide what role a source text is to play in the translation action. The decisive factor is the precisely specified skopos, and the source text is just one constituent of the commission given to the translator. The translator is required to act consciously in accordance with the skopos, and skopos must be decided separately in each specific case. It may be ADAPTATION to the target culture, but it may also be to acquaint the reader with the source culture. The translator should know what the point of a translation is-that it has some goal-but that any given goal is only one among many possible goals. The important point is that no source text has only one correct or preferable translation (Vermeer 1989a:182), and that, consequently, every translation commission should explicitly or implicitly contain a statement of skopos. The skopos for the target text need not be identical with that attributed to the source text; but unless the skopos for the target text is specified, translation cannot, properly speaking, be carried out at all.Criticism of skopos theoryObjections to skopos theory mainly concern the definition of translation and the relationship between source text and target text.It has been argued that Reiss and Vermeer, in their attempt to establish a truly general and comprehensive translation theory, force totally disparate cases of text relations into a frame which they attempt to hold together by means of the notion of information offer (Schreitmüller 1994:105). But there should be a limit to what may legitimately be called translation as opposed to, for example, ADAPTATION. In translation proper (Koller 1990), the source text is the yardstick by which all translations must be measured, independently of the purpose for which they were produced.In this context it is also argued that, even though a translation may indeed fulfil its intended skopos perfectly well, it may nevertheless be assessed as inadequate on other counts, particularly as far as lexical, syntactic, or stylistic decisions on the microlevel are concerned (a point made by Chesterman 1994:153, who otherwise acknowledges the important contributions of skopos theory). Such objections come mainly from linguistically oriented approaches to translation that focus on bottom-up aspects of text production and reception. For example, Newmark (1991b:106) criticizes the oversimplification that is inherent in functionalism, the emphasis on the message at the expense of richness of meaning and to the detriment of the authority of the source-language text. However, proponents of skopos theory argue for a wide definition of translation (e.g. Reiss 1990). As soon as one asks for the purpose of a translation, strategies that are often listed under adaptation, for example reformulation, paraphrase and textual explication, will come in naturally as part of translation. And critics of micro level decisions usually lift the texts out of their respective environments for comparative purposes, ignoring their functional aspects.Reiss and Vermeer's cultural approach has also been judged less applicable to literary translation, due to the special status of a literary work of art. Snell-Hornby (1990:84) argues that the situation and function of literary texts are more complex than those of non-literary texts, and that style is a highly important factor. Therefore, although skopos theory is by no means irrelevant to literary translation, a number of points need rethinking before the theory can be made fully applicable to this genre.It is also possible to argue that to assign a skopos to a literary text is to restrict its possibilities of interpretation. In literary theory a distinction is often made between text as potential and text as realization, and skopos theory appears to seethe text only as realization, and not as a potential which can be used in different situations with different addressees and having different functions. However, Vermeer (1989a:181) argues that when a text is actually composed, this is done with an assumed function, or a restricted set of functions, in mind. Skopos theory does not deny that a text may be used in ways that had not been foreseen originally, only that a translatum is a text in its own right, with its own potential for use.Skopos theory has helped to bring the target text into focus. As a text, a translation is not primarily determined by a source text, but by its own skopos. This axiom provides a theoretical argument for describing translations in terms of original text production and against describing them in the more traditional terms of EQUIVALENCE with another text in another language (see also Jakobsen 1993:156). Translation is a DECISION MAKING process. The criteria for the decisions are provided by the skopos, i.e. the concrete purpose and aims in a concrete translation commission. The shift of focus away from source text reproduction to the more independent challenges of target-text production has brought innovation to translation theory. As attention has turned towards the functional aspects of translation and towards the explanation of translation decisions, the expertise and ethical responsibility of the translator have come to the fore. Translators have come to be viewed as target-text authors and have been released from the limitations and restrictions imposed by a narrowly defined concept of loyalty to the source text alone.Further readingAmmann 1989/1990; Newmark 1991b; Reiss 1986, 1988, 1990; Reiss and Vermeer 1984/1991; Vermeer 1978, 1982, 1989a, 1992.Baker M. (ed.) (1998/2001). Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. London: Routledge.。
skopo 功能目的论
•
LOGO
• •
Skopos theory focuses on translation as an activity with an aim or purpose, and on the intended addressee or audience of the translation. To translate means to produce a target text in a target setting for a target purpose and target addressees in target circumstances. In skopos theory, the status of the source text is lower than it is in equivalence-based theories of translation. The source is an "offer of information", which the translator turns into an "offer of information" for the target audience.
马也
顾名思义，任何一种翻译行为的形式，包括翻译本身，都 能被看做一种行为，而所有行为都有一个目标目的（这正 是行为的定义的一部分V）。Skopos一词专门用来指翻译的 目标和目的。只要是行为就必然产生结果，造成新的局面 或事件，还可能产生新的事物——翻译行为产生新的“目 标文本”（target text）; 而翻译产生译品（translatum）译 品正是目标文本的一种类型。在功能学派或者“目的论” 框架中，译文的目的或功能是影响译者决定的关键标准。