Sociological Approach To Relations Between Translation Norms And Translatorial Behavior

Translation, as a process of linguistic transformation and cultural communication between different nations, inevitably involves various factors like source text, target text, writer, translator, readers and the different norms implicated within both languages and social cultures when it concerns the whole translation process with translator being the center. Actually, the constraints of intra-textual linguistic norms and extra-textual socio-cultural norms on formation of target text can only be exerted through translator’s mediation, both in translation motivation, source text selection, translation strategy, and target text reception within target culture. Consequently, the study on translatorial behavior from translator per se has become a research project of great significance for expounding the relations between subjectivity and translation norms, and merits a detailed study and full-scale scrutiny.The present dissertation probes into the theoretical issues concerning translatorial behavior in the following two aspects:(I) further extend the explanatory power of descriptive translation studies(hereafter abbreviated as DTS) through the sociological approach and construct the interactive model between translation norms and translatorial behavior;(2) describe the various translation norms and translatorial behaviors within different historical backgrounds and their underlying reasons so as to shed light on translatorial behavior criticism and tentatively establish its sub-disciplinary framework. It endeavors to put forward a maneuverable model of interpreting translatorial behaviors and translation norms and provide theoretical support for literary translator studies by drawing upon the Bourdieusian sociological notions of "habitus" and "ield" after expounding its current state and pointing out the one-sidedness both in traditional and current cultural turn of translation studies.The present dissertation attempts to make a systemic study of translation norms at different stages of translation process within different historical periods through the integration of theoretical, documentary critiques with qualitative study, synchronic examination with diachronic investigation. Comprehensive description of translation norms in case studies is conducted by relying on historical data so as to reveal translator’s different reactions and their underlying reasons, which in turn shed light on the other aspects of translation studies.The dissertation consists of six chapters apart from the Introduction and Conclusion.Introduction explicates the research background, hypotheses, objectives and structure of the present study. It explores the dichotomy in thinking concerning translatorial behavior by case studying the deterministic tendency in cultural turn of translation studies and reversion to linguistic ontology of reductionist approach, which fail to interpret translator’s various and variable behaviors within different historical backgrounds due to dichotomy in thinking models. Therefore, the necessity, feasibility of sociological approach and its specific research area and goal are proposed.Chapter One is a critical survey of current studies on translatorial behaviors to examine its strong points and shortcomings. Firstly, it points out that the traditional studies are over-weighted towards translator’s subjectivity, especially the dichotomy between subjectivity and passivity by either emphasizing the subjective consciousness or the constraint of linguistic and socio-cultural norms. It reduces the theoretical explanatory power and leads to manifold paradoxes and discrepancies when it comes to accounting for different translators’behaviors within certain historical period or the same translator’s behaviors within different historical periods. Accordingly, the chapter re-conceptualizes its content, scope, nature of translator’s subjectivity and explores the shortcomings and solutions by elaborating the themes of translator’s subjectivity, status and roles, case studies, subjectivity and outer constraints, translator’s psychology and requirements and its relations with different subjects in translatorial behavior studies.Chapter Two focuses on translatorial behaviors within DTS to explicate its origin, nature, function, development and relations between different branches, especially Polysystem theory and translation norms, and their significance and drawbacks. It puts that Toury merely focuses on preliminary norms and operational norms with little attention paid to translation motivation and its reception, and he fails to expound the hierarchical translational norms and underlying reasons for their evolution during the different phases of translation. It should be acknowledged that DTS and the cultural turn has greatly enlarged its research scope by situating translated texts within target culture and descriptively analyzing the various normative factors like ideology, poetics and patronage constraining translation process. However, it holds to the one-sided belief that translators incline to adopt translation norms of target language and culture instead of the source ones in order to make it accepted by target culture when they come into conflict. The multifaceted and heterogeneous translatorial behaviors cannot be systematically accounted for by merely relying on descriptive translation norms. Suppose all translators abide by the same translation norm, there would be nowhere to settle the issues of introducing new translation norms, which are impetus for their overall evolution and bring about the innovation of target language and social culture.Chapter Three serves as the theoretical basis and endeavors to interpret the underlying reasons for diverse translatorial behaviors by drawing upon Bourdieusian concepts of "habitus" and "field" and its relations with translation norms. Based on an etymological analysis, the present dissertation expands the scope of translator’s habitus and translation field by subdividing them into social and professional ones, incorporating the field of politics, ethnics, religion, etc. at the different phases of translation process:translation motivation, textual choice, translation strategy and translation reception. It argues that the constraining extent of translation norms upon translatorial behaviors depends upon translator’s social habitus and professional habitus. Whereas, translatorial behaviors would change due to his/her changing position within translation field and new habitus formed along social trajectory. Furthermore, it should be noted that the influence of patrons, state ideology and reader’s reception upon translation must go through translator’s mediation before being substantiated and post-editing of translation does not belong to translation process in the strict sense.In view of the insufficiency of merely describing translation norms within different fields, i.e. the patterned translatorial behaviors, the dissertation proposes to investigate translator’s internalization of translation norms to study the reasons for the conformity and deviance. The durable and transposable habitus manifests social objectivity and individual subjectivity, and can actively adjust itself along translator’s social trajectory. Translators can follow or deviate from certain translation norm and bring about changes in language and social culture due to their variable and various habituses within different fields. Translators are situated within different positions within field due to their social status and capitals acquired, which in turn coalesce with similar translatorial behavior model while challenging the contradictory ones to bring out the evolution of translation norms.In Chapter Four, literary translation during the late Qing era (1898-1911) is taken as an example to case study the hierarchical translation norms and different translator’s reactions by tracing back to their habituses within various fields. Based on statistical analysis of the45prefaces and postscripts during this period, the chapter concludes with three translation norms in motivation:social and political motivation, artistic and aesthetic motivation, and cross-cultural communication motivation. In textual choice, the data shows that source texts from England, France and United States and genres of detective, romance and society fictions represented the mainstream norm. The strategy of translating meaning, classical language or mingled with vernacular, and traditional narrating techniques in time, perspective and structure were still popular:translation evaluation according to writing styles and ethnics concerning its form and content predominated while professional translation norm was marginalized.Specific study builds primarily upon sharply different translatorial behaviors of Lin Shu and Lu Xun. Different from the popular viewpoint that they represent the mainstream and peripheral norms respectively, the chapter intends to study their divergent reactions in either conforming to or deviating from the translation norms and underlying reasons. The statistical analysis reveals that any translatorial behavior is not universally conforming to or deviating from translation norms and its evaluation should be conducted according to the specific field and translator’s habitus within it.As a contrast, Chapter Five chooses the17years (1949-1966) after founding of PRC when translation was under government control as the background. Different from the popular view that translation was sterile and translators merely followed dominant ideology during this period, the chapter divides translation motivation into ideological identification with Soviet Union, national identity consciousness and support for anti-colonial struggle and national independence. In textual choice, it argues that novels from Soviet Union represented the mainstream norm, accounting for60%of total translated works; literal translation dominated in translation strategy through statistical analysis of style, language, structure and content. While in translation reception, translations conforming to dominant ideology were likely to be canonized with literary appreciation and reader’s demand being marginalized though not extinguished.As literary cannon during this period, The Gadfly is exemplified to demonstrate the role of translator Li Liangmin’s diverse habituses within various fields in translation. It points out that the motivation of choosing The Gadfly results from translator’s preference for revolutionary heroes due to familial education and experiences; his choice of language is ascribed to his conformity with the professional field with literal translation dominating the center; in translation strategy, he adopts diverse strategies concerning various fields of politics, religion and ethnics due to his habituses formed along his social trajectory; in translation reception, though it is subjected to the dominant state ideology, he exerts subjectivity in the cover and illustration adaptation to meet reader’s demand instead of being totally manipulated by the dominant translation norms.Chapter Six compares the translation norms and translatorial behaviors of the two periods to analyze their interrelations and underlying causes within the same period or over different historical periods. It should be noted that hierarchical translation norms do exist in disregard of different historical periods. However, translatorial behavior mainly results from translator’s habitus structure when patronage differentiates or there is no dominant translation norm guided by the state; while it depends on whether translator’s habituses conform to or deviate from the various sub-fields when concerning the exertion of his/her subjectivity. Consequently, there is no absolute conformity or deviation in translatorial behavior.The dissertation points out that translator’s different position within fields and their divergent habituses led to the heterogeneous, hybrid and social translatorial behavior. Based upon this, the chapter intends to analyze its critical principle and methods, which mainly includes integration of interpretive, descriptive and prescriptive studies, macroscopic and microscopic examination in evaluation, comprehensiveness in theoretical viewpoint and multidimensionality in evaluation. It has fundamental implications for the establishment of sub-branch of Translator Studies within the disciplinary framework considering its interrelation with other branches and marginalized status, which in turn can redress the one-sidedness in translatorial behavior studies.In Conclusion, the major contributions of this dissertation are generalized to be the exploration of a tentative model for interpreting translatorial behavior and norms within translation field, exploring underlying reasons for different translatorial behaviors by case studying literary translation within the two historical periods. Lastly, significance and limitations of this tentative research are stated and suggestions for future research are offered.