An Exploration Of The Feasibility Of Uniting Relevance Theory With Equivalence Theory

Theorists have exerted great efforts to help construct translatology, but translation theories are still far from perfect. The field of translation is filled with blind practice, empty theories and "running-rampant terms yet meager ideas" (Xu, 1997). Translation theories "are going around in circles" "have come to a dead end" and translatology is just "a dream unfulfilled and difficult to be fulfilled" (Yang, 2000; Zhang, 1999). The traditional descriptive-classificatory approach alone cannot help construct translatology, after all, "merely cutting up the cake tells us very little about what we are actually eating." (Gutt, 1991; Pym1) Traditional theorists' partial and unsystematic research is unavoidably detrimental to the construction of translatology, which should be based upon integrated, macroscopic and systematic instructions. Translation is an organic whole of the process and the product. But the current findings show scholars have put nearly all their attention and efforts to the product and the standardization of the product. Therefore, translation theories become a piece of plasticine out of which anyone molds a figure. Scientific translation studies should also cover the translation process (Baker, 2000). This is the content of Chapter One.Chapter Two reviews and sublates Gutt's theory. An emphatic study of the translation process is its greatest significance (Lin, 1994; Jang, 2000; Meng, 2001). However, Gutt pays little attention to the precision of formulation (expressing). What he expects to achieve is "interpretive resemblance" or "closely enough inrelevant respects". Human cognition has a simplifying tendency, but characteristics in the SLT should also find their optimal equivalents in the TLT.Chapter Three deals with Equivalence Theory. It is first marked by text-centeredness and then by reader-centeredness. However, the argument continues. Thus, how to find the "critical point" between them appeals to translators and translation theorists as well. Optimal Equivalence not only satisfies this purpose but also stands in one continuous line with Optimal Relevance. It is the final product of a correct translation process and the objective existence of an excellent translation. Just as without RT translation is like "the Blind Men and the Elephant", so without equivalence theory translation is comme des lions aveugles cherchant de I 'eau dans le desert.Interpreting and expressing are two stages indispensable to the translation process, and are opposite and unitary. In Chapter Four, the Means-Ends Strategy (Haberlandt, 1994), optimum filter and optimum codes are used to interpret translation. When the SLT information is processed in the optimum filter during the four (2-2, see Figure 4.6) steps, the translator has to look for optimal relevance and then express with optimum codes to realize optimal equivalence. Therefore, to unite the two theories to form a self-consistent theory to interpret translation - process and product - is an incontestable conclusion. My theoretical model (Figure 4.6) extends the range of translation studies, is more powerful both in theory and in practice, and can reach an optimum of plausibility.Finally, the author applies the Metaphysical metaphor compasses to illustrate the relationship between "interpreting", "expressing"and "translatability". The process of drawing a concentric circle shows metaphorically the perfect organic unity of the translation process and the translation product. The ancients were right in saying "Everything undergoes its process, takes its Way before it reaches its product." Translation is no exception. Scientific translation studies must cover the process, the Way and the product. Translation theories only based on this cornerstone are complete, systematic and scientific, and make it possible to construct translatology.