On The Necessity And Feasibility Of An Informativity-based Textual Translation Theory

Modern translation studies began in the fifties of the last century with the extensive application of linguistic theories, namely, the formation of linguistic orientation of translation studies, as its symbol. Later, in the late seventies, with the introduction of the cultural perspective and consequently the formation of the cultural orientation, translation studies accelerated its development. The rise of the latter broke the monopoly of linguistics in translation studies and pushed it to its polysystemic and cultural studies phase. Translation studies thereafter witnessed the theoretical divergence, which on the one hand broadened scholars' horizons and multiplied the research perspectives and on the other hand intensified the conflict between theories of the two orientations. Therefore, how to integrate the achievements of two orientations and how to make them function harmoniously under a universal disciplinary framework so that they may work together and compensate their respective weaknesses are unavoidable challenges facing all translation researchers.The present paper firstly tells the two theoretical orientations in translation studies briefly and points out their respective strong points and weak points. Generally speaking, the linguistic orientation attaches great importance to the positivistic studies on concrete linguistic problems in translation but it lacks holistic ideology and sense of disciplinarity. It functions well on presenting theoretical explication to particular translation problems, but at the same time it blurs the definition of translatology and makes translation studies a branch of applied linguistics. The cultural orientation, on the contrary, has a broader perspective and a more alert sense of disciplinarity, but it lacks explaining power on many concrete translation phenomena. What's more, it has exposed translation studies under the danger of being subsumed into comparative literature since its rise. So, both orientations face the ontological crisis and the further study undertaken within the two respective orientations increases the theoretical tension between them. The tension can only be eased after the establishment of a theoretically harmonious translation discipline. This paper then emphasizes the necessity of constructing such a discipline. With the support of a case study about a debate on the disciplinarity of translation studies, a tentative consensus on thenecessity of translatology will be hopefully reached."How to construct a harmonious translatology", then, is the greatest challenge after the consensus on its necessity has been reached. And this is the major task of the paper. In this regard, two notions are employed for theoretical construction on three dimensions, namely, philosophical, methodological, and strategic/operative dimensions. The first notion is to use "informativity", a concept in textlinguistics, to integrate theories of the two orientations. With the contrast of "informativity" and "cohesion-coherence"—the key concepts in the traditional textual translation theory, this paper claims that informativity is more dynamic, more appropriate for displaying the translator's subjectivity and hence easier for cultural manipulation and planning. This notion accounts for the revision of the traditional meaning-centric ideology on the methodological dimension. And further, through pointing out that the communicative value should be paid more attention to in translation, this paper appeals for a translator-centered translation philosophy and consequently revises the traditional text-centered one. The second notion this paper employed is to use illocutionary force as an operative strategy for bridging the gap between translation studies and translation practice. With the introduction of this pragmatic concept, this paper fails the century-old translation ideology of equivalence and stresses the communicative nature of the text and the central position of the translator's intention. In doing so, it provides a possible way out for the accusation over translation theories of its woeful explainability in translation practice.