The Macroness Characterizing German School Of Functionalist Translation Theory And Its Educational Implications

Susan Bassnett and Andre Lefevere (2001: 1) believe that one of the salient historical features of translation studies in West is the long retreat and final disintegration of the once key concept of equivalence. A case in point is the German School of functionalist translation theory (henceforth abbreviated as GSFTT), which breaks the dominance of equivalence in translation studies and practices through dethroning the source text (henceforth abbreviated as ST).The founder of the skopos theory (the pillar of GSFTT), Hans J. Vermeer states ST can be translated for various purposes, and equivalence or functional equivalence is only one of them. Purpose is the decisive factor in translation, according to which, the translator decides on his strategies, responsible to the initiator of translation (usually the translator's client). Justa·Holz-Manttari defines all the translator's efforts involved in cross-cultural communications as translational action and his or her exertions on the textual level as translation, with the former covering and determining the latter. In mis way, GSFTT can go beyond text treatment to examine translation process dynamically. Having translation teaching in view, Christiane Nord develops a functional typology of text and translation and advocates a top-down approach to translation problems, giving priority to translation purpose to ensure the right orientation.GSFTT renovates our views on translation nature, so it is a new philosophy on translation, a pure theory. It is true that such a pure theory is not readily applicable but it is bound to produce far-reaching influences on our translation research and teaching. However, our current studies on mis theory focus mainly on its usefulness for translating such pragmatic texts as the literature of traditional Chinese medicine and ads and neglect its macroness as a pure theory, failing to unveil its implications for translation research and teaching. GSFTT grows out of translator training and has an affinity with translation teaching. Considering mis, the author attempts to explore its potentials for translation training in mainland China, and, on this basis, presents his speculations on teaching renovations through this thesis.GSFTT is compared with the socio-semiotic approach (henceforth abbreviated as SSA) to translation, which enjoys a special reputation among home researchers, teachers, and translators, so that its merits over this popular approach can be shown to advantage. To do this, the thesis first demonstrates that the translation principle of SSA is basically the same with those of the previous theories though it boasts a sophisticated mode for meaning analysts. Then the special reputation SSA enjoys at home is attributed to the fact that it not only recognizes the translation goals pursued by our traditional theories, such as alikeness (神似) in spirit and transmigration (化境), but also supplies some scientific methods to reach those goals.After summarizing the features of SSA, the author sets its interpreting power in comparison with that of GSFTT through analyzing four examples from translation practices, in this way, detects the defects of SSA, and traces them to their roots.Then the thesis probes into the implications the respective merits and demerits of SSA and GSFTT have for translation teaching in terms of four aspects. Meanwhile, the actualities of and the expectations for translation teaching in mainland China are also taken into account to prove that SSA can do little or even a disservice for renovating our teaching while GSFTT is both a suitable theory to initiate undergraduates into translation and a good guide for translation teaching.Firstly, as far as the legitimacy of translation studies as a science is concerned, though SSA plays a role in emphasizing the characters of translation that distinguish it from linguistics, translation teaching based on this approach remains a classroom code-switching to a large degree. GSFTT concerns go to such extra-textual factors as translation purpose, the initiator, and target media, emphasizing the professional features of translation. In this way, GSFTT expands the scope of translation research and gives prominence to the distinctive features of translation studies as a science.Secondly, such flaws in the make-up of traditional teaching programs as the improper ratio of literary and non-literary translation and the absence of professional and vocational knowledge can barely be remedied by SSA. Actually, it may even reinforce them. The flexible translation principle of GSFTT and its definition of the translator as an expert in cross-cultural communication can be very good solutions.Thirdly, when it comes to the defects of traditional course books, absence of contexts, unexplicated translation purposes, and neglect of skills or techniques for practical translations are beyond the solutions from SSA, while GSFTT lays a sound theoretical basis for curing these flaws with its new concept of translation context.Lastly, since the gravitational centre of SSA falls on text treatment and target text (henceforth abbreviated as TT) evaluation, the final product of translation, this approach can by no means extirpate the static traditional teaching methods. Featuring a top-down approach to translation problems, GSFTT attaches great importance to extra-textual elements and dynamic teaching methods can be developed right from its description of translation process. Still a news report is used to demonstrate the speculative methods.GSFTT-based translation error treatment and the necessity of combining GSFTT and SSA are also discussed quite briefly.In sum, GSFTT implications for us consist in how to translate and how to teach translation. Adopted as theoretical basis for translation teaching, it will give great momentum to the on-going renovations and boost our teaching efficiency.