Comparative Study Of Two English Versions Of "Teahouse" From Perspective Of Skopostheorie

This paper is an analysis of the two translations of the Chinese drama"Teahouse"from the perspective of Skopostheorie. In this paper, drama is explained and the features of drama language are introduced. A review of the study of drama translation is also presented, followed by a theoretical review of the core theory—Skopostheorie, which is to provide the basis of analysis in the latter part of the paper. After analysis, a conclusion is drawn at the end of the paper that under their respective translation purposes, the two translators adopt different translation methods: Ying uses free translation and adaptation more, while Howard-Gibbon adopts literal and faithful translation more.According to Skopostheorie, the prime principle determining any translation process is the purpose (Skopos) of the overall translational action. Unlike other translation theories that focus their attention on the scale of"equivalence"in the assessment of drama translation, Skopostheorie evaluates the translation by adequacy to the translation purpose. As long as the translation is adequate to fulfill the purpose, the translator will not be restricted in the choice of the translation methods, but he or she can resort to any method that is considered suitable to achieve the task.Being both a performing art and a literary genre, drama becomes a difficult problem in terms of translation. Since drama language has its own features, it requires the translation should contain the features so as to maintain the translation a drama and that they should be suitable for performance. Therefore, drama translation is a challenge to translators.By exemplification, listing, and comparison, the author presents an analysis of the two versions of Teahouse from two perspectives: a purely linguistic perspective and a cultural perspective, each of which embodies many aspects respectively. Through comparison and analyses, the author finally proves that the hypothesis put forward is true. Finally, a conclusion is drawn that the two translators of"Teahouse"do translate differently because of their different purposes, and that the end does justify the means.