A Study On Basic Translation Issues From The Perspective Of Relevance Theoretic Translation Account

Gutt's Relevance Theoretic Translation Account (RTTA) is the crystalization of his efforts to make bridges between general communicative theories and translation studies. We know that Relevance Theory (RT), put forward by Sperber and Wilson, is about verbal communication. Based on the recognition that translation is a particular form of communication, Gutt holds that application of RT to translation studies will potentially define translation field more neatly and may come up with more sound solution to previous troublesome questions.This paper attempts to study whether the marriage of RT and translation is a happy one, following the thread of RTTA's stance on basic translation issues.The first chapter gives a brief introduction to essential concepts in RT and RTTA in order to familiarize readers with the overall framework under discussion: breakthroughs made by RT include its proposition that communication is an ostensive-inferential process, the unique definition of context as a psychological construct, its proposal of the principle of relevance as the yardstick in communication account, and its distinction between descriptive use and interpretive use. Likewise, according to RTTA, the ostensive-inferential interaction exists between translators and target readers; context in translation covers a wide range of factors, including conventional translation rules and principles which have been internalized in translators' mind; the principle of relevance is the single central standard that determines important decision-makings; translation is defined as interlingual interpretive use. Major concerns include: the nature of translation in RT framework; translating strategies and translation assessment implied in RT; Gutt's methodology in presenting his theory.The following chapters try to touch these basic concerns in translation field as objectively and comprehensively as possible. The second chapter begins with the examination of the debate about the category of translation which slides from a craft, an art and a science. Detailed analysis about this issue ends with the conclusion that translation should be accounted as the integration of science, art and technique. This belief is technically reinforced by RTTA, which views translation as a form of communication, and communication is commonly identified as a science, an art requiring techniques. Moreover, thanks to the flexible concept of relevance, Gutt's account goes well with other approaches, and even has the latent power leading other major schools of translation, such as the linguistic school, the functional school, the philosophical school, etc. However, only to identify translation as communication, especially to embed translation studies to general communication theory endangers the establishment of translation as an independent discipline. Translation, a genre of communication as it is, by no means, is affiliated to the study of general communication. One task of translation studies is to fix the uniqueness of translation itself. In this sense, it is pointed out RTTA still has a long way to go.The third chapter turns to the discussion of translating strategies and translation assessment in RTTA. "Equivalence" is an inevitable concept whenever translation strategies and assessment are mentioned. At the start of his argument, Gutt severely criticizes equivalence because it is usually hierarchically over-specified on one hand; moreover it is not a qualified evaluative standard. To me, his criticism is not well-grounded. Besides, Gutt's implicit replacement of equivalence with resemblance is ineffective, for resemblance is not essentially different from equivalence. On translation assessment, a recommendation made by this paper is to combine equivalence, relevance theory and the plural complementarism proposed by Mr. Gu. On translating strategies, it first combs the method suggested by Gutt. Then, investigation is made on major achievements on the construction of relevance-based translation models in China: Zhao Yanchun's model and the model put forward by Li Yin and Luo Xuanmin. In the first model, attention is primarily paid to the three levels on which relevance should be represented in translating and direct translation is preferred; and in the second model, the maintenance of the degree of relevance is stressed. This paper suggests that the two models be synthesized in translation practice.The last chapter is devoted to the observation of Gutt's methodology in his argumentation. It first affirms the strengths of Gutt's methodology in three aspects: RTTA offers a unique perspective in viewing translation phenomena: based on the way human minds entertain thoughts, he distinguishes descriptive use and interpretive use, defines translation as interlingual interpretive use; he defines context unconventionally; Gutt tends to streamline or simplify overall translation theory by giving translation a brief definition, following existing theory mode and giving up efforts in translation description and classification; his relevance-based framework is open-ended, dynamic and highly inclusive. Finally the paper also indicates the weaknesses of Gutt's methodology, concluding that it is not proper to go against the descriptive-classificatory approach, the multidiscipUnary approach and exclude interlingual descriptive use; it is not wise to deny the whole due to its partial deficiency in theoretical criticism and to be over general. Finally the paper ends with brief suggestions about questions raised in the whole paper.