A Study On Translation Of Culture-loaded Words In Two Versions Of Teahouse From The Perspective Of Skopos Theory

Lao She creates the three-act drama-Teahouse in his late years, which is one of his famous plays put on the stage and can be regarded as his summit in his drama creation. This drama vividly depicts the great social changes as well as people’s miserable life within a span of fifty years, from the end of the Qing Dynasty to the founding of new China. Though it is a three-act play, it involves many aspects related to Chinese history and culture in particular period. It can be regarded as an all-inclusive play. Translation of Teahouse makes a great contribution to putting this play on the stage. It is regarded as "miracle of Oriental stage". This drama contains large numbers of culture-loaded words, which are full of Chinese culture. Translation of these words acts as an important link for the spreading of the work and culture.Skopos theory holds that the translational skopos is the primary factory in the process of translation and all the activities related to translation should subject to it. This theory also holds that a good translation is that the translational purpose and function could be achieved. Therefore, Skopostheory thinks that translators could choose proper translation strategies to realize their skopos. Which actually account for the principle that translational purpose decides the translational strategies and methods. Distinct from other translation theories that concentrate on "equivalence" in the assessment of drama translation, Skopos theory, however, in addition to equivalence, has made adequacy as the judgment. It sheds a new light for translation practice and study.Translational purpose exerts great influence on translation. Ying Ruocheng aims to put the play on the stage. He needs a colloquial and brief version for audience to understand easily. While John Howard-Gibbon translates Teahouse for the sake of introducing Chinese culture. He demands a version that carries culture with Chinese characteristics for readers.The two translators focus on different translation strategies in translating Teahouse. In Ying Ruocheng’s version, domestication takes uo about82.35%, and foreignization takes up about17.64%. Thus his prime strategy is domestication. In John Howard-Gibbon’s version, domestication takes up about30.88%, and foreignization takes up about69.11%. Therefore, his principal strategy is foreignization. For the need of performance, Ying Ruocheng tends to adopt domestication. For the purpose of introducing Chinese culture, Howard-Gibbon turns to foreignization.Under the guide of different translational purposes, the two translators employ different translation methods. With the aim of making the text be brief and proper for the performance, Ying Ruocheng tends to use free translation, substitution, and omission more. To preserve the original text features and introduce Chinese culture, Howard-Gibbon adopts literal translation, and literal translation plus annotation more. On the basis of different translational purposes, the two translators adopt different translation strategies and methods to achieve their ideal translations.Through the research, the author find that Ying Ruocheng and John Howard-Gibbon tend to adopt different translation strategies and methods. Ying Ruocheng tends to use domestication, and Howard-Gibbon tends to use foreignization. The two versions can be regarded as successful though different translation strategies and methods are employed.