OnComparisonofRewritingandskopostheory

1、On Comparison of Rewriting and skopostheory【 Abstract 】 Andrew Lefevere and Hans Vermeer are outstanding figures in the history of translation studies.Their theory Rewriting and Skopostheory can be considered as milestone in their study history.This paper makes comparison between two theories with r

2、egard to their main features and makes persons-in-the-translation further get a deeper understanding of two theories.【Key words】 comparison ； Rewriting and Skopostheory1.Introduction to Rewriting and SkopotheoryRewriting and functionalism are both representative and influential theory in translation

3、 studies which both bring about evolution in each field of research respectively.Andrew Lefevere put forward a new concept rewriting in his book Translation ， Rewriting and the Manipulation of Literary Fame referring to translation which makes the book noticeable.In his words ， rewriting refers to t

4、he process of historiography ， anthologization ， criticism ， and editing with regard to the acceptance or rejection ， canonization or non-canonization of literary works.Translation is one of basic process of rewriting.AsLefevere points out ：It is my contention that the process resulting in the accep

5、tance or rejection ， canonization or non-canonization of literary works is dominated , by very concrete factors that are relatively easy to discern as soon as one eschews interpretation as the core literary studies and begins to address issues such as power ，ideology ，institution ，and manipulation.（

6、 Lefevere 1992： 2）In her Translating as a Purposeful Activity ： Functionalist Approaches Explained，Christiane Nord presents explicitly Hans Vermeer s skopostheory.Vermeer considers translation to be a type of human action and defines human action as intentional ， purposeful behavior that takes place

7、 in a given situation and this special situation depends on the status it has in a particular culture system.Translators have to make changes in accordance with different situations.2.Similarities between Rewriting and skopostheoryBoth skopostheory and rewriting consider that it is not enough to tac

8、kle problems encountered in translation sorely in linguistic way. “ Linguistics alone won t help us, because translating is not merely and not even primarily a linguistic process.” There is another important factor ， which isculture.Nowadays more and more scholars realize this point adapt it to thei

9、r own research work.In this regard ， Nida offers us the influential examples during his whole-life devotion to Holy Bible translation.When he is doing his work ，hes already deeply indulged in specific situation which is associated with culture.With the world quickly transforming into Marshall McLuha

10、nsglobal village ，the influence of culture ( shock) is gradually marching along the centre of translation research.Vermeer has his own concept of culture which is following Gohring s definition ：Culture is whatever onehas to know ， master or feel in order to judge whether or not a particular form of

11、 behavior shown by members of a community in their various roles conforms to general expectation ， and in order to behave in this community in accordance with general expectations. ( Gohring 1978； Nord s translation )Vermeer places emphasis on human action and behavior involved in culture which is c

12、onceived as a complex system.Translation is a type of Human action.It is part of situation at the same time it modifies the situation.The problems brought about in translation directly go to this complexity of situation modified by culture.Vermeer states translating means comparing cultures.As menti

13、oned ， situation lies in the difference of culture.Situation changes as culture shifts.It is the difference that draws on the complexity of translation.As for Lefevere， it is easier to explain the importance of culture involved in translation.Both he and Bassnett are representatives of cultural turn

14、 in translation.What is rewritten mentioned in his book constitutes majority of the literature ， furthermore literature mainly deals with culture and society.After him and Bassnett the object of translation studies has been redefined ；“ What is studied is the text embedded in its network of both sou

15、rce and target cultural sighs and in this way translation studies has been able both to utilize the linguistic approach and to move out beyond it ”( Bassnett， Lefevere 1998： 123) Here，two main statements are indicated The approaches to translation studies have shifted from linguistic one to cultural

16、 turn.It does not indicate that linguistic approach will give itself up to cultural one ； on the other hand ， culture itself is a complex system ， thus cultural turn makes translation more complicated.This paper stands the point that “cultural signs ” nearly match “ situation ” in Vermeer s terms wh

17、ich combines as one ： cultural situation.It refers to all the factors embedded in culture that influence translators choice when translating.In the past ，it is authorities that preside over others and decide which is current or not.These factors include norms and conventions and customs in society a

18、nd culture.It is these factors enable translators to act accordingly.3.Comparison on Features of Rewriting and skopostheory Although rewriting theory and skopostheory reach the common recognition that translation process and studies are all put in the background of certain culture in one way or anot

19、her they still have the conspicuous features of their own.3.1 PurposeSince translation is human action ，it is purposeful.But what purpose is it？ Under what circumstances and for what purpose do they ( translators ) translate ？ Vermeer distinguishes three possible kinds of purposes ：?general purpose

20、( aimed at by translators in the translation process ： to earning a living )?communicative purpose ( aimed at by the target text in the target situation ： to instruct the reader )?special purpose (aimed at by a particular translation strategy or procedure ： to translate literally in order to show th

21、e structural particularities of the source language )Three purposes mentioned are stated in concrete or microscopic terms.They are specified by particular purpose ， such as earning a living or realize one s own literary program.It is INDIVIDUAL translators who decide how to go about their translatin

22、g job and what strategy to use or what translation type to choose ， and these decisions depend entirely on the translator s responsibility and competence.Reiss and Vermeer have put it ： the end justifies the means （ Reiss，Vermeer 1984： 101） .Each text is produced for a given purpose and should serve

23、 this purpose so that translated text could function in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and in the way they want it to function.However ， the purpose of rewriting mentioned in the first place is to meet the need of politics ，economics and society.It is stated

24、 in abstract or macroscopic way.Rewriters always make adjustment in the service or under the constraints ， of certain ideological and poetological current.This kind of rewriting is effective to prevent them to be considered different or abnormal that the rewritten works can be more easily accepted b

25、y readers or receivers.The extreme example for rewriting is pseudotranslation.There are “ texts presented as translations with no corresponding texts in other languages ”（ Toury 1995：40) .Anton Popovic first defined it as “fictitious translation ”， and then Toury defined “ pseudotranslation ”.It has

26、 often been one of the only ways without arousing too much antagonism ， especially in cultures reluctant to deviate from sanctioned models and norms.This is also one of ways to make products acceptable.However ， whether or not pseudotranslation is real translation creates many problems for definitio

27、n ， since some texts have been presented one away by their authors and taken another way by their readers.Take Living Bible for example ， it is presented as English paraphrase of the Bible ，not as a translation ： its authors explained that they consult the original languages such as Hebrew，Arabic bu

28、t had to work from existing English translations to clarify their message in daily-use language.From English to English， it is rather indicated as intrelingual translation.With this respect ， the author would like to consider pseudotranslation and rewriting under this circumstance to be a type of wr

29、iting skill.Since it is produced without original text ，translators “ write ” it rather than “translate ” it.The “ translators ” adopt to make use of readers expectations and subordinate to the current prevailing at that times meeting with much greater tolerance. This concerns key point to rewriting

30、 ， that is to which degree atext or scattered information should be produced or rewritten.When we consider that one is good translation ， we always mean that it conveys the original information in a proper way that readers can accept or even enjoy.Undertranslation makes the lack of information where

31、as overtranslation brings about disloyalty to the original text.This goes to the point whether translator should have their own style.This paper persists translators invisibility in translation.It should be calledderivative of original text.Translator s style makes no real translation.3.2 Factors in

32、volved in translationIn 1990， Lefevere and bassnett suggest that translation studies take the “cultural turn ”.The paradox of “ literal translation ” and “free translation ” has been substituted by that of“ foreignization” and “ domestication ” .Lefevere placespecial emphasis on readers acceptance w

33、hich nearly goes with domestication which means the source culture sadaptation to the target culture.He pays much more attention to how the original text is well translated in accordance with ideology and poetology of that time.As he said ：Since translation is the most obviously recognizable type of

34、 rewriting ，and since it is potentially the most influential becauseit is able to project the image of an author and/or a （ series of） work （ s） in another culture ，lifting that author and/or those works beyond the boundaries of their culture of origin , （ Lefevere 1992： 9）This has the similar indic

35、ation with Nida s“ closest natural equivalence of the source language message ” .However， it covers more factors than Nida s principle of equivalence ，since it embraces not only the transmission of message but factors such as culture， history ， society and ideology.Comparatively ， Vermeer s skoposth

36、eory takes not only readers into consideration ， but also translators.He even put translators to a higher place.In the framework of his theory ， he considers one of the most important factors determining the purpose of translation is the addressee ， namely the intended receiver or audience of the ta

37、rget text.In Vermeer s words， translation means “ to produce a text in a target setting for a target purpose and target addressees in target circumstance. ” （Vermeer1987a ： 29） it is “ target-centered ” theory.Thus how and what strategies used in translation entirely depend on translators responsibi

38、lity and competence.At the same time ， Vermeer also brought about a new factor ： client ，who is acting as the initiator of the translationprocess who gives translators explicit instructions.Here ， clients can be the addressees， since they are the very persons who need texts for particular purposes ，

39、 e.g.literal translation ； sometimes clients can not be ， they may be the agents who call upon the translations for certain receivers or addressees.An international conference ，for example ， is the specific situation in which the sponsors are client.They call upon translators in service of the confe

40、rence participants who are real receivers.This needs negotiation between the client and translator about specific instructions or briefs.Vermeer s skopostheory places specials emphasis on the functions of different factors involved in translations.However ，he makes no mention of the source text.The

41、status of the source text is much lower.Since he regards it as an “ offer of information” and thusformed the foundation of Justa Holz Manttaris furtherdevelopment of functionalist approach.4.ConclusionSo far both Skopostheory and rewriting is milestone of their own framework of theory ， and even that of worldwide translation studies.As expounded above ， with constraints of time and historical reas