* Reiss as a functionalist deals with the language from lingual, linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Her important contribution to the translation studies is that she determines the text type as the determinant and dominant factor of the translational process and thus all the decisions of this process are realized within the limits of the requirements of the relevant text type. She the texts under three titles informative, expressive and operative. In each of them she states that one factor is the dominant one and this factor is the determinant of the text type, which would determine the translational process. In informative texts, it is content which is of primary importance and the translator is expected to reflect the meaning of the source text into the target text. In expressive texts it is the artistic form which actually matters as well as the content. What I can not get here is that how can one separately take form and content. I mean even while one is thinking on the just form, s/he still includes the content because to analyze the form, one uses the content, meaning unit. As an example, to think of the form of translation of a poem line, one has to deal with the line itself, which is the meaning unit and thus the content material. The situation is even harder top explain in cases of operative texts. Because here the determinant factor is the persuasiveness of the text. Thus to maintain or create this persuasive effect the translator is expected to make some changes in both form and the content to achieve this aim. However, what is missing in these classifications is that though she states the dominant factors, she does not touch upon the points on the ways of realizing these factors in the target texts.
Furthermore, she talks about special cases about the functions of texts that are used for the realization of different functions in the target culture than the ones in the source culture. But this is quite problematic from the very beginning. Because what is meant with function is not clear? Also function is spatial-temporal bound concept; thus, it is even possible for two texts to have the same function in different cultures no matter whether you aim it or the something different. Also any text that is translated for a specific function may be used for a different purpose. That is to say, the translation of an expressive text may be used for an operative function in the same target culture. At that time would the text used for operative function be analyzed in comparison to the source expressive text? Thus these are not clear cut boundaries, and the use of texts are shapes according to the conditions of the dynamic culture.
* Vermeer is best known for his “skopos theory”. His understanding of translation is also shaped from a functionalist point of view and that is what they have in common with Reiss. With this theory, he is probably the closest scholar to the practical arena of the translational process. Because he talks about the actual translation practices and tries to give a say to the translator and other actors of the translational act. It is also innovative from the perspective that it involves actors of the translational process like client, commissioner etc. other than the translator. This situation broadens the study field of translation and makes it closer to the real life situations. Also, his analysis of the translation in the social context is also important for the fact that translation takes place in the society it is produced in and thus it would be the social conditions that would guide the process of this act.
First of all, he states that every action has a purpose thus translation as an action is a purposeful act. One might think that every action does not necessarily have an aim. But he argues that whether consciously or inherently every translation is realized with a purpose. The same vagueness about the existence of a purpose applies to the practitioner of this act, the translator. But is it the aim of the translation or the aim of the translator that matters? Or can they be separated from each other? Or can they have different aims? In these situation do they mean the same thing? That is to say, while the aim of the translator may mean the very meaning of the word. But the aim of the translation (with his terms the “translatum”) is more like the function. The same aim may not result in the same function. Thus, what the translator produce with a reasonable and accountable aim may not result in a product that serves to that aim and may have a different function in the context it is used.
Also, his focus on the translator is quite different from other approaches. He seems to give total freedom to the translator in the process of acting according to his aim. I do not feel comfortable about this Because this makes it very difficult to evaluate a translation and more importantly in real life situations, it is not the case for most of the translators to be the experts of their fields. That is why this freedom may result in distorted translations and they may be grounded on this theory. I know that he balances this freedom with the accountability of the translator. But does having a reason justify all the action? Does the fact that the translator's decision can be explained make it right? In my opinion, this freedom and responsibility balance is not an easy competence for a translator to develop.
Furthermore, this theory is important for the fact that it dethrone the source text before target text. For him what really matters is the target text and target culture. This approach may be helpful for the translation to find its own grounds in the target culture and develop without the pressure of the source text and source culture. This also makes it possible to deal with translations as texts of the target culture. But I am not very sure about the extend of the isolation of the target text from the source text. Because his remark is not very clear on that point. He states that source text is a point of departure but after this departure what way is to be followed is not determined, which brings the vagueness. Also, his remarks on the textual partiality drew my attention. Until now, I used to evaluate a text as a whole with its function, purpose etc. However his statement about the text as a divisible whole is worth discussing. I do not think that it is possible to divide a text into segments for the determination of their skopos. It does not seem to be applicable because of the fact that even an aim of a translation may be illustrated by the translator at a preface or a critics writing, the partial skopos (subskopos) explanation would be available for the translator, and thus for the reader, for the translation analyst etc.
Moreover, he deals with the language within the cultural context and makes a distinction between transcoding and transposing. As these two different terms would suggest this distinction include two different culture and translation happens between these two. While transcoding is source oriented, transposing is said to be more like target oriented. However, is it possible to define this bilateral act with clear cut boundaries between the target culture and source culture while the very root of the word culture is already a vague term with no boundaries, clear definitions etc. Also without coding the units of a source text is it possible to place it into the target language? Thus I do not think that these are divisible concepts of the translational process.
Also, in this attempt to support his view against the oppositions to his theory, he comes up with different meanings and connotations of the word skopos. However, this may seem to be reasonable for his supportive purpose, but too broadening the meaning of a concept at the same would make it a vague one, in my opinion. Thus it would be a better idea to state the meaning of skopos clearly and not try to include all the fields among its application area. Then it would be a harder to invalidate it. Also, the skopos theory may be more applicable to the translation of technical texts. But it is more difficult for me to agree with him on the point of translations of works of art. General aim may be said as creating the aesthetic beauty. But is it possible to evaluate the methods of this aesthetic beauty which is a highly relative concept? Also, is it possible to determine the effect of this work on the source reader so as to be come up with a conclusion on the success of the translation in its creation of this aesthetic beauty?
REFERENCES
Reiss, Katharina. 2000. “Type, Kind and Individuality of Text: Decision Making in
Translation.” In Lawrence Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London:
Routledge. p: 160 – 172.
Vermeer, Hans J. 2000. “Skopos and Commission in Translational Action.” In Lawrence
Venuti, The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge. p: 221 - 233.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder