skopos_theory_目的论_英文材料

THE END OF AN ERA? DOES SKOPOS THEORY SPELL THE END OF THE “FREE VS. LITERAL” PARADIGM? JONATHAN DOWNIE Introduction While most discussion of Bible translations take place around the traditional “free vs. literal” debate, modern, non-Biblical translation theory has become suspicious of such easy dichotomies (e.g. Pym 1997: 39). Many translation scholars now tend to examine translations based on the purpose for which they were written.1 This article will examine skopos theory, one of the most well-known purpose-based translation theories, in more depth and will discuss the potential objections to using it to examine and analyse Bible translations. This theory has been chosen as it is the only purpose-based translation theory so far to have been applied to Bible translation. I will argue for this theory to become the prevailing theory for examining entire Bible translations while the use of the more traditional terminology would then be restricted to the description of small-scale translation decisions, if used at all. Skopos theory explained In skopos theory, translation is seen as “an intentional, interpersonal, partly verbal intercultural interaction based on a source text” (Nord [1997] 2007: 18). To fully examine this theory, we must first examine the core notion of translation as an ‘intentional’ activity. Nord admits that viewing translation as “intentional” or “purposeful” seems to be self-evident (ibid p. 1). After all, the very act of doing anything implies intent or purpose (Sire 1988: 103, 227 [note 21]). However, to view translation specifically as an “intentional” activity means that the translation itself must be judged according to how well it fulfilled its purpose (Schäffner 1997: 2). This is the basis that forms the skopos rule, which is as follows: [To] translate/interpret/speak/write in a way that enables your text/translation to function in the situation in which it is used and with the people who want to use it and precisely the way they want it to function. (Nord [1997] 2007: 29, translating Vermeer 1989: 20) How this rule operates can be demonstrated from professional practice. A translator working on a CV that is to be submitted to an employer in a target culture2 will deliberately translate in such a way that the CV will function in that culture. This may involve seeking target culture equivalents for qualifications mentioned, converting job titles into recognisable target language titles or even changing the grammatical class of words. In my own work, one of the most frequent changes made to such documents is to change nouns into verbs given the preference in English-language CVs for action verbs (as shown in Yate [1993] 2003: 59-61). Judging the success of a translation on how well it fulfilled the “intention” for which it was written means that its relation to the source text will necessarily become a secondary concern. The translation strategy chosen and therefore the relation between the two texts will be determined by the intention of the translation (Nord [1997] 2007: 32). In CVs, this would lead the translator to weigh up strategies for handling the use of target culture equivalents of qualifications – e.g. adding them next to the source culture term, using footnotes or replacing the source term completely. In Bible translation this might mean weighing up strategies for handling source language terms for which there is no real target culture equivalent (see Fee and Stuart [1993] 2002: 37, 38 for examples). This view tends to reduce the tendency for any particular translation strategy to be seen as an “ideal.” While there may be some occasions and intentions that call for the strategy Fee and Strauss (2007: 28) call “formal equivalence;” others will call for “functional equivalence.” Rather than choosing one of these two, or indeed any other option, for purely theological or linguistic reasons, the translator will make his or her choice based on which is more likely to serve the purpose of the text (Nord 2002: 33; 2003: 34). This view forms an alternative to the more traditional theories, which have caused so much debate in the past. In fact, many skopos theorists see it is a real opportunity to solve the debates over “free vs. faithful translation, dynamic vs. formal equivalence, good interpreters vs. slavish translators, and so on” (Nord [1997] 2007: 29). This challenges the traditional supremacy of the source text as the sole basis on which translations must be assessed. While, Hans Vermeer, one of the originators of skopos theory, stated that there must be a relationship between the source and target text (Nord [1997] 2007: 32); he also claimed to have “dethroned” the source text as an unchangeable and unchanging basis of comparison (ibid p. 37). Some theorists feel that this could easily lead to any and all translation purposes being seen as acceptable, even if they are incompatible with the apparent purpose of the source text (ibid p. 124; Pym 1997: 91). Following this principle, there would be nothing inherently wrong with changing universities mentioned on a CV to UK equivalents (“Oxford” for “Sorbonne,” for example) or changing all references to places in the Bible to equivalents in modern-day USA, as one Bible translator is reported to have done (Fee and Strauss 2007: 33). In both cases, such changes, while possibly being defensible as “equivalents” on a purely cultural level, are very likely to mislead the reader. If, for instance, the writer of a CV attended “Sorbonne” but the translator uses “Oxford,” the client could be accused of lying if the prospective employer decides to verify their claim. Similarly, no matter how familiar US cities are to US Bible readers, the fact is that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not Boston. Skopos theory therefore lacked logical and ethical limits to what could be seen as acceptable translation practice (Pym 1997: 91). To solve this weakness, Christiane Nord added the variable of “loyalty” to skopos theory. “Loyalty” here is taken to mean the translator’s commitment both to the clients and text producers they work with and to the culture in which they work (Nord [1997] 2007: 125). This addition introduces an “interpersonal” aspect to skopos theory as translators are seen as having responsibilities towards all their communicative partners. This also answers Pym’s criticism (Pym 1997: 92-3) that skopos theory reduces the role of the translator to that of a service provider who exists to fulfil others’ purposes, with no ethical space of their own. With the addition of the notion of “loyalty” the translator is now ethically and professionally responsible to either observe the expectations their partners have of their work or to tell them why these expectations have not been met. Nord explains how this works in the following terms. Normally, since authors are not experts in translation, they are likely to insist on a faithful rendering of the source text’s surface structures. Only if they trust the translator’s loyalty will they consent to any changes of adaptations needed to make the translation work in the target culture. And this confidence would again strengthen the translator’s prestige as a responsible and trustworthy partner. (Nord [1997] 2007: 125) This trust in the translator’s “loyalty” to their communicative partners in translation is therefore seen as empowering the translator to ensure that the text achieves its given purpose. It also imposes on the translator a duty to remain loyal to the original author of the source text by ensuring that the intentions of the target text are in line with those of the original author (Nord [1997] 2007: 125). In the case of Bible translation, Nord feels that the translator’s loyalty is to the authors of the Bible and to those who will read the Word, rather than to previous translations or ‘"faithfulness" (whatever that may be) to nouns, verbs, and adjectives.’ (Nord 2008: personal communication). This idea of “loyalty” also introduces the “intercultural” (Nord [1997] 2007: 18) dynamic to skopos theory. This notion is likely to become most necessary when there is a disagreement between the source and target culture as to what a good translation is. In this case, the translator is expected to act as a mediator between the two cultures (ibid p. 125). This may take the form of the translator explaining to a publisher that a translation is likely to be politically unpopular if done correctly or reducing the forcefulness of an expression in order to ensure that the source text producer is not discredited (ibid p. 127). In both cases, the translator must take into account the difference in how various cultures perceive translation and the likely reaction of the target audience. The “intercultural” aspect encourages translation problems to be examined in the light of cultural issues. A good example of this is the problem of what to do with the word “denarius” in Jesus’ parable of the workmen in the field (Matthew 20: 1-16). It may be right to insist that this be seen as “the average wage of a day laborer” (Fee and Strauss 2007: 94) however, there still remains a two-fold translation problem. Firstly, people who work in steady employment today tend to be paid weekly or monthly and not daily, so the phrase “normal daily wage” as used in the NLT translation of verse 2 is possibly unclear. Secondly, if translators try to avoid this by picking a particular amount of money, they run the risk of either inflation or irrelevant comparisons making a mockery of their work. There is simply no real equivalent available. The choice here is therefore not between a good solution and a bad one but between several solutions that each have their own strengths and weaknesses. Once again, the translator will choose their solution according to the purpose of their translation, including its intended audience (Taylor 1997: 76-77). A translation prepared for new believers in the UK might call for the use of an explanatory phrase or even a very rough monetary equivalent; a translator working in a culture where bartering is more common might prefer the option of exchanging “denarius” for a more common method of payment. Conversely, a translation prepared in a culture where daily pay is very common could very easily contain the phrase “the normal daily rate” with no problem. The key here is that it is not so much the word itself that is the problem but its use in the particular culture in question. In this context Harries’ (2006: 59) appeal for a study of language use gains even more impetus as translators are very like to inadvertently choose unsuitable solutions if they do not have such information. This “intercultural” element in turn leads into the final consideration; that of translation being a “partly verbal” interaction. In this case, it is the word “partly” that carries the greatest weight. In skopos theory, translation is not simply about the exchange of word A in language X for word B in language Y. Instead, this theory, much like the theories of Hatim and Mason ([1997] 2003), sees translation as essentially about communication (Nord [1997] 2007: 10, 11, 16, 17; 2003: 34). This agrees with Strauss’ assertion that translation is primarily about communicating meaning rather than reproducing form (Strauss 2004: xx). The centre of any analysis should therefore be how the meaning of the text has been communicated.3 Applying skopos theory to Bible translations No scholar could pretend that examining the purpose of Bible translations is entirely new. Fee and Strauss (2007: 119-120) have already noted the first decision to be made by translators is to determine the intended audience for their translation. However, given the relatively late placement of this comment, the reader must assume that, in their view, considerations of purpose and audience design must take second place to discussions over translation approach. This seems contradictory. If they say “the first, and most critical, decision made by translators…has to do with the audience intended for their translation” (Fee and Strauss 2007: 119) then the meagre attention given to the analysis of this issue at the end of the book disproportionately influences the weight of their argument. If the translator must first decide on the intended audience, then those discussing Bible translations should also start with the question of the audience design and translation purpose. To begin at the end, so to speak, suggests that somehow translation approaches such as “formal equivalence” or “functional equivalence” (ibid p. 25-34) can be discussed as translation strategies independently of issues of translation purpose, audience design or even cultural expectations. It really cannot be stressed enough that such a view is dubious at best (see Taylor 1997: 76-77 for examples of this in action). Given the emphasis in skopos theory on the intention or purpose of the translation, applying it to Bible translation requires the reader or scholar to be able to determine the purpose for which the translation was written. As I wrote elsewhere, in most cases the prefaces of Bible translations do normally contain the requisite information for this task. This information should therefore form the basis of the analysis of any translation. To take an example that I have already used4, the preface New King James Version clearly illustrates the translators’ wish to stay as closely as possible to the rhythm and phrasing of the original Authorised Version (NKJV 1982: xxxv). The success or otherwise of this translation should therefore be primarily measured against its similarity to this text. Conversely, it would be foolish to use the same standard to describe the success or failure of The Message in fulfilling its skopos. Here the translator has clearly stated that his purpose was to translate in a way that would sound as if the Word was originally written or preached to his church (Peterson 2003: lii; Strauss 2004: xvi). He also stated clearly that his translation was not aimed at scholars but at helping people who may have become disenchanted with the Word to read it in a new light (Peterson 2003: li). In this case, skopos theory serves to encourage readers to measure translations against the known and explicit standard set by their translators5. This avoids the pitfalls of the more traditional accounts of translations where scholars could attempt to establish a translation rule without clearly defining why this should be the case. In the case of Fee and Strauss (2007: 36), for example, this manifests itself in recommendations that in all translations, the epistles should “read like first-century letters” (ibid p. 37). In the case of Wenham’s review of Ryken (Wenham 2003: 77, 78) this is shown in the implicit assertion that the Bible must read like a work of great literature and that linguistic tricks can and should be reproduced in all translations. Both cases assume that the scholar’s subjective preference is or should be a universal truth. There is little reason to expect non-academic readers of the Bible to notice or be interested in the forms and conventions of a first-century letter. Neither is it justifiable to insist that the Bible should read like one of the literary classics when there is little in the Word itself to justify such a view. While these scholars may have found issues that are of great importance to some audiences, it is going too far to set them up as universal principles of translation. Instead, skopos theory would require that the importance of these views would depend on the purpose of the translation, including its intended audience. The principles and resulting strategies pertinent to translations aimed at Bible scholars or academics in training will not necessarily be the same as those required in translations aimed at someone whose knowledge of the source language and culture is more limited and vice versa. Similarly, many of the requirements of a translation aimed at lovers of classic English prose will be significantly different to those of a translation aimed at lovers of ancient history. The “interpersonal” elements of skopos theory, including Nord’s addition of “loyalty,” encourage readers to trust Bible translators, no matter which of the traditional views they might favour. In this view, the translator’s responsibility towards God, the writers of the Bible and their target audience is given centre stage. Unlike the traditional paradigms, which have proven to be insufficient to prevent translations from clearly distorting the meaning of Scripture (Fee and Stuart [1993] 2002: 43), loyalty shuts the door to sectarian and unorthodox interpretations. In the framework of loyalty, attempts to create a translation that denies or reduces the deity of Christ, for instance, are absolutely excluded as justifiable translation purposes. “Loyalty,” of course, does not entirely erase the differences that will arise when translators of different theological perspectives translate the Word – what one translator will see as remaining “loyal” to the authors of the Word, another might see as a distortion. In this case, neither the view that the “client,” in this case the publisher, is always right nor the idea that “professionalism” is enough of a basis on which to make a decision (Pym 1997: 79-82) can provide an adequate basis for judging between different views. However, it must be admitted that there is simply no research into the operations of loyalty in any translation. It is seen as a philosophical and ethical concept rather than one that can be empirically measured (Nord [1997] 2007: 125). Until further research is done into its operation, researchers can only suggest possible routes in the pursuit of a solution to this dilemma. One approach worth pursuing would be to recommend that Bible translators find colleagues of differing theological viewpoints to check their work. Another would be for theologians, translation scholars and Bible translators to work together on the preparation of professional guidelines akin to those that professional associations require their members to sign.6 The “intercultural” element of skopos theory emphasizes that the act of translating the Bible involves building a bridge between the world of the Biblical writers and the world of today. One solution is to try to make the “otherness” of the Biblical worlds “accessible” to modern readers (Nord 2005). Another option among many is to keep “historical distance” in some places and not in others (see Fee and Stuart [1993] 2002: 35-42). Where previous scholars have tried to set up one approach as an ideal for all translations, skopos theory would yet again insist that the ideal approach is dependent on the purpose of the translation and is limited by the translator’s loyalty. Skopos theory and traditional paradigms The central argument of this article has been that skopos theory should become the new standard theory for the discussion of Bible translations. However, any discussion on this point must acknowledge that it could be argued that this theory and those underlying the “free vs. literal” debate seek to define and discuss entirely different problems. With its emphasis on the purpose of the translation, skopos theory compares the translation to the purpose for which it was written. The traditional models, on the other hand, have only ever sought to compare the target text with the source text. Most discussions over Bible translations in general and translation choice in particular centre on how translators handle short portions of text (e.g. Fee and Stuart 2002: 36-42, Strauss 2004 and Fee and S