|
In Discourse and the Translator, Hatim and Mason consider the text as "a communicative transaction taking place within a social framework", and "translation as a communicative process which takes place within a social context", which affirms the important position of context in translation. They categorize the context to three dimensions, respectively as communicative, pragmatic and semiotic dimension. Firstly, the communicative dimension is reflected in register analysis, though valuable, but not adequate. Thus another dimension is distinguished-the pragmatic dimension, which relates to the ability "to do things with words". There is a third dimension-the semiotic one, which treats a communicative item, including its pragmatic value, as a sign within a system of signs. The three dimensions are independent but interplay with each other. Hatim and Mason believe that in a certain register condition, the communicative purpose decides the choice of words and building of sentence of the author, while to perceive the communicative purpose, both the pragmatic act of text and its value of signs should be considered. The comprehension of a text is the premise of a successful translation, and a comprehensive analysis of the context is just the path to understand a text. Only in this way can the translator reproduce the contextual meaning of ST in TT accurately. The task of the translator is not only to achieve equivalence in words, phrases and texts, but to actualize the illocutionary act, rhetorical purpose, conversational implicature, genre, etc. in TT.The thesis introduces the theory of semantic and communicative translation by Newmark, to investigate how to actualize the rhetorical purpose in translation, and to build systematic evaluation criteria. At first, the text is produced in certain situation. The translator should consider the language variants in the context which produces the text, i.e. the register, including field, mode and tenor. In this dimension, the job of the translator is to establish a new context the same as that in the register of SL. It is the use-related variation. Hatim and Mason also include the user-related variation, which covers idiolect and dialect, and forms another aspect in communicative dimension. Secondly, the translator should try to perceive the speech acts contained in ST, and then reproduce the same pragmatic meaning to achieve pragmatic equivalence. Therefore, the reservation of illocutionary force and implicatures is particularly important. At last, the semiotic dimension regulates the interaction among textual elements as signs. The translator needs to focus on the relevance among signs in syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The consideration in intertextuality will help to achieve equivalence of text as signs.As the case study object, Fortress Besieged and its translated version provide many examples so that the thesis can analyze the actualization of rhetorical purpose in translation more specifically from the3dimensions. On communicative level, the rhetorical purpose of ST can be mostly actualized in translation, while some texts with cultural tradition and special usage cannot find exact equivalence. Because the pragmatic dimension is closely related to the context and contains distinct cultural characteristics, the translator has to make adjustment according to the context of SL, to make the same pragmatic effect as that in ST. On semiotic level, if the translator can remain the status of signs from ST in TT, the rhetorical purpose is basically realized. But similarly, when the text carries rich cultural information, the translator can only try to make functional equivalence through some compensatory devices. The untranslatability is unavoidable. The translators of Fortress Besieged, Jeanne Kelly and Nathan K. Mao use semantic and communicative translation in combination, but have different emphasis in the3dimensions. On the whole, the rhetorical purposes of ST are mostly actualized in translation, and the intentionality of the author is also conveyed. However, due to the reason of cultural factors, untranslatability and the translators’ mishandling, there exist some losses in aesthetics and rhetorics.
|