#4 Oct 7 - Studies on Translation Theories
#4 Oct 7 Functionalist Approaches Vermeer, H. J. (2004). Skopos and commission in translation action. In L. Venuti (Ed.) (pp. 227-238). New York: Routledge.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Copyright 2009
NTNU GITI BLOG
All rights reserved | Powered by
Blogger
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress Theme by EZwpthemes
Blogger Templates created by Deluxe Templates
Wordpress Theme by EZwpthemes
3 意見:
According to Vermeer’s definition, the skopos of a translation is ‘the goal or purpose, defined by the commission and if necessary adjusted by the translator’ (p.236). Under this definition, what can be seen is Vermeer’s emphasis on the role of the translators. In fact, throughout the whole reading, it is not hard to find Vermeer’s reiteration of several issues, which are:
1. Every translation has its own skopos, whether it is recognized or not.
2. The skopos can be the process, result or mode of translation.
3. Translators are experts, who should perform the intercultural communication.
4. Fidelity to the source text can be one of the potential scopi of translation, but not the only one.
5. Skopos should to some degree considering the target culture and the target text.
From the above, it seems to me that what Vermeer’s reiteration really intended to reveal is the awareness of the translators and the status of the target text/ target culture. First, in terms of the awareness of the translator, I would suggest that to view translators as experts is of highly importance, as it should be widely known that translation does not equal bilingual language exchange. There are far more complex issues related in the whole translation process. Therefore, it is fundamental not only for the translators but also for the commissioners to fully acknowledge that translation is a profession.
Secondly, with regard to the status of the target text, I do think it is necessary for Vermeer to stress that fidelity to the source text is not the only skopos of translation. For a long time, translation has been viewed as the imitation of the source text; this perspective has restricted the potential of translation. A translation does not necessarily to be the echo or the mirror image of the source text. It could even bring out the potential that has not been realized in the source text. Hence, I do appreciate Vermeer’s viewpoint of breaking the myth of fidelity.
To sum, I would suggest that in this reading, what Vermeer contributes the most is the appeal to a new perspective towards the translator and the target text.
張貼留言