A review of relevance theory and translation

《A review of relevance theory and translation》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在学术论文-天天文库。

Nov.2006,Volume4,No.11(SerialNo.38)US-ChinaForeignLanguage,ISSN1539-8080,USAAReviewStudyofRelevanceTheoryandTranslation1LIUYan-fang(ForeignLanguagesSchool,ZhongnanUniversityofEconomics&Law,Wuhan,Hubei430074,China)Abstract:AsacognitivetheoryadvancedbySperberandWilson,RelevanceTheoryrevealstheinherentfeaturesoflanguagecommunicationinaculture,whichismostlyapplicabletopragmatics.However,RelevanceTheoryseemstoofferafeasibleandconvincingapproachtotranslationonthegroundsthatitviewstranslationasadynamicinferentialprocessandfocusesonthecognitivepropertyoftranslation.Thisresearchmakesanattempttoexploretherevelationoftheprincipleofrelevancewithtranslationtoofferpracticalguidanceoneffectivetranslation.Keywords:RelevanceTheory;translation;theprincipleofrelevance;contextualeffect;processingeffort1.BasicsofRelevanceTheoryIn1986,SperberandWilson(1986:12)advancedRelevanceTheory,viewinglanguagecommunicationasacognitiveprocess,anostensive-inferentialprocess,closelyrelatedtopeople’spsychologicalactivities.RelevanceTheoryhasachievedsuchprominencemostlybecauseitmakesaseriousattempttoconfrontthequestion“Whatisthenatureandroleofcontext”.However,forcontexthere,itdoesnotmeanco-textorcontextofsituation,butthesetofassumptionsthehearerhasabouttheworld.Inthissense,contexthereisawideconceptandpotentiallyenormous,includingabsolutelyanyassumptionownedbythehumanmind.Theseassumptionsmaybefrom“informationabouttheimmediatephysicalenvironmentortheimmediatelyprecedingutterances”ortoamuchgreaterextent,from“expectationsaboutthefuture,scientifichypothesesorreligiousbeliefs,anecdotalmemories,generalculturalassumptions,beliefsaboutthementalstateofthespeaker”(Sperber&Wilson,1986:15).Itisquitetruethattherecognitionoftheintendedinterpretation,eventhesuccessofcommunicationdependsgreatlyonwhetherthehearerusesthespeaker-intendedorappropriatecontext.Therightchoiceofcontextualassumptionswillbefollowedbystraightforwardandlogicalinferenceoftheintendedimplication,whereastheuseofwrongassumptionswillcertainlyleadtomisunderstanding,evenacompletefailureofcommunication.However,intermsofcognition,contextisnotself-obviousobjectiveexistence,noraconditionprescribedbeforeinference,buttherecognitionproducedintheverydynamicprocessofinference.Intheprocessofcommunication,thehearerconstructstheimmediatelygivencontextbasedonthepreviousdiscourse,whichisanindispensablepartofthenextdiscourseunderstanding,sohiscontextisconstantlychanged,expandedandenriched,becomingthebaseoffurtherinterpretingnewinformation.Inthissense,contextisavariable,notfixedinadvance.Wilsononceclaimedthat“themostbasicassumptionofRelevanceTheoryisthateveryaspectofcommunicationandcognitionisgovernedbyrelevance”(1994:47).Infact,relevanceisarelativeconceptanddependsontwomainfactors:contextualeffectandprocessingeffort.Thenotionofcontextualeffectiscrucialto“acharacterizationofrelevance”oranindispensableconditionforrelevance.Thatistosay,whenandonlywhenLIUYan-fang(1978-),female,M.A.,lecturerofForeignLanguagesSchool,ZhongnanUniversityofEconomicsandLaw;researchfields:translationtheoryandpractice,languageandculture.66 AReviewStudyofRelevanceTheoryandTranslationnewinformationachievescontextualeffectinacontextcanitbeconsideredrelevant.Inaddition,otherthingsbeingequal,thegreaterthecontextualeffectis,thegreatertherelevancewillbe.Theinteractionofnewandoldinformationgivesbirthtotheso-calledcontextualeffectwhichisyieldedwhennewlypresentedinformationaffectsexistingcontextualassumptionsinthefollowingthreeways—strengtheningorconfirmingexistingassumptionsinthecontext;contradictingandeliminatingexistingassumptionsinthecontext;combiningwithexistingknowledgetoproduceacontextualimplication.Itmustbenotedthatcontextualeffectisachievedthroughprocessingeffort.Thegreatertheeffortneededtoobtaincontextualeffect,thelowertherelevancewillbe.Gratuitouseffortdetractsfromrelevance.Wilson(ibid:45)arguesthattwomainfactorsaffectingprocessingeffortaretheeffortofmemoryandimaginationneededtoconstructasuitablecontextaswellasthepsychologicalcomplexityoftheutteranceitself.Moreover,“Anyelementofindirectnessinanutterancedemandsadditionalprocessingeffort,andthus,encouragesasearchforadditionaleffects—effectsthatamoredirectformulationwouldnothaveachieved”(ibid:53).Hence,ifthespeakerputshishearertoadditionaleffortofprocessinganutterancetoobtaintheintendedinterpretation,hemusthaveintendedtoachievesomeextraeffect.InthelightofRelevanceTheory,thehearerisguidedbyasingle,verygeneralcriteriontoevaluateavarietyofpossibleinterpretations,whichispreciseandpowerfulenoughtoexcludeallbutasingleinterpretation.Thiscriterionisnothingbuttheprincipleofrelevance.Theprincipleofrelevanceis“theprinciplethateveryutterancecreatesanexpectationofrelevance”(ibid:47).Thisprincipleisnotamaxim,norarule,butanexceptionlessgeneralizationaboutwhathappensinacommunication—wheneverapersoncommunicatessomething,heautomaticallyhasthepresumptionthatwhatheisgoingtosayisbelievedtoberelevanttothehearer.Specialattentionshouldbepaidherethatwhat’simportanttothehearerisnotmaximalrelevance,whichismeantto“yieldthegreatestpossiblecontextualeffectsinreturnforthesmallestamountofprocessingeffort”(ibid:47),butoptimalrelevance.Optimalrelevanceisachievedthroughenoughcontextualeffectworthyofthehearer’sattentionwithoutanygratuitousprocessingeffort.AsWilsonclaims“Anutterance,oragiveninterpretation,isconsistentwiththeprincipleofrelevanceifandonlyifthespeakermightrationallyhaveexpectedittobeoptimallyrelevanttotheheareronthatinterpretation”(ibid:49).Inthissense,thespeakernaturallymakestheassumptionthatthereisnootherinterpretationwhichbothhasenougheffectworthyofthehearer’sattention,andiseasierforthehearertoconstructthantheintendedone.Inaddition,heisconvincedthatthefirstacceptableinterpretationtooccurtotheheareristheoneheintendstoconvey,andprovessatisfactoryandjustifiable.Asforthehearer,heassumesthatthecontextneededforthecorrectinterpretationisthemosteasilyavailableandthatcombinedwiththeappropriatecontext,theintendedinterpretationwillbereached,whichiseffort-worthy.Thus,thepursuitofoptimalrelevanceguidesthehearertokeepinmindthat“Thefirstinterpretationtestedandfoundconsistentwiththeprincipleofrelevanceistheonlyinterpretationconsistentwiththeprincipleofrelevance:allotherinterpretationsaredisallowed”(ibid:51).2.ReviewofRelatedStudiesonRelevanceTheoryandTranslationAsacognitivetheory,RelevanceTheoryhasprovokedafloodofresearchinpragmaticssince1990s.However,itwasin1991thatErnst-AugustGutt(1991),acognitivepragmatist,offeredanaccountoftranslationpurelyintermsoftheconceptofrelevance.GutthadintendedtofoundanewtranslationtheorybasedonRelevanceTheory.Interestinglyenough,herealizedRelevanceTheoryitselfhadsuchstrongexplanatorycapabilitythatitwasabletoaccountforexistingtranslationtheoriesaswellasseeminglycontradictorytranslation67 AReviewStudyofRelevanceTheoryandTranslationphenomena.InthelightofRelevanceTheory,Guttclaims“Thetranslatorwilldesignher/histranslationinsuchawaythatitresemblestheoriginalcloselyenoughinrelevantrespects”(2001:46).Thisimpliesthattranslationisinterpretativeresemblance—thesharingofexplicaturesandimplicatures—betweentheoriginalandthetranslationwithvaryingdegrees.Themorecloselytheyresembleeachother,themoreexplicaturesorimplicaturestheyshare.Hence,whatatranslatorshoulddoistocoordinatetheeffortofboththewriterandtheTLreaderintheirpursuitofoptimalrelevance.Gutttendstochallengethecentralprincipleofmanytranslationtheories,claimingthat“theaimofconveyingthesamemessagedoesnotprovideatenablebasisforageneraltheoryoftranslation”(1991:99).Hisclaimraisesthequestionoffaithfulnessintranslation,which,accordingtoGutt,canbedefinedexactlybyRelevanceTheory.Heannounces“theprincipleofrelevanceheavilyconstrainsthetranslationwithregardtobothwhatitisintendedtoconveyandhowitisexpressed”(ibid:101).Furthermore,hearguesthatthisprincipleprovidestheguidanceforthetranslatorinthat“theydetermineinwhatrespectsthetranslationshouldresembletheoriginal—onlyinthoserespectsthatcanbeexpectedtomakeitadequatelyrelevanttothereceptorlanguageaudience”(ibid:102).Otherwise,explanations,evenchangesshouldbeadoptedtomaximizecontextualeffectandrelevance.However,because“adequaterelevance”and“unnecessaryeffort”arequitevaguetermsonaslidingscaleanditishardtofindtheappropriatepointonthescale.Guttwasoncechallengedbyothertheoristsandresearchers(Fawcett,1997).FawcettevenarguesagainstGuttbyclaimingwhathemaintains“hardlyamountstoprovidingexactlytheguidance”,andthat“allGuttcandoisaretrospectiveanalysistoexplainhowaudienceswithdifferentdegreesofknowledgewilleitherbeabletoprocessatranslationandproceed,ornotprocessitandgiveup”(1997:137).Aswhatisknown,inChina,althoughRelevanceTheoryhasagreateffectonpragmaticresearch,littleattentionhasbeenpaidtoitintranslationcircle.Asamatteroffact,asearlyasin1994,LINKe-nan(1994:7)introducedsomeviewsandassertionsadvancedbyGutt.ItisapitythatthesignificanceofRelevanceTheoryontranslationaswellasGutt’soriginalviewshasbeenignored.Morerecently,theimportanceofpragmatictranslation,especiallytherevelationofRelevanceTheoryonthetranslationpractice,hasbeenincreasinglyrecognized.Inherreflectionsonpragmatictranslation,YEMiao(1998)arguesthegreatestsignificanceofRelevanceTheoryliesinitsexplicitemphasisupontranslationprocedures,thatis,uponthesearchforoptimalrelevance.Furthermore,FANYongmakesanassertionthat“agoodtranslatedtextmustguaranteethecontextualeffecttheTLreaderachievesbethesameasorsimilartothecontextualeffecttheSLreaderachieve”,andthat“theconsistencyofrelevancebetweentheoriginalandthetranslationistheprerequisitefortheirequivalenceintermsofmeaningandfunction”(2000:5).Inaddition,MENGJian-gang,fromtheangleofRelevanceTheory,makesadetailedaccountofthecriterionintranslation,withtheclaimthat“intranslating,theprincipleofrelevanceshouldbekeptforitgovernstheselectionofcontextandguidestheinferenceofintention”(2001:9).AccordingtoMENG,translationcanbedefinedas“adynamicprocess,anactofostensive-inferentialverbal(intralingualorinterlingual)interpretation”(2001:9).Here,“dynamic”referstodynamiccognitivecontext,dynamicinferenceanddynamicrelevance.3.ARelevance-theoreticViewonthePrincipleofTranslationThetraditionaltranslationtheoryconsiderstranslationasaprocessofdecodingtheinformationinone68 AReviewStudyofRelevanceTheoryandTranslationlanguageintotheother.Thistheoryandthecorrespondingviewpointsontranslationstemfromthecodepatternincommunication,whichhasdefectsinitselfbecauseitdeniesthedifferencesofcognitiveenvironmentandcognitiveabilitiesbetweencommunicatorsaswellastheimportanceofdynamicinferenceincommunication.Nevertheless,RelevanceTheoryseemstoofferafeasibleandconvincingapproachtotranslationonthegroundsthatitviewstranslationasadynamicinferentialprocessandfocusesonthecognitivepropertyoftranslation,withtheemphasisuponthetranslator’scommunicativecompetence—translationcompetence—thatthetranslatoriscapableofproducingmorethanonetranslation,andofchoosingthebestoneinthelightoftheprincipleofrelevance.AccordingtoRelevanceTheory,theprincipleofrelevancerequiresthetranslator“designhertranslationinsuchawaythatitresemblestheoriginalcloselyinrelevantrespects”(Gutt,2001:46)—intherespectthatisadequatelyrelevanttotheTLreaderandcanproduceenoughcontextualeffect.Asfarashowtorenderisconcerned,thetranslationchosenbythetranslatorshouldbesuchthatityieldstheintendedeffectwithoutputtingthereadertounnecessaryeffort.Inthissense,whatthetranslatorshoulddoisnotmerelyseekfortheproperlinguisticcorrespondent,butensurethereader’sadequatecontextualeffect,includingthecomprehensionoftheoriginalwriter’sintention,thegraspoftheimplicaturesandtheunderstandingofdistinctivewritingeffectsandsoforth.Asaresult,theprocessoftranslationistheveryprocessofthesearchforrelevance.WhatthetranslatorstrivestoachieveandtheTLreaderexpectsistheprincipleofrelevance,morespecifically,optimalrelevance.Inotherwords,thetranslatorshouldviewtheprincipleoftranslationasthepursuitoftheoptimalrelevancebetweentheoriginalinformationandtheTLreader’scognitivecontext,orbetweentheoriginalwriter’sintentionandtheTLreader’sexpectation.Thentranslationinvolvesadoubleostensive-inferentialprocess,whichisfarmorecomplexthanintralingualcommunication.First,bymeansoforiginalutterances,communicativecluesandtheprincipleofrelevance,thetranslatortriestofigureouttheoriginalwriter’scommunicativeintention,thatis,theassumptionsthewriterintendstoconvey.Lateron,baseduponhisunderstandingoftheoriginalwriter’sintentionaswellastheTLreaders’cognitivecontextandexpectation,thetranslatortransmitstheoriginalinformationtoachieverelevantcorrespondencebetweenthetranslatedtextandtheoriginaltext,whiletheTLreadermakesaninferencetointerpretthetranslationwithadequateeffect.Asaresult,theprocessoftranslationinvolvestwocommunicatorsandtworeceptors—theoriginalwriter(communicator1),thetranslator(receptor1/communicator2)andtheTLreader(receptor2).ItisclearthattranslationreliesheavilyontheparticipationoftheTLreader,sothetranslatormustrealizetheimportantroletheTLreaderplaysintranslation,whichcanbeignoredundernocircumstances.Ininterpretinganutterance,theTLreader,moreoftenthannot,startswiththemosteasilyaccessiblecontextualassumption,butifthisfailstorecognizetheintendedinterpretation,ortheinterpretationisn’tworththeirattentionandeffort,theywillcertainlyexpandandenrichtheircontexttoobtainfurthereffect.Inaddition,theyrepeatthisprocessuntiltheyacquiretheoptimallyrelevantinterpretationwithadequateeffect,whichisalsointendedbytheoriginalwriter.Therefore,itisabsolutelyabsurdtotransmittheoriginalinformationtotheneglectoftheTLreader’scognitivecontext.Onthecontrary,“withrelativelylargefreedom,thetranslatorhastherightandresponsibilitytochoosetheexpressionsuitableforthereadertoreproducetheoriginalwriter’sintentioninaccordancewithhisassessmentofthereader’scognitivecontext”(ZHANG&HE,2001:289).ItshouldbenotedherethattheTLreader’scognitivecontextisbothaninvariableandavariable.Asforinvariable,becausecognitivecontextincludestheTLreader’sculturalandscientificknowledge,commonsenseassumptions,itcannotbealteredeasilyintheshortterm.Asfarasvariableisconcerned,people’scognitivecontextissubjectto69 AReviewStudyofRelevanceTheoryandTranslationconstantchangeandexpansionbecause“theindividual’sactualawarenessoffacts,i.e.theknowledgethathehasacquired,ofcoursecontributestohisabilitytobecomeawareoffurtherfacts”(HEZi-ran,1997:126).Besides,itisaninevitabletendencythatdifferentcultures,intheprocessofglobalization,areundergoinginteractionandassimilation,whichincreasinglyshortensthedistanceofpeopleallovertheworld.Hence,beforechoosingthebesttranslation,thetranslatorshouldkeepthefollowingquestionsinmind:Doestheoriginalwriter’sintendedcontextualassumptionexistintheTLreader’spotentialcontext?Ifitdoes,isgreateffortneededtoactivateit?Doestheneededprocessingeffortfitinwiththecontextualeffect?Specialattentionmustbepaidtothelastonebecausethereisacommonmisconceptionthattheleasteffortmeansthebesteffect.However,justasNewmark(1981)claimsthemostintelligibletranslationisnotnecessarilythebestone,theleasteffortdoesn’tnecessarilyleadtothegreatesteffect;bythesametoken,theleasteffortdoesn’trefertonoeffort.Asamatteroffact,onlyappropriate,effectiveprocessingeffortandenoughcontextualeffectarerequisiteforoptimalrelevance.Inthissense,translationisbynomeansthetranslator’sarbitraryadaptationonimpulse,noranimprovisationfullofimaginationandcreation.DuetotheTLreader’scognitivecontextandexpectation,thetranslatordoestaketheresponsibilityforaddingextrainformationorcontextualassumptionswhicharerelevanttothereader’sachievingadequateeffect,andforomittingtheinformationconsideredtobeofinsufficientrelevance,evenanobstacletotheTLreader.However,itmustberealizedthat“relevancecanbeincreased”(Gutt,2001:52).Tomaximizerelevance,thetranslatorshouldfirstassesstheTLreader’sknowledge,cognitiveabilityandexpectationinanall-roundway,thenjudgecarefullythedegreetowhichtheSLinformationisrelevanttotheTLreader,sothathecanfigureoutcorrectlythepossibleeffortthereaderwillexerttoinfertheintendedinterpretation.Afterthat,implicaturescansometimesbespelledouttocompensateforcontextualmismatches,furtherbackgroundinformationmaybeprovidedtowidenthereader’scontextualknowledge,orotherwaysareemployedtoinformthereaderofhowthetextisintendedtobeunderstood,allofwhichmakeitfareasierforthereadertogetaccesstotheintendedeffectwithincreasedrelevance.AtypicalexamplegivenbyGuttisthattheword“passover”,indifferentcontexts,isrenderedinto“羊肉宴”,“上帝拯救犹太人之宴”and“纪念上帝的天使路过此地的宴会”respectively.Moreover,RelevanceTheoryseemstoofferanadequateexplanationofironingoutthelastingdisputebetweenliteraltranslationandfreetranslation.IfthetranslatorrendersalltheinformationintheSLintotheTLliterallytotheneglectofthedifferencesbetweenthetwolanguagesaswellastheTLreader’cognitivecontext,itwillinevitablycontributetotheloss,evendistortionoftheoriginalwriter’sintention.Bythesametoken,whentheoriginaltextistranslatedfreelywithoutconsideringtheTLreader’expectationofoptimalrelevance,few,evennocontextualeffectcanbeyielded.Hence,asindispensabletranslationmethods,bothliteraltranslationandfreetranslationcanco-exist,which,underdifferentcircumstances,shouldbeadoptedtorealizeoptimalrelevancewithadequateeffect.4.ConclusionTosumup,theauthorpreferstoreiteratethefactthatnomatterwhattranslationmethodisemployedintranslationpractice;itmustbeguidedbytheprincipleofrelevance.Inotherwords,asfarastranslationisconcerned,thecriterionforchoosingthebestrenderingfromvariouspossiblealternativesistomaketheoriginalwriter’sintentionhighlysalientandrelevanttotheTLreadersothatoptimalrelevancecanbeachievedwithadequatecontextualeffectandaslittleprocessingeffortaspossible.Anyway,theauthorsincerelyhopesthispaperwill70 AReviewStudyofRelevanceTheoryandTranslationofferpracticalguidanceontheeffectivenessoftranslationaswellasfreshinsightsintotranslationstudiesasawhole.Besides,itwillthrowsomefurtherlightonotherworthierstudiesonthissubjecttocomeintolightinthefuture.References:[1]Fawcett,P.(1997).TranslationandLanguage:LinguisticTheoriesExplained.Manchester:St.JeromePublishing.[2]Gutt,E.A.(1991).TranslationandRelevance:CognitionandContext.Oxford:Blackwell.[3]Gutt,E.A.(2001).PragmaticAspectsofTranslations:SomeRelevance-theoryObservations.In:L.Hickey,eds.ThePragmaticsofTranslation.Shanghai:ShanghaiForeignLanguageEducationPress.[4]Newmark,P.(1981).ApproachestoTranslation.Oxford:PergamonPress.[5]Sperber,D.&D.Wilson.(1986/1995).Relevance:CommunicationandCognition.Oxford:Blackwell.[6]Wilson,D.(1994).RelevanceandUnderstanding.In:G.Brown,eds.LanguageandUnderstanding.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.[7]范勇.浅论关联理论对翻译研究的启示.上海科技翻译，2000（3）：4-8.[8]何自然.语用学与英语学习.上海外语教育出版社，1997.[9]林克难.关联翻译理论简介.中国翻译，1994（3）：6-9.[10]孟建钢.关联理论对翻译标准的解释力.中国科技翻译，2001（1）：9-12.[11]叶苗.关于“语用翻译学”的思考.中国翻译，1998（5）：10-13.[12]张新红，何自然.语用翻译:语用学理论在翻译中的应用.现代外语，2001（3）：286-293.(EditedbyRobert,JessicaandDoris)71