On Translators’ Cultrual Frame of Functionist Reference

Abstract

A deep cognition with translators' cultural frame of functionist reference can help instructors and teachers adjust and extend patterns and schemes of translation and generate the optimal classroom conditions for acquisition of the target language. The author of the paper, in the perspectives of motivational, cognitive and communicative functionist styles, has probed into their respective common patterns that are grounded in the connotation of Chinese culture and examined the implications these three important components have for the would-be translators to work out ways to promote functionist translation. Translation, for a long time, has been considered as derivatives, copies, and translators as mechanical devices replacing linguistic codes (equivalents) from one language into another, and the translator's autonomy was always questioned (and is still being questioned) by those who thought of him/her 'as a monkey, with no choice save to make the same grimaces as his master' (Leppihalme, 1997: 19), until recent years when, under the influence of poststructuralism and functionalism, the focus of attention has been shifted to the issue of translator's agency and subjectivity, and the notions of originality and (absolute) equivalence and also author's superiority over translator has been severely questioned. Awareness of complexity of translation process and avoidance of the simplistic view of regarding translation as mere process of transferring words from one text to another will result in realizing the importance of the cultural frame of functionist reference underlying a translation. They argue that behind every one of the translator's selections, as what to add, what to leave out, which words to choose and how to place them, there is a voluntary act that reveals his history and the socio-political milieu that surrounds him; in other words, his own cultural and ideological frame of functionist reference. (Alvarez & Vidal, 1996: 5). So long, common cultural thinking and behaviour patterns can be identified in China's translation studies, as are evident in students' motivation orientation, cognitive style preference and communication style. To succeed in teaching this particular large group of students specialized in translation, the relevant teachers have to acquire a good understanding of their effect and cognitive domains. Lack of knowledge in this respect tends to bring about disparity in translational expectations, the miscoding between learning syles and instructional styles, and may even cause discomfort, disappointment and fructration both to students and teachers in translation study. A case in point is functionism, whose advocates claim its theories to be comprehensive and suitable of all types of translation in all situations (Hilliday 1985). On the basis of all transfers among dynamic and functional equivience (Nida 1964), the functionist schematic view is normalized as: Is loyal to his client? Must be visible? Target text oriented, communicative acceptability, psycholinguistic and sociallinguistic and text-linguistic perspectives in one, and building bridge between the intercode and intercultural communication? As we know, translators are those who let their knowledge govern their behaviors. And that knowledge is ideological. It is controled by ideological norms. If you want to become a translator, you must submit to the translator's submissive role, submit to being possessed by what According to Schaffner (1996), 'Functionist approach is a kind of cover term for the research of scholars who argue that the purpose of the TT is the most important criterion in any translation' (p.2). Functionalism is a major shift from 'linguistic equivalence' to 'functional appropriateness'. From the perspective of functionist approaches to translation, translation is viewed as a communicative act. In this view, translation is conceived primarily 'as a process of intercultural communication, whose end product is a text which is capable of functioning appropriately in specific situations and context of use' (Schaffner, 1996: 3). If we, the teachers of translation studies, can univeil translators' cultural frame of reference embedded in immediate classrooms, it will help translators become more flexible in adjusting and expanding the patterns of functionist transfer and in tailoring our teaching to the needs of the Chinese students. Discontinuities that potentially exist between their cultural absorbed ways of communication and those expected in classroom will be mitigated. Translators' motivation will be enhanced, cognitive competences maximized, and participation in autonomic translation increased.