Adaptation And Translator’s Task

In the 1980s, Belgian scholar Andre Lefevere developed the idea of translation as a form of rewriting. The theory of adaptation shifted the focus of translation studies beyond the language per se, and particularly to poetics, ideology, and the manipulation of the patronage.In translation studies, the theory has been controversial since its conception, as adaptation is often put on the opposite side of fidelity. Meanwhile, discussions on the theory often stop at comparative studies of theories or simple comparison at text level, yet there lacks systematic and in-depth discussion on ontological issues like the adaptation itself and its types. As for translation practice, in translating Chinese literature and introducing it abroad, adaptation, as an important translation strategy, plays an irreplaceable role, hence bearing some historical value. Being questioned in theory and presented in translation, adaptation needs to be viewed in an objective and historical angle. For adaptation, its occurrence in translation, its legitimacy, necessity, historical value, and practical relevance all need to be further reflected and studied.Thus, focusing on the theory of adaptation, the thesis adopts concrete text examples, borrows related theories in translation studies and linguistic philosophy, and through text comparison and logic deduction, systematically examines adaptation in translation. The thesis then explores in theory the limits of adaptation in practice as a translation strategy, confirms the legitimacy and necessity of adaptation in translation, pinpoints adaptation’s significant historical value as a strategy, and reflects in a time of Chinese culture going global, how to view adaptation in a more scientific and objective way.The thesis comprises three parts:the introduction, the body, and the conclusion, and the body contains four chapters:Chapter 1 starts from Lefevere’s viewpoint, clarifies the historical background of the adaptation theory’s conception and its relevance to linguistic philosophy. By comparing with Eco’s intentio operis and intentio lectoris, the difference between adaptation and liberal interpretation is demonstrated to redefine adaptation. On this basis, by adopting concrete examples of adaptation in literature translation, the thesis systematically examines and concludes four types of adaptation, i.e. addition, deletion, rewording, and plot-alteration.Chapter 2 places adaptation in translation studies and explores the legitimacy of adaptation in translation. To do so, the thesis proposes to first analyze translation’s essential attribute and goal, and then explores in three angles:the subjectivity of translator, the heterogeneity of language and culture, and the goal of translation. First, translation as a creative literary activity, the translator’s subjectivity is not just about how to translate, but the choice whether to delete, alter, or keep the original text. The literary taste and aesthetics somewhat determines the final translation. To some extent, translator’s subjectivity provides possibility for adaptation. Second, translation relies on the conversion between two languages, and different languages have their own way of expression; with the imperfection of language, in dealing with certain expressions like culture-loaded terms, translators have to adapt for dynamic equivalence. Third, translation being an activity of cross-cultural communication, different strategies should be adopted for different readers. Limited by historical conditions and the society and culture, translation, oriented to promote national culture, still can leverage adaptation as a strategy to achieve the target of cross-cultural communication.Chapter 3 compares the translatability at text level and historical level, natural language and pure language, and the adaptation-induced reconstruction and deconstruction of text; and hence examines the limits of adaptation as a strategy in translation. First, since translatability determines the possibility of translation, adaptation as a strategy is also limited by translatability. The translatability of a text reflects not just at word level, but that a text’s historical destiny varies in different historical period, so the text’s adaptation is affected on various degrees. Besides, adaptation, when occurred in translation, only alters the word or structure of the original text to a limited degree. Even if the translator adopts adaptation as a strategy, the integrity of the original text and its meaning needs to be preserved. With these limits, the deletion, revision, and trans-editing all embody the translator’s subjectivity and subject consciousness. Whether and how to delete or alter depend on the translator’s judgment and decision in light of the text at and beyond text level. Behind the challenges of translating is the translator’s sense of duty as the subject of translation.Chapter 4 goes back to translation per se and examines translator’s task through adaptation. Based on the concept of pure language in On Translator’s Task, the thesis visits translator’s task through translation ethics and historicity. With examples from translated Chinese literature, the chapter compares adaptation and translation, and argues that adaptation as a strategy has the legitimacy and historical value for its being, but it is not the only and absolute way of translation.As French translation theorist Meschonnic said, "The notion of translation is a historical notion." In terms of wording, style, and ideology, translation inevitably embodies characteristics of the time or is limited by the time, so adaption as a strategy is historical. In a time of Chinese literature going global, reasonable and limited adaptation is conducive to the promotion of Chinese literature and culture. However, seen from the essential attribute of translation, adaptation does not equal to translation, and should not overshadow translator’s eternal pursuit of fidelity.