function and application of descriptive
translation studies
1 introduction
the intention of this study is to explore
possible advantages of descriptive translation studies as in its application in
translation practice and translation analysis.
since early 20th century, translation
studies gradually broke away from the marginal status within other related
disciplines and established itself as an empirical science. from then on,
schools of thought have kept coming out and each claims its legitimacy for
existence. among these schools is descriptive translation studies (dts).
dts approaches translation from an
empirical perspective. translation is viewed to be a social activity having
significant importance in the receiving culture and for the target community.
therefore, translation is dealt with beyond the linguistic realization and
language comparison, and is incorporated in social and cultural context.
my attention was first directed to dts by
its peculiar characteristic of observation, description and explanation. the
subject is whatever happens in translation practice, from the determination of
prospective function of translation to the process of translator’s choice of strategies,
brainstorming and the revision, to the final product making appearance in the
target community.
the method of dts is basically descriptive.
the prescriptive tendency and the problem-solution pattern is abandoned.
translation phenomena are noted down. with accumulated data, some underlying
truths about translation will come out which will prove to be instructive not
only for theoretical probe but also for applied translation practice. i will
apply this descriptive method in the case study of this thesis.
a convenient tool has been set up to
conduct dts. “norm” is operative at every stage of
description and explanation. function, process and product and their
relationship as well are skeletal structure of what constitute descriptive
studies. translation phenomena are accounted for with the help of norm.
the case taken in this thesis is the
chinese classic the dream of red mansions. two English versions translated
respectively by yang hsien-yi and david hawks are compared and observations are
made in regard to their translation approaches.
in this regard, my observations are limited
to several aspects, i hope in-depth observation and explanation will done in
light of dts.
2 outline
2.1 development and major concepts of dts
in this part i will describe holms’ basic map of dts and the
relationship between function, process and product. i will also discuss some
important concepts such as pseudo-translation, multiple translation,
translationese, norm etc.
2.2 methodolgy
i will in this part discuss the methodology
of dts before i apply the same to the case study in this thesis with emphasis
to be placed on semiotic approach and the concept norm.
2.3 dts in contrast to other theories
a contrast study will be conducted here
with the objective to find the difference of dts from other theories such as
equivalence theory and the chinese xin da ya criteria. some advantage will
possibly be shown in this study.
2.4 case study
in this part, translation of the dream of
red mansions (also translated as the story of the stone) will be under
investigation in light of dts. translation samples to be quoted here will be
selected at random.
2.5 conclusion
based on the above elaboration of dts and
the case study, possible conclusion will be on the advantage of dts in specific
study of translation. suggestions on further research efforts will be made
also.
(note: while the topic will remain the
same, the above arrangement of contents is subject to change in the process of
writing.)
附录2- 引文范例(仅供参考)
“it is
therefore pointless to try to make tc more scientific than is sensible in view
of its complex subject-matter and available methods. translating is a mental,
multi-factorial activity which cannot exhaustively be investigated within a linguistic
framework ignoring the person of the translator.”(wilss, 1982: 217)
目前国际上流行的信用分析度量模型主要有四类,即KMV模型、CreditMetrics模型、麦肯锡模型和 CSFP信用风险附加法 (Credit Risk)。 1. CreditMetrics模型。CreditMetrics模型是世界上第一个信用风险的量化度量模型,是由 J. P. 摩根公司等于 1997年开发出的模型。该模型以资产组合理论为依据,运用 VaR(Value at Risk)框架,对贷款和非交易资产进行估价和风险计算。CreditMetrics模型依赖于历史数据,属于盯市模型 (MTM)。
2.麦肯锡模型。麦肯锡模型是在 CreditMetrics模型的基础上,对周期性因素进行了处理,将评级转移矩阵与经济增长率、失业率、利率、汇率、政府支出等宏观经济变量之间的关系模型化,并通过蒙地卡罗模拟技术 (a
structured MonteCarlo simulation approach)模拟周期性因素的“冲击”来测定评级转移概率的变化。
When you are applying for a research
degree, like the PhD, you will veryprobably have to write a research proposal
as a part of your application file. A PhD is awarded mainly as the result of
your making a genuine contribution to the state of knowledge in a field of your
choice. Even though this is not the Nobel Prize yet, getting the degree means
you have added something to what has previously been known on the subject you
have researched. But first you have to prove you are capable of making sucha
contribution, and therefore write a research proposal that meets certain standards.
The goal of a research proposal (RP) is to present and justify a research idea
you have and to present the practical ways in which you think this research
should be conducted.
When you are writing a RP, keep in mind
that it will enter a competition, being read in line with quite a few other
RPs. You have to come up with a document that has an impact upon the reader:
write clearly and well structured so that your message gets across easily.
Basically, your RP has to answer three big questions: what research project
will you undertake, why is important to know that thing and how will you
proceed to makethat research.
In order to draw the researcher’s attention
upon your paper, write an introduction with impact, and that leads to the
formulation of your hypothesis. The research hypothesis has to be specific,
concise (one phrase) and to lead to the advancement of the knowledge in the
field in some way.Writing the hypothesis in a concise manner and, first, coming
up with agood hypothesis is a difficult mission. This is actually
the core of your application: you’re going
to a university to do this very piece of research. Compared to this, the rest
of the application is background scenery. Take your time to think of it. When
you have an idea, be careful atthe formulation. A well-written hypothesis is
something of an essay’s thesis: it provides a statement that can be tested
(argues ahead one of the possible answers to a problem), it is an idea, a
concept, and not a mere fact, and is summed up in one phrase. In some cases,
you will have no idea what the possible answer to a problem worth being
researched is, but you will be able to think of a way to solve that problem,
and find out the answer in the meantime. It’s ok in this case, to formulate a
research question, rather than a hypothesis. Let those cases be rare, in
anyway.
Another piece of advice when writing your
hypothesis, regarding the trendy research fields: chances are great that
they’re trendy because somebody has already made that exciting discovery, or
wrote that splendid paper that awoke everybody’s interest in the first place.
If you’re in one of these fields, try to get a fresh point of view upon the
subject; make new connections, don’t be 100% mainstream. This will make the
project even more stimulating for the reader. Imagine that you are writing
about the trendiest subject, with absolutely no change in the point of view,
and you are given the chance to make the research. Trends come and go, fast;
what are the chances that, in four years’ time, when your research isdone and
you are ready to publish your results, one of those well-knownprofessors who
dispose of huge research grants has already said whatever you had to say?
Remember how, in a structured essay, right
after the thesis you would present the organisation of your essay, by
enumerating the main arguments you were going to present?
Same thing should happen in a RP. After
stating your thesis, you should give a short account of your answers to
thosethree questions mention earlier. State, in a few phrases, what will be
learned from your research, that your project will make a difference, and why
is that important to be known. You will have to elaborate on both of these
later in the paper.
The next step in writing your proposal is to
prove that that particular piece of research has not been done yet. This
section is usually called Literature Review. Inside it, you have to enumerate
and critically analyze an impressive list of boring bibliography. The
conclusion you should - objectively! - reach is that your idea of research has
not been undertaken yet. Even more, you use this opportunity to prove solid
theoreticalknowledge in the field, and build the theoretical bases of your
project. One tip: don’t review all the articles and books in the fields even
ifyou mention them in the bibliography list; pay attention in your analysis to
those you will build on. Another one: avoid jargon when writing your RP. The
chances are great that the person(s) who will read your and another 1000 research
proposals are not specialists in that very field - niche you are examining. If
you are applying for a grant with or foundation or something similar, it might
happen that those reading your paper are not even professors, but recruiters,
donors, etc. And even if they actually are professors, one of the reasons busy
people like them agree to undertake a huge, and sometimes voluntary, work, is
the desire to meetsome diversity, some
change from their work - so maybe they’ll
read applications for another specialisation. The capacity to get your message
across in clear, easy-to-grasp concepts and phrases is one of the
winningpapers’ most important advantages.
So far, you have proven you have a research
idea, that you are familiar with the field, and that your idea is new. Now, why
should your project be worth researching? Because it advances knowledge, ok.
But is this knowledge that anybody will need? Maybe nobody knows for sure how
the shoelaces were being tied in the XIXth century, but who cares, beyond two lace-tying
specialists? Find arguments to convince the reader that s/he should give you
money for that research: practical use, accelerating the development of
knowledge in your or other fields, opening new research possibilities, a better
understanding of facts that will allow a more appropriate course of action are
possible reasons. Be clear and specific. Don’t promise to save the world, it
might be too much to start with. Even James Bond succeeds that only towards the
end of the movie.
We approach now one of the most difficult
parts of writing a research proposal: the methodology. In short, what actions
are you going to take inorder to answer the question? When will you know
whether the hypothesishas been proven wrong, or has survived enough tests to be
considered, for now, valid? Those tests and the way you are supposed to handle
them to give rigor to your research is what is understood under methods.
Methods divide in qualitative (interviews, questionnaires) and quantitative
(statistics, stuff that deals intensively with numbers). For some projects
qualitative methods are more appropriate, for some quantitative, whilefor most
a mixture of the two is adequate. You should pick your methodsand justify your
choice. Research methodology, however, is too a complicated thing to be
explained here. And this is why it’s so tough: not much attention is given to
teaching it in Eastern Europe. Try, before writing your RP, to read a bit more
about methodology - on the Internet you will find for sure some articles - and
decide which methods suit your project best. Don’t forget: reading theoretical pieces
of your work and providing a critical analysis of those is also a kind of
research. It’s fine to provide a rough schedule of your research; some grant
programs willalso require a detailed budget, even though for scholarships this
is unlikely.
Conclusions: After working your way through
the difficult methodologicalpart, you only have to write your conclusions.
Shortly recap why your hypothesis is new, why it advances knowledge, why is it
worth researchingand how, from a practical point of view, are you going to do
that. Overall, the capacity of your project to answer the research question
shouldcome out crystal clear from the body of the paper, and especially from
the conclusions. If this happens, it means you have a well-written RP, and you
have just increased you chances for having a successful application.One last
word: how big should your RP be? In most cases, this is specified in the
application form. If it is not, we suggest that you keep it atabout 1500 words
(that’s 3 pages, single-spaced, with 12 size Times NewRoman). In fewer words it
can be really tough to write a good RP. With more you might bore your readers.
Which we hope will not happen.