Az Eszterházy Károly Tanárképző Főiskola Tudományos Közleményei. 2002. Vol. 3. Eger Journal of English Studies.(Acta Academiae Paedagogicae Agriensis : Nova series ; Tom. 29)
Albert Péter Vernes: Translation as Interpretation
TRANSLATION AS INTERPRETATION 141 trary to them, it actually explicates what adequacy means in a context: a text can be regarded adequate in a context inasmuch as it achieves optimal resemblance in it. In this framework, we could even substantiate the much-debated notion of equivalence, by considering it as the instance of maximal interpretive resemblance of the translation to the original in the secondary communicative context of the translation. This brief and sketchy train of thought was only meant to illustrate that the conceptual apparatus of relevance theory can also be used in the analysis of matters of translation quality with the sort of explicitness which, I think, is not offered by any of the previous theories. As for the objection to the application of relevance theory to translation, voiced among others by Tirkkonen-Condit (1992), concerning the vagueness of the criteria by which the translator can decide what is relevant in a context, the answer is that, on the one hand, no other theory has ever come close to providing nearly as explicit a definition of what relevance means in communication and, on the other hand, eventually the success of an act of translation, as of all communication, is the responsibility of the translator-communicator —it depends on how well she assesses the cognitive environment of the assumed target reader. Another critical observation concerning Gutt's theory is that he does not try to link his statements to the notions and categories of earlier, more traditional, theories of translation. Although he does recognise, for instance, the correspondence of the distinction between his direct arid indirect translation with the distinction between the traditional categories of literal and free translation, he abstains from using these, in my view, in order not to burden his notions with unnecessary connotations. This, I believe, is not a shortcoming but the natural result of his intention to break away from the descriptive-classificatory approach. Gutt's theory is not a translation theory in the traditional sense but, rather, the application of a general communication theory to translation. As such, it is not in the strict sense part of what we may call the traditional literature on translation since, instead of using concepts worked out specifically for describing translation, it attempts to refine an already existing conceptual apparatus in order to make it more general in scope, enabling it to handle an even wider range of communication phenomena. References Bell, Roger T. (1991). Translation and Translating. London: Longman.
