“翻译行为理论”（贾斯塔•赫兹•曼塔利），它代表一个以功能为导向的翻译理论与实践，这种理论是由曼塔利在1984年首先提出来的。在这种理论中我们主要是将翻译设想成一个跨文化交流的过程，其最终产品是一个能够适当地运用在具体情况和背景下的文本。在这个概念中，既没有源和目标文本的比较，语言学也不起主要作用，而翻译是适用在专家和客户之间的合作互动的大背景下。The theory of 'translatorial action' (trans- latorisches Handeln), which represents a function-oriented approach to the theory and practice of translation, was developed by Justa Holz-Manttari (1984). Translation is here conceived primarily as a process of intercultural communication, whose end prod¬uct is a text which is capable of functioning appropriately in specific situations and con¬texts of use. In this conception, neither source- and target-text comparison, nor linguistics, has any significant role to play, and translation is situated within the wider context of cooperat¬ive interaction between professionals (experts) and clients.
霍尔兹•曼塔利的目的是提供一个理论基础和概念框架，职业译者可以从中得出获得指导；为了发展她的方法，她借鉴了通信理论和行为理论。通信理论使她特别指出跨文化障碍沟通过程是翻译行为理论的组成部分，而行动理论为她在划定翻译行为的具体特点时提供了依据。Holz-Manttari's aim is to provide a theoreti¬cal basis and conceptual framework from which guidelines for professional translators may be drawn; and in developing her appro¬ach, she draws on communication theory and on action theory. Communication theory enables her to highlight the components involved in a process of communication across cultural barriers, while action theory provides the basis for a delineation of the specific characteristics of translatorial action.
对翻译行为的主要目的是跨越文化障碍时能够合作性的、功能性的沟通。这涉及到一个很好的协议而不是传统意义上认为的翻译文本，为了把她的理论与更传统的翻译方法相区别，在德国，霍尔兹-曼塔适用了一个非常独特并具有高度抽象的术语，有时甚至回避“翻译”，为了避免在内涵与传统预期上对她的理论产生误导。她认为，因为动词“翻译”需要一个语法对象，因此，一提到“翻译”，人们往往直接关注到需要翻译的文本，这就是对这个翻译文本产生损害，她发现这个导向特别无用（霍尔兹•曼塔利1986：355）。
The primary purpose of translatorial action is to enable cooperative, functionally adequate communication to take place across cultural barriers. This involves a good deal more than what is traditionally conceived as the transla¬tion of texts, and in order to set her theory apart from more traditional approaches, Holz- Manttari develops, in German, a distinctive and highly abstract terminology, at times eschewing even the term 'translation' (Obersetzung), in order to avoid the connotations and expectations traditionally attached to that term. She argues that because the verb "translate' (ubersetzen) requires a grammatical object, it tends to direct attention back towards the text that is to be translated, to the detriment of the text that is to be produced, an orientation which she finds particularly unhelpful (Holz-Manttari 1986: 355). In her model, source-text analysis is reduced to an 'analysis of construction and function' (1984: 139ff.), in which the actual part played by the source text is extremely limited. The source text is viewed as a mere tool for the realization of communicative func¬tions; it is totally subordinate to its purpose, is afforded no intrinsic value, and may undergo radical modification in the interest of the target reader. The translator is unilaterally committed to the target situation because it is primarily the message and the commission, rather than the text itself, that have to be rendered for the client. It is mainly because the source text may be thus 'dethroned' (Newmark 1991b: 106) that Holz-Manttari's theory has met with objections or reservations, even by theorists who them¬selves apply a functional approach to translation (see for example Nord 1991a: 28). Newmark also finds fault with the 'modernistic abstract jargon of contemporary Public Rela¬tions' and the 'businesslike manner of writing' which, he believes, obscure "the real issues in translation' (1991b: 106). However, in Holz- Manttari's model, translation and other forms of (foreign language) text production are conceived as part of, rather than constitutive of, translatorial action. One purpose of the translatorial text operations is to establish whether the content and form components of the source text are functionally suitable for the target
