Introduction
For thousands of years, the discussion of “literal” “free” and “faithful”translation has never been settled in the translation field. This dispute can be datedback to the 1th Century BC of Cicero’s time. In the 4thcentury, Saint Jerome, indescribing his translation strategy, explicitly expressed his preference ofsense-for-sense translation to word-for-word translation. Since then, various scholarshave carried forward their own thinking on translation, yet they never agreed on thepredominance of the “literal” or “free” translation. As Susan Bassnett said in her bookTranslation Studies that this dispute was “emerging again and again with differentdegrees of emphasis in accordance with differing concepts of language andcommunication” (Bassnett, 1991: 42). Indeed numerous standards have been putforward by scholars, from Tyler’s “three general laws” to Eugene Nida’s “dynamicequivalence” (Nida, 2004: 22). The terms of the standard vary but their attention wasall fixed on the degree of the literal language transference.In the 1970s, the translation field finally witnessed a “cultural” turn. Scholarsturned away from the traditional linguistic angle and began to approach translationfrom a new cultural and sociological perspective. Many translators maintained thattranslation, as a social activity which invariably takes place in a social context,subjects itself to the cultural environment. Among them, Susan Bassnett and AndreLefevere explicitly dismissed the prior linguistic theories of translation, saying that“(their researches) have moved from word to text as a unit, but not beyond” (Bassnettand Lefevere, 1990: 4). Instead of making “painstaking comparisons betweenoriginals and translations” while overlooking the text in its cultural environment,Lefevere called for attention to factors such as ideology, patronage and poetics, whichin his opinion would systematically determine the acceptance or rejection of literarytexts. (Lefevere, 1992:15-39)This cultural turn in the translation field was actually initiated by Even-Zoharwho, in proposing the polysystem theory, regarded translated literary as onesub-system in a country’s whole literary domain. Under his polysystem theory, Israelischolar Gideon Toury attempted to develop an appropriate and systematic descriptivetranslation branch to take place of the traditional isolated translation studies. Heoutlined the overall framework for translation studies put forward by Holmes, whoincisively divided pure branches and applied branches. In pure translation studies,theoretical and descriptive sub-branches were distinguished and descriptivetranslation studies can be classified into product-oriented, function-oriented andprocess-oriented kinds. (Toury, 2001: 9) Thereafter the concept of descriptivetranslation studies became clearer and more approachable in its materialization,broadening the domain of translation studies and constantly bringing in new insights.After proposing a three-phase methodology for systematic DTS, Toury suggestedfinding some guidance for the individual translation behavior, which, as shared valuesor concepts of a community, can be formally called norms. To make his norms theorymore specific and manageable so as to regulate and facilitate descriptive translationstudies, he distinguished initial norms, preliminary norms and operational norms.(Toury, 2001:58-59) Those norms, from the macro level to the micro level, measureda translated work against the yardstick of many sociological and cultural factors.When trying to demonstrate some translation laws and to present how deep thecultural and social factors can influence translation, Toury’s norms theory canundoubtedly serve as an ideal framework for translation studies. First of all, it is broadin range, as its initial and preliminary norms are concerned with the macro aspectwhile operational norms deal with micro factors. Second, instead of prescribing themerit of a translated work, it endeavors to describe the charac
