The Theoretical Foundations of the Multiplicity of Translation Criteria

notcoincidental but the necessity of the development of translation study.

3.3.1 Linguistic Foundation

Here I attempt to explain the multiplicity of translation by the theory of fuzzy linguistics. Nida said \"translation is translating meaning\". Before we study translation, it is quite necessary and important to study on the meaning of language. There are two kinds of views about meaning: one is the fixed meaning assumption; the other is the fuzzy meaning assumption. the fuzzy meaning assumption deems that the meaning of words is fluxional, fuzzy, non-discrete, and is subjected to adaptations according to different contexts. In another word, the fuzzy meaning is the product of human brain and the world; it's open and always in a metabolic process. The meaning of words is so dynamic that it depends much on people's cognitive system

Therefore, we say the fuzziness of meaning is restricted by the words' basic meaning and also by the relevance between source text and target text. That's why the text is open and at the same time self:restricted. The translator should express in the way as he or she thinks is right, but should not go beyond a reasonable scope, which is accepted by the public. Further, that's why I propose the multiplicity of translation criteria and meanwhile set a lowest level for translation criterion.

3.3.2 Epistemological Basis

3.3.3.2 Evaluation Subjects Have Different Aesthetic Values

As critics, their aesthetic interests also play a critical part in their criticism of the target text. As the case with the translator, the critics' fore-understanding also influence their aesthetic judgment indirectly. The different living and work experience, worldview and moral view of critics will directly influence their evaluation of an object. If a critic is in favor of a certain writer, source text, translator or target text, he or she will probably give high praise to it. In this case, the subjective preference is inevitable in evaluation. They will give different comments on translator's work. From the aspect of axiology, those versions that meet critics' needs are more possibly to win good comments. Actually, the critics are at the same time readers of the target text. In some sense, each of these particular readers represents a certain social \"symbol cluster\". His or her social experience, characteristics, likes and dislikes, ideology, reading purpose, mode and process, all these factors determine his or her understanding of the value of works. However, a critic is also a social existence. The criterion one adopts has to be acceptable by the public.

3.3.3.3 Each Evaluation Object Has Values of Different Aspects

The formation of any conceptual object is constrained both by existent object and subject's thought structure. As for a specialized existent object, different people will get different conceptual objects. Take roses for an example: in flower dealer's eye, they represent the commercial value which can be materialized through selling, especially on the Valentine's Day; in a painter's eye, they are good material for artistic creation; in lovers' eye, sending roses are a

1

romantic way to show affection. Therefore, the same object--roses, have values, of three different aspects: commercial value, artistic value and conceptual object evaluation object, spiritual value. The evaluation subjects always construct a according to their needs and aim deep in their hearts. As an the target text also has values of different aspects. When setting criterion for translation, we should first make sure what our purpose is, and which aspect of value we want to find from the target text. Then we endeavor to establish different criteria according to different purposes. \"If this is an `anonymous' non-individual text, informative or persuasive, you expect it to be written in a natural manner-neat, elegant and agreeable. If the text is personal and authoritative, you have to assess how well the translator has captured the idiolect of the original, no matter whether it is cliched, natural or innovative.\"困ewmark, 2001:I 89)

2