Very interesting. Gutt promised that this theory does help translators to understand the gist of translation but it doesn't guarantee that a proper consideration of relevance theory in translating would produce the best translation. The reason: Perfect communicability of the original text is dubious.
The context is essential. And the translators' mastery of the original context, the original text, the target context (including the expectations of the target audience) and the target language determins the quality of the translation. No translator can be 100 percent sure about his own interpretation of the four aspects is true. So the quality of the translation produced is hard to assess.
Whether the translation is good enough can be gauged against the relevance theory, and translation problems can be solved with the help of the relevance theory. The only problem is to judge how relevant. Relevant to what? Gutt suggests the translators should state the principles they follow in the preface of the translated version to inform the readers. In this way, the readers can know wheter the translators' relevance is the same as the readers' own expectations and contexts.
Yet, there is still the problem of communicability.
The addressee can neither decode nor deduce the communicator's communicative intention. The best they can do is construct an assumption on the basis of the evidence provided by the communicator's ostensive behaviour. For sucn an assumption, there may be confirmation but no proof.(Sperber and Wilson)
Gutt cites Sperper and Wilson to demonstrate that there must be a gap between the addressee's perception of "the communicator's communicative intention" and the the communicator's real "communicative intention." In other words, the perfect communication can never be realized. Hence, in sight of the more obstacles it has to deal with, translation can never be so perfect or "original."
I accept this. Disatisfaction abounds in translation. But you can "ever" improve. That is the beauty and appeal of translation.
Because cognition has not been quantified scientifically. The relevance degree is unable to do that either, leaving a great challenge for the translators. Can they defend their translation solution by saying that "Considering its relevant degree, I chose this instead of that?" Yes, even though no one is convinced. After all, everyone's reality, or here everyone's context, is different， not to mention their individual perception.
Whatever. Here is a quotation Gutt used. I'd like to copy it here:
A statment may be pseudoscientific even if it is eminently 'plausible' and everybody believes in it, and it may be scientifically valuable even if it is unbelievable and nobody believes in it. (Imre Lakatos)
So far today.
