1.2 Research Rationale

Nowadays，studies of translator's cognitive mechanism in translating and the process of meaning generation in certain context are still limited. Translation studies at home are confined to discussions of cultural thinking, principle summarizing，words operating and methods applying，etc.（Zeng, 2008），so the lack of a set of theoretical category and conceptual system featuring in descriptiveness，maneuverability and verification has restricted the development of translation studies as a discipline.（Zeng，2000）Translation studies abroad，although very prosperous in providing different theories，are still limited in combining the macro theory with the micro practice，or limited in systematic description of the micro operating process under guidance of the macro theory，which can be seen through review of the previous translation studies.

Although the practice of translating has been long established，the study of the field developed into an academic discipline only happened in the second half of the twentieth century（Munday，2001：7）. However，if the comprehension or thinking of translationwere regarded as a kind of primary translationtheory, translation theory could be said to have a history of more than two thousand years（Wang，2008：4）. Various translation theories have appeared，among which studies regarding equivalence between two texts can be found in different paradigms. Structuralists，such as Wilhelm Von Humboldt，Edward Sapir，Benjamin Whorf and Ferdinand de Saussure，hold that different languages express different views of the world，and the relation and structure make language meaningful. According to their viewpoints，since different languages cut the world up in different ways，no words should be completely equivalent out of their language system. So they think translation impossible. Such proposition is strongly criticized by many theorists.As Georges Mounin argues，“...yet translators exist，they produce，and their products are found to be useful.（Pym，2010：10）” Under such a background，the main theories of equivalence developed. The scholars tried to explain something that the linguisticsof the day could not explain or somehow did not want to explain.

Pym（ibid.：6-42）classifies equivalence studies into two paradigms:natural and directional. Researchers of natural equivalence，led by Vinay &Darbelnet（1958/1972），Kade（1968），Catford（1965），aim to find the natural equivalence between the target and the source texts at different linguistic levels by listing different procedures，yet the fact is that natural equivalence can only solve limited translation problems but cannot explain those asymmetry phenomena between languages，such as the subjective creativity of the translator. The paradigm of directional equivalence extends the dimension of natural equivalence by classifying different kinds of equivalence chosen by the translator in achieving different translations. However，most directional equivalence theories are based on the dichotomy made by Cicero：translating like a literalist interpreter or like a public speaker.The following is a list of the dichotomies found throughout the history of the western translation theories:foreignizing or domesticating by Schleiermacher（1813/1963），formal equivalence or functional equivalence by Nida（1964/2004），semantic and communicative translation by Newmark（1981/2001），illusory and anti-illusory translations by Levy（1967/2000），overt and covert translations by House（1997），documentary and instrumental translations by Nord（1997）, adequate or acceptable translation by Toury（1995/2001），fluent or resistant translation by Venuti（1995）. Directional equivalence solves the apparent“impossibility of translation” posited by structuralist linguistics，and equivalence becomes so possible that there are many ways to achieve it（Pym, 2010：38）. However，since equivalence presupposes symmetry between languages and wants to realize equivalence to the source text，the translator is definitely confined to the frame of the source text which is generally considered as superior to the target text，as a result the translator's subjective creativity is still confined. Furthermore，the equivalence paradigm only prescribes different ways for translator to choose rather than explains why translator chooses in this way.

The skopos paradigm centers around the purpose and states that translation is decided by certain purpose rather than the simple relation of equivalence. Supportive institutions，clients and readers are all influential factors. Such a paradigm only regards equivalence as part of the features of translation. Although the skopos paradigm realizes the importance of the objective factors in the whole process of translation，it fails to clarify the client's purpose or rneglects the fact that the client could not break the norms of the source text casually in actual translation.

Descriptive paradigm puts translation study into a polysystem of literature and regards equivalence as “a feature of all translations”（Pym，2010:64）. Theorists of this paradigm such as Toury（1995/2001），Chesterman（1997）use methods of systematic description by means of a set of terms，whose studies lay a foundation for the scientific translation studies. The descriptive research method is better than the traditional prescriptive method in revealing the nature of translation，and the research scope may extend to all kinds of translation phenomena，yet it cannot explain the translator's mental mechanism during translating or meaning generation in certain context. So there still exists research space in western translationtheories.

Translation in China also experiences a long history，which is generalized into four periods by Luo（1984：19）：“Word-for-word（Anben）— Faithfulness（Qiuxin）— Similarity in spirit（Shensi）— Sublimation（Huajing）”. When talking about the weaknesses of traditional translation theories in methodology，Liu Miqing gives the following points：

Classical and modern translation theorists in China are confined to traditional literary criticism such as using the methodology of traditional literary aesthetics，as a result，they put more emphasis on macro description by means of subjective inspiration and sentiment rather than using scientific and systematic formal argumentation to analyze the translation at the micro level. The lack of systematic and scientific categorization or logical analysis to value concepts makes traditional translation theories faint，impressive and intangible in their categorization and analysis，which causes debates between different viewpoints.Such translation theories cannot be of practical significance.（Liu，1999：preface XIII，tran. by the author）

Since translation studies have limitations in themselves and should be patched by theories from other fields，Snell-Hornby（1988/1995）proposes an integrated approach to translation studies based on the cognitive linguistic theories of Prototype and Gestalt，which offers enlightenment to this research with a new perspective to integrate the latest developed cognitive linguistic theories of Mental Space and Conceptual Integration into the translation studies.

Anyway，cognitive linguistics，with its advantage of helping describe the translator's cognitive mechanism，has been applied to translation studies by some scholars（Gutt，1991/2000；Jiang，2002）. Their studies provide new perspectives of translation studies to this research. Conceptual integration theory（CIT），integrating achievements of other cognitive linguistic theories，is considered very powerful in explaining the cognitive process of human thinking and talking. Introducing CIT into the translation studies can therefore help explain the cognitive mechanism of the translator in translating（see Mandelblit，1997，Wang，2004）. However，although CIT can provide a reasonable explanation to the translator's conceptualization in his/her cognition，it cannot explain the reason of concrete meaning generation in certain context. On account of various factors restricting the process of the translator's conceptualization in cognition and meaning generation in certain context，the author also borrows the contextualparameter theory（CPT）.

CPT breaks through the limitations of traditional context theories. Based on the purpose of descriptiveness and interpretation，CPT regards context as a collection of concrete contextual parameters which may be better defined and characterized than those abstract concepts of intra-textual context or outer-textual context. As to CPT，the relation between contextual parameters can be cross reference（including reference between the macro and the micro propositions，reference between the superordinate and the subordinate concepts，reference between the whole and the part，etc.），mutual mapping（including mappings between conceptual meaning components，between relational characters，etc.），or mutual restriction（such as restriction of conventional experiences，etc）（Zeng 2002，2004，2010）. CPT provides an available analytic tool to the translating process at both macro and micro levels. Thus it offers a reasonable means to this research for integrating CIT and CPT to explore the translator's operating mechanism in realizing equivalence in translating.