2023年翻譯研究入門知識(shí)點(diǎn)總結(jié)

IntroducingTranslationStudies

—TheoriesandApplications

Name:ZhuMi

Class:English112

/12/24

IntroducingTranslationStudies

—TheoriesandApplications

Mainissuesoftranslationstudies

Theconceptoftranslation

Thetermtranslationitselfhasseveralmeanings:itcanrefertothegeneralsubjectfield,theproductortheprocess.

Theprocessoftranslationbetweentwodifferentwrittenlanguagesinvolvesthetranslatorchanginganoriginalverballanguageintoawrittentextinadifferentverballanguage.—interlingualtranslation

TheRussian-AmericanstructuralistRomanJakobsoninhisseminalpaper”O(jiān)nlinguisticaspectsoftranslation’gavehiscategoriesasintralingualtranslation,interlingualtranslationandintersemiotictranslation.

Whataretranslationstudies?

Writtenandspokentranslationstraditionallywereforscholarshipandreligiouspurposes.

Yetthestudyoftranslationasanacademicsubjecthasonlyreallybeguninthepastfiftyyears,thankstotheDutch-basedUSscholarJamesS.Holmes.

Reasonsforprominence:first,therehasbeenaproliferationofspecializedtranslatingandinterpretingcoursesatbothandundergraduateandpostgraduatelevel;second,othercourses,insmallernumbers,focusonthepracticeofliterarytranslation;the1990salsosawaproliferationofconferences,booksandjournalsontranslationinmanylanguages;inaddition,varioustranslationeventswereheldinIndia,andanon-linetranslationsymposiumwasorganized.

Abriefhistoryofthediscipline

Thepracticeoftranslationwasdiscussedby,forexample,CiceroandHoraceandStJerome;theirwritingsweretoexertanimportantinfluenceupuntilthetwentiethcentury.

Thestudyoftranslationofthefielddevelopedintoanacademicdisciplineonlyinthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.

Beforethat,translationhadnormallybeenmerelyanelementoflanguagelearninginmodernlanguagecourses,knownforthegrammar-translationmethod.

WiththeriseofthedirectmethodorcommunicativeapproachtoEnglishlanguageteachinginthe1960sand1970s,thegrammar-translationmethodfellintoincreasingdisrepute.

IntheUSA,translationwaspromotedinuniversitiesinthe1960sbythetranslationworkshopconcept.Runningparalleltoitwasthatofcomparativeliterature.

Anotherareainwhichtranslationbecomethesubjectofresearchwascontrastiveanalysis.Thecontinuedapplicationofalinguisticapproachingeneral,andspecificlinguisticmodelssuchasgenerativegrammarorfunctionalgrammar,hasdemonstratedaninherentandgutlinkwithtranslation.Anditbegantoemergeinthe1950sand1960s.—EugeneNida

TheHolmes/Toury“map”

JamesS.Holems’s”Thenameandnatureoftranslationstudies”wasregardedas“generallyacceptedasthefoundingstatementforthefield”.Heputsforwardanoverallframework,describingwhattranslationstudiescovers.IthasbeensubsequentlypresentedbyGideonToury.

AnotherareaHolmesmentionistranslationpolicy,whereheseesthetranslationscholaradvisingontheplaceoftranslationinsociety,includingwhatplace,ifany,itshouldoccupyinthelanguageteachingandlearningcurriculum.

“Translationpolicy”wouldnowadaysfarmorelikelyberelatedtotheideologythatdeterminestranslationthanwasthecaseinHolmesdescription.

Developmentssincethe1970s

Contrastiveanalysishasfallenbythewayside.Thelinguistic-oriented“science”oftranslationhascontinuedstronglyinGermany,buttheconceptofequivalenceassociatedwithithasdeclined.

Germanyhasseentheriseoftheoriescentredontexttypesandtextpurpose,whiletheHallidayaninfluenceofdiscourseanalysisandsystemicfunctionalgrammar,whichvieslanguageasacommunicativeactinasocioculturalcontext,hasbeenprominentoverthepastdecades,especiallyinAustraliaandtheUK.

Thelate1970sand1980salsosawtheriseofadescriptiveapproachthathaditsoriginsincomparativeliteratureandRussianFormalism.

ThepolysystemistshaveworkedwithaBelgium-basedgroupandtheUK-basedscholars.

The1990ssawtheincorporationofnewschoolsandconcepts,withCanadian-basedtranslationandgenderresearchledbySherrySimon,theBraziliancannibalistschoolpromotedbyElseVieira,postcolonialtranslationtheory.

Translationtheorybeforethetwentiethcentury

“Word-for-word”or“sense-for-sense”?

Upuntilthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury,translationtheoryseemedlockedinwhatGeorgeSteinercallsa”sterile”debateoverthe“triad”of“l(fā)iteral”,”free”and“faithful”translation.ThedistinctiongoesbacktoCiceroandStJerome.

Cicerosaid,”…keepingthesameideasandforms…butinlanguagewhichconformstoourusage…Ipreservedthegeneralstyleandforceofthelanguage.”Hedisparagedword-for-wordtranslation.

StJeromesaid,”…whereeventhesyntaxcontainsamystery—Irendernotword-for-word,butsense-for-sense.”

MartinLuther

LutherfollowsStJeromeinrejectingaword-for-wordtranslationstrategysinceitwouldbeunabletoconveythesamemeaningastheSTandwouldsometimesbeincomprehensible.

HefocusesontheTLandtheTTreaderandhisfamousquote:”Youmustaskthemotherathome,thechildreninthestreet,theordinarymaninthemarketandlookattheirmouths,howtheyspeak,andtranslatethatway;thenthey’llunderstandandseethatyou’respeakingtotheminGerman.”

Faithfulness,spiritandtruth

FloraAmosnotesthatearlytranslatorsoftendifferedconsiderablyinthemeaningtheygavetotermssuchas“faithfulness”,“accuracy”andeventheword“translation”itself.

LouisKellyinTheTrueInterpretercallsthe“inextricablytangled”terms“fidelity”,”spirit”and“truth”.

Kellyconsidersthatitwasnotuntilthetwelfthcenturythattruthwasfullyequatedwith“content”.Bytheseventeenthcentury,fidelityhadcometobegenerallyregardedasmorethanjustfidelitytowords,andspiritlostthereligioussenseandwasthenceforthusedsolelyinthesenseofthecreativeenergyofatextorlanguage.

Earlyattemptsatsystematictranslationtheory:Dryden,DoletandTytler

ForAmos,theEnglandoftheseventeenthcentury—withDenham,CowleyandDryden—markedanimportantstepforwardintranslationtheorywith”deliberate,reasonedstatements,unmistakableintheirpurposeandmeaning”.

JohnDrydenreducesalltranslationstothreecategories:metaphrase,paraphraseandimitation.Drydenthusprefersparaphrase,advisingthatmetaphraseandimitationbeavoided.Heisauthor-oriented.

EtienneDoletisTL-reader-orientedandsetsoutfiveprinciplesinhis1540manuscriptTheWayofTranslatingWellfromOneLanguageintoAnother”:

Thetranslatormustperfectlyunderstandthesenseandmaterialoftheoriginalauthor,althoughheshouldfeelfreetoclarifyobscurities.

ThetranslatorshouldhaveaperfectknowledgeofbothSLandTL,soasnottolessenthemajestyofthelanguage.

Thetranslatorshouldavoidword-for-wordrenderings.

ThetranslatorshouldavoidLatinateandunusualforms.

Thetranslatorshouldassembleandliaisewordseloquentlytoavoidclumsiness.

AlexanderFraserTytlerhasthreegeneral“l(fā)aws”or“rules”:

Thetranslationshouldgiveacompletetranscriptoftheideasoftheoriginalwork.

Thestyleandmannerofwritingshouldbeofthesamecharacterwiththatoftheoriginal.

Thetranslationshouldhavealltheeaseoftheoriginalcomposition.

Schleiermacherandthevalorizationoftheforeign

Whilethe17thcenturyhadbeenaboutimitationandthe18thcenturyaboutthetranslator’sdutytorecreatethespiritoftheSTforthereaderofthetime,theRomanticismoftheearlynineteenthcenturydiscussedtheissuesoftranslatabilityoruntranslatability.

In1813,theGermantheologianandtranslatorFriedrichSchleiermacherwroteOnTheDifferentMethodsofTranslatingandputforwardaRomanticapproachtointerpretationbasedontheindividual’sinnerfeelingandunderstanding.

Hefirstdistinguishestwodifferenttypesoftranslatorworkingontwodifferenttypesoftext:

the“Dolmetscher”,whotranslatescommercialtexts;

the“übersetzer”,whoworksonscholarlyandartistictexts.

HowtobringtheSTwriterandtheTTreadertogetheristherealquestion.Heconsiderstheretobeonlytwopathsopenforthe“true”translator:Eitherthetranslatorleavesthewriteraloneasmuchaspossibleandmovesthereadertowardthewriter,orheleavesthereaderaloneasmuchasandmovesthewritertowardthereader.

Schleiermacher’sconsiderationofdifferenttexttypebecomesmoreprominentinReiss’stexttypology.The“alienating”and“naturalizing”oppositesaretakenupbyVenutias“foreignization”and“domestication”.Additionally,thevisionofa“l(fā)anguageoftranslation”ispursuedbyWalterBenjaminandthedescriptionofthehermeneuticsoftranslationisapparentinGeorgeSteiner’s“hermeneuticmotion”.

TranslationtheoryoftheninetiethandearlytwentiethcenturiesinBritain

InBritain,the19thcenturyandtheearlypartofthe20thcenturyfocusedonthestatusoftheSTandtheformoftheTL.

FrancisNewmanemphasizedtheforeignnessoftheworkbyadeliberatelyarchaictranslation.

MatthewArnoldadvocatedatransparenttranslationmethod.

Towardscontemporarytranslationtheory

GeorgeSteinerlistsasmallnumberof14writerswhorepresent“verynearlythesumtotalofthosewhohavesaidanythingfundamentalornewabouttranslation”,includesStJerome,Luther,DrydenandSchleiermacherandalsotakesusintothe20thcenturywithEzraPoundandWalterBenjamin,amongstothers.

Hecoversarangeoftheoreticalideasinthisperiod:Wehaveseenhowmuchofthetheoryoftranslation—ifthereisoneasdistinctfromidealizedrecipes—pivotsmonotonouslyaroundundefinedalternatives:”letter”or“spirit”,”word”or“sense”.Thedichotomyisassumedtohaveanalyzablemeaning.Thisisthecentralepistemologicalweaknessandsleightofhand.

Translationtheoryinthesecondhalfofthe20thcenturymadevariousattemptstoredefinetheconcepts“l(fā)iteral”and“free”inoperationalterms,todescribe“meaning”inscientificterms,andtoputtogethersystematictaxonomiesoftranslationphenomena.

Casestudies

Thecriteriaforassessingthetranslationsaregiven:

accuracy:thecorrecttransferofinformationandevidenceofcompletecomprehension.

theappropriatechoiceofvocabulary,idiom,terminologyandregister;

cohesion,coherenceandorganization;

accuracyintechnicalaspectsofpunctuation,etc.

Equivalenceandequivalenteffect

RomanJakobson:thenatureoflinguisticmeaningandequivalence

Inhispaper“Onlinguisticaspectsoftranslation”,hedescribesthreekindsoftranslation:intralingual,interlingualandintersemiotictranslationandhegoesontoexaminekeyissueofinterlingualtranslation,notablylinguisticmeaningandequivalence.

Jakobsonapproachesanow-famousdefinition:“Equivalenceindifferenceisthecardinalproblemoflanguageandthepivotalconcernoflinguistics.”Hethinkspoetryis“untranslatable”,whichrequires“creative”transposition.

Nidaand“thescienceoftranslating”

Thenatureofmeaning:advancesinsemanticsandpragmatics

Meaningisbrokendownintolinguisticmeaning,referentialmeaningandemotivemeaning.Therearethreetechniques:hierarchicalstructuring,componentialanalysisandsemanticstructureanalysis.

TheinfluenceofChomsky

NoamChomsky’sgenerative-transformationalmodelanalyzessentencesintoaseriesofrelatedlevelsgovernedbyrules.Thekeyfeaturesofthismodelcanbesummarized:

Phrase-structurerulesgenerateanunderlyingordeepstructurewhichis

transformedbytransformationalrulesrelatingoneunderlyingstructuretoanother,toproduce.

afinalsurfacestructure,whichitselfissubjecttophonologicalandmorphemicrules.

Nidapresentsathree-stagesystemoftranslation(analysis,transferandrestructuring).

Thisinvolvesanalysisusinggenerative-transformationalgrammar’sfourtypesoffunctionalclass:events,objects,abstractsandrelationals.

Formalanddynamicequivalenceandtheprincipleofequivalenteffect

ForNida,thesuccessofthetranslationdependsaboveallonachievingequivalentresponse.Itisoneofthe“fourbasicrequirementsofatranslation”,whichare

makingsense;

conveyingthespiritandmanneroftheoriginal;

havinganaturalandeasyformofexpression;

producingasimilarresponse.

Newmark:semanticandcommunicativetranslation

InNewmark’sApproachestoTranslationandATextbookofTranslation,hesuggestsnarrowingthegapbyreplacingtheoldtermswiththoseof“semantic”and“communicative”translation.

Koller:KorrespondenzandAquivalenz

WernerKollerexaminesmorecloselytheconceptofequivalenceanditslinkedtermcorrespondence.Andhealsogoesontodescribefivedifferenttypesofequivalence:denotative,connotative,text-normative,pragmaticandformalequivalence.

Thetranslationshiftapproach

VinayandDarbelnet’smodel

ThetwogeneraltranslationstrategiesidentifiedbyVinayandDarbelnetaredirecttranslationandobliquetranslation,whichharkbacktothe“l(fā)iteralvs.free”division.

Thetwostrategiescomprisesevenprocedures,ofwhichdirecttranslationcoversareborrowing,calque,literaltranslation,transpositionandmodulationandofwhichobliquetranslationincludesareequivalenceandadaptation.

Thesevenmaintranslationcategoriesaredescribedasoperatingonthreelevels;thesethreelevelsreflectthemainstructuralelementsofthebook.Theyare:thelexicon,syntacticstructureandthemessage.

AfurthermoreimportantparametertakenintoaccountbyVinayandDarbelnetisthatofservitudeandoption.

TheycontinuedbygivingslistoffivestepsforthetranslatortofollowinmovingfromSTtoTT:

Identitytheunitsoftranslation.

ExaminetheSLtext,evaluatingthedescriptive,affectiveandintellectualcontentoftheunits.

Reconstructthemetalinguisticcontextofthemessage.

Evaluatethestylisticeffects.

ProduceandrevisetheTT.

Theyconsidertheunitoftranslationtobeacombinationofa“l(fā)exicologicalunit”anda“unitofthought”.

Catfordandtranslation“shifts”

Catfordmakesanimportantdistinctionbetweenformalcorrespondenceandtextualequivalence,whichwasdevelopedbyKoller.

Catfordconsiderstwokindsofshift:shiftoflevelandshiftofcategory.

MostofCatford’sanalysisisgivenovertocategoryshifts.Thesearesubdividedintofourkinds:structuralshifts,classshifts,unitshifts/rankshiftsandintra-systemshifts.

Czechwritingontranslationshifts

Inthe1960sand1970ssomewritingintroducesaliteraryaspect,thatofthe“expressivefunction”orstyleofatext.

VanLeuven-Zwart’scomparative-descriptivemodeloftranslationshifts

KittyvanLeuven-Zwartappliesshiftanalysistothedescriptiveanalysisofatranslation,attemptingbothtosystematizecomparisonandtobuildinadiscourseframeworkabovethesentencelevel.

Themodelis“intendedforthedescriptionofintegraltranslationsoffictional