翻译史考试试题.doc

1、1. Explain the definition of translation and the concept of “formal correspondence” in the view of Catford. Translation may be defined as follows: the replacement of textual material in one language (SL) by equivalent textual material in another language (TL).The use of the term “textual material” u

2、nderlines the fact that in normal conditions it is not the entirety of a SL text which is translated, that is, replaced by TL equivalents. But at one or more levels of language there may be simple replacement, by non-equivalent TL material. Moreover, at one or more levels there may be no replacement

3、 at all, but simple transference of SL material into the TL text. The term “equivalent” is clearly a key term. The central problem of translation practice is that of finding TL translation equivalents. A central task of translation theory is that of defining the nature and conditions of translation

4、equivalents.A formal correspondent is any TL category (unit, class, structure, etc.) which may be said to occupy, as nearly as possible, the “same” place in the economy of the TL as the given SL category occupies in the SL.Formal correspondence can be only approximate, and can only be established ul

5、timately on the basis of textual equivalence at some point.3. Whats your understanding of “the nature of translation” in the light of Nida?According to Nida, the nature of translating is: Translating consists in reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-langua

6、ge message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style.Explanation of the Nature of the Translation (pp12-14)1. Translating must aim primarily at “reproducing the message”. To do anything else is essentially false to ones task as a translator.(aim)2. The translator must strive for equi

7、valence rather than identity. In a sense this is just another way of emphasizing the reproduction of the message rather than the conservation of the form of the utterance. (equivalence)3. The best translation does not sound like a translation. It should studiously avoid “translationese”formal fideli

8、ty, with resulting unfaithfulness to the content and the impact of the message.(natural)4. A conscientious translator will want the closest natural equivalent because of the cultural differences.5. Meaning must be given priority, for it is the content of the message which is of prime importance for

9、translating, and to do anything else is essentially false to ones task as a translator.6. Style is said secondary to content, but it is still important. One should not translate poetry as though it were prose, nor expository material as though it were straight narrative. 5. Explain “semantic transla

10、tion” and “communicative translation” proposed by Newmark.Semantic translation attempts to render, as closely as the semantic and syntactic structures of the second language allow, the exact contextual meaning of the original.Communicative translation attempts to produce on its readers an effect as

11、close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original. Generally, a semantic translation tends to be more complex, more awkward, more detailed, more concentrated, and pursues the thought-processes rather than the intention of the transmitter. It tends to overtranslate, to be more specifi

12、c than the original, to include more meanings in its search for one nuance of meaning. A communicative translation is likely to be smoother, simpler, clearer, more direct, more conventional, conforming to a particular register of language, tending to undertranslate, i.e. to use more generic, hold-al

13、l terms in difficult passages.A semantic translation is out of time and local space, where a communicative translation is ephemeral and rooted in its context. A semantic translation attempts to preserve its authors idiolect, his peculiar form of expression. It relates to “expressive” function of lan

14、guage, where communicative translation responds to the vocative function of language.One basic difference between the two methods is that where there is a conflict, the communicative must emphasize the “force” rather than the content of the message, e.g.:Beware of the dog! 1) 当心狗！ 2） “狗咬人” 或“狗很凶” Ke

15、ep off the grass！ 1）勿踏草坪！ 2）不要在草坪上行走。 Wet paint！ 1）“当心油漆！”或“油漆未干！” 2） 油漆刚刚喷上。However, in communicative as in semantic translation, provided that equivalent-effect is secured, the literal word-for-word translation is not only the best, it is only valid method of translation.4. “Formal equivalence”, “

16、dynamic equivalence”, and “functional equivalence” are the key concepts in Nidas theories of translation. How do you understand them?Formal equivalence: a formal-equivalence translation is basically source-oriented; that is, it is designed to reveal as much as possible of the form and content of the

17、 original message. In doing so, an F-E translation attempts to reproduce several formal elements, including: 1. grammatical units, 2. consistency in word usage, and 3. meanings in terms of the source context.The reproduction of grammatical units may consist in: a） translating nouns by nouns, verbs b

18、y verbs, etc.; b） keeping all phrases and sentences intact(i.e. not splitting up and readjusting the units); and c） preserving all formal indicators, e.g. marks of punctuation, paragraph breaks, and poetic indentation. In attempting to reproducing consistency in word usage, an F-E translation usuall

19、y aims at so-called concordance of terminology; that is, it always renders a particular term in the source-language document by the corresponding term in the receptor document. In order to reproduce meanings in terms of the source context, an F-E translation normally attempts not to make adjustments

20、 in idioms, but rather to reproduce such expressions more or less literally, so that the reader may be able to perceive something of the way in which the original document employed local cultural elements to convey meanings.Dynamic equivalence: in contrast, a translation which attempts to produce a

21、dynamic rather than a formal equivalence is based on the principle of equivalent effect.In such a translation the focus of attention is directed toward the receptor response. One way of defining a D-E translation is to describe it as “the closest natural equivalent to the source-language message.” T

22、his type of definition contains three essential terms: 1) equivalent, which points toward the source-language message, 2) natural, which points toward the receptor language, and 3) closest, which binds the two orientations together on the basis of the highest degree of approximation.However, since a

23、 D-E translation is directly primarily toward equivalence of response rather than equivalence of form, it is important to define more fully the implications of the word “natural” as applied to such translation. Basically, the word “natural” is applicable to three areas of the communication process;

24、for a natural rendering must fit 1) the receptor language and culture as a whole, 2) the context of the particular message, and 3) the receptor-language audience.Functional equivalence: Basically, dynamic equivalence has been described in terms of functional equivalence. The translation process has

25、been defined on the basis that the receptors of a translation should comprehend the translated text to such an extent that they can understand how the original receptors must have understood the original text. The expression “dynamic equivalence” has, however, led to some confusion, since the term “

26、dynamic” has been understood merely in terms of something which has impact and appeal. Accordingly, to avoid misunderstanding the expression “functional equivalence” is employed, particularly since the twin bases for effective translation seem to be best represented in a sociosemiotic and sociolingu

27、istic orientation, in which the focus is upon function.The translator must seek to employ a functionally equivalent set of forms which in so far as possible way will match the meaning of the original source-language text.6. Who is Cicero? Who is Schleiermacher? Who is Tytler? What are their views on

28、 translation respectively?西塞罗 （Cicero10643B.C.）罗马演说家，哲学家，修辞学家，作家兼翻译家。他精通拉丁语和希腊语。他把柏拉图的蒂迈欧篇和荷马史诗奥德赛由希腊语译成拉丁语，他的著作有论最优秀的演说家，论善与恶的定义，其中某些章节涉及翻译。他对翻译的看法： 译者应象演说家那样，使用符合古罗马语言习惯来表现内容，以吸引扩大读者。 直译是缺乏技巧的表现，应该避免逐字死译，翻译应该保留词语最内层的东西意义。译者的责任是给读者称出原词的重量而不是数量。 翻译也是文学创作，任何翻译必须是其人。 声音与意义自然相联系，词与词义在功能上不可分割，各种语言的修辞手段是

29、相通的。可见，他认为翻译是能够找到对等语的，风格也是可译的。更重要的是他主张活译。从他开始，就出现了直译，活译的讨论。弗里德里希施莱尔马赫（Friedrich Schleiermacher 1768-1834）德国人。于1813年发表一论文论翻译的方法。他说：翻译分笔译和口译。口译指关于商业的翻译，笔译是关于文学、艺术、科学的翻译。（他是西方第一个明确区分笔译和口译的人）翻译分真正的翻译和机械的翻译，真正的翻译是指文学、艺术、科学的翻译。翻译必须正确理解语言和思维的辨证关系，一方面每个人都受到所说语言的制约，任何在语言范围之外的东西说话人都不可能明确想到。思想概念的形成，这些概念相互联结的方式

30、和程度都是说话人从小开始习得语言所安排的，说话人的智能和想象也都是由他来控制的，但另一方面，凡是思想自由，智能独立的人都能创造语言。翻译有两种不同途径，一是尽可能不扰乱原作者的安宁，让读者去接近作者；另一个是尽可能不扰乱读者的安宁，让作者去接近读者。坚持译作顺从原作 采用的方式-直译坚持原作顺从译作 采用的方式-意译他的观点在19世纪产生了很大的影响。亚历山大-弗雷泽泰特勒（Alexander Fraser Tytler 17471814）,英国人。他（1790）认为“好的翻译是把原作的优点完全移注到另一种语言中去，使得译文语言所属国家的人们能够清晰地领悟，强烈地感受，正像使用原作语言的人们所

31、领悟、所感受的一样”。 他在历史上第一个明确提出了同等效果论。他还提出了著名的翻译三原则：1译作应完全复写出原作的思想内容2译文的风格和笔调应与原文的性质相同3译作应具备原作所具有的通畅他把译者比作画家。他说译者和画家都从事模仿，但各自的程度不尽相同。要临摹绘画作品，可使用相同的颜色，忠实模仿原作的笔法和形态，只要模仿得当，摹本就可具有原作的一切特征。然而译者的工作却完全不同，不能使用与原作相同的色彩，但却必须给其画面以同样的力量和效果，不能照搬原作的笔法，但却必须用自己的笔法来译出“摹本“。他说翻译越模拟越不通顺。他说诗应译成诗，不能译成散文。7. Give a brief introduction of Chinese translation theories.