1. Explain the definition of translation and the concept of “formal correspondence” in the view of Catford.
⑴Translation 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” underlines 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 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 equivalents.
⑵A 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 ultimately on the basis of textual equivalence at some point.
3. What’s 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-language 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 one’s task as a translator.(aim)
2. The translator must strive for equivalence 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 fidelity, 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 translating, and to do anything else is essentially false to one’s 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 translation” and “communicative translation” proposed by Newmark.
①Semantic 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 close as possible to that obtained on the readers of the original.
②Generally, a semantic translation tends to be more complex, more awkward, more
