西方翻译理论

一．The North American Translation Workshop(早期北美翻译学派)Development:①The North American Translation Workshop began to study the human’s brain function in the translation .②It also put forward the nature and the definition of the translation③It purposed many questions about epistemology which made a difference in the translation study and practice.④It also doubt the standard of translation evaluation.⑤The scholars in NATW subverted many traditional translation school and expressive form.⑥It believed that translation is a kind of literary criticism.While opening up new perspectives, the general approach as practiced in the North American Translation Workshop might be characterized by a theoretical naive and subjective methodologies that tend to reinforce whatever theoretical values individual translators hold.1.I. A. RichardsRichards is a critic, linguist, poet, founder of New Criticism. He is often labeled as the father of the New Criticism, largely because of the influence of his first two books of critical theory, The Principles of Literary Criticism and Practical Criticism. Richards’s initial premises remain intact: he still believed that the field consists of texts containing a primary body of experience that readers could discern; with the proper training, a consensus could be reached regarding what that experience might be.Richards’s aims were threefold: (1) to introduce a new kind of documentation into contemporary American culture; (2) to provide a new technique for individuals to discover for themselves what they think about poetry; (3) to discover new educational methods.2. Ezra PoundEzra Pound’s theory of translation focused upon the precise rendering of details, of individual words and of single or even fragmented images;Pound’s theoretical writing fall into two periods: an early imagist phase that, while departing from traditional forms of logic, still occasionally contained abstract concepts and impressions; and a second late imagist or vorticist phase that was based on words in action and luminous details;Pound's emphasis was less on the "meaning" of the translated text or even on the meaning of specific words. Instead, he emphasized the rhythm, diction, and movement of words;Pound supposes that we can have a creative translation besides literal translation and free translation.3.Frederic WillMeaning is redefined by Will as thrust or energy. Meaning is redefined by Will not as something behind the words or text, not as an essence in a traditional metaphysical sense, but as different, as thrust of energy, something which is at the same time indeterminate and groundless and universal and originary. Translation is possible both because dynamic universals constantly and continually thrust and because language is impenetrable. In translation Will seems to find a possible / impossible paradox of language which not only defines the translation process, but defines how we come to know ourselves through language.wrence VenutiAn influential scholar among those who have broadened translation studies within the social-cultural framework is Lawrence Venuti. He put forward two translation strategies: Demesticating translation and Foreignising translation.Lawrence Venuti’s contribution to translation studies are multiple: He criticizes the humanistic underpinning of much literary translation in the United States and shows how it reinforces prevailing domestic beliefs and ideologies;He Provides a new set of terms and methods for analyzing translations;He offers a set of alternative strategies he would like translators to try.二．The Science of Translation (翻译科学派)Development:North American translation workshop might be characterized by a theoretical naive and subjective;The problem is not just a contemporary phenomenon in North America, but one that has troubled translation theory historically;People practiced translation, but they were never quite sure what they were practicing. Until early sixties, linguists has been characterized by largely descriptive research in which individual grammars were detailed. Generative transformational grammar along with its legitimacy within the field of linguistics, lent credence and influence to Nida’s science of translation.1.Noam ChomskyThe phrase structure rules generate the deep structure of a sentence, which contained all the syntactic and semantic information that determine its meaning;Chomsky’s empirical evidence of language structure is not based upon living language but on sentences found only in an ideal state;He does not claim that the deep structure are universal.The form of a particular language does not necessarily equal the form of another.2.NidaHe proposed formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence;He tries to lay the ground work for a larger audience;Nida simplifies Chomsky’s transformation-generative grammar and adopt only thelater two part of the model in order to validate his science.3.Wolfram WilssWilss’s science of translation is divided into three related but separate branches of research: (1) a description of a “general science”of translation which involves translation theory. (2) “descriptive studies”of translation relating empirical phenomenon of translation equivalence; (3) “applied research” in translation point out particular translation difficulties and ways of solving specific problems.Wilss’s argument is based less on scientific argument and more on intuition.Wilss’s work has evolved over the course of the past two decades,especially his descriptive studies, which works with pair-bound cases and explores the various possibilities for their translation.4.Functionalist theories in German language countries:Katharina Reiss; Hans Vermeer; Christiane Nord三．The Early Translation Studies（早期翻译学派）Development: P77（包括挑战、特点、目标、研究方法、影响）1.James Holmes:（如果全面解释的话，就找书91页）or （如果只是简要概括，就可以直接从91页开始找点）2.Raymond Van den Broeck: Who addressed the problem of equivalence in translation from the perspective of translation studies.3.AndréLefevere :Rewriting-Translation is a rewriting of an original text. All rewritings, whatever their intention, reflect a certain ideology and a poetics and as such manipulate literature to function in a given society in a given way.Rewriting is manipulation, undertaken in the service of power, and in its positive aspect can help in the evolution of a literature and a society. Rewritings can introduce new concepts, new genres, new devices. But rewriting can also repress innovation, distort and contain.4.JiříLevý: Levy’s theory also reinforced a by product of Formalism: in addition to the awareness of the correspondence of sign to object, there is the necessary opposite function simultaneously in process, namely that the relationship between sign and object is always inadequate.5.BassnettBassnett divides Translation Studies into four categories:History of translation;Translation in the TLcultureTranslation and linguisticsTranslation and poetic四．Polysystem Theory（多元系统学派）Development:With the incorporation of the historical horizon, polysystem theorists changed the perspective that had governed traditional translation theory and began to address a whole new series of questions. Not only are translations and interliterary connections between cultures more adequately described, but intraliterary relations within the structure of a given cultural system and actual literary and linguistic evolution are also made visible by means of the study of translated texts.1.Turij Tynjanov :According to him, any new literary work must necessarily deconstruct existing unities, or by definition it ceases to be literary.Two changes in Tynjaov’s thinking became apparent: first, “literariness” could not be defined outside of history.And second, formal unities receded in importance as the systemic laws were elevated.Tynjaov’s major contribution to literary theory was to extend, in a logical fashion, the parameters of formalism to include literary and norms.2.Itamar Even-Zohar:Even-Zohar adopted Tynjanov’s concept of system. He developed the polysystem hypothesis while working on a model for Israeli Hebrew literature. In a serious of papers written from 1970 and 1977 and collect in 1978 as “Papers in Historical Poetics” He first introduced the term “polysystem” to refer to the entire network of correlated system within society. Thus, it is a global term covering all of the literary system both major and minor existing in a given culture.He developed an approach called polysystem theory to attempt to the function of all kinds of writing within a given culture from the central canonical texts to the most marginal non-canonical texts.3.Gideon Toury:He believes that descriptive study is very important, and he distinguishes three kinds of translation norms: preliminary, initial and operational norms.Several aspects of Toury’s theory have contributed to development withing the field:(1) the abandonment of one-to-one notions of correspondence as well as the possibility off literary/linguistic equivalence (2) the involvement of literary tendencies within the target culture system in the production of any translated text.(3) the destabilization of the notion of an original message with a fixed identity;(4) the integration of both the original text and the translated text in the semiotic web of interesting cultural systems.五．Deconstruction (解构主义学派)Development:The development of translation school is deeply influenced by the trend of the times.In the mid-1960s, the theoretical circles in the West made a rebellion against structuralism and the deconstruction emerged. It also called post structuralism. From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, the influence of this trend of thought has expand gradually and has a huge impact on the traditional translation theory. Deconstructionists analyze the differences, slips, changes, and elisions that are part of every text.Deconstruction is a literary theory and philosophy of language derived principally from Jacques Derrida's 1967 work Of Grammatology. The premise of deconstruction is that all of Western literature and philosophy implicitly relies on metaphysics of presence, where intrinsic meaning is accessible by virtue of pure presence. Deconstruction denies the possibility of a pure presence and thus of essential or intrinsic meaning.1.FoucaultFoucault attempts to break down the traditional notion of the author,and instead suggests we think in terms of “author-function”Foucault thinks of the author as a series of subjective positions determined not by any single harmony of effects but by gaps, discontinuities and breakages.2.HeideggerHis thought turns more and more to language as he essay unfolds, and he continually raises the question of being. Only to see any resemblance of an answer simultaneously disappear as he comes closer to coherently structuring the question.Heidegger’s translation theory marks a significant shift, for he is not uncovering any author’s original intention, bur recovering a property of language itself.3.Jacques DerridaDerrida’s main theoretical point seems to be that there is no pour meaning, no thing to be presented, behind language, nothing to be represented.Derrida prefers the term “regulated transformation” over that translation, for he argues we will never have the transport of pure signified from one language to another. Derrida’s deconstructive theory rises in the middle of last century. It opens a “post- philosophy” era and it applied to the study of translation.Through its discussion of the Nature of language and the concern of words, he introduces key items like “Différance” and “play of trace”.枯藤老树昏鸦，小桥流水人家，古道西风瘦马。