当代美国翻译理论

当代美国翻译理论
！
当代美国翻译理论是研究理论翻译的一种重要流派，其派系延伸了达文西和维特根斯坦之研究成果。

特朗普认为，翻译越多某语言熟悉，其所表达文体也越接近，这种观点也被称为“内容之谬误”理论。

而在美国当代翻译理论看来，内容的完全承载不是主要的，自我表达也是翻译活动中的一个重要组成部分。

这里的自我表现，是指翻译者通过添加或转化文化符号或特有的口头表达等；充分发挥语种特色，从而使译文具有一定的文学魅力，这也就是所谓的“文体之全谱”理论。

从现代翻译理论中来看，今日的翻译与传统翻译有很大的不同。

今日的翻译理论不仅注重信息的传达，还强调了翻译者的风格与个性。

现在，在美国的高等教育领域，翻译学教学也已经不断引入当代翻译理论，着力培养学生认识翻译是一种艺术，需要融入自己的文化特色，把意思表达清楚，这种活跃理论，有助于装置文学翻译技能，从而帮助准备进入翻译行业的学生以及大众都能学到更多关于翻译艺术的知识。

美国翻译培训派（The American Translation Workshop）注重文学作品的翻译，其指导思想是翻译是一门艺术，培训班可以加强学生对文学、语言和诠释的认识和理解，进而通过翻译经验的交流提高翻译技艺和水平。

里查兹、庞德和威尔是该学派的主要代表。

里查兹（I. A. Richards）曾在哈佛大学创办阅读培训班，为翻译培训班提供了丰富的实践经验。

翻译培训班的宗旨是要使学生充分理解文本，达成正确而统一的反映和体验，并用完美的口、笔译形式再现或阐述这一体验。

其理论前提显然是文学作品有一个终极的、统一的意义。

只要通过适当的训练，掌握正确的方法，人们就能准确地理解原文。

翻译培训班的任务就是制定若干条款和程序，排除一切妨碍正确理解的障碍。

庞德（Ezra Pound）认为文学作品刻意塑造的是形象，而非内容或意义。

在翻译中译者应注重的不是所描写的事物，而是描述的过程和语言的形式与能量（energy）。

译者如同艺术家、雕刻家和书法家，应精确地再现细节、词语、片段和整个意象。

作品真正的灵魂常常蕴藏于“一瞥或一瞬之间”。

威尔（Frederic Will）认为文学作品是表现自我、统一而连贯的形式，能赋予我们洞悉事物本质的能力。

语际交际和翻译之所以可能，是因为人类的体验和情感有一个共核。

在翻译中他强调直觉的作用，认为在诗歌翻译中，有天赋的翻译家即使不精通原作的语言也同样可以再现原作的精髓与本质。

他认为，所谓精髓和本质就是作品的能量和冲量（thrust），译文不仅是原作的补充和延伸，而且使原作获得新的生命，勃发出新的生机。

美国翻译培训派对人类主观无意识的研究、强调文学翻译中的“创造性转换（creative transposition）”、注重文学作品的文学价值以及在译文忠实的标准问题上提出的新颖观点等，都对其后的翻译学派产生了巨大影响。

翻译科学派（The Science of Translation）亦称翻译语言学派，包括布拉格学派、伦敦学派、美国结构学派、交际理论派和俄国语言学派。

托尔曼和他的《翻译艺术》赫伯特. 库欣.托儿曼(Herbert Cushing Tolman)的《翻译艺术》（Art of Translation）发表于1901年。

它是美国理论史上的第一部专著，属于西方传统理论研究的范畴。

在该书中，托儿曼谈到了翻译的本质，翻译的过程，翻译的标准和译作的风格等问题。

一．翻译的本质托儿曼谈的是文学翻译。

首先，他认为，翻译是一种艺术。

翻译家应是艺术家，就像雕塑家，画家和设计师一样。

翻译的艺术，贯穿于整个翻译过程之中，即理解和表达的过程之中。

托儿曼认为，翻译艺术与绘画艺术最相近。

二．翻译的过程作者指出：“翻译的心理过程由两部分组成：第一，我们必须掌握原文作者的思想；第二，我们必须用译文的语言把原文作者的思想表达出来。

”这里，托儿曼像一般传统的理论家一样，把翻译的过程分为理解和表达两个阶段。

1．理解：托儿曼强调，必须从原文的观点理解原文，才能掌握原作的精神。

他说，译者只有从原文的观点出发去阅读，才能使自己沉浸在原文的思想和感情的激流之中，才能领会原文的精神实质。

他把译者阅读原文的过程，比作画家落笔前的构思过程。

画家只有知道自己要画什么，才会动手去画。

他不会随便去画一丛灌木，然后再画一颗树，接着再画一块石头，而是头脑里首先有了整幅风景的轮廓，心领神会，然后才动手去画。

翻译艺术也正是这样。

译者只有透彻地理解了原作的思想之后，才应动笔翻译。

（泰特勒也把翻译比作画画，但泰特勒强调的是翻译的困难，因为，画家临摹可用相同的材料，翻译家模仿却用的是不同的语言。

）2．表达：托儿曼指出: “译者对原文的精神领会越沈，就越感到自己责任之重大，也越来越深刻地理解到传达原作结构的精神实质之困难。

”他说：“翻译要能在英语读者或听众中引起像原文读者或听众所感受的同样的感情。

”他也意识到，译作要像原作一样，在译文读者中产生原作在原文读者中完全一样的效果是不可能的。

关于这一点，他又把翻译比作绘画艺术。

当代美国翻译理论当代美国翻译理论(转)2009-10-10 23:00郭建中编著，当代美国翻译理论，：教育，2000年4月。

一、赫伯特·库欣·托尔曼(Herbert Cushing Tolman)作者简介：赫伯特·库欣·托尔曼(Herbert Cushing Tolman)（）“翻译的心理过程由两部分组成：第一，我们必须掌握原文作者的思想；第二，我们必须用译文的语言把原文作者的思想表达出来。

”“阅读是一回事，翻译是另一回事。

”译者只有从原文的观点出发去阅读，才能使自己沉浸在原文的思想和感情的激流之中，才能领会原文的精神实质。

“译者对原文的精神领会越深，就越感到自己责任之重大，也越来越深地理解到传达原作结构的精神实质之困难。

”“翻译要能在英国读者或听众中引起像原文读者或听众所感受的同样的感情。

”没有一个画家能完美地重现自然风景。

最好的画家并不是用与自然同样的颜色表现自然景色中的每一个细节；最好的画家应该是有感于壮丽的自然景色，并认识到绘画艺术的局限性，然后使自己的画尽可能地接近大自然的美景。

最好的翻译家也一样，他并不是在英语中精确地复制原作——因为这是不可能的——他只能使自己的译作尽可能地接近原作。

“翻译并不是把一种外语的单词译成母语（英语），而应该是原文中感情、生命、力度和精神的蜕变。

”我们既要忠实于原作的优美之处，也要忠实于原作的不足之处。

翻译不是解释。

“如果原作趴地蠕动，译作不可腾空翱翔。

”译文必须是地道的英语。

二、C·H·库利(C. H. Conley)尽管一般认为翻译经典著作有助于文化和自由思想的传播和发展，但16世纪英国经典著作的翻译反而助长了反动的社会和文化专制主义。

三、亨利·伯罗特·莱思罗普(Henry Burrowes Lathrop)16世纪英国所翻译的希腊罗马经典著作和我们今天所熟悉的完全不一样。

当代美国翻译理论当代美国翻译理论(转)2009-10-10 23:00郭建中编著～当代美国翻译理论～武汉:湖北教育出版社～2000年4月。

一、赫伯特?库欣?托尔曼(Herbert Cushing Tolman)作者简介:赫伯特?库欣?托尔曼(Herbert Cushing Tolman),,“翻译的心理过程由两部分组成:第一～我们必须掌握原文作者的思想,第二～我们必须用译文的语言把原文作者的思想表达出来。

”“阅读是一回事～翻译是另一回事。

”译者只有从原文的观点出发去阅读～才能使自己沉浸在原文的思想和感情的激流之中～才能领会原文的精神实质。

“译者对原文的精神领会越深～就越感到自己责任之重大～也越来越深地理解到传达原作结构的精神实质之困难。

”“翻译要能在英国读者或听众中引起像原文读者或听众所感受的同样的感情。

” 没有一个画家能完美地重现自然风景。

最好的画家并不是用与自然同样的颜色表现自然景色中的每一个细节,最好的画家应该是有感于壮丽的自然景色～并认识到绘画艺术的局限性～然后使自己的画尽可能地接近大自然的美景。

最好的翻译家也一样～他并不是在英语中精确地复制原作——因为这是不可能的——他只能使自己的译作尽可能地接近原作。

“翻译并不是把一种外语的单词译成母语,英语,～而应该是原文中感情、生命、力度和精神的蜕变。

”我们既要忠实于原作的优美之处～也要忠实于原作的不足之处。

翻译不是解释。

“如果原作趴地蠕动～译作不可腾空翱翔。

”译文必须是地道的英语。

二、C?H?库利(C. H. Conley)尽管一般认为翻译经典著作有助于文化和自由思想的传播和发展～但16世纪英国经典著作的翻译反而助长了反动的社会和文化专制主义。

三、亨利?伯罗特?莱思罗普(Henry Burrowes Lathrop)16世纪英国所翻译的希腊罗马经典著作和我们今天所熟悉的完全不一样。

我们今天所认为的希腊罗马经典著作～他们没有翻译。

恰恰相反～他们所认为的经典著作～在今天～我们认为是不重要的～因此也并不熟悉。

翻译学必读1语文和诠释学派二十世纪之前的翻译理论被纽马克（1981）称为翻译研究的‘前语言学时期’，人们围绕‘word-for-word’和‘sense-for-sense’ 展开激烈的讨论，核心是‘忠实’，‘神似’和‘真理’。

典型的代表有John Dryden, Tytler等，而Barnard, Steiner等人则是在他们的基础上进一步发展。

2语言学派Jacobson(1959)提出意义对等的问题，随后的二十多当年，学界围绕这个问题进行了研究。

奈达（1969）采取了转换语法模式，运用“科学（奈达语）”的方法来分析他翻译《圣经》过程中的意义处理问题。

奈达提出的形式对等说、动态对等说和等效原则都是将注意力集中在受众一方。

纽马克信奉的是语义翻译和交际翻译，即重视翻译中的语义和交际方面。

3话语分析Discourse Analysis（critical discourse analysis批评话语分析functional discourse analysis功能语篇分析Discourse analysis theory话语分析理论Discourse Analysis for Interpreters翻译专业演说分析Pragmatics & Discourse Analysis语用学positive discourse analysis积极话语分析rhetorical or discourse analysis语篇分析Pragmatics and Discourse Analysis语用学Mediated discourse analysis中介话语分析二十世纪七十年代到九十年代，作为应用语言学领域的一个分支，话语分析经历了产生和发展壮大的过程，其理论背景来自（韩礼德）的系统功能语法。

今天，话语分析的方法已经逐步运用到翻译研究中。

House(1997)提出的翻译质量模型就是基于韩礼德的理论，他吸收了其中的语域分析方法；Baker(1992) 则为培养译员提供了话语分析和语用分析的范本；Hatim 和Mason(1997)将语域研究拓展到语用和符号学角度~4目的学派目的学派于二十世纪七、八十年代在德国兴起，是从静态的语言学、语言类型学中剥离出来的。

当代西方翻译理论流派评述及当代西方翻译理论家评述当代西方翻译理论流派评述一、美国翻译培训派1策德内斯：创立培训班的前提、2里查兹：翻译的理论基础、3庞德：细节翻译理论、4威尔：翻译的矛盾；二、翻译科学派1乔姆斯基：语言的“内在”结构、2奈达：翻译中的生成语法、3威尔斯：翻译的科学、4德国翻译理论的发展趋势；三、早期翻译研究派1俄国形式主义的影响2利维.米科和波波维奇3霍姆斯4勒非弗尔、布罗克与巴斯奈特；四、多元体系派1传统语言学和文学界限的瓦解、2通加诺夫：文学的演变、3佐哈尔：系统内部文学的联系、4图里：目标系统；五、解构主义派：1福科：解构原文、2海德格尔：重新认识命名、3德里达：系统的解构主义理论4解构主义理论的影响5解构与创译当代西方翻译理论家评述1奈达（三个发展阶段、对等概念、逆转换理论）、2卡特福德（翻译的语言学、翻译的界定与分类、翻译等值的条件与可译性）、3威尔斯（翻译是一门科学、翻译是交际过程、翻译方法的定义与分类、文本类型与翻译原则）、4纽马克（语义结构、翻译原则、文本类型与翻译方法）、5斯坦纳（翻译是理解的过程、语言的可译性、翻译的步骤）、6巴尔胡达罗夫（翻译的定义及实质、翻译理论的定位、语义与翻译、翻译的层次）、7费道罗夫、ｖ.科米萨罗夫的翻译理论、8穆南（语言与意义、“世界映象”理论与可译性、意义交流与翻译、可译性与限度）、9塞莱丝柯维奇和法国释意理论（释意的基本问题、翻译程序与评价标准、释意理论与翻译教学）。

另外当代西方翻译理论也典型地体现在后殖民主义与女性主义及其它以“解构为方法论”，以及以对“权力话语”的关注为重点的各种翻译理论，代表性的译论家有西门、巴巴拉.哥达德、凯特.米勒特、艾德里安.里奇、玛丽.艾尔曼、桑德拉.吉尔伯特、苏桑.格巴与埃莱娜.西苏、罗宾逊、巴斯奈特、特里弗蒂、韦努蒂、尼南贾纳、斯皮瓦克、霍米.巴巴、根茨乐、玛丽亚.提莫志克、本雅明、德里达、保尔.德曼、欧阳桢、L。

读郭建中《当代美国翻译理论》作者：宗蔚婷来源：《科教导刊》2010年第20期摘要美国的翻译研究,开始较迟,历史较短。

最早开始于20世纪初,二次大战后逐步有所发展,到了60年代之后,则取得了长足的进步。

郭建中编著的《当代美国翻译理论》系统、科学地向我们介绍了当代美国翻译研究发展史及重要翻译理论。

关键词美国翻译翻译理论中图分类号:H315.9文献标识码:A20世纪60年代初,美国大学中还没有翻译研讨班或研究中心,也没有翻译研究中心,没有文学翻译工作者的组织,也没有翻译或翻译研究的专门刊物。

埃德温·根茨勒在《当代翻译理论》中提到,60年代起,文学翻译在美国才开始受到公众和学术界的重视。

保罗·恩格尔于1964年在衣阿华大学开设了第一个翻译研讨班。

第二年,福特基金会拨款给在奥斯丁德克萨斯大学成立全国翻译中心。

1965年出版了第一本《现代诗翻译》的杂志。

1968年,全国翻译中心出版了第一期翻译研究杂志《得洛斯》。

从此,文学翻译在美国文化中取得了小小的一席之地。

70年代之后,美国的翻译和翻译理论继续得到发展。

好几所大学开始设翻译课和翻译研讨班。

由于翻译和翻译研究的发展,美国文学翻译工作者协会(American literary translators association)于70年代末成立,并出版了《翻译》(tanslation)作为该组织的机关刊物。

1977年美国政府开始从全国人文科学基金中拨出专款资助文学翻译。

目前,美国已形成了三个有影响的翻译研究中心,即加利福尼亚的蒙特利国际学院、华盛顿特区的乔治城大学和宾厄姆顿的纽约州立大学。

所有这些,为美国翻译和翻译理论在80-90年代的蓬勃发展奠定了基础。

1 托尔曼和他的《翻译艺术》赫伯特库辛托尔曼的《翻译艺术》(Art of translation)发表于1901年,是美国翻译理论史上的第一部专著,属于西方传统翻译理论研究的范围。

所以我们可以说,美国的翻译研究开始于20世纪初。

美国翻译培训派（The American Translation Workshop）注重文学作品的翻译，其指导思想是翻译是一门艺术，培训班可以加强学生对文学、语言和诠释的认识和理解，进而通过翻译经验的交流提高翻译技艺和水平。

里查兹、庞德和威尔是该学派的主要代表。

里查兹（I. A. Richards）曾在哈佛大学创办阅读培训班，为翻译培训班提供了丰富的实践经验。

翻译培训班的宗旨是要使学生充分理解文本，达成正确而统一的反映和体验，并用完美的口、笔译形式再现或阐述这一体验。

其理论前提显然是文学作品有一个终极的、统一的意义。

只要通过适当的训练，掌握正确的方法，人们就能准确地理解原文。

翻译培训班的任务就是制定若干条款和程序，排除一切妨碍正确理解的障碍。

庞德（Ezra Pound）认为文学作品刻意塑造的是形象，而非内容或意义。

在翻译中译者应注重的不是所描写的事物，而是描述的过程和语言的形式与能量（energy）。

译者如同艺术家、雕刻家和书法家，应精确地再现细节、词语、片段和整个意象。

作品真正的灵魂常常蕴藏于“一瞥或一瞬之间”。

威尔（Frederic Will）认为文学作品是表现自我、统一而连贯的形式，能赋予我们洞悉事物本质的能力。

语际交际和翻译之所以可能，是因为人类的体验和情感有一个共核。

在翻译中他强调直觉的作用，认为在诗歌翻译中，有天赋的翻译家即使不精通原作的语言也同样可以再现原作的精髓与本质。

他认为，所谓精髓和本质就是作品的能量和冲量（thrust），译文不仅是原作的补充和延伸，而且使原作获得新的生命，勃发出新的生机。

美国翻译培训派对人类主观无意识的研究、强调文学翻译中的“创造性转换（creative transposition）”、注重文学作品的文学价值以及在译文忠实的标准问题上提出的新颖观点等，都对其后的翻译学派产生了巨大影响。

翻译科学派（The Science of Translation）亦称翻译语言学派，包括布拉格学派、伦敦学派、美国结构学派、交际理论派和俄国语言学派。

美国翻译培训派（The American Translation Workshop）注重文学作品的翻译，其指导思想是翻译是一门艺术，培训班可以加强学生对文学、语言和诠释的认识和理解，进而通过翻译经验的交流提高翻译技艺和水平。

里查兹、庞德和威尔是该学派的主要代表。

xx（I.A. Richards）曾在哈佛大学创办阅读培训班，为翻译培训班提供了丰富的实践经验。

翻译培训班的宗旨是要使学生充分理解文本，达成正确而统一的反映和体验，并用完美的口、笔译形式再现或阐述这一体验。

其理论前提显然是文学作品有一个终极的、统一的意义。

只要通过适当的训练，掌握正确的方法，人们就能准确地理解原文。

翻译培训班的任务就是制定若干条款和程序，排除一切妨碍正确理解的障碍。

庞德（Ezra Pound）认为文学作品刻意塑造的是形象，而非内容或意义。

在翻译中译者应注重的不是所描写的事物，而是描述的过程和语言的形式与能量（energy）。

译者如同艺术家、雕刻家和书法家，应精确地再现细节、词语、片段和整个意象。

作品真正的灵魂常常蕴藏于“一瞥或一瞬之间”。

威尔（FredericWill）认为文学作品是表现自我、统一而连贯的形式，能赋予我们洞悉事物本质的能力。

语际交际和翻译之所以可能，是因为人类的体验和情感有一个共核。

在翻译中他强调直觉的作用，认为在诗歌翻译中，有天赋的翻译家即使不精通原作的语言也同样可以再现原作的精髓与本质。

他认为，所谓精髓和本质就是作品的能量和冲量（thrust），译文不仅是原作的补充和延伸，而且使原作获得新的生命，勃发出新的生机。

美国翻译培训派对人类主观无意识的研究、强调文学翻译中的“创造性转换（creativetransposition）”、注重文学作品的文学价值以及在译文忠实的标准问题上提出的新颖观点等，都对其后的翻译学派产生了巨大影响。

翻译科学派（The Science of Translation）亦称翻译语言学派，包括布拉格学派、伦敦学派、美国结构学派、交际理论派和俄国语言学派。

《当代美国》翻译实践报告的开题报告开题报告：题目名称：《当代美国》翻译实践报告选题背景和意义：随着全球化的发展，美国在世界舞台上扮演着重要的角色，其政治、经济、文化等各方面的影响都十分深远。

因此，翻译涉及美国文化、社会、政治等相关领域的作品逐渐增多，涉及范围也越来越广泛。

在这样的背景之下，研究美国翻译的问题，对于提升我国的翻译技术和语言素养有重要作用。

研究方法和步骤：本文将采用实践与理论相结合的方法进行研究。

首先，选取多篇包括新闻报道、政治分析和文化评论等方面的英文原文，进行翻译实践。

其次，分析和总结在翻译实践过程中遇到的难点、翻译策略等问题，并结合相关理论进行分析和解释。

最后，撰写翻译实践报告，对研究结果进行总结与归纳。

研究计划：第一阶段：调研与材料收集，明确研究方向和选取翻译篇目；第二阶段：进行翻译实践，同时记录翻译过程和注意事项；第三阶段：归纳总结，在理论基础上分析翻译实践中遇到的难点与翻译策略；第四阶段：撰写翻译实践报告，结合实践和理论对研究结果进行总结；第五阶段：修改和完善研究报告，并进行最终的答辩。

预期成果：本研究将通过翻译实践，从实践出发，探究翻译过程中的难点和策略，并以理论为支撑进行分析和解释。

预期成果有以下几点：一、呈现多种类型文章的翻译实践，包括新闻报道、政治分析、文化评论等方面的翻译；二、探究翻译实践中的难点和解决方法，并结合相关理论进行分析和解释；三、提升翻译者的翻译素养和修炼，促进翻译工作的规范化和专业化程度的提高。

以上是本人对《当代美国》翻译实践报告开题报告的初步构想和设计，希望能够得到您的认可和支持。

《当代翻译理论》埃德温.根次勒Contemporary translation theoriesBy Edwin Gentzler 1 The North American Translation WorkshopIn many academic circles in North America, literary translation is still considered secondary activity, mechanical rather than creative, neither worthy of serious critical attention nor of general interest to the public. Translators, too, frequently lament the fact that there is no market foe their work and that what does get published is immediately relegated to the margins of academic investigation. Yet, a closer analysis of the developments over the last four decades reveals that in some circles literary translation has been drawing increasing public and academic interest.In the early sixties, there were no translation workshops at institutions of higher learning in the United States. Translation was a marginal activity at best, not considered by academia as a proper field of study in the university system. In his essay "The State of Translation, " Edmund Keeley, director of translation workshops first at Iowa and later at Princeton, wrote," In 1963 there was no established and continuing public forum for the purpose: no translation centres, no associations of literary translator as far as know, no publications devoted primarily to translations, translators, and their continuing problems"(keeley, 1981:11). In this environment, Paul Engle, Director of the Writers' Workshop at the University of Iowa, gave the first heave; arguing that creative writing knows no national boundaries, he expanded the Creative Writing Program to include international writers. In 1964 Engle hires a full-time director for what was the firsttranslation workshop in the United Stated and began offering academic credit for literary translations. The following year the Ford Foundation conferred a $150,000 grant on the University of Texas at Austin toward the establishment of the National Translation Center. Also in 1965, the first issue of Modern Poetry in Translation, edited by Ted Hughes and Daniel Weissbort, was published, providing literary translators a place for their creative work. In 1968, the National Translation Center published the first issue of Delos, a journal devoted to the history as well as the aesthetics of translation had established a place, albeit a small one, in the production of American culture.The process of growth and acceptance continued in the seventies. Soon translation coursesand workshops were being offered at several universities-Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Iowa, Texas, and State University of New York, Binghamton among them. Advanced degrees were conferred upon students for creative, historical, and theoretical work in the field of literary translation. This, in turn, led to the establishment of the professional organization American Literary Translators Association(ALTA) in the late seventies as well as the founding of the journal Translation for that organization. By 1977, the United States government lent its authority to this process with the establishment of the National Endowment of the Humanities grants specifically for literary translation. For a while in the late seventies and early eighties, it looked as if the translation workshop would follow the path of creative writing, also considered at one time a non-academic field, and soon be offered at as many schools as had writing workshops.But despite the increase in translation activity and its gaining of limited institutional support in the sixties and seventies, theprocess of growth plateaued. Many assumptions about the secondary status of the field remained. T oday, while many universities offer advanced degrees in creative writing, comparatively few offer academic credit for literary translation. One reason is surely the monolinguistic nature of the culture. Howerer, such typecasting is also due to socio-economic motives: labeling translations as derivative serves to reinforce an existing status quo, one that places primary emphasis not on the process but on the pursuit and consumption of "original" meaning. The activity of translation represents a process antithetical to certain reigning literary beliefs, hence its relegation to marginal status within educational and economic institutions and its position in this society as part of a counter-cultural movement.Indeed, during the sixties and early seventies, the practice of literary translation became heavily in representations of alternate value systems and views of reality. While not taken seriously by academics, sales of translated literary texts enjoyed unprecedented highs on the open market. Perhaps no one articulated the political urgency and popular attraction of literary translations during this period better than Ted Huges: That boom in the popular sales of translated modern poetry was without precedent. Though it reflected only one aspect of the wave of mingled energies that galvanized those years with such extremes, it was fed by almost all of them-Buddhism, the mass craze of Hippie ideology, the revolt of the young, the Pop music of the Beatles and their generation... That historical moment might well be seen as...an unfolding from inwards, a millennial change in the IndustrialWest's view of reality. (Hughes. 1983:9)For Hughes, the translation boom of the sixties was simplyone aspect of a generational movement that articulated itself in a variety of media. While his view of translation as anti-establish may not have been true of all translation during this period, it did hold true for a large and influential group of contemporary American poets actively translating at the time: Zdynas's notes seem characteristic of prevailing assumptions regarding the teaching of translation in the United States. He shares the assumption that creative writing cannot be taught, that creative talent is something one is born with. Such a belief plagued creative writing for years before it was accepted as an university discipline. Secondly, Zdanys reveals a prejudice for teaching students how to enjoy the original poem, one that is in keeping with New Critical tenets. His conclusion is not altogether surprising-although he argues against conventional wisdom that translation can be taught at the university, he does it not for reasons Ted Hughes suggested-that it may lead to a change in the West views reality-but because it reinforces a fairly conservative humanistic ideology. This is nowhere better revealed than in a contradiction within the essay regarding the theoretical basis of the course. On the one hand, Zdynas hopes the course will attract students interested in theoretical question; on the other hand, he argues that he himself opposes the restraints of "predetermined aesthetic theories." in addition, without telling us why, Zdanys says that "this essay unfortunately cannot consider" the contribution of deconstruction to the field. Although, ironically, Yale itself houses numerous such critics who are in fact part of the same department (a special interdepartmental program) in which the course was offered.Zdanys clearly finds translation a subjective activity, subsuming translation under the larger goal of interpretingliterature. His argument that the study of translation can lead to a qualitative "richer" understanding reveals the humanistic agenda. His goal is more clearly disclosed in a section of the same essay in which he talks about the presence of a female linguistics students who, despite Zdany's "initial misgivings" about what she might contribute to the seminar, actually brought a "valuable and intriguing" perspective to the aesthetic process he was teaching. Zdanyd contradicts his stated premise-a rejection of predetermined aesthetic theories-when he concludes that although her approach was a "refreshing" addition to the course, he "secretly hopes" that he "converted" her during the course. The lingering question is "converted her to what?"Zdynas's notes seem characteristic of prevailing assumptions regarding the teaching of translation in the United States. He shares the assumption that creative writing cannot be taught, that creative talent is something one is born with. Such a belief plagued creative writing for years before it was accepted as an university discipline. Secondly, Zdanys reveals a prejudice for teaching students how to enjoy the original poem, one that is in keeping with New Critical tenets. His conclusion is not altogether surprising-although he argues against conventional wisdom that translation can be taught at the university, he does it not for reason Ted Hughes suggested- that it may lead to a change in the way the West views reality- but because it reinforces a fairy conservative humanistic ideology. This is nowhere better revealed than in a contradiction within the essay regarding the theoretical basis of the course. On the one hand, Zdynas hopes the course will attract students interested in theoretical; on the hand, he argue that he himself opposes the restraints of "predetermined aesthetic theories." In addition, without tellingus why, Zdanys says that "this essay unfortunately cannot consider" the contrition of deconstruction to the field, although, ironically, Yale itself houses numerous such critics who are in fact part of the same department (a special interdepartmental program) in which the course was offered.Zdanys clearly finds translation a subjective activity, subsuming translation under the larger goal of interpreting literature. His argument that the study of translation can lead to a qualitative "richer" understanding reveals the humanistic agenda. His goal is more clearly disclosed in a section of the same essay in which he talks about the presence of a female linguistics student who, despite Zdanys's "initial misgivings" about what she might contribute to the seminar, actually brought a "valuable and intriguing" perspective to the aesthetic process he was teaching. Zdanys contradicts his stated premise-a rejection of predetermined aesthetic theories-when he concludes that although her approach was a "refreshing" addition to the course, he "secretly hopes" that he "converted" her during the course. The lingering question is "converted her to what?"That unarticulated "what" is the topic I wish to address in this chapter. Scholars associated with the North American translation workshop premise tend to claim that their approach is not theoretically preconditioned; this chapter attempts to formulate the non-dit present in their works, to analyze those underlying assumptions, and to show how they either reinforce the existing literary edifices or offer a counterclaim that deserves further consideration. Through thisapproach, I hope to show that the translation workshop approach actually does both, i.e., simultaneously reinforces and subverts, and that this dual activity, necessarily operative becauseof the methodology, is in itself a contribution to the ongoing investigation of not only translation phenomena, but of language in general.2 Frederic Will: The paradox of translationWhile Richards's work in translation might be charactererized as an extension of his literary criticism, Frederic Will's literary theory- initially not unlike Richards's- has changed much because of his involvement in translation. Will's work in translation theory is symptomatic of that of many adherents of the American workshop approach. Will first taught Classics at the University of Texas, where he founded the journal Arion with William Arrowsmith. He then moved to the forefront in translation by accepting the directorship of the translation workshop at the University of Iowa in 1964. In 1965, he founded Micromegas, a journal devoted to literary translation, each issue focused on the poetry of a different country. His first theoretical text Litersture Inside Out, published in 1966, raised questions about naming and meaning and indirectly suggests that translation can be viewed as a form of naming, fiction-making, and knowing(Will,1966:15). His next book, The Knife in the Stone, published in 1973, dealt directly with the practice of translation; and parts of it rearticulated his workshop experience at Iowa.Although Will's early text did not specifically address translation problems, certain relevant theoretical assumptions are visible. Will's project picks up where Richards's left off: he uses New Critical beliefs to try to reconcile recent critical theories. Will's first essay "From Naming to Fiction Making" in Literature Inside Out appears to agree with a theory of cultural relativism. Holding that different languages construct separate realities and that what any particular word refers to cannot be determinedprecisely,Will calls into question translation theories based on reference to a universal objective reality. Reality can only be learned, he argues, through the names we give it, and so , to a certain degree, language is the creator of reality. Will also distances himself from theories that posit a notion of univeral themes or motifs, theories which do not view symbol-making as part of a human activity. At the same time, however, Will argues that knowledge of essence is possible:"The core of the self, the theme of its efforts, is love," which is a power unto itself and can bring the outer reality"into the focus of consciousness"(Will,1966:9). Naming, for Will, is the fundamental activity of man-without thepower to name we would have remained savages. Language, thus, he argues, takes on our character, out rhythm, our desires, and reveals our true inner selves. Will continues to say that The self's effort, in naming, is not mere verbal play but is part of its overall effort to translate the outer into the human. This situation follows from the unity of the self. In such unity the expression of a core-movement, the self, all bear the character of that movement. Each expression bears the core's character.(Will,1966:13 )As opposed to an objective outer reality that can be translated across cultures, Will posits a central common core of human experience and emotions that can overcome the indeterminate nature of language and bring that "outer reality" into focus. We translate our selves into language; naming does not necessarily give us any insight regarding outside reality(that to which language refers), but it does help us to better know our inner selves.The power of this inner understanding and knowledge isfurther elaborated in the second essay, "Literature and Knowledge," in which the influence of Richards is everywhere to be seen. Literature, according to Will, also "embodies truth and knowledge" (1966: 17). The New Critical tenet of the unity of the original text is also adopted; Will argues that a work of literature "is a deeply unified verbal event occurring in a self." the words that compose a work of literature, so important to Pound, are merged with the whole for Will, and "are, in some sense, literally one." in the literary work, "most or all" of the levels of meaning of words, and Will lists five-dictionary, contextual, symbolic, interpretative, and inner aural and visual overtones- "are made one" (Will, 1966:18). Will's agenda, like Richards' s, is fundamentally didactic, not just in terms of developing competent literary critics, but also in terms of a larger, humanistic goal. Literature, according to Will not only "gives us the power to understand," but also serves as a means to understand a higher metaphysical power. Will clearly believes that "that power to understand something is 'knowledge' of something." Yet we have seen that Will is skeptical about our ability to know objective reality. He concludes with the rhetorical question, "Will else can knowledge be, even about the natural world or about God, except the power to understand them?" (Will, 1966; 2 4 ). Literary works present us with models by which we can "clarify" the real, irrational world that we experience as a "confusion of intermingled space, action, and character." literature thus deepens and enriches our lives as well as gives us a better understanding of our own true selves.Will then reexamines his own theory after his experience in the translation workshop at theUniversity of Iowa and after have after having read Pound.Although his next theoretical text, The Knife in the Stone, retain metaphysical concepts, many of his romantic notion of love and humanistic believes in the power of the heart dissipate. His concept of text becomes less of a unified and coherent whole; instead it is seen as being interwoven with reality, subject to use, change, and variable interpretations. In The Knife in the Stone, Will uses translation as the "testing ground" for his theory, and clearly the goal is to substantiate the metaphysical beliefs he brings to the project: The inter-translatibility of languages is the firmest testing ground, and demonstration ground, for the existence of a single ideal body of literature. If there is any meaning, to the ideal of such a body, it will show itself through as effort to equate literature in one language with literature in another,(Will,1973;42)Again, the opposition includes those who are skeptical about the possibility of translation, those who question concepts of literariness, and those who find the concept of referentiality problematic. Will names Sartre and Mead, whose theories posit inner "selves" who are not ware of the universal core of human experience, but are, in Will's terminology, "groundless" and "social constructed" respectively. Though the test of translation, Will intends disprove the "relativity" thesis and show that one universal common ground-that of the single ideal body of literature-does, in fact, enjoy "inter-translatibility". However, Will's argument, when put to the test, dose not confirm his initial presuppositions, but causes him to alter his conception of translation in a manner that may be of interest to contemporary theory.The change in the logic of Will's argument is most apparent in the final essay of The Knife in the stone, called paradoxically"Faithful Traitor", a play on the Italian aphorism tradutore, traditore. Briefly, the article reviews his experience teaching at Iowa. In the course of the activity of actual translation, it became clear to Will that what he was translating had less to do with the meaning of the text and more with the energy of the expression, how meaning was expressed in language. He found himself using a kind of Poundian theory. The cultural relativity thesis that once was so problematical is adapted by turning it back in on itself, not to oppose his practice, but to contribute as an equally always present part. Since language is indeterminate, since we never have access to be the meaning behind specific language, all the more reason to be free and trust not what language says but what the language does. The traditional notion of translation to fall into categories of "faulty equivalences" and of "versions" of the original. What Willadvocates instead is an approach that translates not what a work meaning, but the energy or "thrust" of a work, for which there is no "correct" way of translating.翻译研究20世纪70年代末，一条新的学术原则诞生，那就是翻译研究。

当代西方翻译研究的三大突破，两大转向三大突破1）20世纪50年代以来的西方翻译研究开始从一般层面上的对两种语言转换的技术问题的研究，也即从“怎么译”的问题，深入到了对翻译行为本身的深层探究。

提出了语音、语法、语义等一系列的等值问题。

当代西方翻译研究中的等值论等研究，虽然有它的局限，但它对翻译所作的微观分析，无疑使人们对翻译的过程和目标，看得更加清楚了，更加透彻了。

2）当代西方的翻译研究不再局限于翻译文本本身的研究，而把目光投射到了译作的发起者、翻译文本的操作者和接受者身上。

它借鉴了接受美学、读者反应等理论，跳出了对译文与原文之间一般字面上的忠实与否之类问题的考察，而注意到了译作在新的文化语境里的传播与接受，注意到了翻译作为一种跨文化的传递行为的最终目的和效果，还注意到了译者在这整个的翻译过程中所起的作用。

3）当代翻译研究的最大突破还表现在把翻译放到一个宏大的文化语境中去审视。

研究者开始关注翻译研究中语言学科以外的其他学科的因素。

他们一方面认识到翻译研究作为一门独立学科的性质，另一方面又看到了翻译研究这门学科的多学科形式，注意到它不仅与语言学，而且还与文艺学、哲学甚至社会学、心理学等学科都有密不可分的关系。

但是翻译研究最终关注的当然还是文本在跨文化交际和传递中所涉及的一系列文化问题，诸如文化误读、信息增添、信息失落等。

两大转向1）语言学派的转向2）从文化层面来审视翻译的转向当代西方翻译理论语言学派理论从20世纪50年代起，西方出现了一批运用现代语言学的结构理论、转换生成理论、功能理论、话语理论、信息论等理论的学者，他们把翻译问题纳入到语言学的研究领域，从比较语言学、应用语言学、社会语言学、语义学、符号学、交际学等角度，提出了相对严谨的翻译理论和方法，开拓出了翻译研究的新领域，给传统的翻译研究注入了新的内容。

他们是当代西方翻译史上名副其实的翻译理论家，其中最主要的代表人物有：雅可布逊（Roman Jakobson）尤金·奈达（Eugen A. Nida）卡特福特（J.C. Catford）彼得·纽马克（Peter Newmark）从严格意义上而言，是这批学者对翻译问题的学术探讨，揭开了当代西方翻译史上的理论层面。

当代美国翻译理论读书报告20世纪60年代初,美国大学中还没有翻译研讨班或研究中心,也没有翻译研究中心,没有文学翻译工作者的组织,也没有翻译或翻译研究的专门刊物。

埃德温·根茨勒在《当代翻译理论》中提到,60年代起,文学翻译在美国才开始受到公众和学术界的重视。

保罗恩格尔于1964年在衣阿华大学开设了第一个翻译研讨班。

第二年,福特基金会拨款给在奥斯丁德克萨斯大学成立全国翻译中心。

1965年出版了第一本《现代诗翻译》的杂志。

1968年,全国翻译中心出版了第一期翻译研究杂志《得洛斯》。

从此,文学翻译在美国文化中取得了小小的一席之地。

70年代之后,美国的翻译和翻译理论继续得到发展。

好几所大学开始设翻译课和翻译研讨班。

由于翻译和翻译研究的发展,美国文学翻译工作者协会(American literary translatorsassociation)于70年代末成立,并出版了《翻译》(tanslation)作为该组织的机关刊物。

1977年美国政府开始从全国人文科学基金中拨出专款资助文学翻译。

目前,美国已形成了三个有影响的翻译研究中心,即加利福尼亚的蒙特利国际学院、华盛顿特区的乔治城大学和宾厄姆顿的纽约州立大学。

所有这些,为美国翻译和翻译理论在80-90年代的蓬勃发展奠定了基础。

1、托尔曼和他的《翻译艺术》赫伯特库辛托尔曼的《翻译艺术》(Art of translation)发表于1901年,是美国翻译理论史上的第一部专著,属于西方传统翻译理论研究的范围。

所以我们可以说,美国的翻译研究开始于20世纪初。

在书中,托尔曼谈到了翻译的本质、翻译的过程、翻译的标准和译作的风格等问题。

2、翻译理论史研究美国人也相当重视翻译理论研究史的研究。

对他们来说,最直接、最方便的就是首先研究英国的翻译理论史。

这方面的代表作有两部。

C·H·库利的《英国早期经典著作翻译家》(Thefirst english translators of the classics,1927)主要研究的是1485年和1603年之间英国有影响的翻译家和译作。