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 .② It 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.④ It also doubt the standard of translation evaluation.⑤The scholars in NATW subverted many traditional translation school and expressive form.⑥ It 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 the later 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.André Lefevere : 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 fixedidentity;(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”.。

西方翻译理论西方翻译理论简介中西译论因其不同的哲学思想、价值观念和语言文化习惯形成了彼此相异的译论体系。

西方翻译理论有着严格的方法论、精确的理论描述、细腻和定性定量的分析。

战后西方翻译研究更是欣欣向荣，翻译流派异彩纷呈，翻译大家层出不穷，翻译思想、翻译方法、研究角度日新月异。

译介和引进当代西方翻译理论的成果，加强中西译论的交流与对话，无疑对创立具有中国特色的翻译研究大有裨益。

正如奈达所说，翻译理论应“兼容并包，利用多种手段来解决翻译中的种种难题”。

积极地了解当代西方翻译理论的沿革、现状与发展趋势，打破翻译研究的地域、学科、流派的限制，形成跨学科综合、多元互补的研究格局，汲取一切译论的研究成果，这无论对初涉译事的后生或对有相当经验的译者应该说都不无裨益。

西方翻译理论也包括古典译论、现代译论、当代译论，尤其是当代西方翻译理论更是流派林立，如美国翻译培训派:策德内斯:创立培训班的前提、里查兹:翻译的理论基础、庞德:细节翻译理论、威尔:翻译的矛盾;翻译科学派:乔姆斯基:语言的“内在”结构、奈达:翻译中的生成语法、威尔斯:翻译的科学、德国翻译理论的发展趋势;早期翻译研究派:俄国形式主义的影响、利维.米科和波波维奇、霍姆斯、勒非弗尔、布罗克与巴斯奈特;多元体系派:传统语言学和文学界限的瓦解、通加诺夫:文学的演变、佐哈尔:系统内部文学的联系、图里:目标系统;解构主义派:福科:解构原文、海德格尔:重新认识命名、德里达:系统的解构主义理论、解构主义理论的影响、解构与创译。

当代西方翻译理论大家包括奈达(三个发展阶段、对等概念、逆转换理论)、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)、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)、纽马克(语义结构、翻译原则、文本类型与翻译方法)、斯坦纳(翻译是理解的过程、语言的可译性、翻译的步骤)、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)、费道罗夫、,.科米萨罗夫的翻译理论、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)、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)。

西方翻译理论西方翻译理论有很多种，包括直译、意译、音译等方法，每种方法都有其独特的特点和适用范围。

直译是指将源语言中的词汇、句子结构和语法直接翻译到目标语言中，保持源语言的结构和形式。

这种方法适用于一些特定的领域，如科技、医学等，因为这些领域的术语和概念在各个国家普遍存在，因此可以进行直接翻译。

意译是指将源语言中的意思和信息表达出来，并用目标语言中最符合源语言意思的词汇和句子结构来表达。

这种方法适用于一些文化背景较为复杂的领域，如文学、哲学等，因为这些领域的作品往往有很多隐喻和象征，直接翻译可能会损失原作的意境和美感。

音译是指将源语言中的词汇、句子结构和语法音译成目标语言中最接近的音标和音节。

这种方法适用于一些地名、人名等专有名词，因为这些名词在不同的国家和地区可能会有不同的发音，通过音译可以统一名称的发音。

除了不同的翻译方法外，还有一些重要的翻译理论和原则，如“信、达、雅”原则和“等效”原则。

“信、达、雅”原则是指翻译应该忠实于原文，准确地传达原文的意思，并且达到目标语言的语言规范和文化习惯。

翻译不仅要准确地传达信息，还要注意目标语言的表达方式和文化背景，尽量使翻译成为目标语言读者易于理解的内容。

“等效”原则是指翻译应该追求源语言和目标语言的表达效果和交际效果的一致性。

翻译不是简单地将源语言换成目标语言，而是要在保持原文意思的基础上，使翻译成为目标语言读者能够接受和理解的内容。

总的来说，西方翻译理论强调翻译的准确性、忠实性和可读性。

翻译不仅仅是一种语言转换的过程，更是一种文化交流和理解的方式。

只有深入理解源语言和目标语言的文化差异，才能做到准确地传达信息，并且使翻译成为目标语言读者能够理解和接受的内容。

西方翻译理论西方翻译理论简介翻译理论在现代尤其是20世纪50世纪以来越来越受到人们的重视。

熟知翻译理论对我们的翻译实践和翻译事业的进一步发展会有重要的帮助和价值。

鉴此，这里将简单介绍西方的翻译理论。

西方翻译研究可以粗略地分成五个部分：1（ 20世纪前的翻译理论2（语言学中心阶段3（系统翻译理论4（文化研究的面面观5（翻译的哲学理论6（综合性学科翻译研究一（20世纪前的翻译理论背景知识20世纪以前的漫长时间里，翻译理论建立在语文学基础之上，许多哲学家，语文学家，作家和诗人研究的重心是如何翻译经典文学作品。

1（核心A、直译与意译的交锋B、忠实，精神和真理的定义2（代表人物A.西赛罗他坚持他是以演说家而不是以解释者来翻译的。

他倡导意译B（哲罗姆他采取意译而不是直译的翻译方法C（多雷他提出了翻译五原则D（约翰德莱顿提出了翻译三分法:逐字对译，活译，拟作E（亚历山大泰特勒在他的文《翻译的三原则》中提出了翻译的三个原则F.马丁路德通过翻译将精英通俗化G（施莱尔马赫提倡保留原作的原味H（弗朗西斯纽曼强调原作的异味I.马修阿诺德提倡透明的翻译方法二（语言学中心阶段背景知识在20世纪初，索绪尔提出了普遍语言学理论，既为语言学提供了基础，也促使了翻译的语言学研究的建立。

韩礼德的系统功能语言学，布卢姆菲尔德的结构语言学及乔姆斯基的转换生成语法都为翻译理论家进行语言学方向的翻译研究提供了基础。

主要理论1:对等和等效（1950s, 1960s）1（代表人物（1）罗曼雅各布逊A(描写了翻译的三类型:语内翻译，语际翻译和符际翻译B(提出语际翻译指用一种语言替换另一种语言种的整个信息C(强调对等的差异性(2)尤金奈达A.提出形式对等和动态对等B.提出著名的读者反应理论C.他的理论以姆斯基的转换生成语法为基础(3)皮特纽马克A(提出语义对等和交际对等(4)韦内科勒A(区分了对应和对等B(描写了五种对等:外延意义，隐含意义，文本规则，语用及形式对等主要理论2:翻译级转换理论(1950s, 1970s)1(翻译级转换:将原语翻译到LI的语过程中发生的语言方面的小改变。