当代翻译理论ppt课件.ppt

ChapterIII.WesternTranslationStudiesinModernTimes,1.Introduction2.TheClassicalRevivalofthe19thCentury2.1WaterBenjamin(1892-1940)2.2WillardVanOrmanQuine(1908-2000)2.3RomanJakobson(1896-1982)2.3.1Jakobson3DescriptionsofTranslation:2.4Jean-PaulVinay(1910-1999)andJeanDarbelnet(1904-1990)3.TheHeroicAge(1950s-70s)3.1EugeneNida(1914-)3.1.1EugeneNidasThree-stageSystemofTranslation3.2JamesHolmes(1924-1986)andHisMapofTranslationStudies,1,4.DescriptiveTranslationStudies4.1Holmes4.1.1ThegeneralbranchofHolmessframework4.1.2TheappliedbranchofHolmessframework4.1.3HolmessTranslationPolicy4.2JeremyMunday5Developmentsince1970s,2,1.Introduction,Astranslationhistorianclaim,theclassicalrevivalofthe19thcenturyandtheemphasisontechnicalaccuracy,combinedwithaspiritofexclusivismamongtheintelligentsia,conspiredtomakethe19thcenturypedanticinitsattitudetowardstranslation.The20thcenturywitnessedaradicalchangeinWesterntranslationstudies.Infact,5developmentshavehadasignificanteffectonthetheoryandpracticeoftranslationduringthe20thcentury:,3,1)Rapiddevelopmentofstructurallinguistics;2)Applicationofmethodsinstructurallinguisticstodealwithspecialproblemsoftranslation;3)TheUnitedBiblesocieties,whichconductedinternationalconferenceoftranslationandbeganpublishingaquarterlyjournal(BibleTranslation),forwhichtheywereinclosecontactwithlinguistics;4)PublicationofBabel,whichhelpstranslatorsgettoknowaboutnewtoolsandaidsandbecomeawareofthechangingconditions;5)Thedevelopmentofvariousprojectsonmachinetranslationwhichhasprogressedthroughdifferentphasesandprovideduswithimportantinsightsintosemantictheoryandofstructuraldesign.,4,2.TheRepresentativesintheClassicalRevivalofthe19thCentury,2.1WaterBenjamin(1892-1940)Heisnowgenerallyrecognizedasoneofthemostoriginalandinfluentialthinkersofthe20thcentury.Inhisessay“Thetaskofthetranslator”(1923),hesaid:“atranslationparticipatesintheafterlifeoftheST,enactinganinterpretationthatisinformedbyahistoryofreception.Thisinterpretationdoesmorethantransmitmessages;itrecreatesthevaluesthatproducedtheSTovertime.AndinsofarasthelinguisticdifferencesofthistextaresignaledintheTL,theyultimatelyconveyaphilosophicalconcept,“purelanguage”,asenseofhowthe“mutuallyexclusive”differencesamonglanguagescoexistwith“complementary”intentionstocommunicateandtorefer,intentionsthatarederailedbythedifferences.”ForBenjamin,translationdiffersaUtopianvisionoflinguistic“harmony”.,5,2.2WillardVanOrmanQuine(1908-2000),BorninAkron,Ohio,hebeganhisphilosophicalstudiesatOberlinCollegeinhisnativestate.LaterhestudiedthefoundationsofmathematicallogicwithAlfredWhiteheadatHarfordUniversity,whereQuinehimselfbecameprofessorofphilosophyin1936.During1940s-50s,disciplinarytrendsoftranslationstudiesvarywidely,rangingbetweentheextremesofphilosophicalskepticismandpracticaloptimism.TheskepticalextremeinAnglo-AmericananalyticalphilosophyisoccupiedbyQuinesconceptofradicaltranslation.theoptimisticextremeintranslationstudiesisoccupiedbylinguisticanalysis.Thedominantissueistranslatabilitybyanalyzingspecifictranslationproblemsanddescribingthemethodsthattranslatorshavedevelopedtosolvethem.,6,2.3RomanJakobson(1896-1982),ARussian-Americanlinguist,aleadingauthorityonSlaviclanguages,heistheprincipalfounderofPragueschoolofstructurallinguisticsandofphonology.HismajorpublicationsincludePreliminariestoSpeechAnalysis(withG.FantandM.Halle,1952)andFundamentalsofLanguage(1956).,7,2.3.1Jakobsons3DescriptionsofTranslation:,1)Intralingualtranslation/rewording2)Interlingualtranslation/translationproper3)Intersemiotictranslation/transmutationJakobsonfollowstherelationsetoutbySaussurebetweenthesignifierandthesignified.Fromalinguisticandsemioticangle,heapproachestheproblemofequivalencewiththefollowing,nowfamous,definition:equivalenceindifferenceisthecardinalproblemoflanguageandthecriticalconcernoflinguistics.Forhim,theproblemofmeaningandequivalencefocusesondifferencesinthestructureandterminologyoflanguagesratherthanonanyinabilityofonelanguagetorenderamessagethathasbeenwritteninanotherverballanguage.,8,2.4Jean-PaulVinay(1910-1999)andJeanDarbelnet(1904-1990),Jean-PaulVinaywasborninParisandstudiedEnglishattheSorbonnebeforeobtaininganMAinPhoneticsandPhilologyfromtheUniversityofLondonI1937.thenhemovedtoCanadain1946asaprofessorandheadofthedep.oftheLinguisticsandTranslation,andin1967hemovedtotheUniversityofVictoriainBritishColumbia.AndJeanDarbelnetwasborninParis,hetaughtFrenchatHarfordbeforemovingtoCanadain1940,wherehetaughtatMcGillUniversityuntil1946,settingupathree-yearprogramoftranslation.TheirbookStylistiquecompareedufrancaisetdelanglais(1958)isalandmarkworknotparticularlybecauseofitscontributiontocomparativelinguisticsbutbecauseofwhatitexpressedinthesubtitle:methodedetrduction,claimingthatalinguisticcomparisonoflanguagescouldinitselffoundatranslationmethod.Theworkthusgaverisetoataxonomicmodeoftranslationtheoryostensiblyaimedathelpingtranslatorstotranslate.,9,ByapproachingFrench-Englishtranslationfromthefieldofcomparativestylistics,theyprovideatheoreticalbasisforavarietyoftranslationmethodscurrentlyinuse.Theirdescriptionsoftranslationmethodsinvolvesomereductionoflinguisticandculturaldifferencestoempiricistsemantics:Equivalenceofmessagesultimatelyreliesuponanidentityofsituations,where“situations”indicatesanundefined“reality”.Buttheyalsoencouragethetranslatortothinkofmeaningasaculturalconstructionandtoseeacloseconnectionbetween,10,linguisticproceduresand“metalinguisticinformation”,namely“thecurrentstateofliterature,science,politicsetc.ofbothlanguagecommunities.”TheenormouspracticalandpedagogicalvalueofVinayandDarbelnetsworkovercomesanyphilosophicalqualmsabouttranslatabilityanddistractsattentionawayfromtheirconservativeprescriptionsaboutlanguageuseintranslation.,11,3.TheHeroicAge(1950s-70s),The3decadesof1950s-70switnessedthelinguisticturnintranslationstudies.Fawcettcallsthislinguisticorientationoftranslationstudiesas“theheroicage”.AftertheSecondWorldWar,translationtheorywasprofoundlyinfluencedbyNoamChomskysconceptsofdeepstructureandsurfacestructure,andthefirststepsinmachinetranslation.AsMarySnell-Hornby(1988:41)succinctlyexplains“translationisarecordingorchangeofsurfacestructureinrepresentationofthedeepstructureunderlyingit.”Chomskystheoriesstronglyinfluencedthescienceoftranslatingasunderstoodduringthe1960s.,12,3.1EugeneNida(1914-),NidareceivedhisBAin1936fromtheUniversityofCaliforniaatLosAngeles.HavingearnedhisdegreeinGreek,heenrolleditheSummerInstituteofLinguistics(SIL).ThenhepursuedaMAinGreekNewTestamentattheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia.In1941,hebeganaPhDinLinguisticsattheUniversityofMichiganandcompleteditin2years.In1943,hewasordainedintheNorthernBaptistConvertion,andjoinedthestaffoftheAmericanBibleSociety(ABS)asalinguist.Nidastheoryoftranslationdevelopedfromhisownpracticalworkinthe1940sonwardswhenhewadtranslatingand,13,organizingthetranslationoftheBible.Histheorytakesconcreteformintwomajorworksinthe1960s:TowardaScienceofTranslating(1964)andTheTheoryandPracticeofTranslation(co-authoredwithTabre,1969).Nidaattemptstomovetranslationintoamorescientificerabyincorporatingrecentworkinlinguistics,andhismoresystematicapproachborrowstheoreticalconceptsandterminologybothfromsemanticsandpragmaticsandfromNoamChomskystheoryofTG(transformation-generative)grammar.Nidadescribesvariousscientificapproachestomeaningrelatedtoworkthathavebeencarriedoutbytheoristsin,14,semanticsandpragmatics.Aseriesoftechniques,adaptedfromworkinlinguistics,arepresentedasanaidforthetranslatorindeterminingthemeaningofdifferentlinguisticitems.Techniquestodeterminereferentialandemotivemeaningfocusonanalyzingthestructureofwordsanddifferentiatingsimilarwordsinrelatedlexicalfields.Theseincludehierarchicalstructuringandcomponentialanalysis.Anothertechniqueissemanticstructureanalysis,thecentralideaofwhichistoencouragethetraineetranslatortorealizethatthesenseofacomplexsemantictermvariesandmostparticularlyisconditionedbyitscontext.,15,ForNida,themodelofdeepstructureandsurfacestructureprovidesthetranslatorwithatechniquefordecodingtheSTandaprocedureforencodingtheTT(Nida,1964:60),althoughhereversesChomskysmodelwhenanalyzingtheSt;tobespecific,thesurfacestructureoftheSTisanalyzedintothebasicelementsofthedeepstructure,whicharetransferredinthetranslationprocessandthenrestructuredsemanticallyandstylisticallyintothesurfacestructureoftheTT.(seefigure1.),16,Figure1:EugeneNidasThree-stageSystemofTranslation,17,3.1.1EugeneNidasThree-stageSystemofTranslation,NidaandTabersowndescriptionoftheprocessemphasizesthescientificandpracticaladvantagesofthismethodcomparedtoanyattempttodrawupafullycomprehensivelistofequivalencesbetweenspecificpairsofSLandTLsystems.Justaskernelsentencesarethemostbasicstructuresoutofwhichlanguagebuildsitselaboratesurfacestructures.Kernelsarethelevelatwhichthemessageistransferredintothereceptorlanguagebeforebeingtransformedintothesurfacestructureinthreestages:1)literaltransfer2)minimaltransfer3)literarytransfer,18,NidasmovetowardascienceoftranslationhasprovedtobeespeciallyinfluentialinGermany,wherethecommontermfortranslationstudiesinUbersetzungssenschaft(Translatology).AmongthemostprominentGermanscholarsinthetranslationsciencefieldduringthe1970sand1980sareWolframWilss,andthosefromthethenGermanDemocraticRepublic,theLeipzigSchool,includingOttoKadeandAlbertNewbert.,19,3.2JamesHolmes(1924-1986)andHisMapofTranslationStudies,JamesHolmes,Americanscholar,poet,translatorandoneofthefoundingfathersofTranslationStudiesasanacademicdiscipline,wasbornandraisedonafarmincentralIowa,USA,whowaseducatedatWilliamPennCollege,Haveford,andBrownUniversity.In1949,hewenttoHollandasaFulbrightexchangeteachertoteachEnglishatanInternationalQuakerCollege.Thelastthreedecadesofthe20thcenturywitnessedagreatchangeintranslationstudies.AndthefieldofTranslationStudieswasdecisivelydefinedbyJamesHolmes,inhisseminalpaper,entitled“TheNameandNatureofTranslationStudies”,whichwasoriginally,20,presentedtotheThirdInternationalCongressofAppliedLinguisticsheldinCopenhagenin1972.Sincethen,researchhasbeenconductedwithmulti-disciplinaryapproachesinamoresystematicalfashiontowardtheformationofcontemporarytranslationtheoryinitsownright.Inhispaper,Holmesputsforwardanoverallframework,describingwhattranslationstudiescovers.ThisframeworkhassubsequentlybeenpresentedbyGideonTouryasinfigure2.,21,Figure2:JamesHolmesMapofTranslationStudies,22,4.DescriptiveTranslationStudies,DescriptiveTranslationStudies(DTS)ismainlyconcernedwiththreeaspects:1)Product-orientedDTS;whichexaminesexistingtranslations,involvingthedescriptionoranalysisofasingleST-TTpairoracomparativeanalysisofseveralTTsofthesameST(intooneormoreTLs)2)Function-orientedDTS;whichdescribesthefunction(oftranslation)intherecipientsocioculturalsituation.3)Process-orientedDTS.whichisconcernedwiththepsychologyoftranslation,i.e.Withtryingtofindoutwhathappensinthemindofatranslator.,23,4.1Holmes,4.1.1TheGeneralBranchofHolmessFramework1)Medium-restrictedtheories(whicharesubdivisionsaccordingtotranslationbymachineandhumans,withfurthersubdivisionsaccordingtowhetherthemachine/computerisworkingaloneorasanaidtothehumantranslator,towhetherthehumantranslationiswrittenorspokenandtowhetherspokentranslation(interpreting)isconsecutiveorsimultaneous);2)Arearestrictedtheories(whicharerestrictedtospecificlanguagesorgroupsoflanguagesand/orcultures);3)Rankrestrictedtheories(whicharelinguistictheoriesthathavebeenrestrictedtoaspecificlevelofthewordorsentence);,24,4)Text-typerestrictedtheories(whichfocusonspecificdiscoursetypesorgenres,e.g.literary,businessandtechnicaltranslation);5)Time-restrictedtheories(whichrefertotheoriesandtranslationsrestrictedaccordingtospecificperiods);6)Problem-restrictedtheories(whichrefertospecificproblemssuchasequivalenceortoawiderquestionofwhetheruniversalsoftranslatedlabguageexist).,25,4.1.2TheAppliedBranchofHolmessFramework,TheappliedbranchofHolmessframeworkconcerns:1)Translatorstraining(teachingmethods,testingtechniques,curriculumdesign);2)Translationaids(dictionaries,grammars,informationtechnology);3)Translationcriticism(theevaluationoftranslations,includingthemarkingofstudenttranslationsandthereviewsofpublishedtranslations).,26,4.1.3HolmessTranslationPolicy,Holmesalsofocusedontheareaoftranslationpolicy,whereheseesthetranslationscholaradvisingotheplaceoftranslationinsociety,includingwhatplace,itshouldoccupyinthelanguageteachingandlearningcurriculum.,27,4.2JeremyMunday,JeremyMunday，aseniorlecturerinSpanishinDepartmentofLinguistic，CulturalandTranslationStudiesanddeputydirectorofCenterforTranslationStudies(CTS),UniversityofSurrey,UK，gothisPhDattheUniversityofBradford,whichhehadbeenteachingthereuntilhecametoSurreyin2000.HisresearchinterestsareinDTS,styleandideologyintranslation,corpus-basedtranslationstudieshistoryofliterarytranslatorsinthe20thcenturyandinteractionbetweenthevisualandwrittenwordsintranslation.HismajorpublicationsincludeIntroducingTranslationStudies：theoriesandapplication（2001）andTranslation：anadvancedresourcebook(withBasilHatim,2004）.MundaypointsoutthatHolmesdivisionisflexibleenoughtoincorporatethesetechnologicaldevelopments”andexpandstheappliedbranchinHolmesmapintoFigure3.,28,Figure3:Mundaysexpandappliedbranchoftranslationstudies,29,AccordingtoMunday（2001：13-4),thecrucialroleplayedbyHolmespaperisthemappingofthepotentialoftranslationstudies.Themapisstilloftenconsideredasapointofdeparturesince1972，evenifsubsequenttheoristssuchasSnell-Hornby（1991）andPym（1998）haveattemptedtorewritepartsofit.ThefactthatHolmesdevotestwo-thirdsofhisattentiontothepureaspectsoftheoryanddescriptionsurelyindicateshisresearchinterestsratherthanalackofpossibilitiesfortheappliedside.Translationpolicywouldnowadaysmorelikelybe,30,relatedtotheideologythatdeterminestranslationthanwasthecaseinHolmesdescription.Thedifferentrestrictions，whichTouryidentifiesasrelatingtothedescriptiveaswellasthepurelytheoreticalbranch，mightwellincludeadiscourse-typeaswellasatext-typerestriction.Inclusionofinterpretingasasub-categoryofhumantranslationwouldalsobedisputedbysomescholars.Inviewoftheverydifferentrequirementsandactivitiesassociatedwithinterpreting，itwouldprobablybebesttoconsiderinterpretingasaparallelfield,maybeunderthetitleofinterpretingstudies.Inaddition，asPympointsoutHolmesmapomitsanymentionoftheindividualityofthestyle,decision-makingprocessesandworkingpracticesofhumantranslatorsinvolvedinthetranslationprocess.,31,5.Developmentsince1970s,AccordingtoBassnett（1998:108-11),onesimplewayofunderstandingthechangesanddevelopmentsintranslationstudiesduringthelastthreedecadesofthe20thcenturyisthroughtheapplicationofkeywordstospecificperiods.Thekeywordofthe1970sishistory；in1980scultureandin1990svisibility.Infact,thesurgeintranslationstudiessincethe1970shaswitnesseddifferentareasofHolmesmapcometothefore.（Munday,2001：14）Thelinguistic-orientedscienceoftranslationhascontinuedstronglyinGermany，butequivalence-basedtheoriesgraduallyhavecomeunderattackandbeguntogivewaytofunction-orientedtranslationresearchwhichnowadaystakesintoaccountthewidercontextwithinwhichtranslationtakesplaceinthereceivingculture.,32,TheHallidayaninfluenceofdiscourseanalysisandsystemicfunctionalgrammarhasbeenprominentinthecircleoftranslationstudiesespeciallyinGermany.Thelate1970sandthe1980salsosawtheriseofadescriptiveapproachthathaditsoriginsincomparativeliteratureandRussianFormalism.Thegrowthoftranslationstudiesasaseparatedisciplineisasuccessstoryofthe1980s.Thesubjecthasdevelopedinmanypartsoftheworldandbringstogetherworkinawidevarietyoffields，includinglinguistics,literarystudy,history,anthropology,psychology,andeconomics（Bassnett，1993：i-ii）.,33,Atthesametime，translationstudieshaveachievedinstitutionalauthority，manifestedbyanunprecedentedproliferationofacademictrainingprograms，professionalassociations，publications，andconferences.Thegreatestachievementgainedinthe1980sistheculturalturn，whichlooksattranslati